D90 or D300??

I am looking to upgrade from my D80 in a week or two. I am happy with most of its capabilities but I am really wanting to change because of the high ISO abilities of the newer cameras. My D80 just seems to really lack in the noise eliminating department. I have the battery grip and gigs upon gigs of SDHC cards for the D80 that will also work with the D90. I am just wondering if anyone can give me some input weather I should go even more advanced and get a D300? Is it worth the extra money for the D300 or is the D90 sufficient? I don't need or want any video. So that really doesn't weigh on my decision. I would be using this mostly with a Sigma 50-500 for bird photography. Thanks in advance for your help!

Having a D80 ( baby D200 I think ) I'd go straight to the D300 which I have had and wish I could afford again !!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare ... 0&show=all

side by side comparison link I pulled up for you ..

Good Light

I think I remember reading somewhere that the D90 performed slightly better than the D300 in terms of high ISO IQ.

Thanks Curt.

And yeah I thought I read that too Scott. I just don't know if I can justify the extra cost of a D300. Especially with the rate that digital is outdated. Maybe I'll want to upgrade again next year ha. Plus I could buy a new tripod head with the difference in price. So I'm leaning toward the D90 but does anyone have any experience with both that could give some input as well? Or some information I may have overlooked.

There are lots of differences between the D90 and the D300. The focusing module, max shutter speed, frame rate, blackout time, type of card used, view finder coverage, weight and ability to use the MB-D10. The D300 will probably be replaced in the line up this year though with what is unknown. Probably an S variant of the D300, maybe a D400. If you're considering the D90, you should also consider the D5000.

You'll probably decide based on what lenses/camera you are using now. Coming from the D80, if you don't have older AF-D lenses, the D5000 is probably the correct camera. If you do, the D90 would be.

The D5000 does use the smaller battery used by the D40-D60 cameras. The D90 uses the D300/D700 battery. Both use SD cards instead of Compact Flash.

I have AF-S and HSM lenses so does the focusing module matter? I barely ever reach the max shutter speed of the D80 so I dont think I need an increase in that. There is a 1.5 fps difference between the D90 and D300. Not a huge issue for me. The D90 uses cards I already have and the batteries I already have. Those batteries go in the grip already have. Maybe I should wait until the release of the D300 replacement and then there will most likely be a decrease in price for the D300? Or maybe I should just take the plunge and get the D300... I know I wouldn't regret that. Whereas if I get the D90 I may regret it. I'm sort of just thinking out loud sorry ha.

The thing that puts the D300 in a class of its own against the D90 is the focus speed, tracking ability and frame rate. It can really be used as an action camera. The difference in this regard is much less subtle than the difference in IQ between each body. There's also plenty of low mileage D300s on the used market.

D300 it is!! Thanks everyone! My mind is set. Feel free to continue the debate though in case anyone is having this same question as me and needs more feedback.

You made the right choice, hands down!

You will not regret the D300......it is a great camera and awesome at high ISO--I went D70 to D300 and have the means for a D3 or D3x and I am going to sit it out for the Nextgen--the D300 produces sick stuff with good glass--but I assume you have great glass.

Good luck

Everything is relative I guess but I would not call the D300 s an awesome high ISO camera. It's OK, not great. The D700 is an awesome high ISO camera. The D300 doesn't even come close compared to that

Everything is relative I guess but I would not call the D300 s an awesome high ISO camera. It's OK, not great. The D700 is an awesome high ISO camera. The D300 doesn't even come close compared to that


Good advice to get from a pro like EJ----don't listen to me---I should have prefaced that it has enabled me to take photos in light I could not even think about with my d70 before I upgraded. Sorry, should have mentioned that relativity. Thanks EJ

Taking another step up the ladder, how do the D700 and D3 compare? Frame rate seems an obvious difference. The D3 seems to be very caapable to say the least but could also be a candidate for replacement by a new generation?

The D700 and D3 are identical for noise. The primary difference is in size of body and as you say frame rate but the D700 is no slouch there especially with the optional grip. The sensor and imaging engine is identical. For all intents and purposes, the two cameras can be considered identical for image quality.

Thanks E.J.

E.J. Peiker wrote:The D700 and D3 are identical for noise. The primary difference is in size of body and as you say frame rate but the D700 is no slouch there especially with the optional grip. The sensor and imaging engine is identical. For all intents and purposes, the two cameras can be considered identical for image quality.

Yeah, and as an action camera, the D700 is not as far behind as you would expect relative to the D3. It is a fast and responsive camera and some may find the D3 advantage bordering on imperceptible.

To me, the biggest downside in the D700 for what I use it for which these days is primarily low light photography is the poor coverage of the viewfinder which measures at about 91% compared to a 100% viewfinder in the D3 - that isn't worth $3K though