I promise I've thought about this, so now specific questions: D40 to D90 or D300

[trevans]

<p>Hi All,<br>

First of all, thank you for stopping in for yet another "Which camera, D90 or D300" question. I know these questions are repeated ad-infinitum so I've done some real thinking and I've got specific questions that I hope those of you with one (or both!) of these cameras can answer for me.</p>

<p>I think the first generalization to make is that each one of these is pretty much better than my D40 in every way (except the obvious size, price, and flash sync speed).</p>

<p>Here's the list of things that I wish to improve from my D40, in descending order of importance:<br>

1) Low-light, high-ISO performance (800-3200)<br>

2) Autofocus performance (also, <em>specifically</em> low-light AF accuracy)<br>

3) Faster framerate for sports n such (both are much quicker than the D40 and should be plenty)<br>

4) More durable (ahem)<br>

5) Ability to use older (non-AF-S) lenses<br>

6) Off-Camera flash command ability</p>

<p>And so here's my conclusions/questions. Please feel free to address any or all you may be familiar with.<br>

1) The D90, reportedly, seems to have an ever so slight advantage over the D300 in high-ISO situations <em>when shooting JPG.</em> Now, they're both going to be better than the D40 by a good margin (<strong>right?</strong> ) and I'm not opposed to setting up a RAW workflow (I have PS CS3/ACR, just don't know how to use them...) if it evens things up. However, sometimes I just want to shoot JPG and be done with it. <strong>Do you think there is an appreciable difference in the low-light performance, or are we nit-picking?</strong> Remember I'm coming from a D40 here.<br>

2) The D300 has a <em>significantly</em> better AF system than the D90. They both trump the D40. Specifically, the thing that gets me excited about the D300 is the 15 cross-type sensors as compared to both the D40's and (lamentably) the D90's single cross-type. <strong>Does the single cross-type sensor on the D90 cripple it any compared to the D300, or do you find its standard single-line sensors work very well in low-light?</strong> Basically I'm concerned that the AF system on the D90 isn't really all that much of an upgrade over the D40's.<br>

3) The D300 has Autofocus fine-tuning. <strong>Do you often find you need this?</strong><br>

4) The D300 also has mirror lock up. <strong>Same question- Do you often find you need this?</strong> (I don't have a good tripod, just a $40 Best Buy special as a gift) (not that I'm opposed to buying a tripod)<br>

5) As we all know, the real upgrade is in the lenses. <strong>The price difference between the D90 and D300 could pay for the lens I'm also planning to get at some point, the 16-85. Am I wasting my money on a body (D300) when I could have a lens (or a lens and an SB-600/800/900, or...) that would benefit me more?</strong> As for low-light, both of these bodies should enable me to use a plethora of older, fast primes (in AF, which I love, see question 2).<br>

(Speaking of lenses, I have the 18-55 DX, the 35/1.8 DX, and the 55-200DX VR. I really love the latter two, the first, not so much - slow focus speed, no real manual focus ability, hence the reason I want to upgrade to the 16-85.)<br>

6) Having said all of <em>that, </em> we're expecting a D300 successor soon and a D90+ not for another year or so. <strong>Should I choose the D300, have prices traditionally dropped appreciably and immediately on the "old" model?</strong><br>

7) The D300 also has the ability to use AI-S lenses (well, fully anyway). I imagine myself just shooting, checking the shot on the (superior on the D300) screen and retaking it if needed... <strong>Is this approach impractical on the D90?</strong> <strong>Does the metering on the D300 really make that much of a difference?</strong><br>

Again, sorry for such a dead-horse question but I had some specifics that I wanted answered instead of just asking someone to make the decision for me ("I want to take pictures of my kids, and someone told me..." etc).<br>

Or should I stick with what I have and upgrade to a Mazdaspeed3? :-D Zoom-zoom.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Tim, I have these suggestions:</p>

<ul>

<li>Show us a portfolio of say 10 images that are typical of what you shoot. If you show us your best images, that will give us an idea about your level of photography. If you can show more, that is even better.</li>

<li>Related to that, tell us what type of subjects you tend to shoot.</li>

<li>Tell us what your overall budget is.</li>

<li>Generally speaking, spend more money on lenses than on DSLR bodies. Sometimes it is even better to spend some money on photo classes than buying more equipment.</li>

</ul>

[gogu]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>The price difference between the D90 and D300 could pay for the lens I'm also planning to get at some point, the 16-85. Am I wasting my money on a body (D300) when I could have a lens (or a lens and an SB-600/800/900, or...) that would benefit me more?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now you got it;-)<br />Grab the D90 and spent your hard earned cash on lenses etc!<br />Cameras come and go, lenses (usually) stay for a looong time if not for "ever"!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>...<em>when shooting JPG....</em>I'm not opposed to setting up a RAW workflow (I have PS CS3/ACR, just don't know how to use them...) if it evens things up. However, sometimes I just want to shoot JPG and be done with it...</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this makes it easier for you to choose: go for the D90;-)<br>

In a few years you'll have all the time to buy a D400 after growing with the D90.</p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Does the single cross-type sensor on the D90 cripple it any compared to the D300, or do you find its standard single-line sensors work very well in low-light?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if all you are using is the central sensor anyway. I like the ability to choose between 51 sensors - a clear step up from the 11 in the D200 (which is the same AF system as in the D90)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>superior D300 screen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Screen on D90 and D300 are identical as far as I know, as is the ability to use the in-camera flash in commander mode to control remote flashes.<br>

If you are comfortable deciding on your exposure based on the image on the LCD and/or the histogram, then no, the ability of the D300 to meter with non-CPU lenses won't make a difference.<br>

For sports and especially when shooting RAW, the deeper buffer of the D300 could come in handy.<br>

Unless you need the additional features of the D300 - go for the D90 and the 16-85 instead.</p>

[trevans]

<p>@Shun -<br /> <br /> * Show us a portfolio of say 10 images that are typical of what you shoot. If you show us your best images, that will give us an idea about your level of photography. If you can show more, that is even better.<br /> * Related to that, tell us what type of subjects you tend to shoot.<br /> * Tell us what your overall budget is.<br /> * Generally speaking, spend more money on lenses than on DSLR bodies. Sometimes it is even better to spend some money on photo classes than buying more equipment.<br /> <br /> You want to see my photographs? How terrifying! :-D I'm usually embarrassed about showing my work but I'll put together a set on Flickr tonight and post a link tomorrow.<br /> <br /> Things I like to shoot... really a little of everything. I don't know that I've found my niche. I have been to several weddings lately (hence my low-light concerns), and I REALLY enjoyed shooting the interactions people have, so if I were pressed I'd say I really like events/portraits/"street photography" (though I cringe when I say that). I try hard to do landscapes but I'm not sure I really have an eye for it further than "Oh that's an interesting tree, oh there's a neat rock formation, look at the pretty beach" etc.<br>

Overall, my budget is somewhat flexible... initially I just got the D40 as the cheapest way to try out this photography thing and see if I like it. I do, I love it (in fact it's become somewhat of an infatuation...) so I'm willing to spend some coin to get what I want. I'm not at all opposed to buying both the D300 and the 16-85 at retail price if that's what I think I want (though I don't see the point in getting the Nikon 17-55/2.8 when there are perfectly reasonable third-party lenses for half as much...). I was considering giving the D40/18-55 to my sister once I upgraded anyway, since she's been talking about taking photos ever since I started posting to flickr. (It's spreading like a virus.)<br>

Regarding classes... maybe it's because I'm hard-headed but don't see the point in spending money on something I believe (probably wrongly) that I should be able to figure out on my own. (I rarely take my car to a mechanic, for example) I did look around for photo classes in my area (SE Pennsylvania) but they're all just things like "Intro to digital photography" and how to use the PSAM modes and that kind of thing I've moved past. I'm not so arrogant as to believe I won't learn anything, it's just that I usually prefer to learn by the self-discovery, trial-and-error method. I will, however, give serious consideration to any classes that look like a good fit.</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>Buy a really good lens or two, say 17/55 2.8 70/200 2.8 VR and then buy the best body you can with leftover cash.</p>

<p>Good low light performance is a D300, but if you do not have a decent lens for it, it is a waste of money. 16/85 is still a consumer lens.</p>

<p>Until you have enough money to do it right, work with what you have. For my photography, there is not a whole lot I can not do with my D40, but I have a D200 & 700. I like the full frame because that is what i am used to. But I have done nice pics on a D40.</p>

<p>I went thru college with a Waltz Envoy rangefinder with a fixed 50 mm lens and a few filters. I was tough, but I learned a lot and knew precisely what I needed when I had the money.</p>

<p>You need some education and experience and spending money is not a substitute. You got to pay the dues before you move on. </p>

<p>JPEG is waste of time if you want top quality work. My opinion. OK for photogs who grind out 1000 pics at a wedding, but they should use raw for at least the formals.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>Let me help make your decision even more perplexing... a used D300 is similar in price to a new D90.</p>

<p>Pretty much all of your numbered points dictate the D300 anyway.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'd agree with elliot. just get a d300 already. you really wont regret it, even if it mean you have to wait a bit for a 16-85 (which isnt the lens i'd choose for available-light action anyway)</p>

<p>with low-light, i know DXO rates the d90 as "better" than the D300, but... it's really just prosumer-oriented NR smearing. the d300 handles low-light very well with fast frame rates and reliable AF--its a better camera, period. IMO it's a classic.</p>

<p>last night i shot the Watcha Clan at a nightclub in SF. no flash, so available light. this pic is ISO 2500 (i turned high ISO NR "Off", btw)</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>...and the crop:</p><div></div>

[trevans]

<p>Wow. Eric, those shots are great and they perfectly illustrate what many of my goals are: high ISO, fast enough shutter speed and with a 2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>Guess I'll start saving... :) and perhaps looking for a used D300. There's one up in classifieds for $950 but that seems a bit low...</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>Much discussion on relative noise here:-<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TZMy</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>thanks, tim.</p>

<p>btw, for what you're trying to do (high-ISO action) the 16-85 will be no better than 18-55. if 17-55 is out of your reach, the tamron 17-50 could work well and save you $200-$250 while giving you that constant 2.8 (35/1.8 is great to have but you really need a 2.8 zoom for event work).</p>

<p>here's a sample tamron 17-50 shot @ 29mm, also ISO 2500, 1/100, f/2.8. straight out of the camera JPEG, converted to B&W.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Much discussion on relative noise here:-<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="00TZMy">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TZMy</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>yeah i saw that when it was new. much discussion i'd agree but not much in the way of conslusiveness--just someone trying to make a point and presenting "evidence" which proves that point.</p>

<p>you know what i think? lab tests, shmab tests. field results are the only arbiter which matters. tests can be manipulated far too easily.</p>

<p>anyway, who shoots pro events at default settings? who honestly believes the d50 has better AF than D300? or that d40 CCD sensor is better than d300 CMOS sensor for low-light? dont think so. sure, maybe there's less noise with a 6mp file vs. 12mp, but try shooting at 2500 ISO and cropping severely with a 6mp camera and the differences would be clear. if d40/d50/d90 was a better camera than d300, no one would buy d300 for any reason other than build quality.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>For me the key factor that made me choose the D300 is it's ability to meter with ai lenses. Yes you can fire away with the D90 and check the results in the LCD. But if you really want to use MF lenses a lot, the D300 is the way yo go. There is considerable difference in build, too.</p>

[matthew_roberts1]

<p>I had the D90 for six months and upgraded to the D700 because the D90 was just too small to hold for long periods with heavier lenses. The D700 has same body layout as D300. I chose D700 becuase have FX lenses (50 f1.4 & 24-70 f/2.8).<br>

You ONLY need to consider this blog link: (what nikon d90 owners are missing out)<br>

<a href="http://nikond90lab.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-nikon-d90-owners-are-missing-out.html">http://nikond90lab.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-nikon-d90-owners-are-missing-out.html</a></p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>Numbers 2 and 4 on your list make me want to point you towards a D300. Except for video, (which is a very stupid feature, the D300 has everything that the D90 has, and a lot more) the only thing you will be missing if you choose the D300 is your ca$h.<br>

You also mention that all you have was a forty dollar tripod. Stick a new one in the budget.</p>

[Two23]

<p>You know, I'm starting to think that video isn't such a stupid feature after all. I've been going over it in my mind, and I think it adds a whole new dimension to our creativity. Anyway, for the OP, the camera you describe is a used D300. However, for low light a good f2.8 zoom will make a much bigger difference than a D90 vs. D300. Image quality and ISO capability is the same for those two cameras. I routinely shoot ISO 800 with D300 and will quickly go to ISO 1600 in a pinch. For what you say you want to shoot though, the f2.8 zooms will certainly be better than the Nikon 16-85mm lens. Most certainly.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[brianmurphy]

<p>I am a previous owner of a D90, and a previous user of a D300. You have already well listed the differences between the two cameras, so I won't get too into that. Bottom line, the D90 is just going to be a better buy, due to the still relatively exorbitant price of the D300. There are great things about the D300, that it really trumps the D90 on. I like the uncompressed RAW, ever so slightly better low-noise capabilities, 51 AF points as opposed to 11, but in the end, the image quality is going to depend more on the glass and a run through a good workflow. I'd also recommend getting a book on CS3 and dedicating a weekend to some serious study. When I owned my D90, I never got the full quality out of my images due to my very old PC and extremely basic image editing program. (Now I own a Mac and I'm shooting film on an F3. Go figure.) Bottom line, go with a D90, 50mm f/1.8D (sharper wide open than the 1.4 and cheaper) the 18-200mm VRII, and if you can swing it, 1 or 2 SB900's. They are truly the best, most intuitive flash I've ever used. Get proficient with CS3 and you won't be loosing much to the D300.</p>

[mizore]

<p>Right now, people are selling D300s to get D700s. My used D300 was a bit higher than the one for under $1000 listed in the classifieds, but only had less than 500 shutter activations. A bit of judicious shopping should bring the price of a good clean low-usage D300 within $200 of a new D90. I don't know if the D90 has custom shooting banks, but I know it doesn't meter through manual lenses, and I'm not sure I want the video feature but figure I'm paying for it whether I want it or not. The custom shooting banks mean that you can set up the camera in several different typically used ways and switch between them, so if you're on vacation, you can shoot jpegs on automatic everything, then for occasional shots, switch to another bank set up for more studied work on a tripod. <br>

Being able to meter through older lenses is a plus for me.<br>

I put over 300 shutter activations on it the first week I had it. I'd check out the used D300s (my closest Penn Camera had two for $1200 and $1300 the day I was in), or get the D90 if you're in a hurry to upgrade.<br>

The store said that there are people who chase the latest biggest sensor shinier newer camera.<br>

My most expensive lens is the 105mm f/2.8 VR macro. For me, it's about the handiest general purpose lens ever.</p>

[holger]

<p>I own D200 and D300, had D70 and D40 before and used a D90 for a test for quite some time. My personal impression regarding your questions:</p>

<p>1. No difference if you adjust settings. Out-of-the-box settings of D90 in JPG seem better, but tweak D300, and results are equal. Shoot RAW (and use Capture NX) to get the best out of both cameras. And yes, results are better than D40, if you enlarge or use ISO above 800.</p>

<p>2. In my samples, even the D90s AF is a significant upgrade to the D40. Not that much in speed, but in precision. I never got consistant results with my D40, even using only the center field. It depends on what you shoot: if you are in sports or kids, the 3D tracking of the D300 is a must, a great feature. If your subjects are less mobile, I would use the center AF field only, in this case no difference between the two cameras.</p>

<p>3. Never used it, but I was lucky with my lenses, all perfect.</p>

<p>4. Used if on my F3, never used it on my D300. If you're not doing star or long tele wildlife, it's nice to have, but not necessary. Get a better tripod first anyway.</p>

<p>5. Whatever body, get a 2.8 lens! If you can't afford a 17-55, start with Tamrons 17-50. The 2.8 will get your ISO down (which improves iq in all cameras). I started with the Tamron, later switched to the Nikon, and both have been the best investments I ever made. Except for the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S, I love it. The 16-85 has better AF than your kit lens, it's nice, but in my opinion not worth an upgrade. I would get this lens for travel only, say for a weekend in Venice with just one lens. For real life, get 2.8.</p>

<p>6. I would wait a few weeks to see if Nikon announces the D300s, which will lead to some better offers for stock d300. If this happens, I will get a second D300 body. Whatever the D300s may offer, the D300 has everything I will need in the years to come. People out there still use D70, and many of the pictures are better than anything I get with my D300. It's about using the camera...</p>

<p>7. As mentionend before, no superior screen. If you want to use AI, AIS-lenses, get the D300.</p>

<p>Personally, I would get the D300. Used, if money matters. More important: a 2.8 lens, as others mentioned. </p>

[trevans]

<p>Thank you everyone for your thoughts.<br>

Consider:<br>

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=960870<br>

<strong>@Shun</strong> - I fail at flickr this morning; I was recruited to clean the house last night so I didn't get around to making a favorites set. I'll assemble some links here shortly in a new response.<br>

<strong>@Eric</strong> -</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you know what i think? lab tests, shmab tests. field results are the only arbiter which matters. tests can be manipulated far too easily.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree. Did you see my thread on using my D60 this weekend? <br>

<strong>@Andrew</strong> and <strong>@Kent</strong> - I really don't much care about video. I've got a little Sony P&S that does video just fine for me at the moment (I take it snowboarding, it's a tough little guy) so still images are the priority. If I end up with a D90, then so be it. :)<br>

<strong>@Brian</strong> - thank you for responding as someone who has owned both cameras. A follow-up question if you don't mind... <strong>how did the D90's simpler autofocus sensors (specifically, the <em>non-cross</em> types) do in low light?</strong> I'm wholly dissatisfied with the outer two sensors on my D40, they may as well not be there, and the middle one is fine in daylight but sketchy when it's dark and that's one of my two biggest gripes with the D40.<br>

<strong>@Matthew</strong> - The size thing is also part of my argument against the D90... I've already got a smaller-frame camera. If I want to travel, I'll just take the D40 and buy the 16-85 (oh who am I kidding, unless I'm backpacking, the new camera is coming but I think you see my point).<br>

<br /> <strong>@Holger </strong> - Thank you, as well, for responding with experience with both cameras <em>and for running down all of my points!</em> I really appreciate that. I am glad to hear both autofocus systems are a big upgrade. Regarding your Tamron 17-50, did you also consider the Sigma 17-55/2.8? Any reason you picked the Tamron? For no good reason, I sorta feel better about Sigma because it's of their EX line. I also love my 35/1.8 AF-S. :-)</p>

<p>Thank you everyone, I really appreciate your time and thoughts. I'm eyeing that D300 in the link above...</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Keep the D40 and spend the money on lenses. I posted an ISO comparison of D40/D300 about a month ago. IMO the D300 is slightly worse in the ISO dept than the D40, but the D300 is 12 MP so in the end it's a wash. My RAW files should still be there so see for yourself. I compared 3 different RAW converters.</p>

<p>For me, the fast sync speed of the D40 trumps all the fancy features of my new D300, and so I have been considering selling it. I should have bought the ultra wide zoom I've been wanting for so long, which could have really opened up new options for me. Or, for the cost of the body, new batteries, memory cards, & grip I could have just about swung the 70-200 VR which I would have for the rest of my life.</p>

<p>I did a shoot yesterday and the D300 stayed in the bag because the sync of the D40 is so much better. It's attached. I'm not saying it's anything spectacular, just that I had the choice between D40 and D300 and the little guy won.</p>

<p>In the end, most of the time you will get the same images with any camera you buy. You, and your skill are the most important piece of the puzzle to getting better images.</p><div></div>

[trevans]

<p>Rob,<br>

Is that the link that was posted earlier by Robert Driscoll? If so, it's a D50, not a D40, right?</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Yeah, I just noticed that someone linked to my thread above. The test was with the D40, I'm pretty sure, and the RAW samples are from the D40/D300. If you open them you should be able to tell for yourself. I also have the D50, so I swapped the names around in the thread on accident. In any case both cameras have the same chip and the images are the same from these two cameras, as well as the D70.</p>

[trevans]

<p>Rob, not to bring up the old thread or any arguments in it, but I would think that just because they may have the same sensor doesn't mean nothing changed between the two... it's not like the pixels dump a number straight onto your memory card. There's amplifiers, A/D converters etc that could have changed. (I know there are numerous sites saying that it's the same "6.1 MP sensor" but I haven't been able to find anything that matches model-number to model-number, just MP count and approximate dimensions).<br>

Also, debates that just take the sensor into account are moot when discussing the final product. There's more steps in this chain, as you know.<br>

As I don't own lightroom (I just have CS3 with ACR, ViewNX, and Picasa, if you count that one) my preference is not to go shopping for great RAW converters and spend all my time in front of a computer (I do that all day now anyway). I'd rather be out shooting on something that handles great and makes my life easier, which is mostly why I'm concerned about Autofocus and low-light performance, both of which are weak points in the D40.<br>

<em>Anyway, </em> moving on<em>.</em><br>

I <em>do</em> agree that the high-speed sync of the D40 (and its size... and the fact I already own it) makes it worth keeping around for daylight situations (when a 2.8 zoom isn't absolutely necessary anyway). If I did my research right, this is because the D40 has a hybrid shutter and above 250 (or 320, can't remember) then the shutter is just electronic (so in theory its max shutter speed could be the max response time of the circuitry, so times well above 4000 are possible).<br>

What lens did you use for that shot, by the way?</p>

<p>I think you all have sufficiently convinced me to wait on the body until I find a used D300, which will solve my AF and ISO gripes. I'm ogling lenses on Amazon now.</p>