Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Camera Manufacturers > Nikon > Nikon D90 or D300

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Nikon D90 or D300

 
 
Samantha Booth
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-26-2009, 03:11 PM
I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.

I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300 takes
much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.

HELP!!!

Thanks

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-26-2009, 03:53 PM
"Samantha Booth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:glkjqn$l43$(E-Mail Removed)...

> I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
> apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
> Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
> takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think
> 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses
> being £289.


If you don't know which one you want, get the D90.

D300 won't take better pictures; it will just take them faster.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-26-2009, 04:28 PM
"Ockham's Razor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-sjc.supernews.net...

> Faster than HD video?


Video and photography are two different species.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-26-2009, 09:29 PM
Paul Furman wrote:
> Samantha Booth wrote:
>> I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>>
>> I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few
>> pounds apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in
>> another Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as
>> the D300 takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense
>> I think 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon
>> Lenses being £289.

>
> My understanding is the D90 takes better pictures, though probably only
> very slightly. The D300 has more manual controls on the body, meters
> with old manual lenses & is bigger & tougher built.
>

To quote DPReview:
(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."

OTOH Dx0 test seems to show that the sensor dynamic range (raw) for the
D90 is slightly improved over the D300.

Neither of those observations will necessarily equate to "better
pictures", and the differences are very minor anyway.

IMO some of the main differences are:
D300 51 point AF system with 15 "cross-type" sensors vs 11 point AF
system with 1 "cross-type" sensor, and AF-ON button separate from
shutter release.
AF fine tuning.
100% viewfinder vs 96%
"1 click" review on back LCD to view that can be set to show 100% pixel
view - automatically zoomed to selected focus point (if any).
Better exposure metering system (1005 vs 420 point), plus metering will
function with non-chipped lenses (mainly older manual focus lenses).
D300 has a more rugged body - but extra weight.
D90 has "scene" modes (portrait/action/landscape etc) which can be a
useful feature, especially if shooting jpeg.






 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-26-2009, 10:15 PM
Dimitris M wrote:
> I suggest you the D90.
>
> D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take better
> photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is more easy,
> light, comfortable, compact.



This "D90 takes a little better photos" thing is a remarkable comment:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
That's samples from an actual photo taken in well controlled studio test
conditions, and a plausible explanation for what is observed. OTOH
Imaging Resource ran some tests using scientific methods that they
devised (DxO also did something similar) which show that dynamic range
of the D90 is slightly better than the D300, but also that raw files
from the Nikon D40x are "better" for dynamic range than the D3, Canon
1Ds Mk III, and CAnon 1D Mk III. You can choose to use your eyes, or to
believe supposedly scientific tests which contradict what you can
clearly see with your own eyes.

To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also a
theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which can
actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to extreme
post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but this is also
effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world photography.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-26-2009, 11:29 PM
Paul Furman wrote:
> Me wrote:
>> Dimitris M wrote:
>>> I suggest you the D90.
>>>
>>> D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take better
>>> photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is more
>>> easy, light, comfortable, compact.

>>
>>
>> This "D90 takes a little better photos" thing is a remarkable comment:
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
>> That's samples from an actual photo taken in well controlled studio
>> test conditions, and a plausible explanation for what is observed.
>> OTOH Imaging Resource ran some tests using scientific methods that
>> they devised (DxO also did something similar) which show that dynamic
>> range of the D90 is slightly better than the D300,

>
> That's what I was thinking of. And just that each new model tends to
> perform better in various ways - which is a very general observation,
> perhaps not applicable in this case. I use both D200 & D700 side by side
> now and notice many improvements like the LCD preview is a heck of a lot
> faster & the zooming design is much improved, memory card door improved,
> etc. And look at the sensor performance between D200 & D300, or any
> comparable models separated by release date. Big improvements from the
> D70 to D200, though I never used side by side.
>
>> but also that raw files from the Nikon D40x are "better" for dynamic
>> range than the D3, Canon 1Ds Mk III, and CAnon 1D Mk III.

>
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...(brand3)/Nikon
>
> That shows:
> model sensor DR ISO
> D70 50.2 10.3 529
> D40 56.2 11 561
> D80 61.1 11.2 583
> D200 64.2 11.5 583
> D300 66.6 12 679
> D90 72.6 12.5 977
> A900 78.9 12.3 1431
> 5D II 79 11.9 1815
> D700 80.5 12.2 2303
>
>> You can choose to use your eyes, or to believe supposedly scientific
>> tests which contradict what you can clearly see with your own eyes.

>
> The dpreview comparison in the link above is default jpegs.
>

No - it's raw. A similar difference in detail/accutance is seen on
jpegs with the comment : "The RAW results appear consistent with those
from the JPEGs"
People argue endlessly on forums about "quality" or "sharpness" of
lenses with much less visible difference than seen there.

The DxO "DR" figure isn't indicative of what you get. For a start, if a
d70 has 10.3 stops of usable DR, then I'll eat my dog's bean bag. The
figure seems not to take into account "usable" DR. ie they rank the
Pentax K20d as "better" than the old model Canon 5d. The K20d has
relatively terrible usable DR, but the old Canon 5d is really quite
good. Here's a view (and from a Pentax fan) on that:
http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/K20D/pg3.html#dr
But also put in perspective the subjective assessment that he feels he
can boost K20d raw images by "only" 2.5 stops (vs 4 for D300 or Canon
40d). Unless you are doing special effects - or can't use the exposure
meter in your camera, how often do you need to boost (ie tone mapping)
more than one or two stops maximum?

>
>> To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also a
>> theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which can
>> actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to
>> extreme post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but this
>> is also effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world photography.

>
> I agree about 14 bit. And that comes at a cost of file size.
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
John
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-27-2009, 12:57 AM

The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
D90.

The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
for you.

I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
lense choices the make that you need to focus on.

If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
D300.

Happy shooting
John

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>
>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300 takes
>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
>
>HELP!!!
>
>Thanks

 
Reply With Quote
 
Samantha Booth
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-27-2009, 01:13 AM

"John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
> If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
> D90.
>
> The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
> of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
> shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
> for you.
>
> I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
> The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
> Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
> lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
>
> If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
> D300.
>
> Happy shooting
> John
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>>
>>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
>>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
>>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
>>takes
>>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
>>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
>>
>>HELP!!!
>>
>>Thanks

Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the D90
and what exactle do they do.
Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this

 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-27-2009, 01:13 AM
measekite wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:26:49 +0000, Focus wrote:
>
>> "Samantha Booth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:glkjqn$l43$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>>>
>>> I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
>>> apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
>>> Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
>>> takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think
>>> 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses
>>> being £289.
>>>
>>> HELP!!!
>>>
>>> Thanks

>> D300 is more expensive, but it *does* take better pictures and is considered
>> more of a pro camera. It is heavier and a bit bigger than the D90.
>> D90 is a bit smaller and the picture quality is very little less.
>>
>> Simply put: if you're a pro or planning on being one some fine day: D300. If
>> you're an amateur, advanced or not, D90.
>>
>> Difference is to be found here:
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ni.../verdict.shtml
>>
>>

>
> More simply put, if you are a pro you should look at (in today's market)
>
>
> Canon 5D2
> Nikon D700 or the D700X in a few months
> Nikon D3 or D3X
> or the full frame Sony.
>
> From my readings the only reason to get a D300 is for frame rate and the
> extra durability if you do not take care of your equipment.
>
> According to all reviews I have read there is little if no difference in
> the final results.

To put it in plain words, you're an idiot!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Samantha Booth
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-27-2009, 01:27 AM

"Samantha Booth" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:glln3t$bj9$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
>> If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
>> D90.
>>
>> The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
>> of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
>> shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
>> for you.
>>
>> I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
>> The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
>> Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
>> lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
>>
>> If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
>> D300.
>>
>> Happy shooting
>> John
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>>>
>>>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
>>>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
>>>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
>>>takes
>>>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
>>>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
>>>
>>>HELP!!!
>>>
>>>Thanks

> Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
> I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
> D90 and what exactle do they do.
> Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this

Also what does it mean (full frame camera) I don't understand what a full
frame camera is

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D300s Vs Nikon D90 drop price... akinyo22 Photography Equipment 2 03-13-2011 07:16 PM
The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000! Bruce Digital Cameras 9 09-27-2010 02:09 PM
The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000! Bruce Digital SLR 2 09-15-2010 06:34 PM
Nikon D90 or D300 Geoff Berrow Nikon 3 05-14-2009 06:20 PM