D90, D300s or D700

[forty-two]

Morning all,

I am in the market for a DSLR. I know I want a Nikon, but after comparing prices between the D90, D300s I am left wondering, Is the D300s to much for a DX frame and should I spend a little more for a D700 and step up to FX?

I have no lenses to worry about so I am starting with a blank sheet.

Thanks

[Olivero]

forty-two said:

Morning all,

I am in the market for a DSLR. I know I want a Nikon, but after comparing prices between the D90, D300s I am left wondering, Is the D300s to much for a DX frame and should I spend a little more for a D700 and step up to FX?

I have no lenses to worry about so I am starting with a blank sheet.

Thanks

The camera you go for depends on how you are going to use it. if you are going to stick in P mode then go for the D90, otherwise go for the D700 with grip.

[Felters]

Personally I'd take a D90 over a D300 and spend the money saved on the best lenses Nikon offer.

The D700 is a genuine step forward - and where I'd start if money was no object. Actually a D3 is where I'd start if money really wasn't an issue but you get my gist. Over time DSLR's will become FX as standard and if you have the cash and the need then that's where I'd be. Just bear in mind the lenses are a bit more as well at the moment. 70-200 for DX is about £1700 while the FX version is £2k or so.

[Simpo Two]

Felters said:

Over time DSLR's will become FX as standard and if you have the cash and the need then that's where I'd be.

I'm not convinced - whilst the price of the chip may tumble, the price of the lenses won't - the bigger the sensor, the larger, better quality glass you need in front of it. For any given focal length and quality, an FX lens is always going to be bigger, heavier and more expensive than a DX one.

For that reason I think DX (or any cropped format) will always have a place in the lower and middle sectors of the market, and unless you need outstandingly low noise or very wide-angle/shallow DOF, DX is really very good. If cost and bulk are not factors, then FX all the way, but that's not often the case.

(BTW, as it's relevant, Simpo Cameras has a very good D300 available)

[Ray Singh]

Ive got a D90 and been very happy with it over the last 12 months.

[VxDuncan]

No offence, but is this your first DSLR?

The latest DSLRs are absolutely amasing things, even the base models. Unless you have a real natural gift and are willing to put 100% effort in for a couple of years it is unlikely you will outperform the D90 before it wears out.

The D300 I have is an awesome bit of kit, truely humbling. I started with full manual (no light meter) film cameras 20 years ago, yet I'm still aware that I'm the limiting factor in my pictures, not the camera. Sure I'd like 100,000 ISO, but that would make me lazy as well.

A smaller, more compact camera like the D90 (or possibly one of the cheaper ones) will be easier to carry about (and thereofre more likely to go with you), and will save money for lenses and kit. A D90 + 50mm +Speedlight, is far more flexible than a D300 on its own.

[Olivero]

VxDuncan said:

No offence, but is this your first DSLR?

The latest DSLRs are absolutely amasing things, even the base models. Unless you have a real natural gift and are willing to put 100% effort in for a couple of years it is unlikely you will outperform the D90 before it wears out.

The D300 I have is an awesome bit of kit, truely humbling. I started with full manual (no light meter) film cameras 20 years ago, yet I'm still aware that I'm the limiting factor in my pictures, not the camera. Sure I'd like 100,000 ISO, but that would make me lazy as well.

A smaller, more compact camera like the D90 (or possibly one of the cheaper ones) will be easier to carry about (and thereofre more likely to go with you), and will save money for lenses and kit. A D90 + 50mm +Speedlight, is far more flexible than a D300 on its own.

This is good advice ...

[jon-]

Nikons good FX glass is serious money. The Dx format is better for sports, wildlife and even the d90 resolves everything well. If i wanted to shoot sports / wildlife I'd probably go for the d300 for the extra speed and reach. If I wanted to seriously get into portrait work, then the d700 is the logical choice.

If I was just getting into it and wanted an all rounder, I'd get the d90 as it's a serious bit of general use kit and will give you an idea of what you like shooting.

[andy-xr]

I'd go the other way - if full frame is on your mind now I say do it. Pointless messing about on crops and investing in glass when you may look to the D700 at a later date.

Plus, the upgrade path from a D700 is going to be an interesting conversation

[forty-two]

Thanks for all the replies. It is my first foray in to the DLSR arena. I used to play with an Olympus OM30 when I was in my teens which is a good while ago!

I do want to get back in to photography in a fairly serious manner and I don't want to limit my options early on, I can appreciate that the camera will need a lot of driving and will possibly take years to master fully.

I am not running in to this blindly, this is just the start of a lot of research in to this purchase. I do want to get the right camera the first time though and not limit myself from the outset as I hope to be using this camera as my skills develop over the next few years.

There is an open university course that I will be enrolling to in May that a friend has completed. She found it invaluable.

I think the question of going as high as a D700 has already been ruled out due to the costs of the lenses so that is one less consideration and I can't see the point of fitting DX lenses to it.

So, D90 or D300s? It has got to last me a few years...

[beano500]

forty-two said:

There is an open university course that I will be enrolling to in May that a friend has completed.

T189?

[forty-two]

beano500 said:

T189?

Thats the one. It has mixed reviews but can't be too bad, can it?

[beano500]

forty-two said:

beano500 said:

T189?

Thats the one. It has mixed reviews but can't be too bad, can it?

I thoroughly enjoyed several aspects of it - there's not too much of it, yet no time to get bored; the interaction with others can be a pain and/or a blessing, but you are grouped with new people to critique and receive comment from at each stage; it's very difficult not to pass, and not to pass very well (I think I scored 96% overall); the final comments that you get from the course team (which you have to wait a long time for0 are not great, but are helpful.

You might want to look for the T189 groups on Flickr. Overall, the majority of students are there to learn and enjoy, without too much pressure or any "points-scoring". I found it a friendly course - like being on PH!

[RobDickinson]

D700 is a stunning camera, I seriously considered switching to it/nikon but honestly the prices of their good FF lenses (14-24 or 17-35, 24-70, 70-200 etc) was just unacheivable for my finances.

D300s is great but look at the D90 ahnd see what extra it gives you.

[Nick M]

Felters said:

Personally I'd.....spend the money saved on the best lenses Nikon offer.

Over time DSLR's will become FX as standard and if you have the cash and the need then that's where I'd be. Just bear in mind the lenses are a bit more as well at the moment. 70-200 for DX is about £1700 while the FX version is £2k or so.

Just to clarify, there isn't a DX and an FX 70-200 Nikon lens, just the Mk1 and Mk2 versions, the latter having the newer VR2 system and better performance wide open with less light fall-off in the corners.

But both are 'FX' lenses (the first one pre-dates the whole DX / FX differentiation) and the price difference is purely down to one being a newer version than the other.


Agree about being careful which lenses to invest in though, if like me you're not 100% convinced that the DX format is here to stay (despite what Nikon claim). You can still get the benefit of the extra 'reach' offered by the DX format by using full-frame lenses such as the 70-200, the 50mm, etc., so there's no real need to invest too many DX lenses to match the DX body.

[cliff123]

I have no experience with the D700, but use a D300 and D90 regularly for wedding photography. The D300 is a fantastic camera and unless money simply is no object, the D300 will serve all your needs. Paired with some quality glass you will not go wrong. There is a significant difference between the D90 and D300 IMHO. I use the D90 as a back up body to the D300 and the images I take with it just lack a little bit of depth that the the 300 produce. I can't explain why, but the 300 is worth the extra notes. And unless you are totally new to photography the 300 is clear and simply to use. If you are totally new, then maybe the 90 is the right choice with the auto function and all the A/S/M/P modes too. Enjoy.

[Nick M]

andy-xr said:

I'd go the other way - if full frame is on your mind now I say do it. Pointless messing about on crops and investing in glass when you may look to the D700 at a later date.

Plus, the upgrade path from a D700 is going to be an interesting conversation

Except by investing in the right glass, you'll have a more future-proofed system whereby you can replace the body as and when major advances come through, which they will. Bodies are more likely to become over-taken than lenses - I have a D3 and regularly use 30+ year old manual focus lenses on it, as well as newer lenses such as the 70-200. But I can keep using those lenses on any newer body I acquire once the D3 dies.

The money spent on a good body will now would potentially mean compromises in your choice of lenses which would *also* have to be replaced in the future as you decide that they're the limiting factor in the quality of your pictures.

Now, don't get me wrong, the D700 / D3 is a great camera and the images it's capable of producing are amazing, but if you took a picture with a D700 and put it next to the same scene taken with a D90 - enlarge them to about A3 size and stand about 6 feet away - I'd be surprised if you could tell which picture was produced by which camera. And this is based on a similar experience looking at a picture from a D70 and my D3 - you really had to look close-up to tell.

[RobDickinson]

I seriously doubt FF sensors will be anywhere near close to standard n dSLR's for a long time, there just so much more money to produce, 2.5 times the area of silicon and (due to defects etc) a fraction of the yeild.

I think the current cost of a FF sensor is probably about $1000US, or half the cost of an A850 sony.


As for 'DX' long lenses, they dont make sense realy as its usualy the aperture that limits physical lens size past 44mm rather than the image circle.

[taaffy]

I have recently bought a D700 with 14-24 and 24-70 and can wholeheartedly say that it is just awesome ......highly recommend it.