Should I buy Nikon D300s?

[KmH]

Going from a D40 to a D90 isn't really going to "upgrade" you that much. I say go ahead with the 300s. You know you will regret it if you don't.

this is completely fasle. its true that the d300s is a nicer camera with alot of feature but i had and d60 and went for a d90. its alot more of a camera compared to the d40 and d60.....

No. The statement isn't completely false.

Actually, it's an opinion, as is yours.

Neither is right and neither is wrong.

I agree with S.G.

 

[itznfb]

Reasons to get the D300s over the D90...
1) Weather sealed
2) Better metering
3) Better AF (mechanics)
4) Better Tracking (part of AF)
5) Better ADL
6) Wider dynamic range (expanded with ADL)
7) Better controls
8) Dual card slots
9) Auto bracketing (9 frame)
10) white balance bracketing
11) Burst bracketing
12) higher fps
13) quiet mode
14) 51 point af
15) 100% viewfinder
16) EN-EL4 battery (with grip)
17) shutter speed up to 1/8000

Reason to get the D90 over the D300s...
1) Price
2) Weight
3) Slightly better High ISO performance

That's all I can think of off the top of my head...

Yes the D300s actually has slightly worse high ISO performance than the D90. Negligible difference though when factoring everything else in.

 

[potownrob]

why not just get a D300?? :???:

 

[mdtusz]

Just buy a used d300. I'm getting a used one with the battery grip for 1300. You can find them for reasonable prices now that the d300s is out. Unless you REALLY want the movie mode and sd card slot, the differences are pretty minor.

 

[Dominantly]

Going from a D40 to a D90 isn't really going to "upgrade" you that much. I say go ahead with the 300s. You know you will regret it if you don't.

Are you kidding me?

Please post up more detailed information to back this up.

I'll wait.


If I was the OP, I would do one of two things. Save up and purchase the D700, OR the D90 and better glass.

Any way you put it, the D90 still has better high ISO performance than the 300s. People may try and write it off as a menial quality, but it's obviously a pretty big deal.

 

[mdtusz]

Easy there big guy. The jump from the d40 to d700 is a pretty big one, and I wouldn't want a d700 if I just had a d40. I think getting either a d90 or d300(s) is the next logical step up the pyramid. It's true that the d90 has better iso performance, but you need to decide what you need. Low light capability, or better autofocus capability, framerate, and other more "professional" features of the d300(s). You can't go wrong with any of the cameras but you may as well buy the one that will give you the best use for what you want. If you get a d90, will you outshoot it anytime soon?

The d700 is a pretty big step though... I wouldn't recommend it unless you REALLY know what you're doing.

 

[Dominantly]

Easy there big guy. The jump from the d40 to d700 is a pretty big one, and I wouldn't want a d700 if I just had a d40. I think getting either a d90 or d300(s) is the next logical step up the pyramid. It's true that the d90 has better iso performance, but you need to decide what you need. Low light capability, or better autofocus capability, framerate, and other more "professional" features of the d300(s). You can't go wrong with any of the cameras but you may as well buy the one that will give you the best use for what you want. If you get a d90, will you outshoot it anytime soon?

The d700 is a pretty big step though... I wouldn't recommend it unless you REALLY know what you're doing.

Why wouldn't you want the D700 if you were moving up from the D40?

I am quite sure that the same principles that govern the way you compose and take a photograph, will still apply with the D700. As you move up the chain, you start finding they move controls from the menu, to the body to enhance control and improve speed/efficiency. This may look intimidating to a novice, but once they realize they now control metering, or ISO from a button on the body in a split second, they will love it.
I assume the D700 also comes with an instruction manual, like the D40, and just like you should have done with the D40, you must read it to learn the body.

Moving up you would have a vast improvement in performance, and enhanced controls. Does this sound intimidating, or is it just the assumption that because it costs more, it takes wizardry to work?

 

[PhotoXopher]

Just go for the D3s and be done with it, to heck with the D700!

 

[Dominantly]

Now, a good argument against that would be one is:

Width 6.3 in. (159.5mm)
Height 6.2 in. (157mm)
Depth 3.4 in. (87.5mm)


2.7lbs

The other is:

Width 5.8 in. (147mm)
Height 4.8 in. (123mm)
Depth 3.0 in. (77mm)


2lbs

 

[mdtusz]

Easy there big guy. The jump from the d40 to d700 is a pretty big one, and I wouldn't want a d700 if I just had a d40. I think getting either a d90 or d300(s) is the next logical step up the pyramid. It's true that the d90 has better iso performance, but you need to decide what you need. Low light capability, or better autofocus capability, framerate, and other more "professional" features of the d300(s). You can't go wrong with any of the cameras but you may as well buy the one that will give you the best use for what you want. If you get a d90, will you outshoot it anytime soon?

The d700 is a pretty big step though... I wouldn't recommend it unless you REALLY know what you're doing.

Why wouldn't you want the D700 if you were moving up from the D40?

I am quite sure that the same principles that govern the way you compose and take a photograph, will still apply with the D700. As you move up the chain, you start finding they move controls from the menu, to the body to enhance control and improve speed/efficiency. This may look intimidating to a novice, but once they realize they now control metering, or ISO from a button on the body in a split second, they will love it.
I assume the D700 also comes with an instruction manual, like the D40, and just like you should have done with the D40, you must read it to learn the body.

Moving up you would have a vast improvement in performance, and enhanced controls. Does this sound intimidating, or is it just the assumption that because it costs more, it takes wizardry to work?

No wizardry at all, but you can't deny that upper level cameras can be intimidating. Going by your argument, he may as well get a d3s... Price is an issue still thought. If I were the OP, I'd get a d300 or d300s and then once I need more, get a d3s or whatever is available at the time (d4?). Skip the d700 all together.

 

[itznfb]

Any way you put it, the D90 still has better high ISO performance than the 300s. People may try and write it off as a menial quality, but it's obviously a pretty big deal.

You told the guy you quoted to back up his statement with detailed information so I'd love to see the detailed information that shows the D90 high ISO performance advantage over the D300/300s is anything more than a negligible difference.

No wizardry at all, but you can't deny that upper level cameras can be intimidating. Going by your argument, he may as well get a d3s... Price is an issue still thought. If I were the OP, I'd get a d300 or d300s and then once I need more, get a d3s or whatever is available at the time (d4?). Skip the d700 all together.

"upper level" cameras are much easier and intuitive to use than entry level. It's one of the reasons they are more expensive. Learning on a D300/700 would be cake compared to a D40/60/3000/5000. The D700 wouldn't be any bigger of a jump than the D300s considering they have the same controls and almost identical menu system. The difference would be not being able to use cheaper DX lenses.

 

[Derrel]

"upper level" cameras are much easier and intuitive to use than entry level. It's one of the reasons they are more expensive. Learning on a D300/700 would be cake compared to a D40/60/3000/5000. The D700 wouldn't be any bigger of a jump than the D300s considering they have the same controls and almost identical menu system. The difference would be not being able to use cheaper DX lenses.

It is true-the "upper level" Nikon bodies are actually easier to operate than the entry-level models. More single-function controls on the mid- and high-end Nikon bodies mean that it is easier to adjust the camera's main parameters--ISO, white balance, shutter speed, and lens aperture using a single-purpose control button or wheel, rather than running to a menu system to make commonly-performed adjustments.

Beginners often look at a stripped-down, entry-level camera and think that its fewer buttons and knobs and control dials mean easier operation, but in reality, the higher-end Nikons are actually faster, and easier, to work--especially when under pressure.

 

[Dominantly]

Any way you put it, the D90 still has better high ISO performance than the 300s. People may try and write it off as a menial quality, but it's obviously a pretty big deal.

You told the guy you quoted to back up his statement with detailed information so I'd love to see the detailed information that shows the D90 high ISO performance advantage over the D300/300s is anything more than a negligible difference.

The most obvious, and easily accessible information can be found at DXO labs.
They are factual, and not opinion based so it's a good place to pull information. Of course when considering their results, you have to take into account you are looking at raw based information (which most of us shoot).

If you start off looking at their rankings of all cameras based on sensor performance, the D90 comes in at #17 on the list, one point after the Canon EOS 1D Mk IV, while the D300s comes in 21st, and the D300 24th.

They rate the D90's sensor overall at 72.6 out of 100, the D300s 69.8, & D300 at 66.6 respectively.

That number takes into consideration overall sensor performance (ISO, color depth, dynamic range), and not just the ISO.
The D300's comes much closer to almost matching the D90's sensor capabilities (and the D5000's while we're on subject), but still loses out on every measure of performance for the different categories.

DXO states that with a 5 point difference in sensor score, that corresponds to a sensitivity gain of 1/3 of a stop. So with the D300, the difference in not only High ISO performance, but sensor performance overall is noticeable.
For High ISO performance they rate the D90 at 977, D300s at 787, & D300 at 679. These numbers are by far the greatest variation when looking at the test results.
They have the Nikon D3s rated at 3253 for comparison.

Compare cameras

I also stated, as you quoted, that there was a difference... I'll add, no matter how much D300(s) owners dislike it.:er:

 

[mdtusz]

Any way you put it, the D90 still has better high ISO performance than the 300s. People may try and write it off as a menial quality, but it's obviously a pretty big deal.

You told the guy you quoted to back up his statement with detailed information so I'd love to see the detailed information that shows the D90 high ISO performance advantage over the D300/300s is anything more than a negligible difference.

No wizardry at all, but you can't deny that upper level cameras can be intimidating. Going by your argument, he may as well get a d3s... Price is an issue still thought. If I were the OP, I'd get a d300 or d300s and then once I need more, get a d3s or whatever is available at the time (d4?). Skip the d700 all together.

"upper level" cameras are much easier and intuitive to use than entry level. It's one of the reasons they are more expensive. Learning on a D300/700 would be cake compared to a D40/60/3000/5000. The D700 wouldn't be any bigger of a jump than the D300s considering they have the same controls and almost identical menu system. The difference would be not being able to use cheaper DX lenses.

I won't lie, I've never really thought about it like that till now... Makes sense though. I immediately retract my previous statements. Where were you when I was buying my d300. I would way rather have a d3s

 

[itznfb]

Any way you put it, the D90 still has better high ISO performance than the 300s. People may try and write it off as a menial quality, but it's obviously a pretty big deal.

You told the guy you quoted to back up his statement with detailed information so I'd love to see the detailed information that shows the D90 high ISO performance advantage over the D300/300s is anything more than a negligible difference.

The most obvious, and easily accessible information can be found at DXO labs.
They are factual, and not opinion based so it's a good place to pull information. Of course when considering their results, you have to take into account you are looking at raw based information (which most of us shoot).

If you start off looking at their rankings of all cameras based on sensor performance, the D90 comes in at #17 on the list, one point after the Canon EOS 1D Mk IV, while the D300s comes in 21st, and the D300 24th.

They rate the D90's sensor overall at 72.6 out of 100, the D300s 69.8, & D300 at 66.6 respectively.

That number takes into consideration overall sensor performance (ISO, color depth, dynamic range), and not just the ISO.
The D300's comes much closer to almost matching the D90's sensor capabilities (and the D5000's while we're on subject), but still loses out on every measure of performance for the different categories.

DXO states that with a 5 point difference in sensor score, that corresponds to a sensitivity gain of 1/3 of a stop. So with the D300, the difference in not only High ISO performance, but sensor performance overall is noticeable.
For High ISO performance they rate the D90 at 977, D300s at 787, & D300 at 679. These numbers are by far the greatest variation when looking at the test results.
They have the Nikon D3s rated at 3253 for comparison.

Compare cameras

I also stated, as you quoted, that there was a difference... I'll add, no matter how much D300(s) owners dislike it.:er:

D300s owners don't really care because the difference is only noticeable to a 100% crop pixel peeper. According to DXO the D90 is about 1/6 a stop more sensitive across the same sensor size. And with personal experience I'd say that VERY generous to the D90 the difference in my opinion wasn't in native sensitivity but rather more noise reduction processed against the RAW data. The difference gives you no real world gains. The D90 applies more noise reduction which DXO doesn't state whether they take that into account or not. If they don't, then on their scale the D300s out-performs the D90.

Either way.... you're example only further helped my statement that the difference is negligible. At any rate, the majority of gear junkie photographers I know still consider DxO a bad joke.

"upper level" cameras are much easier and intuitive to use than entry level. It's one of the reasons they are more expensive. Learning on a D300/700 would be cake compared to a D40/60/3000/5000. The D700 wouldn't be any bigger of a jump than the D300s considering they have the same controls and almost identical menu system. The difference would be not being able to use cheaper DX lenses.

I won't lie, I've never really thought about it like that till now... Makes sense though. I immediately retract my previous statements. Where were you when I was buying my d300. I would way rather have a d3s

The D300/s, D700, D3/s would be the same in terms of ease of use especially when the D300/700 are used with the grip.