Nikon D90 to D300

[Mossy]

Sell my D90, and buy a used D300 for an extra £100.

Discuss.

[Felipe]

Hard to tell you anythig. You don't give us many clues. There are no better or worse cameras, there are just cameras more suitable for some users than others. Just watch this to see what I mean: http://www.chasejarvis.com/index.php...0&p=5&a=0&at=0

So we need to know what kind of a photographer you are. Do you need the camera to work with? How often do you use it? For which purposes?

The one sure thing is that you spent £100 to loose some image quality (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...(brand2)/Nikon.) But you got other things, of course.

[Mossy]

Yeah, I know, I was just hoping to avoid making lists...

I guess the main thing I'd want from it are:

- Better weather sealing, I'm going to some rather humid/dusty places this summer.
- Use with AIS lenses - they are usually much cheaper second hand than the AF ones.

The better AF is handy but I don't do much sports.

OTOH, I don't use things like movie mode on the D90 much.

Mostly I like to shoot landscapes rather than people.

[crisscross]

I imagine that the D90 is largely a stripped down version of the D300 (with video added, seems crazy) as the D80 I use is a stripped down version of the D200.

The more expensive versions have much stronger cases and are physically much larger; you have to look at the small print and reviews (bythom?) to see if there is anything else being gained for the £100. I think the D300 seemed faster focussing, I saw a guy* successfully following swallows in flight and he does professional cycling pics, and I think has a faster continuous shooting rate. * http://www.derekbphotography.co.uk/

For me the smaller size of the D80/90 is decisive as it goes into a holster bag with 80-400VR attached leaving back free for day-bag and muscles freer for fell and cliff walking.

[Felipe]

Well, if you wanted a stronger/better built body and capability of using AI-S lenses, well done, you needed a D300.

[eNo]

Mossy: the AI-S metering capability would be tempting for me, but even though I could afford it, the D90 was the right fit for me. I'm getting pretty good at prejudging exposure (sometimes I even do it in spite or whatever information I get when using AF(S) lenses), and all the other extra D300 features are just overkill for me. Weather sealing? I generally don't shoot in driving rain storms, so that's not a biggy for me. I'm sure things will change if I ever turn pro.

The D90 lets me focus on the main three exposure settings (aperture, shutter, ISO), and do so quickly, so that I have little use for anything else. And when it comes to low-noise, high ISO performance -- the top reason I got the D90 even though I already had the D80 -- the D90 and D300 are virtually indistinguishable, though some would swear the D90 is a smidgeon better.

eNo
http://esfotoclix.com

[Mossy]

In the end I didn't upgrade, since I figured I may as well work to get my technique up to scratch first. Also I just dropped about £100 on filters so maybe I should start using them first!

[StudioSachin]

But unfortunatly both are not full frame camera.

[Mossy]

That's true, but I wouldn't be able to afford the FF lenses either...

[Colin Southern]

But unfortunatly both are not full frame camera.

Crop-factor cameras can be a blessing - or a curse - or make no difference, depending on the lenses you have and the type of shooting that you like to do.

As an example, if you and I go out into the wild and photograph some distant animals - you take a 1.5x crop factor camera and a 400mm lens - I take my full frame camera, but I'll need a far more expensive 600mm lens to get the same field of view as you. So if you're a "long shooter" (one who shoots telephoto) then crop factors are a blessing.

However, the price to pay is in the height and width of the field of view ... if I want to capture a scene that only just fits into view on a 16mm lens then you'll need to get a 10mm lens to be able to capture the same scene - in this regards the crop factor can work against you.

3rd example - if we both want to photograph Miss universe when she comes to visit us and you have a 50mm lens and I have an 85mm lens then the crop-factor is neither here nor there.

There's also a small difference in DoF, but again, that can either work for you or against you (or be of no consequence).

[Bill44]

Totally agree with what Colin has said. I use a D90 which is "Crop frame", but I do mostly telephoto work so this works to my advantage and saves me a lot on lenses. Any of the other work I do can be handled by my lenses as I don't do any really wide work.

For an equal number of pixels the FF sensors are a little better with noise at the extreme iso's, but quite frankly I can't quite grasp what the big drool is over FF cameras.

[Colin Southern]

For an equal number of pixels the FF sensors are a little better with noise at the extreme iso's, but quite frankly I can't quite grasp what the big drool is over FF cameras.

I shoot with a FF camera - and to be honest, more often than not it works against me in that often it would be nice to have an extra 60% reach. At the wide angle end I can go all the way out to 14mm, but I hardly ever use it ... it's just too wide. Traditionally I've been a wide shooter (when doing landscape), but I'm finding that it's actually easier shooting a little longer - the decreased field of view means than distracting elements in the background are easier to eliminate, and forground shot anchors really don't change one heck of a lot on most occasions.

I'm still selling shots taken with a 24-70mm lens on a 1.6x crop-factor 20D