D90 vs D300s

martinturner

martinturner

martinturner

Associate
Joined
27 Jun 2007
Posts
1,777
I am contemplating a camera upgrade in the near future. The two cameras that immediately spring to mind are the D90 or the D300S. Ideally I would want a D700, but just do not have the cash. I am also sticking with Nikon.

I recall a website where you could just pull up both camera specs and do easy side by side comparisons? Anyone remember what its called.

Is the D300S is 'worth' double the money of the D90? The D90 is about £629 vs £1200 (body only prices; as not interested in the kit lens)

:)
 
I don't have a D300s, but do own both a D90 and D300.

Something I've been thinking about for quite a while, and putting aside the 'backup body' argument, is could I just sell both my bodies and get a D300s?

My own views of the D90 vs the D300 are that the D300 is a very nice bit of kit, highly customisable, robust, and nearly 8fps with the grip, but that the D90 has the better sensor with a higher dynamic range and of course has video (something which the D300s now has of course).

I purchased the D300 mainly for its fps capability for birds in flight/motorsport/aircraft shots, and the D90 because I fancied a bit of video. In hindsight, the video capability is something I haven't really touched very much, but I suppose it's a nice to have.

The D90 isn't exactly slow at 4.5fps, and I don't miss the 51 focus points of the D300 as I usually have the D300 set to 9 or 21 anyway!

Honestly, if I was buying again knowing what I use my kit for, I would be more than happy with a D90. If you had to force me to keep just two bits of kit (for some bizarre reason!), then it would be the D90 and Nikon 70-300 VR lens, which would cover 90% of my photography needs.

One area where the D300s will score over the D90 in my opinion is the ability to change important settings (ISO/Focus Points/Metering etc) using switches on the camera body rather than having to press a button and use a scroll wheel on the D90. A small thing I suppose, but one I find quite irritating when switching between bodies!

But, everybody is different, and whether you think a D300s is worth double the D90 will depend on what value you put on each cameras features.

My next move I think will be to change the D300 for a D700, but keep the D90 for the 'crop factor' and video.

Sorry, I can't help with the review website you seek, but I find the Nikon website as good as anywhere to compare the features. :)
 
Last edited:
HI Martin if memory serves me your shooting with a D40 so if you like the size of the D40 then get the D90 (Just a down sized D300 bar a few bits) or if you want a better and bigger body then I would give the D300s a miss and get a second hand D300 (about £700-£750). My brother is selling his D300 and its mint with box etc. D700 is a fantastic bit of kit but to see it really sing you have to spend a few ££££ on good glass. I used a D300 for a few months and could not fault it and only moved up to a D3 because I work hard for a few months with work.
 
Cheers guys; thanks for all your advice.

Yes, I am currently using a D40. For me, most of my photography is either landscape or macro; throwing in the odd bit of architecture from time to time. Am not really in to nature/sports/portrait photography, mainly due to not having the funds to do it well, and also because it does not really interest me.

I think I get good results with my D40, but the areas my camera falls down currently are; hence possible upgrade

6mp sensor; I cannot blow any of my shots up larger than A4 (give or take)
No autobracketing
No motor in the body - really want a 50mm; although going to get a 1.4 anyway so not so much a problem for me
3 point autofocus can be a bit rubbish
ISO 200 is the lowest it can go, although not sure if thats better on a D90.
Better handling in lower light.
Detail (even with a good lens, its not quite as good as I think it should be)

The D90 is really jumping out at me. I just wondered whether that little push to the next best thing is a worthy one. I am getting the impressions its not.

Had a look at dpreview before I posted and sure it had a compare; just could not find it, will take another look.

Cheers guys :-)
 
Last edited:
I went from a D40 to a D90 for a few reasons.

- no motor in body (50mm 1.8 is a great little lens but fed up trying to manually focus all the time on the D40)
- quiet fancied the video option as having a 1 year old at the time, video seemed like a decent idea to combine both camera and video.
- felt much more like a proper camera in your hand!
- great, even stunning performance @ 1600/3200ISO on the D90
- the 70-300mmVR on the D40 just felt wrong! IT feels like it belongs on the D90 type camera.

For me the D300 was not even in the thinking becuase at the moment i am purely a beginner with cameras and paying £1200 or so for a D300 was just not in the ballpark.

Can't give you any reason for the D300 as i've never played with one but the D90 is a stunning camera for the price.
 
I think if I was you I would skip the D300s and get a D300 (£750 second hand) with a 17-55 f2.8 (£500 second hand) total £1300 and you got one serious bit of kit for land scape. The only next step up from this would be a D3/D700 and the 24-70 f2.8.
 
The D90 will be a step up in all departments from your D40.

ISO200 is still the 'base' ISO for the D90 (as with all recent Nikons actually!), but it is expandable to ISO 100-6400, and I find the images produced at ISO3200 perfectly useable with a bit of processing. At ISO1600, I find it outperforms the D300, although it will of course be the same as on a D300s.

The focus and metering systems on the D90 are top notch, and I don't think you'll have problems in low light. The 3 inch screen is a delight, and the live view is also quite easy to use compared to previous Nikon efforts.

If it were me, and taking into account what you've said your photography interests are, then a D90 and a Nikon 16-85mm VR would be calling to me. The 16-85 is a great lens, capable of capturing detail as well as the £1k 17-55 (and I have both), is wide enough for landscapes, but importantly has a very close minimum focus distance meaning it's possible to work in a Macro like way. You won't get the extreme close ups a dedicated macro lens will give you, but it's still very capable in this area.

I think the push to a D300s would be taking money away from lenses to be honest.

Good luck with whatever you get anyway! :)
 
Willis said:
I think if I was you I would skip the D300s and get a D300 (£750 second hand) with a 17-55 f2.8 (£500 second hand) total £1300 and you got one serious bit of kit for land scape. The only next step up from this would be a D3/D700 and the 24-70 f2.8.
Click to expand...

Sounds really good; although the purchase will no doubt be made on a 0% card which I would snap and just pay back, hence new over second hand. I already have the 17-50 2.8 Tamron which I think absolutely rocks! And yes, the D3/700 with 24-70 would be very nice.

:)
 
I'm also starting to consider the D90 over a D300s but I'm worried about the AF motor speed. The difference in motor speed between my old D50 and D200 when using AF lenses was huge and I wouldn't want to lose that.

Can anyone here compare the speed between the D90 and D300/s?

The whole 'flashback' offer also makes the D300s a better option, it would effectively bring the price down to £820-900 depending on what I can sell the SB-900 for.

But then the weight and bulk of the my D200 is beginning to be a drag, the lighter D90 would be nice. But then I lose out on the 'pro body' street cred when out shooting! argh!
 
I currently own a D90 which was my first serious camera, I must say Im very impressed with it, although the other day I noticed that I had a few dead pixels on my pictures :(
 
The important thing when choosing is knowing whether you will be able to buy the right glass for the camera. I would rather have the D90 + 17-55 2.8 than a D300s and a 18-105!
 
D.P. said:
The important thing when choosing is knowing whether you will be able to buy the right glass for the camera. I would rather have the D90 + 17-55 2.8 than a D300s and a 18-105!
Click to expand...

I think I am going to get a D90 body only, as I already have a 17-50 2.8 Tamron which for me is the perfect lens. Will be early new year though :)
 
From my POV as a (happy) D90 owner, one of the D300s's major advantages is the 100% viewfinder. It's major disadvantage is the extra 235 grams it weighs. I'm very tempted by the flashback offer as an extra SB-900 would be useful but I'm trying hard to fight it off......

A D90 and 16-85mm is an excellent combination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom