guide me oh photo masters.. which body demands my purchase? d90 or d300?

[Atlas77]

Well you should of said you have prior experience!

Is it worth the extra 400$? Yes, it has weather sealing, its faster, more Af points. (pretty much everything you said in your first post)

But keep in mind, 400$ is enough for a good lens. What kit are you running with the D40? Do you plan up upgrading body or getting a lens or two?

Have you thought about the D300s??

Oh and no problem! I like to help.

hey thanks for the video and help atlas.. any everyone else, thanks a lot for the help!! its really helpful and i think i am swaying back towards in the d300.. in reference to your questions altas:

i am running a d40 with a kit lens and a 50 f/1.8. the next item on my list besides a new body is the sigma 70-200 f/2.8. i would love to get a wide angle or maybe upgrade my kit lens to the 18-105 or possibly a constant 2.8 but problem is that i am college student who cannot really afford a lot of photo stuff (its so dang $$). i just cant make up my mind!! i dont know if the extra $400 would be worth it! aww the pressures.. i wish i could both

I know being in school and trying to spend on camera gear is tough.

If your looking to buy a lens the D90 would be a good choice because you can put that 400 bucks towards a new lens. But I must say the extra 400 bucks for a D300 is worth it. Take a loan!

 

[kundalini]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

...... problem is that i am college student who cannot really afford a lot of photo stuff (its so dang $$). i just cant make up my mind!! i dont know if the extra $400 would be worth it! aww the pressures.. i wish i could both

You've just answered your own question. In case you didn't hear yourself, the answer is to do nothing. The last thing you want to do is to financially strap yourself. Kick back and relax with what you have. This is just a hobby (for most of us) and to be burdened with IT just doesn't make sense. There's plenty of time and opportunity when you're a bit more flush.

For inspiration, have a look at this thread.

 

[Atlas77]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

...... problem is that i am college student who cannot really afford a lot of photo stuff (its so dang $$). i just cant make up my mind!! i dont know if the extra $400 would be worth it! aww the pressures.. i wish i could both

You've just answered your own question. In case you didn't hear yourself, the answer is to do nothing. The last thing you want to do is to financially strap yourself. Kick back and relax with what you have. This is just a hobby (for most of us) and to be burdened with IT just doesn't make sense. There's plenty of time and opportunity when you're a bit more flush.

For inspiration, have a look at this thread.

Your right, when I saw the pictures in that thread the potential of the D40 opened my eyes.

New suggestion, new lens. body later. your in college you need the money to feed yourself.

 

[austriker]

well its not like i dont have money.. i do have money i just probably shouldnt spend it but wait to use it on college loans. i do work year round so that i do have spending money, and have a few thousand sitting in the bank.. i mean, really what good would $1,000 do against my loans that are probably over $20,000.. lol

 

[austriker]

thanks for the link to that thread.. those shots are really quite amazing.. i have loved my d40 and dont think i will sell it when (not will, i have my mind set..) upgrade...

i found my rationale pretty much summed up (give or take about an fstop) in that thread from a member:
"Some ask why upgrade though... You upgrade because you hit the limitations of the D40... I used the D40 for a year, but I wanted something with more than 3 focus boxes... I wanted something to handle low light better... I wanted more FPS... I wanted better controls and I wanted to use my 50mm 1.8 and not have to worry about focus."

 

[Atlas77]

thanks for the link to that thread.. those shots are really quite amazing.. i have loved my d40 and dont think i will sell it when (not will, i have my mind set..) upgrade...

i found my rationale pretty much summed up (give or take about an fstop) in that thread from a member:
"Some ask why upgrade though... You upgrade because you hit the limitations of the D40... I used the D40 for a year, but I wanted something with more than 3 focus boxes... I wanted something to handle low light better... I wanted more FPS... I wanted better controls and I wanted to use my 50mm 1.8 and not have to worry about focus."

Your 50mm will work great, but think of this your 18-55 wont be an amazing lens on a body that good, and you cant use the 50mm for all your shooting since its a prime so your stuck. Just go D90+New lens. you could get around 350 for your D40+18-55 and then save 400$ from the D300 upgrade that equals 750, enough for a great lens.

I vote D90+New Lens.

 

[austriker]

huh well according to that DXO site the d90 looks like it has better stats by a little than the d300..

 

[fstop]

Where are you coming up with "is it worth $400 more?" Looks more like 7 bills more to me. If your talking ~$300 for selling the D40, apply the same logic and the D90 is $500 vs. $1200 so your still at $700.

By the time your out of school the 90 OR the 300 body will be worth 1/2 it's price and Nikon 70-200mm Glass will retain 90% of it's value AND still be sweet when your itching to upgrade to the 700s or whatever is next.

I'm not knocking sigma or tamron but look at the resale and lens creep stats over 5 years AND the resale on DSLR bodies and your placing the value in the wrong place IMO. Unless your doing paid sports shoots and need to pay 50% more for a 25% chance of catching someones eye's in a continuous fire mode, I'd reconsider. If that were the case, you'd be looking for top of the line glass too. D90 sounds more than sufficient for your existing goals.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but look to friends that are into AV gear. Their $3000 speakers are still worth 75% plus of the value down the road and that $2800 receiver is on Craigslist 5 years later for $400. (speakers are the glass and receiver is the body) I know, lame, over used analogy but it's true.

D90 is quite competent for what your doing at the moment. Considder looking at that bing discount off adorama (I think it's around 10%....get it 60 days later though). ~725 for a new D90, then find a minty used Nikon 70-200 2.8 for ~1500 if the spirit moves you. BTW, I'm not a bing pumper, someone mentioned it on another thread and it appears to be legit.

And yes, when that student loan interest that's deferred starts kicking in, that $1000 will make a difference. Wife went to law school and we're down to the last $1200 from the $120K, so I'm speaking from experience....as well as experience over blowing my wad in college.

Sorry if I'm coming off as a jag, but food for thought.

 

[CupCakeCommando]

if you can afford it get the d300! its wheater sealed and has a magnesium body!. the d90 is excelent also

 

[austriker]

Where are you coming up with "is it worth $400 more?" Looks more like 7 bills more to me. If your talking ~$300 for selling the D40, apply the same logic and the D90 is $500 vs. $1200 so your still at $700.

By the time your out of school the 90 OR the 300 body will be worth 1/2 it's price and Nikon 70-200mm Glass will retain 90% of it's value AND still be sweet when your itching to upgrade to the 700s or whatever is next.

I'm not knocking sigma or tamron but look at the resale and lens creep stats over 5 years AND the resale on DSLR bodies and your placing the value in the wrong place IMO. Unless your doing paid sports shoots and need to pay 50% more for a 25% chance of catching someones eye's in a continuous fire mode, I'd reconsider. If that were the case, you'd be looking for top of the line glass too. D90 sounds more than sufficient for your existing goals.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but look to friends that are into AV gear. Their $3000 speakers are still worth 75% plus of the value down the road and that $2800 receiver is on Craigslist 5 years later for $400. (speakers are the glass and receiver is the body) I know, lame, over used analogy but it's true.

D90 is quite competent for what your doing at the moment. Considder looking at that bing discount off adorama (I think it's around 10%....get it 60 days later though). ~725 for a new D90, then find a minty used Nikon 70-200 2.8 for ~1500 if the spirit moves you. BTW, I'm not a bing pumper, someone mentioned it on another thread and it appears to be legit.

And yes, when that student loan interest that's deferred starts kicking in, that $1000 will make a difference. Wife went to law school and we're down to the last $1200 from the $120K, so I'm speaking from experience....as well as experience over blowing my wad in college.

Sorry if I'm coming off as a jag, but food for thought.

no way man, i totally appreciate your comment. especially since it sounds like you dealed with student loans too.. i just wish camera was cheaper! i also have realized that resale should be a priority for me and i have started to look at older nikon 80-200 f/2.8 lenses which sell for around $500. i cant afford the newer 200 f/2.8 that nikon make and i think i should probably stick to nikon in terms of lenses for the resale.

as far as the body is concerned in future value.. im not sure that i would need to upgrade. i think that a d300 (or d90, but id rather go d300) would suit me for a long long time. i cant see any reasons for me to upgrade, i wouldnt need more FPS, ISO or megapixels.. really i am (normally) quite rational and i think that i would not find myself camera lusting quite like i am right now.. what else could they add to cameras of the future besides video and better stats like i mentioned that i would need? i feel like the d300 would be above and beyond what i would need for years unless i shoot pro, which then hopefully i would be able to buy a nicer body..

 

[austriker]

here is a bump of my previous paragraph...

as far as the body is concerned in future value.. im not sure that i would need to upgrade. i think that a d300 (or d90, but id rather go d300) would suit me for a long long time. i cant see any reasons for me to upgrade, i wouldnt need more FPS, ISO or megapixels.. really i am (normally) quite rational and i think that i would not find myself camera lusting quite like i am right now.. what else could they add to cameras of the future besides video and better stats like i mentioned that i would need? i feel like the d300 would be above and beyond what i would need for years unless i shoot pro, which then hopefully i would be able to buy a nicer body..

 

[Atlas77]

here is a bump of my previous paragraph...

as far as the body is concerned in future value.. im not sure that i would need to upgrade. i think that a d300 (or d90, but id rather go d300) would suit me for a long long time. i cant see any reasons for me to upgrade, i wouldnt need more FPS, ISO or megapixels.. really i am (normally) quite rational and i think that i would not find myself camera lusting quite like i am right now.. what else could they add to cameras of the future besides video and better stats like i mentioned that i would need? i feel like the d300 would be above and beyond what i would need for years unless i shoot pro, which then hopefully i would be able to buy a nicer body..

Just go D300. Over with. Dont say it will suit you years, every year Nikon comes out with something new, this time they replaced the D60 and D40, next time who knows.

 

[PhotoXopher]

The only thing on my Nikon wishlist is integrated GPS, but from the reviews I've read on the Nikon P6000 it doesn't look promising without some sort of external antenna.

 

[austriker]

yea i pretty sure i am going for the d300 now.. it should last me a long time.. as far as upgrading the d40. the new current models (d5000/3000) i dont even think i would take one of those even if they were for free.. they just are too like flashy with too many features are less photo and more person who takes pictures.. if that makes any sense.. id rather have my d40 over the new models even if i could upgrade for free.

 

[Joves]

yea i pretty sure i am going for the d300 now.. it should last me a long time.. as far as upgrading the d40. the new current models (d5000/3000) i dont even think i would take one of those even if they were for free.. they just are too like flashy with too many features are less photo and more person who takes pictures.. if that makes any sense.. id rather have my d40 over the new models even if i could upgrade for free.

Good move. Having had the plastic body cameras the D300 was the only camera that felt like a real camera in my hands. I have been shooting with mine for coming on two years without any problems, you should enjoy it.