Nikon D90 or D300?
Which one should I purchase? Bottom line is the D300 cost about $500 more. is it worth it? I will be getting the 18x200 VR len.
Here is a site that show the side-by-side comp: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/comp..._d300&show=all
I am new into cameras and I only see a few differences between them and I am not sure if the D300 is worth the extra cost. I am thinking about going with the D90 and use the $500 to go towards the 12x24 lens.
What do you think?
Thank you for your input
Just found this on the net. Anyone want to explain all this stuff too me or at least tell me what is important.
I am comparing the D90 to the D300. You will need to scroll down a little to find it.
More info found
Here a video on Youtube.
More of my thoughts:
- I like the idea the D300 is more protected for dust etc...
- I think the D90 would be easier for me and wife to use since we are both just starting out. Would the D300 be too much for a novice?
- Not sure I would use the video mode on the D90, so this isn't a big selling point.
The D300 has slightly higher specs, and is designed for photographers who want a higher degree of control. I also has a more sturdy build and more durable shutter. The D90 is a little newer and adds a few new features. I think it is a better choice for a beginner to DSLRs. It also uses the less expensive SD cards for memory. Unless you need the higher spec'd camera I would recommend going for the less expensive one.
Another thing you might consider is your lens selection. The Nikon 18-200 is perhaps the best such superzoom lens made -- at least in the under $1000 range. But it is still a superzoom, and they all make some compromises optically. You spend this much money on camera and lens you should get more in my opinion. The 18-200 VR makes the most sense to a person that has good lenses, and wants a one lens solution for days when you want to travel light. You might be better off either considering two lenses that cover this range with better optical quality. Or going the other way and getting a superzoom point & shoot for less money. Just something to consider, and you might consider the convenience of the one lens solution worth it.
Another issue is the Nikon 12-24 f/4. It's a top notch lens, but horridly priced for what it is. The Tokina 12-24 f/4 is very nearly as good optically, and it is built like a tank. All for about half the money. Sometimes it makes sense to stay with the manufacturer's lenses, and sometimes it doesn't. Still your choice.
My thoughts are if you are new to cameras, put your money in good lenses and get a more basic body. You'll have to do alot of shooting and fiddling the get familiar with the various features the camera has and I don't think you'll find the less expensive bodies will hold you back. With good lenses you can always upgrade the body in the future.
I don't think I'd go with an 18-200 lens, that is trying to do too much with one lens. But I'd also say paring an 18-55 and 55-200 isn't the best, as many times you'll find you either have too much or too little lens. We seem to take alot of pictures of kids activities and wish we could cover it with one lens. I'm thinking an 18-105 pared with a 70-200 would be a better way to go.
If you don't have a digital point and shoot camera, I'd use the $500 savings on the D90 body and put it into a point and shoot. There are times you'll take a point and shoot and not want to lug the DSLR, and you'd be amazed at the photos you can take with the little point and shoots. There is nothing like taking lots of pictures, playing with composition and camera settings to become a better photographer. And a camera you have with you all the time allows that.