is there something between a D90 and a D300s?

<p>Hi,<br>

I currently own a D40x for almost 2 yrs now, with 2 zooms (sigma 18-200 OS, sigma 70-300APS), and a Nikkor 1.8G 35mm prime. This is not used for pro, but for serious amateur only. Shoot weddings and parties, zoos, and outings, but only to document and give as presents. My child swims, and for the middle of the indoor pool, you can reach with flash, and low light performance, I'm realizing, is very grainy and dark at H1 (3200). Blurriness and dark at 800-1600, even with fully compensated exposure. I'd like a camera that can let me take flashless ( or get better quality than now, even if not perfect) pictures of the pool, without constantly having to shoot at low shutter to get a bright enough shot ( and risk constant blurry shots).<br>

I want to move up, and from what I've read, the D90 is a step up. I'm hoping it could bridge the gap in low light performance enough to make a difference for my family and my quasi-"portfolio".<br>

But I don't want to get a D90 and then feel like I'm ready to switch again in 2 years, and it only turned out to be an incremental move. Yet, the D300s seems like it may be slightly overkill for me. 1800 bucks is a little steep for 1x, or 2x use per week.<br>

Is there something in the $1300 body price range? or am I right that Nikon's lineup jumps from the $900 ESP D90 to the $1800 D300S?<br>

Many people think the D90 is a super camera and a super value. I may just settle for that. Getting a reality check is all. Doing it more for photos than for the video cap. Don't want to get a legacy/older camera as I have a perception that the newer cameras did indeed add capability, convenience, and better features.<br>

Thanks for any help<br>

<a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25464/D300S.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25464/D300S.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25446/D90.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25446/D90.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the answer is a slightly used D300 for less than 1,300. I bought mine on ebay a few months ago for 1,275 (body only). There are quite a few out there ... some "demo" models in that price range that come with a warranty.<br>

good luck,<br>

Michael.</p>

 

<p>I have no experience with a D300 or a D90 so I will not comment about them.</p>

<p>However, I see lots of D300`s on Kraigslist in the $1300 range, and that is asking before bargaining.</p>

<p>D300 (without the "s") seem like a logical choice. I have the D300 and see the D300s as a small step backwards. While they added movie mode and dual card slots the removed the locking card door. There could be a nice price drop for this outgoing model. It is a bit heavy.</p>

<p>The main advantage the D300/D300s over the D90 are:</p>

<ol>

<li>Much better AF, especially for sports and low-light (wedding)</li>

<li>8 frames/sec w/ MB-D10 and appropriate batteries</li>

<li>Metering w/ no-CPU lenses, mainly manual focus AI/AI-S</li>

<li>Better construction</li>

</ol>

<p>But you lose the video mode on the D300.</p>

<p>Since the OP doesn't have any AI/AI-S lenses, at least not yet, #1 AF capability should be the deciding factor. Are you happy with the D40x's AF?</p>

<p>I see two reasons that you might want the D300 (or D300s) instead of the D90:</p>

<p>1) The D300/D300s can meter with old manual focus lenses,</p>

<p>and</p>

<p>2) The D300/D300s has weather sealing.</p>

<p>If you don't need to use old lenses and don't plan on doing a lot of shooting outdoors in inclement weather, then the D90 gives you about 95% of what the D300/D300s gives you, but in a smaller, lighter, more affordable package.</p>

<p>Good grief, what a community, I never expected answers so quickly! Thank you. I guess I'm used to posting at a few legacy software sites, and you basically have to wait days for a response, not minutes...<br>

As I read through them, I forgot to mention that all my lenses have the focus motor in them as per the d40x's requirements, so they're all AF-S I guess it's called. </p>

<p>I had a similar dilemma, although I do shoot professionally. I had to make the choice between a D300 and a decent lens or a D90 and two great lenses. I went with the D90 and got a 17-55 2.8, and 80-200 2.8. I'm VERY happy with the D90. It is a great camera, and although I could have used the better autofocus system of the D300, it wasn't worth the price difference since that price difference almost paid for the 80-200 lens. I would DEFINITELY recommend the D90 to you. The D300 isn't necessarily overkill, but in my opinion it's not worth the extra $ unless you are going to use it in demanding situations like weddings (fast AF) or sports (fast AF and better body for protection and weather sealing.) Good luck with your decision!</p>

<p>I have had a 90 for almost a year and still highly recommend it. The D300 will have better build quality, but you wont see a difference in the images. The D300s is nice but still very close to D90. I would go either D90 or D700.</p>

<p>"<strong>very grainy and dark at H1 (3200). Blurriness and dark at 800-1600</strong>, even with fully compensated exposure."</p>

<p>Ed, you seem to list the above as your chief issues. A different camera will NOT make a difference. At least not in the price range you have indicated.</p>

<p>It's possible to shoot a higher ISO with a full frame camera, like a D700, but without knowing what the parameters of light are that you are dealing with in a swim stadium, it's quite possible that even ISO 6400 won't get ride of noisy images, including large areas of darkness. </p>

<p>It's possible a telephoto lens with an f/2.8 aperture might help. Or a more powerful flash. But that's going to involve some serious coin, and not involve the camera.</p>

<p>"<strong>for the middle of the indoor pool</strong>, you can reach with flash, and low light performance, I'm realizing, is very grainy and dark at H1 (3200). Blurriness and dark at 800-1600"</p>

<p>Why, Ed, is it necessary to reach the middle of the indoor pool? Some things are just not meant to be. It may be that the ability to reach the middle of a indoor pool, and to stop the action of the swimmers, is just not possible for an amateur photographer.</p>

<p>For the middle of the pool, therefore, I suggest you employ neurochromes - i.e., memories - rather than a new camera. </p>

<p>I'm not saying you shouldn't have a new camera. You probably should. I know I have lots of cameras. But I don't think you need a new camera for getting shots of your kid in the middle of a indoor pool. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nikon has been introducing new bodies often. I don't like buying a new body every couple of years but some of the improvements make me purchase anyway. As Shun asked if your current AF is good enough then a D90 would do. AF-S does not mean a lens will be quicker to focus even though it usually is. There is a focus processor in the body also and that will make a difference in focus speed as will a better focus motor in the body. As Shun mentioned the D300 has a better focus module. Faster glass can also help with AF speed and if you don't need the extra DoF and can shoot larger aperture than the shutter speed can be higher or the ISO lower. Both the D90 and D300 have better viewfinders and control sets. In the past few years I have gone from a D70 to a D200 and now a D700. Life is good but $$$.</p>

<p>Pickup a faster lens. A 70-200mm or 80-200 f/2.8 zoom would help you out with 2 stops here. Also, look at getting an external flash (your kid my not like that option though). The SB900 will certainly let you reach the middle of the pool with lots of light.</p>

<p>Ed, from the requirements I'm reading from your first post, to get the pictures you want, nothing less than a constant 2.8 zoom (or perhaps ths 200/2, 85/1.4 etc) plus D700 will satisfy those requirements. I'd probably see if I can spring for a D300 plus fast glass. I think the 70-300 sigma and the 18-200 are both relatively slow at the tele ranges? In my experience, just a one stop faster lens makes a really, really big difference. My 70-300 is now fallen into non-serious photographic purposes as it's a 5.6 at 300mm, versus my 300/4 prime....faster shutter, longer flash reach, plus the more expensive lenses are generally better built and will probably do well as ammunition for a small trebuchet in a pinch.</p>

<p>When I went over from d200 to d300, the ability of the camera to capture light in much tougher situations already gives me the ability to make pictures I'd never thought possible. I cannot wait for the next generation to become obsolete :)</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>actually, i don't see what's wrong with a d90 for non-professional use if you must upgrade. IQ will not be substantially better than a D40x, and some prefer the CCD sensor over the CMOS sensor--just a heads up. both a d90 and d300 will give you about one more stop of hi-ISO performance, but the real upgrade would be in glass. not sure if the 35/1.8 gets you close enough, but if you're using a 5.6 or 6.3 max aperture lens with no flash at night, you need a telephoto with a faster max aperture. there's no 70-300 lens which is very fast, and if you want to keep the price around $1k or under, you're basically looking at the sigma 50-150 HSM, sigma 70-200 HSM, or the nikkor 80-200. all are 2.8, but the nikkor has slow AF compared to the others = not great for sports.</p>

<p>i would suggest a D90 with a fast and bright wide to short zoom f/2.8 so you don't have to use H1 ISO setting. then you can sell the two zooms that you have and get a better one for the long end. if the budget is still tight, you can start with the nikon 70-300mm VR. it's a lot better than the two long zooms that you have right now. keep the excellent 35mm f/1.8 for what it is used for.</p>

<p><br /> Shun- I have 3 points of focus, as you know, on the D40x, and I find it sporadic at best. Photographing a moving body in moving water, with arms flailing and water droplets cascading, it's not easy to focus on eyes or goggles. The automated focus system, with it's limiting 3 points, does a poor job. I usually leave it on shutter priority, leave it jacked up to max exposure comp at +5, then gamble on a shutter speed that will give me a bright but soft photo if the subject is resting/floating, or a dark and grainy one with higher shutter speed when the subject is plunging through the water. I jack up to H1 iso, and it's all a bunch of sand. I go down to 800, and it dark like a cave, and to fix that I have to go down to 80 or 60 or 40 shutter, and it gets blurry.</p>

<p>Dave said:<br>

"Why, Ed, is it necessary to reach the middle of the indoor pool?"<br>

Because that's where my daughter is swimming much of the time. It's also a physical description typical of the parameters I'm facing trying to photograph an pool: barely-bright ambient lighting along edges of very expansive concrete room, can't use flash as that hits the eyes of my all the swimmers and is frowned upon by coaches for practice and judges at competitions. <br>

"I don't think you need a new camera for getting shots of your kid in the middle of a indoor pool."<br>

Well, I think I do. I need a new something because that photos are not good enough. You don't have to be happy with them, I do.</p>

<p>Alvin:<br>

" I think the 70-300 sigma and the 18-200 are both relatively slow at the tele ranges?"<br>

My Sigma 18-200 OS is 3.5 wide to 6.3 tele. My 70-300APO sigma is 4 to 5.6. So in retrospect I realize that is pretty bad for this application, although swimming is not the only thing I shoot.<br>

Ramon:<br>

Yeah, I think I do need to get rid of these 2 slow lenses. You know, all the reading one does, someone who buys a D40x, a starter's DSLR basically, they need to learn from experience and error what fast glass means, and I"m learning that the hard way, or perhaps, the "usual" way... Make mistakes, then fix them. I'll look into the nikon 70-300mm VR, and the sigma 50-150 HSM mentioned by Eric, perhaps holding on to the camera and going for lenses, or lens. Except I have to watch that they are all AF-S as my body has no motor.<br>

Thank you all for your observations</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>[...] is a little steep for 1x, or 2x use per week.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's actually a good reason to upgrade the camera. During that 1 or 2 events, you could concentrate on taking pictures than stressing out fiddling with the camera setting trying to find compromise.<br>

<br />I have D40 and D90 and I use D90 as seldom as once a month for indoor event. I rented D90 a couple of times and considering the rental fee, I might as well get my own. And I did.<br>

<br />Fast lens is a must (f2.8 or better) for lowlight; bumping up the ISO could only help so much. There are times when my D90 + 17-55 f2.8 setup is still too slow. I still rent 17-55 and 70-200 because that what I can afford now; it may be an option for you, too.</p>

<p>ed, the nikon 70-300 VR is also 5.6 at the long end.</p>

<p>sigma's 50-150/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 have HSM, which means they have focus motors (which the 80-200 doesn't have, unless you find a discontinued AF-S version). i'd definitely start with the lenses before upgrading your body, since you will need to do that in any event. upgrading to 2.8 glass will also give you a brighter image in the VF. you will still need fairly high shutter speeds at longer focal lengths to balance camera shake, at least 1/FL, so plan on shooting at 800-1250 ISO at least--3200 is pushing it on a d40x, though you might be able to get an acceptable 1600. you might also want to shoot in RAW which gives you more latitude in post-processing exposures if they need to be lightened. rule of thumb with digital is go for a sharp photo over a blurry photo every time; you can lighten pics in PP but you can't eliminate blur after the fact.</p>

<p>one thing which might help a little bit here is a monopod, which will help stabilize the camera at longer FLs (but wont be any help in freezing motion).</p>

<p>a d90 has 11-pt AF, which is an improvement over 3-pt to be sure. not as good for sports as the d300/d300s' 51-pt, but fast AF wont help you with slow lenses. if you stick with the d40x, you could also try your hand at prefocusing or even manual focus, although that could be frustrating if you're trying to get a whole sequence of action frames.</p>

<p>"I don't think you need a new camera for getting shots of your kid in the middle of a indoor pool."<br>

Well, I think I do. I need a new something because that photos are not good enough. You don't have to be happy with them, I do.</p>

<p>Wanting something and needing something are different things. You're right, I don't have to be happy with pictures of your daughter. But some things aren't possible, and one of those impossible things is relying on a new camera - between a D90 and D300s - to make you happy.</p>

<p>As several others have pointed out, there is no camera, with the possible exception of a full-frame model, that will help; what you need is a lens with a wider f/stop.</p>

<p>What is impossible one way, though, may be possible in other ways. So if a $1000+ lens and/or $2000+ camera is beyond your reach, how about these ideas:</p>

<p>- Rent a lens with a wider aperture.</p>

<p>- Join a camera club, make friends, then borrow the appropriate lens.</p>

<p>As for your daughter being in the middle lane, I'm not sure what that has to do with the brightness of the scene. Can you or can you not use flash? It seems that you can't.</p>

<p>If the room is evenly lit, then the light is the same in the middle of the pool as it is falling on the other lanes to either side. Light doesn't fall off with such minor distances found between a few lanes in a pool. So where she is in the pool, far right lane, far left lane, or the middle, doesn't matter as far as exposure is concerned.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I usually leave it on shutter priority</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>i would shoot in manual to control DoF and shutter speed. and use spot meter instead of matrix, and AF-C for action, not AF-S.</p>

<p>sometimes working with your settings and/or refining technique can maximize what your camera can achieve. but there's still no way around the fact that your tele lenses are too slow for night sports with no flash.</p>

A D90 sounds like what you need. A D300 or D300S would be overkill, and the D90 is as good in low light (and i've seen

testing where it beats the D300 in high ISO image quality). It's one or two stops better than a D40X, and it has a much

better AF system (the 11 point system with in-body motor so no AFS requirement. It's a huge step up from a D40X.

<p>I'm not relying on a camera to make me happy, I'm trying to decide what hardware upgrade might be necessary to get to conquer some specific environment and lighting challenges, and avoid getting bad photos.<br>

What I'm learning is that I might be able to skin the cat better with a lens than a new body.<br>

Of special relevance is the comment that even if I get a new body, I have slow glass, and so I'd have to bump that up anyway... <br>

The room is lit with halogens hung in a matrix from the ceiling, pretty high up, giving a faint yellowish light to the water. Along the walls there are semicircular sconces pointing light strictly upward. So the edges of the pool seem brighter due to the wall lighting, and there's a falloff in the middle of the pool. Not major, but noticeable.</p>

<p>Ed,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I go down to 800, and it dark like a cave, and to fix that I have to go down to 80 or 60 or 40 shutter, and it gets blurry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So it sounds as if exposure is roughly correct with 1/60 sec. and ISO 800 - is that right?<br>

Since the lens will be at maximum aperture it's possible to guess what will happen with, say, a 70-200 f/2.8.<br>

Does your existing zoom have max. f/5.6 at the long end?<br>

If so then you'd expect to get correct exposure with an f/2.8 lens using 1/250 sec. at ISO 800.<br>

Would that stop the motion well enough for you?<br>

If not would 1600 ISO be too grainy since you'd then get 1/500 sec?</p>

<p>By the way cranking the exposure compensation round to +5 is just telling you that the shutter speed is set too fast for the chosen ISO and the lens maximum aperture; it is really there just to correct for small errors in metering. In these dim conditions you would probably do better to use A mode and set the lens to the maximum aperture. The camera will then choose the fastest speed it can without underexposing; if it can't stop the motion it is really just telling you that the ISO is too low or the lens not fast enough.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>D90 + faster lens + monopod = a vast improvement, in my humble opinion. I don't see the D300/D300s being necessary here unless there is some concern about the camera constantly getting splashed with water from the pool (and then you'd need to make sure to buy weather resistant lenses as well).</p>