D300 or D3, D3x

[mark_domingo]

<p>i'm upgrading my D90 and planing what camera is the best upgrade...been a nikon user for 3yrs and have 18-200mm nikor, 70-300mm nikor, SB800, SB600....i have been shoting as amature...i just want it for every day use.....can any body help me... </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What are you finding, in every day use, that the D90 isn't doing for you?<br /><br />A change to the D300 will get you a more physically tough body, faster frame rate, and a much better AF system... but are you having trouble with AF speed (shooting sports, etc) or worried about rough use in foul weather?<br /><br />As for the D3 and D3x (or the D700, of course) - you'd have to replace you superzoom with different lens(es), and you'd be looking at a larger, heavier, far more expensive body. No reason at all to do that unless you have a specific reason.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Mark.... As many posts on this subject here in the archives will say, it comes down to what you shoot and what lenses you have. If you need/prefer the extra reach, stay with DX and the D300. If you need/prefer low light performance, go with the D3 or D700. If you want max resolution, the D3x is the only choice (but if you have to ask, the $8000 D3x probably isn't the one).</p>

<p>The other VERY IMPORTANT consideration is lenses. It doesn't sound like you have any serious glass to make use of the FX sensor. <strong>My initial suggestion would be to keep the very capable D90, and build a better lens kit.</strong></p>

[mark_williamson6]

<p>I have the D300. I love it because of the crop factor and the resulting reach. Plus it is reasonably priced. But after I bought it, I realized that my 18-70 glass wasn't good enough. I have spent twice the price of the camera in new glass and have at least one more $$$ lens to buy.<br>

I agree with Joe. Buy some good glass first. Maybe a 50 1.4 prime to start with. They are fairly inexpensive and a good starting place. But if you have to get a camera, really consider what you need. According to what you have said, the D300 would do, buy only you really know what you need.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>For non-professional use perhaps the upgrade from D90 t0 D300 will be insignificant.<br>

However, D3, D3X, or D700 would be different, but you do not have good lenses for them.</p>

<p>Why do you need upgrade from D90, what are you missing or what more do you want ? Get first class lenses and your D90 will shine.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>i also don't see what the point in upgrading is, unless the OP would like to share his thoughts with us. the D90 is limited/limiting in the way, say, a D40 or D60 is. it's pretty much the full package, with the exception of less robust AF, and the body is plastic.<br>

i'm not against setting one's goals high, but if you gotta ask US whether you need a D3 or a D3X, then i wouldn't worry about it...<br>

if you really must step up, go for a D300 with the MB-D10. that's more than enough camera for you...</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The D300 will be a good upgrade if you want improved autofocus, especially for fast moving subjects. If you want improved autofocus and superior high ISO performance, the D3 is the way to go. Unless you are doing studio work, I wouldn't recommend the D3X. You left out the D700 from your list which is possibly a choice you should consider as it is very, very similar to the D3 - it is missing just a few advanced features but none relate to autofocus or high ISO abilities.</p>

<p>As mentioned, you will need to update your lenses if you switch to FX as the 18-200mm will only work in DX mode and will not take full advantage of the FX cameras. You will also want to upgrade your 70-300mm to the VR version for use with the D700 or D3.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>I think a common mistake is new photographers think that a newer body will offer them something they aren't getting with their current camera. First of all, those lenses are zooms, not really fast ones. Your first thing, instead of another body, is improving the part of the camera that makes the largest impact on photography -- the lenses. My suggestion is:<br>

1. Buy a 35mm 1.8 AFS Nikkor -- until you have played around with learning about shallow depth of field and isolating a subject, etc., you have missed a bunch. That lens is the DX equivalent of a normal lens on a full-frame camera. Certainly one of the best ways to grow as a photographer is to use a normal lens and shoot a lot.<br>

2. macro lens - never underestimate how much fun they can be, and bring a new dimension to how you see things. In addition, they are still great for other photography -- my suggestion here is something like the 105mm Nikon macro lens, or the 60mm AF-D or whatever the latest version of that is.<br>

3. A damn good tripod. Doesn't have to be carbon fiber, but something that is sturdy, easily adjusted, and not made for video caameras. A ball head is a good idea. The Bogen-Manfrotto line is a good one to look at.<br>

I'm sure others will have different recommendations, but most of us will say that the things you should upgrade are lenses. I use a D70s and Fuji FinePix S2 (as well as FILM SLRs), and until I need to make 20x30 inch prints, those models will serve me fine -- but I would rather have a bag of lenses to shoot the various things that interest me, than a better body with only a 18-200 zoom.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>everyday use? You have the right camera. Buy lenses.</p>

[Two23]

<p>The four cameras you've mentioned vary tremendously. This suggests you really haven't thought things through as to what your real needs are. First I'll say that IMO the biggest mistake beginners make is to put a ton of money into a camera, at the expense of more important things. With that in mind, let's take a look at each camera you mentioned, one at a time. I think we can quickly eliminate the D3x. You really can't justify spending that kind of money on a camera, and then spending at least that much again to get lenses for it. The D3x has less high ISO capability than the camera you now have. The D3 is similar. It's big, heavy, and expensive. Do you really want to be carrying that around? And, you'll need to spend thousands more to get the important thing: lenses. Next is the D300. What does it do that the D90 doesn't? It has faster autofocus--important if you photo sports, birds, or race cars. It has a higher flash sync--important if you photo a lot of moving subjects with flash. (Portraits are obviously non-moving.) It has mirror lock up if you do a lot of macro, which I'm guessing you don't. It's heavier than a D90, and doesn't have the video function. Image quality between D300 and D90 is the same. <br />Spending money on photo gear just to spend it is a quick way to go broke. I'm not sure a camera will do ANYTHING for you; you really didn't make a case for it. If you don't have a clear idea of what you need, it's likely the money will be poorly spent. This is especially true if spent on a camera. You do have a decent basic flash set up, although you gave us no hint what you use it for. Your lens assortment is very, very basic. The important thing is the lenses, for they determine what you can photo and when, and what the image quality will be. You have no low-light capable lenses, but just going by the info you gave I don't know if you need it. What tripod do you have? A decent tripod and head runs about $500. My own cost double that and is worth every penny, but only because I like sharp photos I guess. What computer software do you have? That has become very important with digital now. You need to be thinking along these lines: "I have X-thousand dollars to spend, what will make the most difference?" I highly doubt another camera will make any difference for you at all. Lenses probably would, tripod probably would, software might. If you do portraits, what softboxes etc. do you have? I'm assuming your 70-300mm VR lens is the VR version. If it's not, then that's the OBVIOUS place to start upgrading right there. We need more info.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>why did you leave d700 off your list?<br>

The d90 and the d300 are very similar, not much of a upgrade there.<br>

d3 d3x are FX cameras. what lens do you own? if their DX lens they will not work on the D3 or D3x<br>

If you want something different, Buy a FX D700 abd use the rest of the money for glass,<br>

You know that the D90 will take any picture that you want, I'd buy just glass for now</p>

 

[Jerry_]

<p>"...you'd have to replace you superzoom with different lens..." <strong>Why?</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

If you like high ISO shooting (i.e., in the 4000 and 5000 range) -- the VR 18-200mm DX lens on a Nikon D700 body in RAW mode seems to work OK so long as you put the camera in DX format.</p>

<p>The D3X body might be better suited to studio shooting: the high ISO speeds of the D700 and the D3 bodies may work better for all-around photography.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Jerry: OK, so I should have said, "you'd have to replace your superzoom <em>if you don't want to throw out half of the data you could be capturing in your images by switching a multi-thousand-dollar FX body to DX mode just to avoid giving up the use of a slowish, variable-aperture all purpose zoom lens ...</em>" That puts it in more context. I means buying a very nice camera, and then deliberately crippling it, to wind up with a lower resolution image that he currently gets with his very nice D90, all so that he can gain a stop - maybe two - by using the FX body's cleaner high ISO performance. I would less expensive, and more forward-thinking to just get some faster glass in the first place.<br /><br />That presumes that speed is even an issue. We still don't know what Mark feels he's struggling with, given his current rig.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I see absolutely no sense in putting a DX lens like the 18-200mm VR on a D700 or D3 camera. What you end up with, in effect, is a $2,500 D90. If he needs better low light performance (and he didn't indicate he did) it would be better in every way to simply buy an f2.8 lens such as Tamron 17-50mm for $500 and save the $2,000.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[j_dc]

<p>As the owner of a very extensive Olympus film system (5 bodies, 17 lenses), and a still being built Nikon system (2 dSLR bodies and 4 lenses - 3 high end) I also question what's wrong with the D90? For what its worth, I do own a D300 but my camera gear gets rained on, snowed on etc, and travels a fair amount.<br>

I'd make a decision on which format you plan to use (DX or FX) right now and then replace the 18-200 right off the bat. It's a so so lens and probably can be dumped. Also take a look at some primes (I became indebted to my 55f1.2, 35f2 and 28f2 Zuiko optics, but will admit the 35mmf2 wasn't the best) as well. The bright image in the viewfinder is wicked and they force you to compose a shot with more discipline than a zoom.<br>

A decent high end tripod, as noted by Kent, is a very sound investment.<br>

But if you've money to burn, how about a dye-sublimation photo printer?<br /> </p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Matt.... Why would he have to shoot his 70-300 in DX mode? Even the cheapest non-ED 'G' lens is a full frame lens.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Joe: it's the 18-200 that's limited to DX format, Joe. That's the lens that's being referred to as a "super zoom" because of that very large range. Quite handy on a DX body. Quite not handy on FX, that's all. Unless you want to crop away half of what that nice FX sensor could be recording.</p>

[ecnhoffer]

<p>Sounds to me like Mark Domingo wants to spend some of his money on new toys (tools). This is what keeps Nikon in business and presents all of us with more choices. As others have written previously, this is like buying a new car. You get information about all the different makes and models and questions concerning how you are intending to use the product. The consumer ultimately makes the choice. Nikon hopes you continue to spend money on their products.</p>

[john_newell2]

<p>If the OP can afford to upgrade from a D90 to a D3x, he can perhaps afford to toss his existing lenses as well? Anyone who can plunk down $7300 for a new camera for everyday use can swing two or three $1800 lenses into the bargain?</p>

[tholte]

<p>Get a D3X, a 85 1.4, 17-35 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and a 400 2.8 and you are good to go. </p>

[victor_loutit]

<p>Buy glass! An 80-200 f2.8 would be a great start. Get an older one,(slow af), for around 5-600. Personally, i`ve recently discovered the most fun i`ve ever had with a lens, in a 10.5mm fisheye. If the desire for a body upgrade still remains, it depends entirely on your budget. I love my D300, but will likely upgrade to the D700 within 6 months or so! Good luck!</p>

[erik_christensen3]

<p>Tim - I like your sense of humor !</p>

[bensgalguerra]

<p>An amateur considering a D3X, really? The D90 is more than enough for everyday use.</p>

<p>Go look for attention somewhere else.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>This thread has been around for the better part of a day. The OP has not posted again to provide any additional information. I am closing this discussion since it is not getting anywhere.</p>