D90??

<p>Hello all,<br>

I am in the market for a new DSLR. I have done all the research, and It is either the D300s or the D90. The only reason I would go for the D90 is basically I can buy two for the price of one.<br>

My question, knowning all the tech details, Will I be happy with the D90? I would like to hear from people who have had both, or reviewed both.<br>

Will I regret spending the $700 on the D90 knowning the D300s edges it out slightly in say a year or so? I ask that because obviously there will be a great improvement over what I am shooting now, so once that wears off; will I then start to see its shortcomings over the D300s? I am not concerned with keeping up with the latest, just need to replace my aging D40. Which I have way out grown.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Dallas</p>

<p>Dallas, you asked several questions but did not tell us what type of subjects you photograph and which lenses you already have and may buy in the near future.</p>

<p>I would get the D300S if you shoot a lot of sports and action, because the D300S has a much better AF system and can capture 7 frames/sec (or 8 with the MB-D10 and appropriate batteries). If you shoot under low light a lot, the D300S' AF system is once again better with 15 cross-type AF points.</p>

<p>The D300/D300S can meter with AI/AI-S lenses without CPU. Since you are coming from the D40, perhaps you don't have any of those, but if you do or may get some in the future, it is a plus for the D300S.</p>

<p>The D300S is better built, heavier, and can take dual memory cards.</p>

<p>But if you don't need those advantages, the D90 is a fine camera and you are better off saving some money for lenses.</p>

<p>Dallas, the sensor and much of the guts of these two cameras are the same. Thus, if you can't articular clear reasoning why you need the D300s, save your money.</p>

<p>Remember that next year's bodies will wallop whatever is available now. Maybe your $700 is best spent on upgrading sooner when the next generation is available?</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Reid</p>

<p>Buying a superb camera like D90 and D300s without some pro-level glass to match is to waste their capacities. As Shun said if you don't need those things that D300s offers, you should spend the money on some really good lenses, such as some f1.8 or f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms.</p>

<p>Dallas, I'm guessing that you're really concerned about IQ down the road.</p>

<p>Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but the technical image quality of the D90 is indistinguishable from the D300s for color, sharpness, and noise.</p>

<p>In addition to the items already mentioned by others, the 300s has a new stereo microphone input and a quiet mode like the D5000. Like I said, if it's about IQ, they're probably not a big deal to you.</p>

<p>They are both great cameras and I agree with everything that has already been said. Only you can decide which camera is best for you depending on what sort of photography you do or want to do in the future.<br /><br />I pondered on this same question and went for two D90's. Mind you my decision was somewhat easier as I bought my D90's back in the first week that they were released and to me it was a no brainer as at that time the decision was between the old D300 and the D90. As I didn't need the extra speed or extra focus points that the D300 had over the D90 I went for the newer technology that the D90 offered.<br /><br />I am a professional photographer shooting portraits and weddings and having two camera's identical is a major plus. I have one set with a wide to medium angle zoom (18 – 115mm VR kit lens) this camera is usually set on Aperture priority. The other camera has a telephoto zoom (70 – 300mm VRII) and is usually set on Shutter priority. Having these two set up like this means I don't have to change lenses or settings from one shot to the other.<br /><br />The fact that the D90 is lighter is also an advantage to me. I highly recommend the D90 as a great camera that produces excellent results even with the standard kit lens. It has plenty of features and will allow your photography to grow. However your set of circumstances might be different and the D300S might be more suited to your needs, but for me it's my pair of D90's. Good luck and enjoy your new camera whichever one you choose.</p>

Thanks for the quick responses. I shoot a lot of different things. I have done some work for a few people. Babies outdoor modeling. Corp awards and candids from the event.

 

I also shoot a lot of birds and such. That's for fun.

 

I have a few decent lens 70-300 vr. Tokina 12 24. This combo has worked so far. I know I need a few faster lenses but that can wait for now. I can get by with what I have. My D40 is dying.

<p>Birds - now that's a subject that puts the D300s back into play IMHO. Firstly, for the reason Shun mentioned - the better AF of the D300s. And the higher frame rate - but more importantly, and in conjunction with the higher fps, the deeper buffer of the D300s. Prior to the D300, I used a D200 for my bird photography - which has the same AF module as the D90; the D300 clearly has an advantage here. When the action is on, I often fill the buffer of the D200 (which is larger than the one on the D90) and the camera is locked up for a minute or so. Never happened on the D300 - mainly due to the fact that it writes faster than the D200. Of course, the choice depends on your shooting style. If you are deliberate and only take one or two shots at a time - then the D90 will do fine. If you are like me - holding that shutter button down when there is action or when a bird flies by - then D300s is the name of the game. I often get an entire sequence of 5-10 images from a fly-by - wouldn't happen with a D90. I need to add that I shoot RAW - with JPEG the buffer likely never fills up on either camera.</p>

<p>Dieter,<br>

When I go shooting now, I have never felt like I missed a shot when in continues mode now. Maybe that is because I didnt capture it and therefore are happier by default. I think the 4.5fps should be fast enough for me since it is 1.5 fastet than what I have now.<br>

Everyone else,<br>

It seems like the D90 is the way to go. It is all in the details. "if" I need this/that then the D300s, but as it sits now I do not think I really need those details. I havent had that need so far, so I think I am going to go the way of the D90.<br>

It just seems like there isnt enough of a difference to spend the extra money. Maybe I will add a few fast primes in there, and be happier. :)<br>

Thanks everyone.</p>

<p>I agree with John McCosh: I had two D300's and two D90's. Now I only have one D90 and I wouldn't trade it with a D300 if I could.<br>

Fact is, that the D90 has more DR and (much) better high ISO than the D300s. Compare the two at dxomark.com.<br>

I shoot about everything, from cars to landscapes and from sports to weddings; I never missed either the better AF nor the faster frame rate.</p>

 

<p>i'm sure you'll be happy with the D90. have fun. the money you saved can always go to a fast prime or a fast mid-zoom.</p>

<p>Listen to the responses. The lenses are what you should invest in not the camera. The D300s is almost a waste of money as the differences are minute (the D90 has a crapdial, only 11 AF points and is plastic, but durable plastic). I shoot a D90 and it exceeds my shooting expectations. This is not to say that the D300s isn't a good camera, it is just why should you pay an extra $1000 for features you probably won't use. Now if you need more AF points or a better frame buffer you might need the D300s...</p>