D90 or D300?

[notnormal1969]

Hi everyone,

I am thinking of purchasing a new camera, looking for a good all round SLR and something that will last a few years and develop my camera skills further.

I have been reading lots of info on numerous web sites and the one camera that looks good is the D90, I like Nikons as I have tried my friends D200 and I really like it, felt like a quality unit.....

Do any of you have any views on the D90 or should I consider other cameras e.g. the D300 or others? Obviously there is a BIG difference in price, but the
D300 does seem to be a better quality unit and maybe will be a better long term investment....

Any help and ideas much appreciated.

Kr,
Richard

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Richard,
I have the D80, which is the same body as the D90, and the Fuji S5, which has a body and features very similar to the D300. My views on differences between the bodies are:

- The D80 is smaller, lighter and easier to carry around.
- Although the S5 body feels more substantial, the D80 body feels more than solid enough. There's no weather sealing on the D80/90, but I've been out in plenty of rough weather with mine.
- Autofocus is much better on the pro bodies (S5, D200, D300).
- Ergonomics is much better on the pro bodies, with dedicated buttons for all important functions.
- The D300 will meter with unchipped manual focus lenses (AI/AIS), while the D90 will not.

If you have little or limited experience with DSLRs, the D90 will take you a long way, and last for many years. If you have some experience and want to develop further, I would choose the D300 or the new D300s. If money is a limitation, a used D200 (or a Fuji S5) is a great alternative. I tend to spend as little as possible on bodies, and buy lenses for what I save. Lenses are more fun than bodies

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

Jorgen's advice is excellent. I would only add that, with the D300s just announced, you may be able to pick up a used D300 in good condition at a reasonable price, which I would regard as a much better long-term option than a new D90. Also, Jorgen's suggestion about investing in lenses is worth following: (digital) bodies come and go, lenses can remain useful for many years.

 

[pgmj]

I also agree with Jorgen. Though I would actually prefer a used Canon 20D to a Nikon D200. I own the D200 (and D700) and love the handling and feel, but the D200's noise is disturbing over ISO 400 (perhaps the S5 is better?). The Canon 20D is very cheap used and would be a very fine first DSLR.

 

[notnormal1969]

Thanks everyone...sounds like the D300 is the way to go then? The advise on the lenses I have heard before, I friend of mine really rates the Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX...any view on this?

What about the D700 then? Whats that camera like, worth considering as well? Budget wise I would pay up to £2.5k for the right setup, as this is kit that I intend to keep for a number of years....

Your views and opinions are much appreciated.

Kr,
Richard

 

[TRSmith]

I have that 17 - 55 lens mounted on my D2Xs 80% of the time. I have learned to really like it. I won't say love only because I'm still trying to wrap my head around zoom lenses. But it covers the focal length zone that I personally find most appealing, especially on the less-than-full-frame sensor. It seems sharp enough for me and the wide open performance is quite nice. I would recommend it.

 

[clay stewart]

I would rather have the D90 than the D300 myself, having owned both. The New D300S might be a better choice than the previous two, but I found the D90 to be a great camera and a generation ahead of the D300, in things like Live view, movie mode, and DR.