D300 / D90

[kate_jones3]

<p>I am not a professional or even experienced photographer. I do however, adore photography and I am getting better and better.<br /> I have a D40 and I was sure I was going to upgrade to the D90 but now I am wondering whether it's worth the couple of hundred pounds more, to upgrade to the D300?<br /> I enjoy street, portrait, band photography and am slowly building up a collection of lenses. I also wonder, if you're into these kinds of subject matter, what are your favourite/must have lenses?<br /> What do you feel is worth investing in as my next camera?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D300's AF system and frame rate is a substantial improvment over the D90. If you're shooting performances in marginal light, that alone could make the D300 the better choice. Certainly the D300 will take more abuse out banging around in the world, or working in damp weather, etc. But good lenses, first!</p>

[kate_jones3]

<p>What lenses would you not want to be without?</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Fast zooms or faster primes for low light use. Street for me would be small and light zooms or a coulpe of primes depending on your needs. Portrait could be something in the 50 to 105mm range depending on your style. If you wanted to get older AIS lenses then a D300 could meter them but you would have manual focus. Many people use a 17-55mm f2.8 with a 70-200mm f2.8 for wedding and event photography. That may cover your needs. I like many of the features on the Dx00 bodies.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>"I enjoy street, portrait, band photography and am slowly building up a collection of lenses. I also wonder, if you're into these kinds of subject matter, what are your favourite/must have lenses?"</p>

<p>I'd say go for the D300. Lenses? It depends on your approach, of course. The Nikkor 35/1.8dx or a Sigma 30/1.4, and an 85/1.8 would serve you well. A 70-200/2.8 would too. For the street, you could work with a short zoom, maybe a Tamron 17-50/2.8, which could also serve for street, environmental/group portraits and some stage work.</p>

<p> Get a Nikon flash to match whatever body you get (SB-900), and learn to use it PJ-style. One can get a lot of use from one unit with some knowledge.</p>

 

[kate_jones3]

<p>PJ style?</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>There is an excellent article, if somewhat old now, on concert photography <a href="../learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i">here</a> . It will help with the lens choices. Just adjust for the fact that you're shooting in DX format, so that shorter lenses (such as, say a 50mm and an 85mm) will do well. As to your primary question, make sure that you're comfortable with the weight and size of the D300, particularly after being used to the D40. The D90 is much more moderate increase in size and weight, and still a very fine camera.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Kate's photo subjects probably cannot take full advantage of 8 frames/second on the D300 (with the MB-D10 grip and appropriate batteries). The main advantage of the D300 over the D90 for her would be considerably better AF; do you shoot under low light frequently?</p>

<p>A minor point is that you'll lose the video mode on the D300.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>PJ = photojournalist. Check out Strobist.com.</p>

[dweezil]

<p>My experience is that for lenses you don't need real wide angle for concert shoots.<br>

Because you're some what further from the stage a 28-70 is a very usable length for DX.<br>

At the longer end the 70 mm is better for "portraits" of the band members.</p>

 

[kate_jones3]

<p>I did think that about the video mode.<br>

I think I am going to stick with the D90 for now. I have a Tokina 10-17mm and a Nikon 18-55mm. I am buying the Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D.<br>

I am wondering about perhaps getting the Nikon 18-105mm AF-S DX Nikkor f3.5-5.6 G ED VR and the Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED.</p>

[jwallphoto]

<p>Think about the 18-200mm too.</p>

[kate_jones3]

<p>I have. There are mixed reviews. It's so hard to know if it's a good idea.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>Does focusing with AIS lenses have to do with the screwdriver motor?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hi kate,</p>

<p>i shoot live concert stuff with a d300 and must concur (once again) with shun--8fps is overkill for everything except sports. the d90 should be fine for your intended purposes.</p>

<p>regarding your other question about lenses, my current "live gig" set-up includes: tamron 17-50/2.8, tamron 28-75/2.8, sigma 50-150/2.8, sigma 30/1.4, nikon 50/1.8, and sigma 15/2.8 fisheye. my advice is don't bother with anything slower than 2.8 for concert photography. both of those nikon kit lenes are too slow for anything except brightly-lit events and daytime shots, which is why they are considered "consumer zooms."</p>

<p>with your budget, i'd probably get the tamron 17-50, which is my most-used lens and also better than the 28-75 at 2.8 (although the 28-75's FL is great for concert work). if you want a fast telephoto, you will have to pay dearly--the 50-150 is somewhat of a bargain considering the cost of the 70-200 VR, but it's still fairly pricey.</p>

<p>i would definitely consider the 35/1.8 if i were you for casual use; the 50/1.8 is pretty good for portraits and live band stuff, but its major drawbacks are that its a bit long on DX for everyday use, and its bokeh isn't the greatest. for its price, weight and size, it's worth picking up, but the 28-35 range is better overall on DX for a fast prime.</p>

<p>the thing about the 50/1.8 is, it's fairly soft at 1.8 and the DoF is extremely narrow, often necessitating stopping down to 2.2 or 2.8. here's the catch: at 2.8 it's only slightly better (if at all) than the 17-50, and zooms are much better for primes for live concert work when you have a lot of quick movement which can affect composition. there's nothing worse than screwing up a shot because you werent able to fit your intended target fully in the frame. this is another reason why i prefer the 30 over the 50 for low-light live stuff, since i can crop to fit (which shouldn't be a problem with a d90).</p>

[photo5]

<p>If you can afford it, the D300 is a better bet. It has much better AF performance than the D90, which has the same AF module as the D80, the Multicam 1000. The D300 has the Multicam 3500DX, and 51 AF points. If you're doing band photography, you want a fast camera because most bands I know don't stand still very often. The D300 is a superb camera, I loved mine tons.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>if you take care of your equipment you don't need the ruggedness of the D300. the few hundred (not just a couple) pounds you save can go to better lenses for your type of shooting. the nikon 17-55mm will be best for events but very expensive and i myself cannot justify that. you can get equally great results from the tamron 17-50mm. the 50mm f/1.8 you will need for sure. i would get the 35mm f/1.8 (US$200 here).</p>

<p>i wouldn't get the 18-200mm nor the 18-105mm but the 55-200mm VR will suit your needs fine. in your type of ahooting on a budget, it's the only lens i would consider.</p>

<p>the D40 can be a good backup to your D90. aside from both being very good performer in high ISO, they use the same cards..... you can easily mount the 17-50mm on the D90 and the 55-200mm (or the 50mm/35mm) on the D40.</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Kate, as a proud D300 owner, I would say that for someone at your stage of development concerned about the cost, and most importantly for someone who is shooting a lot of street, I'd go for the D90. The D300 is a pretty big item. I love it, and I don't have an issue hauling it around with my 70-200 VR on it. However, I know that I'm in a minority since I also carry around a Lowepro photo backpack with another 20 pounds of gear in it too and don't mind that. </p>

<p>I will say that another $300 in lenses is a better way to spend your money - or a good flash or monopod or tripod.</p>

[jkiffmeyer]

<p>I just had the same decision to make and went with the D90. I'm happy.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>I am a proud D90 owner and of course we are bias and say that there isn't a lot of difference between the two. More autofocus points, yes...I often shoot single point anyways. Tougher body and weather sealed, yes...I don't through my gear around or take it in bad weather regardless even if I could I still wouldn't (although tougher body would be an advantage around my 2 year old haha). There is a few more enhancements yes.<br>

Would I have a D300, of course I would but I couldn't justify spending all that extra money I chose to spend it on lenses and flashes instead. If money wasn't an issue i would have gone the D300, maybe....I am interested to see it's next upgrade when it happens and realistically probably would rather that over the minor enhancements over a D90.<br>

(In Australia, the price difference is roughly $1000 between the D90 and the D300)</p>

[Two23]

<p>Everything starts with what you want to photo. What DO you want to photo? From that you select lenses that will do the job. Then, you buy a camera with the money you have left over. It's simple, really.<br /><br /><br />Kent in SD</p>