opinion...D90m or D300 for weddings?

I don't think you will go wrong either way, but when I was looking at the same choice, I went with the D300 and it was love at first site and has remained that way since. It *IS* heavy, but I don't mind :)
 
Please link your source. My reading is that both the D90 & D300 native ISO range is 200-3200 but can be pulled LO to 100 and pushed HI to 6400. I fail to see where the edge is.

Nikon D3, D90, D300 and D200 ISO 3,200 Comparison

Not that I trust him, or really listen to what he has to say 85% of the time, but I've only rented the D90 and messed around with to substantiate its abilities in the evening. The D300 might just have different post-processing algorithms which led good ol' KR to his above test conclusions. . .
I'll try to run a test between the D300 and D90 next time I need to rent some bodies to give a fair comparo though. . .
 
There's good reason for that statement. In case you didn't notice, NONE of the settings between ANY of the cameras were identical (the mice type at the bottom of the images). Yet, he expects this to be a fair comparison and for those of us just to blindly accept this folly as reasonable? Plus he is using in camera adjustment settings, which may certainly differ between the technologies. I think not. I'd search elsewhere for comparisons.

Just my 2¢.
 
There's good reason for that statement. In case you didn't notice, NONE of the settings between ANY of the cameras were identical (the mice type at the bottom of the images). Yet, he expects this to be a fair comparison and for those of us just to blindly accept this folly as reasonable? Plus he is using in camera adjustment settings, which may certainly differ between the technologies. I think not. I'd search elsewhere for comparisons.

Just my 2¢.

I think the D300 and D90 might have slightly different sesnors, look at the low light results from the DxO analysis I found:
Camera rankings

Once again, I don't think Ken's much of anything, but even lab results seem to be supporting his assertion?!
 
I kind of agree with the both sentiment lol. To do a wedding you really should be packing 2 cameras. But if I had to choose just one, the d300 no question. I Had the same dilemma when I was choosing between d80 and d200. Got a chance to play with the d80 and was pretty dang sure I was getting it, couldnt play with the d200. Then a friend let me hold/play with his d200. I instantly knew it was far and away MY camera. Sorry for the long winded post.
 
and to be fair, if you try them out (weight, size, analog buttons, etc.) you might find the D90 will suffice. . .frankly, at about $800 for the D90 and $1500 for the D300, you could get the D90 + Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for the price of one D300, which is essential in weddings. . . .2 bodies are ideal if you already have all of your glass, though. . .
 
I have the D300 and it is amazing. All of the buttons are right there. I don't even have to take my eyes off the viewfinder. I am very pleased with it. Very fast and easy to use.
 
The real difference is that you should be able to shoot about 3 times as many weddings with the D300 as opposed to the D90. Then the question becomes does the D90 times 3 cost more than the D300?

Also consider that if you are shooting a camera that only lasts 1/3 third as long you will have it fail in the middle of a wedding three times as opposed to just the one with the D300.
 
the D90 has dedicated controls (buttons) for white balance, iso, bracketing, af controls. i don't think there is really anything you need to go into the menu for.
 
All your going to get here is people telling you to get the camera they have! there are pros and cons to both cameras. If your on a budget d90 if your not d300, d700, d3. need a lens? but trust me when I say you will not be disappointed with any of these choices.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top