Would I be crazy if... Nikon D90 vs. D300 for Beginner

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Buy as cheap a camera as what will do the job. I get the impression you are obsessing about cameras too much here. It's the lenses that will determine what and how you can photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i wouldnt go any lower than a d90 if you are serious about this. one reason being, the in-body motor which allows you more lens selection.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was almost dead set on getting the D90, but just can't bring myself to do it. What do you think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'm just wondering what's stopping you from pulling the trigger on the d90? same sensor, same low-light performance as d300. what you dont get are extraneous bells and whistles like mag-alloy build, superior AF, and faster frame rate. that's about it. none of those things should matter to an absolute beginner, and if we're talking $750 price differential, that's money that would probably be better spent on lenses and a flash. of course, if you go on photonet and ask d300 owners what they like about their camera, they'll confirm its amazing. but that's not to say the d90 can't also be amazing, especially with good lenses.</p>

 

[nikbryant]

<p>actually, for a beginner I think a used FILM SLR would be the better choice. I'm an old-timer so I would say a Pentax K1000 with a couple lenses, should be cheap. This way, for a couple hundred dollars you can see if photography is something you really want to spend time and serious money on. Having the basic understanding of how a camera works is important, even in these days of auto/program modes. </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>You have to know that any CMOS sensor camera from Nikon will let you take unbelievable good pictures if you pair the camera with some good glass. Good glass also keeps the value but cameras are loosing it faster. D5000, D90 and D300 will produce images mostly in the same league. The differences are in the size of the body, the quantity of plastic versus metal, the number of switches on the body, and some other improvements that make the camera man happy... But basically each one will produce almost the same quality pictures. In my opinion the best thing is to buy a new D5000 or D90 as many people adviced. Then please buy a top quality fast lens and start use the camera and the lens. Don't purchase a new lens until you really feel limited by the first one... and when buy the second take again the best quality fast lens... These lenses will help you to get very good pictures even you work in Program mode. This will build enthusiasm and pleasure to learn and to grow. If you start this way you will have a positive learning process and when will come a time for upgrade you'll be qualified to go for a full frame camera.</p>

[mizore]

<p>I agree with the people who suggest the D90 or an simpler camera for a first camera. The D300 is now discontinued for the D300s. If you can find a slightly used D300 for around the cost of a new D90, then maybe go that route (I'd look for under 1000 shutter activations).</p>

<p>The other side of this is that in the past, a camera was more or less expensive based on how finely it was made -- an F3 was a finer camera, closer tolerances, more useful options (eyepiece shutter, mirror lockup) than a cheaper Nikon. With digital, the differences in build are less significant and what you're paying for are more options, better software, better imaging sensor, better weather sealing, more robust shutter. Whichever camera you get, it's going to be outdated in three years. Depending on how you use it, it may be worn out before then or still good for another ten years. None of these cameras are likely to be good for the 50 plus years of a Leica IIIf, or the closing on 40 years of some of the older Hasselblads.</p>

<p>Get the lenses people have been recommending: the 17-85mm lens and a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 to start. Get a SB600 flash and a good tripod and head and the overpriced electronic shutter release cable (works on everything so far from N90s to D3's). Take lots of pictures. Figure out what you want to shoot the most. Buy equipment that suits what this first camera will show you that you want to photograph.</p>

<p>I don't think you'd be lost with a D300; you just won't use all its features. If the bragging rights are important to you and money isn't an issue, then get the D300s (the latest version) and the 17-85mm lens and the 50mm f/1.8 and get on with life. </p>

<p>There's always going to be something greater and newer and shinier coming along. Buy what you need now.</p>

[alvin_lim5]

<blockquote>

<p>actually, for a beginner I think a used FILM SLR would be the better choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really, the instant "feedback" that you get from the DSLR will help beginners learn at a much faster rate. I am not saying that film is not good as it kind of instils discipline (for some) but the instant feedback for digital is something much more helpful in the learning process.</p>

<p>PS. I came from the film route too and now shoot more film than digital.</p>

<p>To the OP: If you have the budget, go for the D300. The learning process is not that hard on it; it just has some added functions and modes to give you more flexibility.</p>

<p>For me, I will go the D300 route simply for its ability to use manual focus lenses (which may or may not be a feature you will use but it really opens up an avenue for lots of lenses).</p>

[johnw63]

<p>The big differences between the D300 and D90 are NOT about picture quality. They have the same specs there. So, you're pictures won't benefit with the D300.</p>

<p>What you get is a larger camera, a body that will work with older non-CPU lenses as well as AI/AIS lenses, faster frames per second, and I think stouter AF.</p>

<p>If I didn't have a shelf of MF lenses, I would be getting a D90. Well, the one thing that threw me about the D90 is it feels quite light. I'm used to a heavy film camera, and the lack of mass turned me off, a bit. Given the current , recently dropped price of the D90, and possible rebates around Christmas time, if you don't already own any older lenses, I think the D90 gives the most flexibility for the money. It has a built in AF motor, so a large list of lenses will work fine, as apposed to those that require AF-S lenses.</p>

<p>If you can, go pick up both cameras in a store, and look through the view finder. See if the D300 feels like it would be worth the extra $600.</p>

<p> </p>

[riley_s1]

<p>How about compromise and buy a used or refurb'ed D300?</p>

[bmm]

<p>Not crazy at all.</p>

<p>In my humble opinion anyone wanting to learn photography properly in a way that can transition up to advanced models in future is better off with 2 control wheels and an in-built AF motor.</p>

<p>This means D90 or D300 are your entry level.</p>

<p>Simplicity is not an issue as modern menus and settings allow you to turn on or off as much of the complex functionality as you like at any given point.</p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>Well - D200 was my first DSLR. But that was almost 4 years ago and the market was different back then. What was there to chose? From Nikon there were D70s, D50 and D100, all with crappy viewfinders and other issues (like handling, shitty JPEG output etc.). Even the D80 had its issues when it came out few months later. Canon had good offerings like the 30D, but no respectable consumer lenses (like the Nikkor 18-70 and 18-200) and known issues with 3rd party ones. Etcetera.</p>

<p>I've never regretted getting a prosumer cam as my first DSLR, but it's not that critical either. I now shoot my D60 more than my D200. Cameras of nowadays are really good and have no issues like the old ones had. The D90 is particularly nice.</p>

<p>Yeah, the D300/s is good and all and you should go for it if you feel you need or really want it. But also consider the minuses - it's heavier and for the added cost you can have a nicer lens.</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>I sure wish there were a camera related to the D700 like the D90 is related to the D300. It would be have the D700 FX sensor but without the fancy autofocus, and without some of the weight. And not as expensive, of course.</p>

[rjm photo]

<p>Get the best camera you can afford.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Nope, it would be a great first DSLR. I started in digital SLR photography with the D70, then D80, then D300. I learned a lot from all of them but the D300 really outshines them all.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>R. if you don't know anything about photography, then why spend thousands of dollars ona camera that will be obsolete before you even begin to come to terms with it, and yourself? all you will want to do then is upgrade. How do you even know that an SLR is right for you? There are other types of cameras that would be better for certain types of photography, so what stuff do you like to shoot? It's easy for people to spend other people's money, but IMO, you should start out with a film camera like a Nikon F3. Learn the ropes with a prime lens, rather than jump into a zoom and learn all the wrong ways to shoot, like most do.</p>

[dom1]

<p>Question is: How will you process? At least half of what you end up with depends on how you process with Photoshop. So make sure you have enough $$$ left over to buy an editing program and a good computer if needed. I like the film camera idea. You have to learn subject, aperture, and what the relationship between ISO, shutter speed, and aperture is. I've seen pros use a G9 and turn out photos that would make many of us envious. It's more your eye than it is megapixels or the camera. The best equipment won't improve your vision. Best luck!</p>

[jeff_rauch]

<p>Mr. Bond,</p>

<p>I'm really pretty surprised by the number of people telling you to purchase a D300. If I were in your shoes. I wouldn't. The D300 is not a beginer's camera. Going from a P&S to a (semi)pro DSLR wouldn't be an easy jump. You may even loose the enjoyment in photography if you don't get the hang of it fast enough.<br>

Your only modes on the D300 consist of: P,A,S, and M. If you don't know what those letters mean, I would stop listening to those D300 whispers and go out and buy a D90 without another thought. True, the "green auto" mode won't always give you perfect results, but it is still pretty good. And best of all, it's easy.<br>

I know that you think you'll own this camera for a long time, but let's be realistic. In two years, you'll be able to pick up a used D300 for dirt. And by then there will be a shiny new camera body that you won't be able to live without. It's just how the SLR cameras work. The best (and I don't think anyone will disagree with me) place to put your money is in your lenses. And if we crunch the numbers: You can buy a D90 with a $900 lens for the same price as ONLY the D300 body (new, retail of course).<br>

Nikon uses the same (sony) 12.3 MP sensor in both cameras. Having a d300 won't make an inch of difference in your photos.<br>

I'd even go as far as telling you to look at a D5000 as well. Why waste your money? Working in a camera shop, I see folks with D5000s attached to a $2000 lens and folks with D300s attached to a $200 lens. Guess who's photos are better.</p>

<p> </p>

[sandysocks]

<p>Jeff, I'll guess the D300s. You generally cannot tell any difference between images from kit lenses and pro lenses. Also, primes can be cheaper and better than expensive zooms. I wish I had started out with the best, echoing some folks above.</p>

[bensgalguerra]

<p><strong>Short and simple answer: </strong>Unless you bang your camera around and/or bring it to wildlife scenarios, buy the D300. If NOT, you can't go wrong with the D90.</p>

<p>The D90 is lighter, cheaper, has 95% of the features of the D300 and is actually newer. Some even say it produces better pictures than the latter (I say the image quality is identical). Buy an extra lens/flash with the money you will save and there's a bigger chance you're going to get better images.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p >Mate, at some point you have to jump in.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But it’s where you decide to jump in that should make some sense (and save some cents).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >“<em >If you don't know anything about photography, then why spend thousands of dollars on a camera that will be obsolete before you even begin to come to terms with it, and yourself?</em>” Agree with Tony Mickan on this, and Jeff Raunch’s advice (and the earlier advice of similar sentiment).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I had 10 years film experience with 35 mm SLRs before I bought my first digital camera – and it wasn’t a DSLR. It was the Minolta DiMage Xt, which I still have today. Why didn’t I just go and buy a DSLR first up? Because I decided I had a lot to learn about digital photography before I could justify owning a DSLR, even though I knew how to shoot the film version that format. That was my reality.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Things like histograms (in lieu of light meters) and white balance adjustment (in lieu of film selection) were all part of the learning curve, as were the pros and cons of using different file formats. That little 3MP digital compact taught me most of what I needed to know about digital photography. During that time I became very familiar with a lot of other issues such as memory cards, spare batteries, the workflow software that best suited to my needs, and the back-up system that best suited my style of file storage.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It took me 12 months to become well informed. And at that point I was also very clear about which camera body (D200) and lens (Nikon 18-200 VR) I wanted to start with. I currently have two digital compacts and three digital SLRs. They all continue to take good pictures and they were all bought for specific purposes. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The D300 is a lot of camera to place in uncertain hands. It’s also a reasonable sum of money to pay for something that may ultimately not suit your style of shooting.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you can’t bring yourself to buy a D90 (and if Jeff’s suggestions don’t appeal to you) then perhaps you should consider buying the cheapest manual digital compact that covers your general range of requirements (in terms of focal length and speed). Once you master this type of camera you should much clearer about the type of DSLR camera body and lens you will want to start with.</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>if as you suggest, you will decide first, then save for it, I suspect you'll find that by the time you've saved the cash there will be a D400, or a D90X or something even newer and shinier and you'll have to ask the question all over again !<br>

I went from D70 to D200, and already want a D300s - if you start with a lesser camera than the D300 I can guarantee in 6 months you'll want to upgrade it !!</p>

[midan_smith]

<p>Start with the D90, it will take you a while to master. When your skills are outgrowing the camera, move onto something higher up the scale. I started with a D80, and it has taken me over a year to find myself limited by it, it isnt a pro camera, but the quality of your shooting ultimately comes mostly from whats in your head, and ive made good money with my D80. In 'Helmut by June', Helmut Newton says how unimportant his camera is to the shots, his genuis is not in understanding his camera but in constructing incredible shots, he might as well have been painting them. Now im onto a D700 for specific, technical reasons, and i will get every penny out of it, but if you had given me a comparable camera when i started out, it would have been mostly wasted for the first year. Go for the D90 and get lenses that you will still want to use in 10 years.</p>

[palangat]

<p>Dear R,<br>

Since you are a beginner, I would suggest getting a used DSLR that will allow you to use the manual mode and a lens to go with it. An 18-70 or 18-105 (no f 2.8!) should be sufficient. get your feet wet and learn how to work a digital camera. learn how to work with light, aperture, shutter speed, file formats, post processing techniques, etc. Six months down the road if you still think that photography is for you and have figured out your subject interests, style and mastered the techniques mentioned above, you will have a very clear picture of what you want in terms of camera, lens and other accessories. Perhaps at that point you would realize that neither the D90 nor the D300 are for you! There might be something on the market then, that is even cheaper and will suit your needs perfectly.<br>

The money you would have spent on the used camera will be well spent as you would have learned how to use a camera, learned how to take pictures, learned how to be creative with an editing software, and also figured out your subject interests and camera gear needs, etc.,.. I for one would never consider these as waste of time or money. consider it a learning process, something that you will draw from on a daily basis. I find it disturbing to see people advocate camera gear worth thousands to a person new to photography and do not even know if the person might be interested in photography six months down the road! My 2 cents worth. </p>

[jeff_rauch]

<p>@RLPotts: "You generally cannot tell any difference between images from kit lenses and pro lenses."<br>

I'll agree with that, to a certain extent. Put in the hands of someone that knows how to use it, you can produce amazing results with a kit lens. However, a cheap lens on an expensive camera is a bad investment option. First off, your camera looses value FAST, second: Kit lenses are not built to last. The people that I see with expensive cameras and cheap lenses usually become frustrated with their equipment. If I had the choice of buying a D300s with an 18-55VR OR a D90 with an 18-200VRII, I'll choose the D90 Every time. The lens will last well beyond a D300 setup.<br>

"I wish I had started out with the best, echoing some folks above."<br>

That's fine, BUT, were you upgrading from a point and shoot? With no understanding about Shutterspeed and/or aperture? If, R. Bond had that kind of prior knowledge, I might have a different opinion, but he stated:<br>

"I am an absolute beginner (I wouldn't even call myself that)."</p>

<p>It would be like telling your grandparents to buy photoshop CS4.</p>

[david_peterson9]

<p>I was in your shoes two years ago. I was basically a novice (some 35mm experience, Minolta 20 years ago). I decided to go with the D300. I made the beginner mistake of buying the better camera and a cheaper, all-purpose lens (18-200 VR). As I started taking more pictures, I found myself wanting a faster, sharper lens with better depth-of-field control and bought the 50mm/1.4.<br>

I later sold the 50mm/1.4 on ebay for more than I paid for it, sold the 18-200 on ebay for about $50 less than I paid for it and have bought a trio of 2.8 pro zooms, 2 Nikkor and one third party (I would have kept the 50mm but the cashflow from selling helped soften the blow of the zooms).<br>

After two years, I absolutely love my D300 set-up. The D300's autofocus system and higher iso capability is fantastic for indoor sports that I regularly shoot. Glass quality makes a HUGE difference in many situations that I shoot in (low light, candids - depth of field control, wildlife, etc.)<br>

Now that I have good glass, I absolutely love my D300 set-up. If I were in your shoes today, however, and $ was any kind of signficant factor, I would seriously consider the D90 with one really nice pro-zoom. The glass will last for a long time but the D90/D300 will age more quickly. Learn the ropes on the D90 and upgrade if needed in a few years. In the meantime, focus on learning the art of (digital) photography and get a basic set-up of a good tripod, ball-head and lenses. Learning to use light and digital post-processing/editing software will be at least as important as which camera you choose, and probably much more depending on what your goals are.</p>

[eddes]

 

<blockquote>

<p>This will be a huge purchase for me. I have been saving up for a while, and will probably have to save up more if I do decide to go with a 300.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not have a budget right now. I will save as long as I need to before making a purchase.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>R. right now you are dreaming of having a camera not of being a photographer. If you are truly interested in photography, buy what you can afford, today, and go take pictures.</p>

<p>Edmond</p>

<p> </p>

[anders_andersson2]

<p>If money is a concern, I would advice the D90. The D300 is marvellous - hold it once and you will not let go (well, I did not anyhow). However, for practical purposes, image quality and 95% of all situations most hobby photographers get in to , the D90 should do fine.<br>

I have a D300 and a D5000, and very often I grab the D5000 instead of the D300 when I go for a walk. Situations when I feel I need to use the D300: Shooting fast moving things like birds - the D300 has a little more fps. Also when I use lenses that the D5000 cannot take. And then the autofocus of the D300 is visibly better, so for hazy landscapes the D300 works better.</p>