Nikon D300 vs D90 + glases

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>No, what Andy said (in my reading) is not that the D90 is better than the D300, however it tends to be better value for money. The D300 is a very solid high-performance camera, that costs more because it's built like a tank and offers high end features. The D90 is a very solid camera that typically costs half....<br>

Since you already have a Tamron 17-50, which camera do you currently own, and what is wrong with it? What are the reasons to get a new camera, it can help to see if in your specific case the D300 could be worth the extra money.</p>

<p><em>(and agreed on NOT getting the AF-D 50 f/1.8; it's not a great lens and it will do the same thing as your Tamron lens at 50mm; the new AF-S 85 f/1.8G would make a more logical addition<strong> IF</strong> you need something longer than 50mm)</em></p>

[catalin_george]

<p>I don't have any camera now. So i need to decide what to choose. So, D90 or D300, i wish d300 for better autofocus..</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for shooting events and action the d300 is a lot better than the d90. there's very little upside to the d90 besides the fact they can still be bought new. IQ is the same but d300 is much more full-featured. i'd check the shutter count on a used one before purchasing, however. also, as andy pointed out, 85 gives you much more options than a 50/1.8, esp. if you already have 17-50/2.8. </p>

[catalin_george]

<p>Yes, the 85mm is pretty nice, but i don't have fund.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Then get the D300 for the better AF and hold off on buying new lenses. The price difference isn't that huge, and you can use your 17-50. Just be sure to buy from a reputable source and check the camera out thoroughly. A used D300 could be 6 years old, and you don't where it's been.</p>