I see that popular photography magazine likes the D90 and says it has a lot of the features of the D300s with a smaller price tag. BUT I also see the Cannon has just come out with a model that has 18mp for about the same money. Do we think that Nikon will have to follow suit and upgrade to 18mp, put LCD on it and keep the price tag down?
I am taking the family on a cruise in January and trying to decide if I should spring for the D90 or keep using my D70 until Nikon keeps up with Cannon. What do you think?
Posted by Luke Ormand on October 21, 2009 at 7:30 PM
Donald,
There was a thread about the D90 vs. D300 recently and I've enclosed the link. I myself just went through the exact same question and chose the D300s which I don't regret one bit. While the D90 apparently has better noise handling and a slightly better sensor, the D300s way more of a pro-style camera and has features that the D90 just can't compete with. I also read the latest popular photography issue and its review of the D300s which of course was favorable but not as favorable as the 7D. If I were you (and in a way, I recently was) I would purchase the D300s. I got mine from best buy with a best buy credit card with 0% financing for 18 months which really takes the sting off of it. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Nikon will be coming out with a camera in the D90-D300s price range anytime soon and the 18MP isn't that big of a deal... it comes in handy mostly with doing excessive cropping or printing poster sizes. Thats just my 2 cents.
Posted by Greg Maklae on October 22, 2009 at 6:03 AM
My thought is that the number of MP's is not the be all and end all of the would, as articles want us to believe, and part us from our $$$. I recently took a workshop with one of the top landscape photographers in the country and he recently upgraded from the 300 to the 300s. He firmly believes that 12 MP is more than enough at his level. On his advise, I am not upgrading for the sake of more MP's. Also saw a review that the D5000 has many of the same features as the D90, for $150 less, more food for thought. The bottom line is how will you be using it, and will it make you a better photographer. Unless you are going to crop an image to 10% its size and the print it as an 11x14, chances are no.
Posted by Larry Fischer on October 22, 2009 at 9:26 AM
I have both the D300 and D700. Need to sell the D300. Of course it depends a lot on your glass, DX or FX. I have a lot of old lenses which are FX and only one Dx.
The D300 takes excellent pics in reasonable light. I think it suffers for wildlife and low light level photography.
I can have faster shutter speeds with high ISO with the D700 for motion-related problems.
The low noise performance at high ISO, in my opinion, simply makes the D700 a better purchase, than the D300.
Pixels???? More pixels increas noise. One should answer, "What is the max. size of the picture I want to print. Do you really need more than 12mp? The D700 is a small verision of the D3 but in the size of the D300. I think it is what the D300 should have been in the first place.
Yes, D700 is more but not that much. Again, depends on your glass investment, the nature of your nature photography (birds are different than landscapes, and well lighted subjects are easier than dim)...
We originally bought our D300's as backups for our D2X's in our pro work. Image quality and features are so good (and the 300 is so much lighter) that now our D2X's are backups for our D300's. The only way to distinguish between images from the two models are that the file numbers are different, and when the lighting is tough, often better. No complaints from clients at all!
We don't own the D90, though we had originally considered it as a backup and borrowed one from a friend. In our hands, the features of the 300 won out. As a part of the "deal" the D90-owning friend got to try our D300's. And now he has SERIOUS camera envy. He's trying to figure out how to afford a D300, with his D90 as a backup. It's not a case of image quality for him, rather it's handling.
Discussion
4 repliesI am taking the family on a cruise in January and trying to decide if I should spring for the D90 or keep using my D70 until Nikon keeps up with Cannon. What do you think?
There was a thread about the D90 vs. D300 recently and I've enclosed the link. I myself just went through the exact same question and chose the D300s which I don't regret one bit. While the D90 apparently has better noise handling and a slightly better sensor, the D300s way more of a pro-style camera and has features that the D90 just can't compete with. I also read the latest popular photography issue and its review of the D300s which of course was favorable but not as favorable as the 7D. If I were you (and in a way, I recently was) I would purchase the D300s. I got mine from best buy with a best buy credit card with 0% financing for 18 months which really takes the sting off of it. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Nikon will be coming out with a camera in the D90-D300s price range anytime soon and the 18MP isn't that big of a deal... it comes in handy mostly with doing excessive cropping or printing poster sizes. Thats just my 2 cents.
- Luke
D90 Vs. D300
The D300 takes excellent pics in reasonable light. I think it suffers for wildlife and low light level photography.
I can have faster shutter speeds with high ISO with the D700 for motion-related problems.
The low noise performance at high ISO, in my opinion, simply makes the D700 a better purchase, than the D300.
Pixels???? More pixels increas noise. One should answer, "What is the max. size of the picture I want to print. Do you really need more than 12mp? The D700 is a small verision of the D3 but in the size of the D300. I think it is what the D300 should have been in the first place.
Yes, D700 is more but not that much. Again, depends on your glass investment, the nature of your nature photography (birds are different than landscapes, and well lighted subjects are easier than dim)...
GO TO THIS SITE FOR COMPARISON:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Nikon
Synopsis:
Low light performance rating----higher being better
D90 = 977
D300 = 679
D700 = 2527
I think you can compare Canon with Nikon, etc at this site.
the fisch
We don't own the D90, though we had originally considered it as a backup and borrowed one from a friend. In our hands, the features of the 300 won out. As a part of the "deal" the D90-owning friend got to try our D300's. And now he has SERIOUS camera envy. He's trying to figure out how to afford a D300, with his D90 as a backup. It's not a case of image quality for him, rather it's handling.