Should I buy Nikon D300s?

[mart_e]

<p>Just a few thoughts.</p>

<p>I use a D90 and a variety of lenses for landscape and more recently some wildlife photography. I looked at the D300 when I purchased my D90 - and spent a long while before coming down in favour of the D90. My main reason, was the cost difference - which more or less covered the price of a 12-24DX. Since that time I haven't had cause to wish that I had gone for the D300. I'm not saying that there are no differences between the cameras, just that for me - I haven't encountered anything that I couldn't work around.</p>

<p>Weather sealing - some precautions will go a long way to ensuring the camera is not exposed to damaging conditions.</p>

<p>The AutoFocusing - the D90 has been adequate for me. I have found that the longer(affordable) lenses have more impact on the focusing than the camera (limitations at f5.6 for eg leading to focus-hunting) - but then I tend to use centre focusing. I don't shoot sports, so the quicker focusing hasn't been a real requirement. Tracking birds in flight with the D90 has also been fine.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[nsibulo]

<p>Greg,<br>

I think Nikon D 300 or Nikon D300s will be a good choice. It has a capability of doing 1000 different good things. Right now, I am taking photgraphy class to learn more on apertures, speed and others. I am still in the process of learning the different dials and buttons of this camera and so far I love the end product from it.</p>

[riley_s1]

<blockquote>

<p>More like a Five Hundred Dollar difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oops, clearly I'm blind. That price was for the D90 with a 70-300. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>

[philip_ashley]

<p>Gregory, I don't know why people are telling you the D300s is a good buy at $1,400, or even for $1,900, when its an even better buy new for $1,500 at B & H Photo ?</p>

[markjordan]

<p>Currently on Amazon.com which I find the majority of the time has the lowest prices and shipping these are the prices: D90 $779.95, D300 $1912.95 (why!), D300s $1499 </p>

[markjordan]

<p>To quote DPReview:<br />(Sample images show that the D300 produces sharper jpeg and raw images at 100% pixel view than the D90) "Unfortunately, for those people hoping that the D90 would effectively be a half-price D300, the RAW results appear consistent with those from the JPEGs. Although the underlying silicon is likely to be closely related, it's not necessarily safe to assume that it shares the D300's multi-channel read-out, or downstream processing componentry (Nikon's Expeed branding doesn't refer to a specific processor). Most importantly, there is nothing to suggest that the D90 shares the same low-pass filter assembly (which can be more expensive than the sensor itself and would be an obvious place to reduce costs for a camera in this price-bracket), which would explain the difference in per-pixel-sharpness we see here."</p>

[seancrane]

<p>I'm a wildlife guy and have a D700, D300 and D40x. Of these three, I use the D300 the most. Actually, I don't use the D40x at all anymore. I used to carry it as a backup because of its small size but the sensor is clearly not as good as the D300. The reason I reach for the D300 more than the D700 is the crop factor which gets me closer to far off wildlife (which is what I shoot most often). I love the D700, as well, and use it mostly for landscapes and when I'm very close to wildlife or shooting people and require the widest focal lengths. It's also a bit better than the D300 in low light, although the D300 is still excellent. As for the D90, does it have a pin for a remote release? I could be wrong, but I don't think so, which if you want to shoot HDR can be an issue. Also, as for the sensor, I've been reading that the D300s has improved image quality over the D300, which obviously also puts it ahead of the D90. Good luck, I'd go for the D300s if you can swing it.</p>

[mart_e]

<p>Mark - the D300 is obviously a better camera than the D90 - that's reflected in the price. It's a question really of horses for courses, and spreading that dosh across whatever camera ticks the boxes. In my personal experience the difference in sharpness of the sensor is probably a bit further down the list of causes to lack of crispness after technique and lens. So for me the D90 was the best fit.</p>

<p>Not saying the D300s isn't the camera to go for in this case - just that the D90 is worth looking at if the price differential is significant given any budget constraints.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[annelkinsphotography]

<p>Investing in additional lense would serve you better. I purchased a D300 and feel like I really did not need the D300. </p>

[anand_dhupkar]

<p>Ann - you are having an interesting point here, you feel like you really did not need D300. Curious, what camera you have been using before that ? </p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>In the words of the commercial, "<em>Just do it!</em> " It's what you want, and don't let anyone here stop you.</p>

<p>You'll get lenses as you need them.</p>

<p>The D300's versatility in set up ability to be four different camera's at button click, virtually no lens limitations, old or new, its toughness, focusing accuracy and speed, and its handling make it a natural.</p>

<p>If you go for the D90, don't worry. It's a little more immediately available lens money. Besides, all of these digital bodies become obsolete in a few years. Which one do you want to live with for a few years. I got the D300 as an upgrade from the D70s, and I have not looked back.</p>

<p> </p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I shoot mainly wildlife/landscape/nature in low light near sunrise and sunset times and will be doing HDR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beside camera, you really need to think about lenses first. You don't have a wide angle zoom, such as the 10-20 or 12-24, and these are another $600 or $400. On the long end, you may want to consider the 80-400 VR zoom, which is about $1200. </p>

<p>D300/s and D90 essentially have the same sensor, so its ISO performance and DR should be nearly identical. I am thus not sure why you want to consider a D300s but not a D90. The D300s has better AF, which is critical if you shoot/AF track moving objects a lot, but the AF in the D90 is very good. The D300s is weather-sealed but then none of your lens is weather sealed so what is the point? There are gears that one can buy to protect your camera/lens in bad weather. Mind you that D300s is not weather "proof" so you do need to shoot in downpour, you need to protect the D300 as well.</p>

[gregory_scarcell]

<p>I have a $600 Gitzo tripod and the $455 Really Right Stuff head. I love this set up!</p>

[gregory_scarcell]

<p>THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR THE INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS! I read all responses and each of you are knowledgeable. What I have learned here has nicely supplemented my own research. <br>

I am going with the D300s.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>I've seen this late. I shoot sport so I would recommend the D300s (I own a D200 and D300). When I upgraded from the D200 I did look at the D90 as a possible alternative, thereby directing more money toward lenses. But the deciding factor for me at the time was the faster AF and burst rate on the D300 (plus a range of other "nice-to-have but not essntial" improvements), a decision I have not regretted.<br>

The only thing that would lure me into buying a third upgrade into the DX format would be to have the D3s high ISO performance in DX format (at current or better pixel resolution) - now that would make me very happy!</p>