Need Opinions: D90 or D300S For My Needs?

[RSutton1223]

I'll try to make a long story short.

I currently shoot with a D80 that is showing its age. I own several websites and one of them is a large cycling blog, so I am taking a lot of shots of fast moving objects in lower light conditions (under tree cover). The D80 has served me well up until this point, but the amount of noise I get on the higher ISO settings is starting to get unbearable.

With fast moving objects in low light...it seems like the D300S is the default choice when comparing it to the D90.

My question is whether the D300S is worth the upgrade over the D90 given my conditions.

(I already have glass...so it is a body only purchase)

[GadgetRick]

Well, the D300S is supposed to have even better high-ISO properties than the D90 which already has excellent properties. The D300S is a pro camera while the D90 is a high end consumer camera so the D300S should be more sturdy, etc. There are some other things which differ from the D90 (access to various features should be easier on the D300S but I've never used it--the D90 has almost everything in menus and sub-menus).

Honestly, I don't know that you'd go wrong with either. Just have to decide whether the price difference is worth it.

[LoveDSLR]

The Nikon D300s possible higher fps and better focusing & tracking AF could be a better choice for you.


Photo by Vojko Kalan. Public Domain image.

[Shokinen]

Hi there,

A few things need to be considered. The D90 is the upgrade while he D300s is steping in another category. You have to check if the extra features of the D300s will suit your needs and will worth (for you) the extra cost.

Following is the main featuers you will get with the D300s over the D90:

- Sealed Magnesieum body (very good against bad weather)
- Dual memory card slot (RAW + JPEG and save both formart on separate cards)
- 7 fps and 8 with the battery pack (4.5 for the D90)
- 51 focus-point system (instead of 11. Better for moving subject)
- No scene selection such as portait, auto, landscape, etc. Only P A S M mode

As for the low-light performance, I don't beleive Nikon has change the sensor that much over the D300 (and the D300 is using the same of the D90). Even if they did, you will get very close results with both camera. This is why I was saying you have to considered the other features.

If you are only looking for less noisy pictures and you like the features on the D80, go for the D90 teamed with better glasses (such as f/2.8). It will mostlikely be the best solution. Glasses will always last longuer than bodies and will also worth more after a couple years.

My 2 cents,
Hope this helps

[kirbinster]

Another thing to keep in mind - the D300s is much much heavier than the D90, this may be an issue for you in the field.

[GadgetRick]

I think, after reading the other replies, the D90 isn't gonna cut it for you. Go for the better camera, you'll be happy you did.

[wannabephotographer]

I would get a D700 or a D90. I don't think the D300s is good value.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by wannabephotographer

I would get a D700 or a D90. I don't think the D300s is good value.

How do you figure? The D300/D300s has been the de-facto "pro" DX dSLR. The D700 is the same body with a different sensor: The D90 is the same sensor in a different body. It's a perfect mix.

The trick here is the features the D300/s offers over both the D90 and the D700. The D90 doesnt have 6/7/8FPS (4.5) and doesnt have the *insane* 51pt autofocus system that seems to work almost by itself. The D700 has one GIANT flaw: COST. The cost of the body ($3k?) and the cost of the FX lenses (youch!) mean that it's simply not cost-effective for most people. Unless you need the low-light capabilities (2-3 stops worth), then it really isn't worth the fuss.

If anything, the D700 isn't a good value. Instead go for the D3s.

[wannabephotographer]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

How do you figure? The D300/D300s has been the de-facto "pro" DX dSLR. The D700 is the same body with a different sensor: The D90 is the same sensor in a different body. It's a perfect mix.

The trick here is the features the D300/s offers over both the D90 and the D700. The D90 doesnt have 6/7/8FPS (4.5) and doesnt have the *insane* 51pt autofocus system that seems to work almost by itself. The D700 has one GIANT flaw: COST. The cost of the body ($3k?) and the cost of the FX lenses (youch!) mean that it's simply not cost-effective for most people. Unless you need the low-light capabilities (2-3 stops worth), then it really isn't worth the fuss.

If anything, the D700 isn't a good value. Instead go for the D3s.

The D700 is better in low light and the OP stated that was important to him and the body is $2400 on amazon not $3k.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by wannabephotographer

The D700 is better in low light and the OP stated that was important to him and the body is $2400 on amazon not $3k.

Even so, the cost increase involved (almost $1000 for the body alone) is likely not worth the extra couple of stops of ISO. The D300s is still great at 3200.

I refer back to your original comment: VALUE. The D700 doesn't fit the bill there.