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

[mizore]

<p>In digital cameras, the body is like film. The lenses are where to put the money. Divide the cost of the camera minus what you can sell it for by the number of shutter activations you put on the machine to get the cost of running the camera for you. If you're under $1 a shot, you're cheaper than film.</p>

<p>My thinking on film is that unless you have a passion for film, or a love for old finely made machinery, skip 35mm film. A lot of us older ones learned that way, but digital gives faster feedback.</p>

<p>The other advice you've been given -- going with a compact point and shoot makes sense. I had shot film for a number of years on and off before getting a P&S. That one was stolen and I replaced it with a Nikon Coolpix, which I upgraded to yet another Coolpix a few years later. You'll always have a place in your life for a compact digital camera that takes better photos than a cell phone camera. It's the camera you'll leave under the seat, in your pocket, attache case, waist belt bag, to have on occasions when the bigger camera would be an intrusion (big cameras and light social events tend to be a strange mix).</p>

<p>You'll always have a need for something pocketable, so starting with that first makes sense if you never shot either film or digital before. See if you like taking photographs.</p>

[nanette]

<p>Get the D90. It is virtually the same camera. The D90 is even more comparable to the D300<strong><em>s</em> </strong> because of the video component. The D300 has more fps, a rugged, weather-sealed body and faster AF, but has already been replaced by the D300s.<br>

Forget the D5000 if you want to keep the body for a while, and invest in good glass. GLASS, GLASS, GLASS!<br>

Eventually you may want to go full frame and that's when to spend the $$$.</p>

[thomas_theodoor_cremers]

<p>Stop doubting and get the D90, it's a wonderful camera and you wont miss out on anything. I would suggest to get the D90 with a cheap kitlens. Play around and get a feel for what you want to do. If you're passionate you can buy some extra glass with the money you saved.<br>

When push comes to shove you'll not see the difference between the two cameras when comparing images.<br>

Good luck</p>

[danieljohansson]

<p>I have a D200, bought it in 2006 before the D80 was released. I later said that I would have bought the D80 if it was on the market because of it is possible to take as good pictures with it but for less money. But now I am glad that I choose the D200 because I haven't felt that I have needed to change body yet (but I will probably do that next year for a D400). I have changed my set of lenses several times to fit my interest of shooting though. <br /> <br /> This in concern I would recommend you to buy a used D300 (or a D200), if camera equipments are taken care of well, they will last for many, many years so there is not really any good reason to buy new equipment if you aren’t a pro or money is not a concern. Someone said to aim for less than 1000 shutter activations. I don’t really agree because the D300 will last for around 150.000 shoots so it will probably not be something you need to worry about. <br /> Here is the list I would recommend:<br /> <br /> D300 (1400$) or a D200 (800$)<br /> Nikkor 28-85/3.5-4-5D or 28-105 3,5-4,5D (150$) Or a Sigma 17-70/2,8-4 (300$)<br /> Tokina AT-X 12-24/4 (500$)<br /> Sigma EX 50-150/2,8 (500$)<br /> Tripod (4-section) (100-300$)<br /> Remote control (20$)<br /> Backpack (150$)<br /> Flash (Nikon, Sigma, Dorr, Soligor, Metz… an external rotatable one with a bouncer) (200-400$)<br /> Memory card 8 or 16 gig (100-200$)<br /> <br /> And if you are into seascapes a Cokin P-system and a ND4 or ND8 filter and ND4 gradient filter. This will make you able to darken the sky and make longer exposure times. <br /> <br /> The standard zoomws are sharp and have 1:2 macro. The Tokina wide angle zoom is better then the similar Sigma and cheaper then Nikon original. The tele zoom is perfect for portraits and very nice to handle. The 4-section tripod is small and will be able to attach on your backpack without it being to much in the way. <br /> <br /> The only thing you might miss is more tele for taking bird photos but you could then get a 2x tele extender for the Sigma 50-150. And maybe a 1:1 macro, if that is so the Tamron AF SP 90/2,8 has got the best reviews.</p>

<p>This set will offer good value and you will be ready for almost any situation and the total price will be around 2500-4500$.</p>

<p>The prices are for used equipment in Sweden and may vary a bit in different countries.</p>

<p>Best of luck!<br /> /Daniel<br /> <br /> p.s sorry for my bad English</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>As others have suggested, your investment should be in lenses and not a body. I would go one step further and say buy a second hand body. Before buying ANY camera you should walk into a store that has models you can hold and shoot with in the store. You might find that you don't even enjoy holding and shooting a Nikon and something else; Canon, Sony, Olympus, fits your hands/eyes/shooting style better. That's one of the biggest problems with equipment envy... it quite often leads people to spend massive amounts of money on things they don't even enjoy using.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Not according to dpreview.com: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/page33.asp</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[tveck]

As a starter I bought a D50, now upgraded to a D90, which was a real upgrade. If my D90 would break down, I wouldn't feel myself very limited when using the D50 again. But when my 70-300 ED VR lens breaks down, I would be $%#$%&** to use my other cheap 70-300. So I don't think the body is very important, find yourself a body which has the best feeling in your hands (with considering what you will have left for your lenses).

[sd_woods]

<p>Are you sure you like photography yet? Maybe worth borrowing for a week or two just to see if you do.</p>

[palangat]

<p>"..without any experience with DSLRs (or photography for that matter). Everyone keeps saying the D300 is amazing, but I have been hesitant to purchase it b/c I am an absolute beginner (I wouldn't even call myself that)"<br>

By your own admission being a newbie (or yet to be) to photography, I would like to suggest that you first visit your local photo store and try out what system (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc) suits you best and buy a used DSLR with a moderate zoom lens (18-70 or 24-105) and learn how to take pictures. You do not need a D300 or even a D90 for that matter to learn how to take pictures and to learn the art of photography. It is not that without these cameras you will not be able to take good pictures. Something for you to think about: people have taken stunning images 30-40 yrs ago using SLRs without any 51pt auto focus, all the new fancy metering, 8fps advance, AF lenses or any of the modern bells and whistles found on the D90 or D300. if one bought a D70 or D80 or D200 used, how far behind can it be for a learner?<br>

Once you have got your bearings and think that you want to continue with this passion, you can decide what you want to buy. For all you know, you will find the D300 of no interest to you. Save your $$ for future investment in a camera of your liking and choice and some good glass. <br>

An aside comment: it appears people are giving suggestions without considering that Mr Bonds has no prior experience in photography. Also, giving a big list of gear to buy worth over 2K$ is downright irresponsible.<br>

murali</p>

[jtk]

<p>Nikon FTn. </p>

[johnw63]

<p>Landrum,</p>

<p>I do recall reading that report. However, without pixel peeping, in the hands of a beginner, I doubt the results would be noticeable.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Agreed, John. There are simply too many other variables besides the sensor that affect image quality. Control of many of those can be learned on just about any body. </p>

<p>I actually find the arguments to get good lenses to be the most compelling, but the most important thing is probably to get a good combo that won't break the bank. In any case, new digital bodies are coming out all the time. Lenses can be lifetime investments.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[heartyfisher]

<p>R. D90 is the camera for you. Those who say they got the D300/d200 as a first camera and have no regrets generally were fairly experienced film photographers. for an "absolute beginner" then the D5000 or D3000 would suit however if you are really keen to progress with this craft ( and it sounds like you are, you are taking courses , great idea!) a D90 will be much more suitable for you. There is a lot to learn and the D90 will be able to ease you into the technical details. It allows for all the manual/ semi auto exposure options. but it also allow you to relax with the auto mode options..</p>

<p>For a Pro who knows every detail of what they want to achieve in term of exposure, shutter speed, ISO, aperture, saturation. The D300s with Raw will provide them with the ability to very quickly make those changes. Some one said that a the d90 will provide capability of a D300 for the 95% situations a beginner will get into.Give 2 beginners a D90 and a D300s and i say the one with the D90 will get better results 95% of the time!</p>

<p>R. Cameras will be out of date in in a few years. Get the D90 its a great camera to learn with. You have those wonderful picture modes on the D90. Spend time learning how to duplicate the results from those modes manually. Once you can do that. You will be ready for the D300 or other pro level cameras. For a beginner the D90 is not restrictive, it provides more value to a beginner than the D300s. Learning this complex craft can get frustrating at times. Once you get frustrated with doing it manually on the D90 just switch to one of those modes and relax and enjoy the making of pictures.</p>

<p>Good luck with your choices.. Ms Bond.</p>

[john_flores2]

<p>Buying a D300 as your first SLR is like buying a Corvette right after getting your driver's license - you'll be able to brag about it in the bar, but you won't be able to drive the car to anywhere near it's full potential.<br>

The D90 is smarter money.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Well Mr. Bond, after all the replies you've gotten I don't know if this will be more of the same or not. I have a D300, and its a wonderful camera in most respects. It has far more features than I ever wanted or needed, and is a little complex. Having said that, you don't have to use features you don't care about, and if your one of the gadget infatuated types I'm sure you'll learn you're way around the camera quickly. I'm not so it took me a little while, but not so long that it would have scared me off if I had known. Now here's the interesting bit. The D90 is but for build quality, actually, a slightly superior camera to the D300 because its newer, and because improvements in digital are so rapid. I'm not saying its significantly better, but its sensors dxo results are slightly better. Its dynamic range is improved over the D300 which is already better than most cameras in highlight range. The build quality is the only thing I can think of that's important that you'll be giving up if you get the D90. Its not as if the D90 is a piece of plastic either, it a well put together robust camera, and a bit less complex. With the rate at which dslrs improve these days, almost any camera will be a dinosaur in 5 years, and a D90 is certainly strong enough to last longer than that unless you are particularly hard on your cameras. pith</p>

[mizore]

<p>I'd suggest asking the person teaching your class. Here you get what you pay for. :)</p>

<p>If you've never taken photos before, not even with a cell phone, and you're over 18, and if you can take the class with a small Point and Shoot digital which allows you to use manual as an option (and those can be had for around $140 or so), then save most of the money and see if you actually like photography. If photography makes you really happy, my Hasselblad outshoots my D300. People who really love photography will want to play with view cameras, medium format, 35mm film, digital. Digital is cheapest to learn on, but Point & Shoot digitals are even cheaper than DSLRs if you don't know yet whether you're going to become a photographer.</p>

<p>Cameras are cool machines if you like electronic toys, but if you don't have large amounts of disposable income, you need to have a real drive to take pictures to make spending several thousand dollars on camera gear worth it emotionally. Digital cameras and late model electronic cameras crash in value after two or three years, so you're not going to get money out of it when you sell it (compared to used classic film gear where the prices dropped drastically years ago, but are remaining relatively stable over the last couple years). If you shoot 10,000 shots or more with a DSLR, the camera more than pays for itself against the cost of film. If you buy this expensive machine and don't use it often and let it sit around for a few years while its value drops, then you'd have been better off getting something cheap and small that you could use occasionally without sinking thousands of dollars into the project.</p>

<p>Do a Flickr search for D90, D300, and D40, D60, and D50, see if the difference in the photos would be worth $700 or $800 to you. Now is a great time to get a used D300, but you would still be spending $1200 for a camera that will be worth more like $300 or $400 in two years time. If you don't use it because it's too heavy to carry easily (I don't casually carry mine around), then you're out the money. If you could live with a used D50, those will focus with older AF lenses that don't have motors inside (the 50mm D F/1.8 is a classic little lens that won't work with later consumer grade Nikons but which will work with the D50). And you could get a D50 and that little 50mm lens for $390. KEH has used D50 bodies for $254 in excellent plus condition; the 50mm lens new is around $130, or get the new 35mm DX lens for $200, total $454 plus shipping and handling. The 50mm lens on a DX camera acts like a 70mm portrait lens; the 35mm DX lens would be like very slightly wide normal lens on DX. IR remote shutter release will be around $16 (far cheaper than the electronic cable shutter release for the D90 and D300)</p>

<p>Then, <em>if</em> you like photography, get the 16-85mm for the walk about lens and start saving for a really good tripod and head. </p>

<p>Every bit of advice you've been given is coming from people who happily drop $3,000 to $10,000 on camera gear when they have money, and who trade cameras when they don't. If you're going to fall that in love with photography, get the D300 used and some old manual Nikon lenses and be happy now. If you're not sure, don't.</p>

<p>Absent some priors with art in some form, I don't think you can know what your love for photography will or won't be. A reasonable point and shoot that does manual should run around $150 to $200. The D50 set-up would be a little over twice that. If you find that photography isn't your passion, then you'll have a camera for casual snaps. </p>

<p>If photography becomes your passion, what you spend on your first camera body is not going to be all that relevant. Put the money in the serious tripod and ball head, a first rate <em>comfortable for you</em> camera bag (I've got a ThinkTank Speed Freak and a little Domke that will work as a belt bag, plus a regular day pack that will hold three cameras and lenses, plus three other bags I got cheap, free, or a long time ago). Shoot your first camera into the ground, then you can upgrade to the next better thing.</p>

<p>If you've been doing something visual earlier -- drawing, painting, designing your own embroidery -- then you probably are likely to fall in love with photography. If you love gear and computers, you'll probably fall in love with cameras more than the taking of pictures (a metric ton of people use photos as a way of testing cameras). If you love both, you'll be with us in spending all discretionary income on gear. But if you've never been involved in either, maybe you shouldn't spend all of your discretionary income on a camera right off the bat. <br>

If you need a DSLR for the class, that's that, but if you don't, consider a decent P&S and buy a DSLR or whatever after you know more what kind of photography you want to do and how much of it. Perhaps a P&S will be more than enough.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is that the D300 is a big conspicuous camera. Smaller cameras attract less attention. I've got a spare D300 strap if you simply want to look conspicuous (every camera I have is on an OpTek strap).</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_trunks]

<p>Just curious as to why so many people rate the D90 as a D300 without the bells and whistles?<br>

How can the 10.8 Mb photos from a D90 be the same quality as 25.4Mb picture files from a D300? A statement i see all to often.<br>

Sorry if you think im hijacking the thread, but im sure Mr Bond will be interested in your responses.<br>

I happen to own a D90, a D300s and a D700. I regularly compare the prformance of the D300S to the D700 and often (unless pixel peeping) cant see any difference and yes im very well aware of the low light performance differences two. As for comparing a D90 to a D300 Unless i just got a bad one (D90)IMHO the 2 cameras should NEVER be compared because they arent even in the same ball park.<br>

My two cents worth<br>

Cheers all</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Dave, turning off the losless compression, and using 14 bits (which only shows real benefits if you need to edit pretty hefty afterwards) accounts for the difference in filesize. Does that make better pictures or higher quality? Sure not. <br>

If your D90 is far off from your D300, then yeah, something is wrong with the D90. Check some reviews. Pretty much all of them sets the D90 is the same ballpark as the D300 or better, as far as image quality is concerned.</p>

<p>So, yeah, the D90 IS a D300 without some bells and whistles. Whether one needs the bells or whistles is a personal decision, but for a total beginner, I'd always favour the simplicity of a D90 which is more helpful in learning to take pictures.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As Wouter points out, the D90's RAW files are always lossy-compressed at 12 bits. I have carefully studied 12 vs. 14-bit capture as well as compressed vs. uncompressed RAW on the D300 and other DSLRs, and I find it extremely difficult to spot any difference. Moreover, if you use 14-bit capture, the D300 and D300S drop to 2.5 frames/sec, so I rarely use 14 bit on those cameras.</p>

<p>The main differences between the D300(S) and D90 are:</p>

<ul>

<li>the better build</li>

<li>much better AF system with the Multi-CAM 3500</li>

<li>faster frame rate</li>

<li>the ability to meter with non-CPU lenses.</li>

</ul>

<p>If one mainly shoots static subjects and doesn't need AF under dim light, the D90 should provide results that are very similar to the D300/D300S. While I haven't tested the D90, I have tested a D5000 extensively. The D5000 shares most of the electronics with the D90 and can produce very similar results to the D300/D300S in non-action photography.</p>

[danieljohansson]

<p>Mr Bond, to explain my previous posting a bit more. You said you want a camera to grow with and don't want to change system in a short time. Then I believe the D300 or a D200 is a good choice because it allows you to do that. Because money is a concern and you need to save and you are a beginner I think a second hand D200 or D300 and the Sigma 17-70 would give you a very good start. You could take landscapes, interior, architectur, portrait, macros and lots of other shoots with this equipment only for a fairly small budget. Other equipments you feel that you need you can just add later when you can afford.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>Where is the OP? Has he/she bought anything yet? We just keep writing and got no response from the OP, all the discussion on just two cameras ...</p>

[mizore]

<p>My current F3 used to be my brother's Cool Toy; my D300 with fewer than 500 shutter activations was obviously either a stage in someone's pursuit of the Latest and Shiniest or a Cool Toy (the store hinted that it was traded in for a D700); my F100 and at least a couple of my used lenses appear to have been Cool Toys of their days. I love people who can afford it going for the Cool Toys and the Latest and Shiniest; more good used gear out there.</p>

<p>However, if money is a concern, what to consider is how much of a loss $1000 will be if photography doesn't turn out to be a significant part of the OP's life. That's why I advised something cheaper for the body and putting the money into one or two good lenses if that's significant money for the OP. If walking away from $450 would be financially painful, then the P&S if if it's okay with the class's teacher.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Where is the OP? Has he/she bought anything yet? We just keep writing and got no response from the OP, all the discussion on just two cameras ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't be surprised that the OP has tuned out a long time ago. As I pointed out earlier, she(?) posted a similar question a month ago: <a rel="nofollow" href="../nikon-camera-forum/00UstM">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UstM</a>.<br>

Back then she was considering between the D5000 and D90. Now she has shifted to between the D90 and D300(S). I would imagine that a D90 is well within her price range as the OP has thought thru it over a few weeks.</p>

<p>Sometimes thinking too much and getting too many different advices is not exactly helpful.</p>

[dave_trunks]

<p>Thanks for you responses people. Appearently there were some bad D90s sold so i must have got one. I was extremely hesitant buying a D300s based on the fact that the picture quality was alledgedly the same based on my experience with the D90 (or at least my D90 that is) but after using the D300s, i couldnt be happier with it. To the point where i only bring out the D700 for weddings and low light situations now. That definitly sheds some light on a problem that has perplexed me for some time now.<br>

I got a lemon!!!<br>

Cheers all</p>

[fred_mackintosh]

<p>For me, a HUGE advantage of one of the serious SLRs (D200, 300, 700) over the consumer ones is the old lenses! There are some great old/manual lenses out there. I almost never wind up using the modern "chipped" lenses. And, with a 90, that is all you can use, no? </p>