Please help.. D90 or D300 or ?

[sabbath999]

I gotta be honest, a whole lot of the differences between all of this stuff is just blah blah blah marketing crap, and it's only important to people who don't actually take pictures.

I mean no disrespect to anybody here, but most photographers aren't good enough to make the difference between a D5000 and a D5500 relevant when viewing an image. Most photographers are not good enough to make any difference apparent between a D7000 and a D300 when looking at an image coming out of the camera.

LENSES? Yes, those make a HUGE difference. Digital bodies? Not so much.

I can shoot with my D300 and get the exact same results as when I shoot my D4... it's just the D4 is a lot better at tracking sports in low-light situations. Are you going to be tracking sports a lot in low light situations? If not, then you will do just fine with a D300. Me? I shoot roller derby in really, really dark (i.e. hard to focus) venues, so it makes a difference.

I always advise people to buy the CHEAPEST camera you can get away with. Weather seals and stuff like that are nice, but I for one don't stand out in the freaking rain taking pictures. If you really need the protection, buy a nice SLR weather cover and use it on all your cameras over the next 20 years.

If you plan on shooting sports, then you need more camera than if you are not. If you are planning on shooting portraits or landscape, you need less.

You ALWAYS need the best glass you can afford.

Don't get caught up in tearing out your soul over which camera you are going to buy... it's going to be a paper weight in 5 years anyway... tear out your soul in deciding which LENSES you are going to buy.

I'm using glass I bought in high school 35 years ago. OK, to be fair I am also using the F2 I bought back then too, but unlike digital, that makes sense.

 

[beckylynne]

Neither camera is junk. It's not about the gear...it's how you use it. *Insert "that's what she said" comment here*

 

[Derrel]

Look at the two cameras yourself in a store. The baby Nikons use pentamirrors, and have smaller, dimmer, much worse viewfinder images than the mid-level and professional cameras. Look at a Canon SL-1 for example, then look at a Canon 70D. One has a viewfinder that is tiny, poor, and difficult to see through clearly and easily. The other has a significantly better, crisper viewfinder image made with a fairly expensive all-glass pentaprism. For me, the pentamirror camera bodies make it very difficutl to see through the viewfinder, to evaluate the subject(s) as I am trying to make photos.

Older, 35mm SLRs had big, crisp, clear viewfinder images. Crop-body cameras reduced the size of the viewfinder, but in the early, pro-priced Nikon D1 and D2 series, the viewfinder image was CRISP, and CLEAR and SHARP; in the D70 and D50, the image was significantly smaller in appearance, and less-clear. By the time Nikon had shaved off every ounce and every dollar they could, the new pentamirror models like the D3000 and D5000 had dismal viewfinder images.

If you want to shoot in Live View from a tripod, the through-the-viewfinder image might not be a big deal, but if you want to actually use the viewfinder for things like focusing, composing, and evaluating the subject matter, then the camera that has the better, more-usable viewfinder is usually the better "shooter".

Compare a D5300 versus a D7000, see what you think. As an aside, Nikon has been steadily,slowly upping the viewfinder magnification in its entry-level cameras over the past three generations. But the pentamirror versus pentaprism issue still holds sway.

 

[KmH]

If you look at some astrology stuff on Flickr a lot of people get nice results with the tokina 11-16 f2.8. I'm sure there are other lenses but that's worth a look

ASTRONOMY please, not "astrology".

Thank you.

Shout it out brother.
Astronomy stuff on Flickr.

Astrology is a pseudo-science that is based on the sky as it was two millennia ago when Claudius Ptolemy conveniently ignored several aspects about the sky, like the precession of the equinoxs, to invent astrology.

By the way.
Because of the precession of the Earth's rotational axis in the sky (precession of the equinoxs) two millennia ago α (alpha) Ursae Minoris (Cynosura) and β (beta) Ursae Minoris (Kochab) were equidistant from the celestial north pole and shared 'North Star' status.

A Sign of the Times - Sky & Telescope

 

[jaomul]

If you look at some astrology stuff on Flickr a lot of people get nice results with the tokina 11-16 f2.8. I'm sure there are other lenses but that's worth a look

ASTRONOMY please, not "astrology".

Thank you.

Shout it out brother.
Astronomy stuff on Flickr.

Astrology is a pseudo-science that is based on the sky as it was two millennia ago when Claudius Ptolemy conveniently ignored several aspects about the sky, like the precession of the equinoxs, to invent astrology.

By the way.
Because of the precession of the Earth's rotational axis in the sky (precession of the equinoxs) two millennia ago α (alpha) Ursae Minoris (Cynosura) and β (beta) Ursae Minoris (Kochab) were equidistant from the celestial north pole and shared 'North Star' status.

A Sign of the Times - Sky & Telescope

Thanks, I agreed with Sabbath when I was snagged. I'd like to blame auto correct on my phone, but really, I'm a bit dumb

 

[Derrel]

KmH...what's your sign?

 

[purpleorbes]

Do you all think it would be cheaper to buy a refurbished camera or a used camera from a private seller? Also would the refurbished camera come with any kind of warranty?
Thanks all, you have been a great help.

 

[purpleorbes]

Do you all think it would be cheaper to buy a refurbished camera or a used camera from a private seller? Also would the refurbished camera come with any kind of warranty?
Thanks all, you have been a great help.

Still no camera yet. Tax check will be here this week. I found a very nice D7000 with a lens at a loan/pawnshop for $420 thinking about getting it.

 

[jaomul]

Stop thinking and just buy. Think of all the photos you missed since october