D300 vs D700 vs D90?!

[sheygetz]

<p>You said "I´m using my camera in my everyday-life."<br>

Are you willing to shlepp around the 1kg that is the D700?<br>

If not, compare D300 and D90 on www.dxomark.com to find that the smaller, cheaper cam has better IQ - though of course build and options are more pro on the D300.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>I have the D300. Took it to China with me. Given you description of the types of shooting you do, I would go with the D90. I haven't shot with one but understand it's supposed to be nearly as good as the D300 (depending on whose telling the story). I've handled the D90 in stores. It's lighter than the D300 and smaller. Side by side the difference in size and weight might not seem like much. But when you drag it with you all the time on a long trip, you start noticing the difference.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Wait for the price of the D700 to drop...and drop it will. If you do, upgrade to FX..<br>

If you don't mind staying with DX, then the D90 beats the pants off the D300.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>Bengt, a little tail chasing can be good - if it wasn't, I'd still be using the box camera my mom gave me when I was a kid, and scratching my head trying to figure out where to find film for it. <br>

Yes, it's time to upgrade. Go with what you honestly believe you can afford, secure in the knowledge that you'll completely enjoy using whatever camera you decide to go with. <br>

By the way, are you familiar with the photography of Galen Rowell? He has same of the best low-light portraits of people I've ever seen, from inside Laplander tents to the interiors of Tibetan temples. He did it without access to high ISOs or VR.</p>

[rohitn]

<p>I just bought Nikon D90 with 18-200mm VR lens. Its a fantastic combination. Camera is so perfect and fantastic results.<br>

D300 is the best but into pro ones if thats what you are after, else D90 is not a bad to start with in Mid pro range (offcouse depends on your pocket how big it is)</p>

 

[michael s.]

<p>Bengt -- Plenty of advice on what your *next* camera should be, but as to the malfunctioning D70, were you aware of <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/email_images/nikonusa/service_advisory/d70.html"> this problem</a> ? Nikon repairs this particular failure free of charge, irrespective of warranty status.</p>

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Hi Bengt,<br>

My perspective is from someone that has the D70, shot a whole trip last year on a borrowed D80, and now own a D300. Like you (based on your statements), I am an amateur, and like to get good value for my money regardless of whether I can afford it or not. If your D70 had not malfunctioned, would you have gone with the D70? <br>

The only reason I went with the D300 was that I have always lusted for the autofocus on the F5, and here finally was an affordable way to get this. Other than that, I was blown over by the D80, and the D90 is even better IQ-wise. Simply put, coming from the D70, the D80 (D90 also) has far better image quality in the ISO 400-1000 range, a bigger LCD and a brighter viewfinder, which were the main selling points for me. I think you'd do quite well with a D90. From what I have read, a D90 and D300 would perform similarly in terms of higher ISO images, I find no issues at all with ISO 1600 images for my use. <br>

A D700 would do even better. But before plunging into that, ask yourself how many images you have shot at high ISO, or you have missed because you could not take images at ISO 3200-6400? A D700 would certainly give you shallower DoF with the same lens/position, something to think about though. As far as wide-angle, prior to digital I used to shoot film on a Nikon F, with the widest lens being 24mm. Your 18-70mm on a D90/D300 would give you equivalent to 24mm FOV, your 12-24mm gives you 18mm. How wide do you really need to go for your own needs? I have shot streets in India, China and Europe, and my shooting style never needed wider than 12mm on DX, it will really depend on your needs (and without PC, I find the perspective distortion at less than 24mm equivalent to be quite distracting). We all know the advantages of D700 and FX, and many people need it and use it. Question is, do you need it? OTOH, if you travel to one of India's many wildlife sanctuaries, the DX crop factor might actually be an advantage, depends on your plans.<br>

In short, my pick would be D90, and D300 over that if you want the better AF.<br>

Just another perspective :-)<br>

Shash</p>

[philippartridge]

<p>If you are happy to part with the wherewithall (money), the D700 is my choice for you. Travel photography requires a nimble, flexible approach by the photographer, *especially* in India. So much just happens in front of your eyes, each moment passes into the next very quickly...so I am not a fan of giant heavy cameras (over-priced 'pro' bodies) and zoom lenses of the same characteristics.<br>

Depending on your style, consider a mid-range zoom (like say a 35-70mm) or several complementary high IQ primes: 28mm, 35mm 45mm and 85mm covers most of what you will likely shoot, unless you are focussing on the nature parks for the wildlife..the better Nikkors will stand up to the D700 sensor well. If you are now a zoom guy to help get whatever appears (I do this for travel out of necessity) consider sticking with a D300 with a 16-85mm; much sharper and better than the 18-70, and much, much more usable than a 24-70/2.8 (which resemble artillery pieces). VR gets you enough stops to shoot handheld. That's my MO, if it helps.</p>

 

[geirrosset1]

<p>I am in the same situation. I am upgrading from a D80. My problem is that I have only 1 lens that will let me use all 12MP on the FX chip. All my other lenses are DX. So my choice was down to the D90 vs. the D300. Cheap lenses on the D700 is like buying a Ferrari and only using the first three gears in stead of all six. And FX versions of my big DX zooms (if they exist at all) are way too expensive. As for the D90 and D300, I am going with the D300. It is more expensive and the D90 might give marginally better results on higher ISO, but the autofocus on the 300 is quite a bit better, so even though the resulting image might not be as sharp as the D90, you might not get the shot at all with the D90 because it's AF doesn't perform as well in low light. Now for your average hobby needs this doesn't matter all that much, even though it always stinks when you miss out on a good shot, but if like me you take photos in weddings every once in a while, and other low light situations like indoor sports, the better AF of the D300 (and the optional 8 fps) should be the feature to seal the deal, because in those situations you really can't afford to miss out because your camera keeps chasing the focus around. Other than that the D90 looks very good, and you can capture video with it.</p>

[gita_widowati]

<p>Dear Bengt,<br>

here my suggestion:<br>

Just buy D90 + 70-300 VR (as u have 12-24 & 18-70), I used to play with D300 for more than 6 months, in my opinion, D90 is sharper & much lighter (thats important, go light save ur back).<br>

Save your money, 17-55/2.8 is excellent lense, but i think u ll be ok with 18-70, its a good lense.<br>

By the way, dont forget to bring your 35mm. Have a nice trip!</p>

<p>regards,<br>

G* (D90, D40, 17-55mm/2.8, 70-300mm VR, 35mm/2, 50mm/1.8, sigma 50/1.4)</p>

 

[jvf]

<p>Bengt.</p>

 

<p >If money isn’t a concern, go for D700.<br />I upgraded from D70/d200 and I find that D700 is just as solid as my old N90x, still have.<br />12 Mb is so close to the quality of scanned film, you can't tell the difference. Uses it with a 24-70 2:8 at a daily basis, heavy but you will be able to carry it around more than 12 hours/day. I also use my 10,5 DX and it also works very well. With 70-200 2:8 it's a little heavy though. <br />D700 is fast, has built-in flash, far far better than D70, takes a long time to learn to handle, get Thom Hogan’s e-book.<br />You won't regret a D700.</p>

<p >:-) Bring your D70 as second as long as it still works.</p>

<p >Have a nice trip<br>

Jens</p>

[nolax_montemar]

<p>the image quality of d700 is better than d300 especially the skin tones. the image is also very clean and sharp. go for d700! period.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>I've been to India many times in the last twenty years or so, and the one thing I can tell you is that it's very dusty, not to mention humid. If it were me I'd take the D70, and use it until it died, if it did, and only take out whatever new camera you decide on if it does die. If your only going to buy a new camera in a year, then buy one of the cheapest Nikons you can get away with to bridge the gap. On the other hand, I have a D300 I'm quite happy with and suspect that I'll be keeping it for quite a while. Bruce Campbell</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>I'll suggest a different approach and recommend a D60 with a 16-85. The IQ is great, and it's a small compact body.<br>

My other reason for this suggestion is that there's just too much change going on with dslrs. Even the Panasonic G1 is an interesting option. Don't make the mistake of playing the upgrade game. There's much more to come to the market. The D60 is an excellent camera until the dust settles.</p>

[anill]

<p>Hi Bengt<br /> As a poster above has said, watch the dust and humidity. I come from Bombay [Mumbai] and the dust within the concrete city is *very much* higher than in London, where I live. The Indian countryside [and I assume you'll be going there, too] is far worse than Bombay. How you would clean dust off effectively is another issue, I guess. The 16-85 VR would be a great lens to use for 90% of the time, as is the concept of the 18-200 VR.<br>

<br /> The D90 offers the same or better IQ as the D300, and its lighter. However, the D300 has faster and more accurate AF. And has better weather [dust, for one thing] sealing. I havent used a D90 in India, as its quite new, but wonder whether it would be OK against dust in the countryside.<br>

Some of the photos that can be had on high iso from the inside of some of the temples is amazing - I've done it !<br>

Whatever you get, relax and enjoy India ! Anil.</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Bengt - jag har precis titta på dina foton och nu så saknar jag Stockholm så.... Pappa är i Åre och Mamma i Marieholm... Så det är svårt att åka hem numera. Jag är hemma i Stockholm på Söder speciellt även om jag växte upp i Lännersta utemot Värmdö. Stockholm är att åka hem. Varför skulle mina föräldrar envisas med att flytta bort. Nej ve och fasa. Hem är Stockholm, besöka Gotland, Skåne & Jämtland går bra så länge jag får stanna is Stockholm mest....<br>

Angående kamera. Jag skulle föreslå D300 den är helt enorm. Älskar den. men jag tror D90 är mer vad du är van vid. Köp en av dem. Du behöver inte D700 eller D3.<br>

Ha en otrolig resa & tack för alla minnen dina foton gav mig. :-)<br>

OK so in case anyone wonders.... lose translation...<br>

Bengt, I've just watched your photos & now I miss Stockholm so very much... Father is in Åre ( town in northern Sweden) & Mother is in Marieholm (tiny town in southern Sweden)... It's very hard to go home these days. I'm at home in Stockholm, at Söder (part of Stockholm) even if I grew up in Lännersta (suburb to Stockholm towards the east). Stockholm is to go home. Why did my parents have to insist on moving to other parts of Sweden. (then I babble on & you don't actually care...)<br>

Regarding camera... I recommend you get the D300 it's an amazing camera. I love mine, but I believe the D90 is more what you're used to. Buy one of them. You do not need the D3 or the D700 (I'm basing this on lenses).<br>

<br /> Have a wonderful trip & thanks for all the memories you've given me with your photos.</p>

<p>OK that's it<br>

JMHO</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_solomon2]

<p>Hi Bengt. I won't belabor the Quality or Features aspects of the Nikon cameras you are considering, because frankly, IMHO, ANY modern DSLR is more capable than most people are at photography! (No offense...you may indeed be the exception.) However, I certainly would not hesitate to get either the D90, D300 or D700, with your existing lenses, because frankly, the ultimate arbiter of a "good photograph" is the PHOTOGRAPHER, not his equipment. So that said, go to a store that stocks all 3 bodies, handle them, even shoot your CF card and look at the resulting images at your leisure. I think you should just get a body long before your trip so that you'll have time to get acquainted with it. I wouldn't want to miss a good shot because you were lost in some menu setting! BOTTOM line: Your photographic skill will translate into good images no matter which camera you buy! Have a great trip!<br>

~Steve<br><b>[signature URL removed per photo.net policy.]</b>

[wongsim]

<p>get D700. for high iso D700 is much better camera. FX would give you at least 1 more stop in DOF control than DX.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>FX would give you at least 1 more stop in DOF control than DX.<</p>

<p>Wong, could you explain the above? Because I don't understand. </p>

<p>Will not a 50mm lens on either camera will produce images that are identical in size on either sensor, given the same f/stop and distance from whatever appears in the viewfinder? And thus DOF would be the same. The FF will show a wider field of view in comparison to the DX camera, the DX will show less in comparison to the FF camera - but will not DOF will remain the same for both?</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p><br /></p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>The point about increased depth of field with the D700 is simply that because of its superior low light performance you can vary iso and have a smaller aperture for any given shutter speed.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>Ah - I understand, thanks, Alastair. I mistakenly unlinked the "high ISO" comment from the DOF comment.<br>

The OP asked a question without an answer: he wanted to know how to get the best bang for his buck (D90 - or maybe D300), but he is also "picky." He has lots of primes, but, although he prefers simplicity and he doesn't use his primes much, he's glad he kept them.<br>

So the chore for responders is an impossible one - we can't provide a satisfactory answer to a contradictory question.<br>

So, Bengt, which is more important? Bang for buck, in which case the answer is obvious, or being picky, which madates the D700 (or D3)? That's the question you really want us to answer, and of course, we can't, although we can have fun trying. </p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Am I the only one who read this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I own two dx lenses; the 18-70 and a 12-24. Works prefectly well for me. If staying with dx I want to buy a 17-55/2.8. I also own prime lenses; the AF versions of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Today I not use them that much - I prefer simplicity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bengt has DX lenses & is happy with them & prefers simplicity. That means either he has to buy FX zoom lenses or stay with DX.<br>

That leaves the D300 & the D90.<br>

JMHO</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p>I must say - Thanks all for helping me out!! I do really enjoy this thread, it has helped me a lot!!!<br>

Finally, I think....., I have decided to stay DX for a couple of years and buy myself the D300 /and my wife says OK...)<br>

BAsically I think it´s more wise to wait a couple of years to see how the FX-buisness developes, pricelevels come down etc... Meanwhile I can continue taking pictures and have fun!</p>

<p>Merry Christmas to all of you and a Happy New Year!</p>

<p>Till dig Lil - God Jul och Gott Nytt År! Hoppas din hemlängtan kan "tämjas"! Jag försöker lägga ut Stockholmsbilder lite då och då. På återhörande!</p>

<p>/Bengt C</p>

[tholte]

<p>Smart move, you won't regret it!</p>

<p>Thanks Tim! I understand you use one yourself, so I feel safe now. :)<br>

Merry Christmas and a Happy New year!</p>