Nikon D300 vs D90 + glases

<p>Hello, i want to take a new camera , and i can't decide what to choose. I should take an used nikon d300 with low shutter or a D90 (used or new, i don't know) and add some glasses.<br>

I will use mainly for events, for some weddings and for travel.<br>

So, what do you advise me to choose? Thank you!</p>

<p>Both are really not good for weddings but if you are not using for sports then I'd stick with the D90 and invest the extra $$$ on a nice lens. Besides, D90's ISO is cleaner but by not much though. </p>

<p>Is a D7100 completely out of your budget range? The D300 and D90 are getting quite long in the tooth at this point.</p>

<p>I can't afford a Nikon D7100 now.. These 2 are my options, and i don't know what to choose. The D90 will works on weddings? The AF isn't too slow?</p>

<p>AF for D300 especially the D90 will struggle in low light. </p>

<p>But, if i will use an external flash the AF (like sb800,900) sistem will cope the low light?</p>

<p>Not all churches allow flash. </p>

<p>If you can't afford a D7100, I would consider a D7000. Both will give you better low-light performance than the D300 and D90-generation DSLRs with the 12MP CMOS sensor.</p>

<p>Once you mention weddings, I would highly recommend that you get something with dual memory cards. The D7100, D7000 and the D300S have dual memory cards, the plain D300 and D90 don't: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bgdu<br>

And you'll need at least one backup body for weddings.</p>

 

<p>I use a D300s with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC (with and without a Nikon SB600 flash) for concerts and banquet events all the time. (I also have a second D300s with a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS). I don't know if Richard Thomas has first hand experience, but I completely disagree, I'm very satisfied with how fast the AF is in lower light.</p>

<p>What to consider here is you really do need two bodies to cover events/weddings properly, so with a tight budget, you could be better off with two D90 bodies. I used two D70s bodies, and they served me pretty well for about five years until I could afford the D300s and faster lenses.</p>

<p>With 2.8 or faster I could focus my D300, without the AF-assist, till it was too dark to make photo's without a flash.</p>

<p>Of those two cameras, the D300 for sure. And +1 for what Hans says. My experience was with a D200 but I had no trouble low light focusing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know if Richard Thomas has first hand experience, but I completely disagree, I'm very satisfied with how fast the AF is in lower light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Michael, both the D300 and and D90's were actually the bodies I used in the past to shoot weddings. Yes, I agree you can achieve focus in lowlight with either bodies but as I have mentioned, the D90's inferior AF is a bit tricky and anything beyond ISO 800 on both bodies were just to grainy for me thus prompted me to spend more time in post processing cleaning up up the noise. I was less hesitant to suggest either bodies to the OP just because I don't want him to be sort of disappointed. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I saw this ad online earlier today....<br>

For a limited time, DigitalRev has the Nikon D7000 DSLR Camera Body available for <br />$779.00<br>

maybe this is in your reach...<br>

Best</p>

<p>Some perspective on used DX body prices representing good value is this...<br>

Out of the box, and using factory defaults, the D90 produces very nice images. A good one can be had for $400.</p>

<p>A good D300 with more manual control and faster frame rate will set you back $500. It will also matrix meter older Nikon manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>The D300S, with some tweaks to the D300 sensor control plus video capability, sits around $600</p>

<p>You can still buy a new D7000 for $800.</p>

<p>List price for a new D7100 is $1200.</p>

<p>Does this help? If it were me, the D90 is amazing value at the moment. The big three, Adorama, B&H and Keh, with great returns policies, have all of these available with a warranty. As D600 refurbs are starting to appear for $1600, there is strong downwards pressure on used Nikon DX bodies. This will increase as time goes buy. If I'd paid list for a new Nikon DX body this year, I would be getting used to a big depreciation hit. Does this bracketing of pricing leave room for a D400? I doubt it. The D600 has killed it off already.</p>

<p>What are you using now?</p>

<p>While the two cameras question may not be the best choices by today's standard, many weddings and events have been successfully shot with significantly lesser cameras than the one the OPD is questioning about.</p>

<p>Either camera, with the proper glass and technique, could be used successfully to shoot any type of event. But if I had to choose between the two, there is no doubt I would choose the D300 because of its superior autofocus performance.</p>

<p>I can buy a new Nikon D90 for 470$, while a used Nikon D300 is around 650-700$. So, what i should do? Thanks!</p>

<p>The D300 has a better low light focusing capability than the d7000 and a better metering with legacy lenses. That said, I would have no hesitations at all at shooting a wedding with my D200 and we must remember that these cameras were all there were just a few short years ago. Give me a choice between the D90 and D300 I would spend the extra $100 for a D300. I am going to be in a position to buy a better camera in a couple weeks than my D200, and have the choice between D300 and D7000 and will choose the D300 r D300s OVER the D7000 for the same reasons I mentioned above. The D7000 is a great camera, but even with small hands like mine and I am a man, I like the feel of the D200/300 way better than the D7000 as well.</p>

<p>that said, I am keeping the D200 as a backup and to give my son a body to mess around with while I am shooting.</p>

<p>What Elliot asked seems the right first question to me: what are you using now? Do you already own any Nikon lenses? In other words: are the better lenses necessary, or nice to have? The D300 is the better body of the two, but if I have to choose between a D300 with a 18-55VR kitlens, or a D90 with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to cover a wedding, I'd get the D90, no questions asked.<br>

Whatever you choose, getting the right lens(es) to fit what you're doing is a bit more important than the body. Without a good lens, both D90 and D300 are not that great. With a great lens, both sing.</p>

<p>And yes,the D7000 is the better choice between these two. It is dropping in price as the D7100 becomes better available, so it may come into reach soon enough. Keep an eye open for deals.</p>

<p>Are you going to be the main photographer at weddings, or be a guest at weddings who is also taking some photos? If you're the photographer, you'll need redundant equipment etc. If you're a guest, a D90 is plenty, so long as you have a decent fast lens.</p>

<p>wait, you want to buy an old camera and some glass(es)? Buy a new camera and a fast prime or two and you will have better results.</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and i want to get 50mm f/1.8d, or should i get a D90 + tamron 17-50 with a nikon 85mm?</p>

<p>Okay, so you already have one decent lens. What camera do you have it on now?</p>

<p>If you were to add another lens I'd go with the 85 instead of the 50 because it adds more versatility. You already have 50mm on your zoom.The 50mm 1.8D isn't really that great - it's got some optical issues wide open and the bokeh is nothing special. I don't see it bringing much to the table that your f/2.8 zoom doesn't. If you can budget it I'd take the 85mm 1.8G over the 1.8D, and if you have your heart set on a 50mm I'd encourage you to look at the 1.8G instead of the 1.8D.</p>

<p>If you're at the weddings as a guest, with the D90 you'd be fine. The D300 would have some advantages, such as better AF in dark conditions. On the D90 only the center AF point is a "cross type" sensor that's good in low light, while the D300 has a cluster of 15 cross type points in the middle area of the frame, so with the D90 if it's dark you're best off using the center point only and recomposing while the D300 is somewhat more flexible. The D300 is also better in burst fire mode. But unless you're a pro (in which case you really should find a way to bring multiple cameras with backup card slots and also a kit of good glass) the D90 is probably going to do what you need it to, while being smaller and weighing less. I used to have one and took it to several weddings and had no real complaints.</p>

<p>I`m on budget, i don't have more money to spend. I want to make some money from shooting weedings, events, but in the same time i will use the camera for myself.</p>

<p>I'd stick with the lens you have, the D90 and save any money you have left over. If you start working events professionally you're eventually going to need gear you can't afford right now, so start saving. The D90 can become the backup to a more expensive camera you'll eventually buy. See if there are equipment rentals available in your area - most medium to large cities will have some kind of rental operation and there are some on the web that ship rental equipment. If you shoot events you're likely to get into some situation where you need a telephoto lens you can't afford to buy, but can rent at a reasonable rate.</p>

<p>Here in Romania where i stay, is a medium city and i don't find any shop for renting cameras or lenses. So, you say that a Nikon d90 is better than a d300?</p>