Nikon d90

[NateS]

If you're a casual shooter and plan on staying out of the rain, the D300 isn't worth the extra money IMO. Realistically, given the same lens, the d90 will do pretty much everything the D300 can do. The D300 has more bells and whistles, has a bit stronger build (though the D90 is tough as hell), and has weather sealing (which means nothing if the lenses don't).
If you're comfortable with Canon, go that route. Also, as previously mentioned, jump on your friends' bandwagon so you can share lenses. That's a HUGE advantage.

That's just so not true. I would call the massive amount of focus points, the incredible AF system, the increased fps, custom settings, etc to be bells and whistles. Depending on the type of shooting, the D300 could either be not worth it or 100 times better. For portrait or macro shooting, maybe not worth it, for sports or any type of action shots, D300 would be worlds better.

 

[rallysman]

If you're a casual shooter and plan on staying out of the rain, the D300 isn't worth the extra money IMO. Realistically, given the same lens, the d90 will do pretty much everything the D300 can do. The D300 has more bells and whistles, has a bit stronger build (though the D90 is tough as hell), and has weather sealing (which means nothing if the lenses don't).
If you're comfortable with Canon, go that route. Also, as previously mentioned, jump on your friends' bandwagon so you can share lenses. That's a HUGE advantage.

That's just so not true. I would call the massive amount of focus points, the incredible AF system, the increased fps, custom settings, etc to be bells and whistles. Depending on the type of shooting, the D300 could either be not worth it or 100 times better. For portrait or macro shooting, maybe not worth it, for sports or any type of action shots, D300 would be worlds better.

IF you're not a beginner...

 

[KmH]

(though the D90 is tough as hell)

I call BS.

Ask me, Pure, and many others on other forums that have had to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the repairs to be done when a 70-200 or 80-200 zoom lens ripped the lens mount screws right out of the camera's lens mount ring.

 

[NateS]

If you're a casual shooter and plan on staying out of the rain, the D300 isn't worth the extra money IMO. Realistically, given the same lens, the d90 will do pretty much everything the D300 can do. The D300 has more bells and whistles, has a bit stronger build (though the D90 is tough as hell), and has weather sealing (which means nothing if the lenses don't).
If you're comfortable with Canon, go that route. Also, as previously mentioned, jump on your friends' bandwagon so you can share lenses. That's a HUGE advantage.

That's just so not true. I would call the massive amount of focus points, the incredible AF system, the increased fps, custom settings, etc to be bells and whistles. Depending on the type of shooting, the D300 could either be not worth it or 100 times better. For portrait or macro shooting, maybe not worth it, for sports or any type of action shots, D300 would be worlds better.

IF you're not a beginner...

Why? A beginner is going to have to learn an entire system. If he isn't familiar with Nikon at all right now, a D300 is not going to be much harder to learn than a D90. Reading the manual a couple of times (as always should be done) will teach him how to get around a D300. I fail to see how a beginner couldn't start on a D300 without troubles. You don't HAVE to use everything that is there the first day....you can grow into the settings and options you need.

 

[rallysman]

(though the D90 is tough as hell)

I call BS.

Ask me, Pure, and many others on other forums that have had to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the repairs to be done when a 70-200 or 80-200 zoom lens ripped the lens mount screws right out of the camera's lens mount ring.

Perhaps I'm more careful with my equipment. I've had a D50 and D90 slinging around a Tamron 28-105 2.8 for quite a while and have never had a problem. Again, I'm a causal shooter. I'm far from pro, and never plan on claiming to be more than a novice. When comparing plastic to metal, well, the outcome is obvious. When comparing hobby to career, the outcome is relatively the same. If you have money to throw around, get the 300, 700, 3s, 3x, or someone to take pictures to support your overinflated ego. Raise your BS flag high in the sky, but be sure to tell people how expensive the damn thing is.

Edit: those lenses weight a lot more. I guess I'll stick with having a less valuable opinion.

Thanks for letting me know I bought a POS. I'll take extra care of it now

 

[rallysman]

That's just so not true. I would call the massive amount of focus points, the incredible AF system, the increased fps, custom settings, etc to be bells and whistles. Depending on the type of shooting, the D300 could either be not worth it or 100 times better. For portrait or macro shooting, maybe not worth it, for sports or any type of action shots, D300 would be worlds better.

IF you're not a beginner...

Why? A beginner is going to have to learn an entire system. If he isn't familiar with Nikon at all right now, a D300 is not going to be much harder to learn than a D90. Reading the manual a couple of times (as always should be done) will teach him how to get around a D300. I fail to see how a beginner couldn't start on a D300 without troubles. You don't HAVE to use everything that is there the first day....you can grow into the settings and options you need.

I mentioned that the 300 has more bells and whistles, and you agreed. I'm not saying it's a bad camera...it's no where near a bad camera. It's obviously better than a 90. IMO means In My Opinion... nothing more than that... it's my opinion. Take it or leave it. Chill.

 

[KmH]

(though the D90 is tough as hell)

I call BS.

Ask me, Pure, and many others on other forums that have had to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the repairs to be done when a 70-200 or 80-200 zoom lens ripped the lens mount screws right out of the camera's lens mount ring.

Perhaps I'm more careful with my equipment. I've had a D50 and D90 slinging around a Tamron 28-105 2.8 for quite a while and have never had a problem. Again, I'm a causal shooter. I'm far from pro, and never plan on claiming to be more than a novice. When comparing plastic to metal, well, the outcome is obvious. When comparing hobby to career, the outcome is relatively the same. If you have money to throw around, get the 300, 700, 3s, 3x, or someone to take pictures to support your overinflated ego. Raise your BS flag high in the sky, but be sure to tell people how expensive the damn thing is.

Edit: those lenses weight a lot more. I guess I'll stick with having a less valuable opinion.

Thanks for letting me know I bought a POS. I'll take extra care of it now

I didn't say you bought a POS, you did.

It's not as strong as you give it credit for.

 

[anuarD]

Ask me, Pure, and many others on other forums that have had to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the repairs to be done when a 70-200 or 80-200 zoom lens ripped the lens mount screws right out of the camera's lens mount ring.

so 70-200 it is not suitable for D90??? instead get D300 at least for using 70-200 without problem?? sorry for my broken english. -newbie-

 

[sheavo]

I've been shooting with a D90 for over a year now with a nikon 80-200 as my primary lens and I've been very rough with it. Im always shooting events with it and i usually swap around three different lenses per event and I'm not very careful at all when switching lens cause i don't want to miss a shot. I've never had a problem with that combo i never expect to.

 

[KmH]

Ask me, Pure, and many others on other forums that have had to spend $300 and wait 6 weeks for the repairs to be done when a 70-200 or 80-200 zoom lens ripped the lens mount screws right out of the camera's lens mount ring.

so 70-200 it is not suitable for D90??? instead get D300 at least for using 70-200 without problem?? sorry for my broken english. -newbie-

The 70-200 mm f/2.8 is great for making images on the D90, but be careful how you handle the camera while the lens is attached. Be sure and support the lens, particularly if it's pointed straight down, and I would not recommend storing the camera with that heavy a lens attached unless the lens is on top of the camera.

 

[AlexL]

Alternatives you can think about are the D5000 or the T2i ($50 more expensive body only).

 

[KmH]

I've been shooting with a D90 for over a year now with a nikon 80-200 as my primary lens and I've been very rough with it. Im always shooting events with it and i usually swap around three different lenses per event and I'm not very careful at all when switching lens cause i don't want to miss a shot. I've never had a problem with that combo i never expect to.

Could be famous last words, because others have had the problem.

They didn't expect it either.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...views/195718-broken-nikon-d90-lens-mount.html

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Eco]

I'll toss in my 2 cents....

My 70-200 is my primary lens on my D90, it lives on my camera 90% of the time. I tote the pair around maybe 5-10 hours a week and up to 20 hours a week while on vacation.

However..... my RS strap (carrying strap) is connected to the tripod mount of the lens AND the lens and camera are both supported when I shoot.

So far no issues but I would sleep better at night if my 70-200 was on a body that was not made of plastic.

 

[Derrel]

What is this Nikon D90 you all speak of? Is it as good a camera as the Canon T2i? Is it a better camera than the Pentax K-X? I've never heard of this Nikon D90. Where can I find information about it?

 

[djacobox372]

You can't go wrong with canon or nikon. Canon has slightly cheaper new lenses, while nikon has a much larger range of high quality legacy lenses; especially if you opt for a d300/d700

Just wondering why not the D90 either? it has the AF motor on the body and the D300 is a DX sensor too.

But yeah as has been said, stick with canon if that's what you like, try a D90 and get it if you like it better, both are about the same

The D90's autofocus motor will allow you to use AF lenses, but it isn't fully compatible with older manual focus lenses. Not a big deal to most people, but something to consider if you see yourself having a large assortment of lenses in the future. Manual focus lenses cost roughly half that of an AF equivelant.

I wouldn't use MF lenses for the most common focal ranges, it's a good way to save $$ on the least used but most expensive category of lenses (ultra-wide, macro, and extreme telephoto).