Nikon D90 vs D300 - Advice?

[gnd]

Using an old 28-70mm AF 2.8F lens, how will the range and f-stop change when used with the new DSLRs, i.e. D90?

This lens, when attached to the D90, will have the same field of view as a 42-105mm AF 2.8F lens on a full frame body.

Please also address how a 50mm 1.4F AF lens is affected.

This one, when mounted on a D90, will have the same field of view as a 75mm f1.4 lens mounted on a full frame body.

In both cases the field of view is different while the aperture is not affected.

A smaller than full frame sensor on a D90 crops the full frame picture produced by the lens.
This is why field of view changes when you mount a lens onto a camera with a smaller sensor.

 

[OreoCookie]

Using an old 28-70mm AF 2.8F lens, how will the range and f-stop change when used with the new DSLRs, i.e. D90?

Please also address how a 50mm 1.4F AF lens is affected.

The f-stop will not change at all, the viewing angle is changed, though. Your nice 28-70 zoom will become a nice portrait lens (effectively 42-105 mm).

 

[Lbert]

gnd & oreocookie,

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the education.

 

[wespj]

full comparison

There's a good review of exactly this question at:

http://tech.spotcoolstuff.com/slr-digital-camera/nikon-d80-d90-d300-review


Myself, I'd go for the D300, primarily because it is weatherized and more solidly built. (It also takes amazing photos)

 

[compuwar]

Plus it is easy to pick a website and use their numbers to say this one is better in certain categories.

I'd suggest actually looking at what the DXO benchmarks do before posting something like this.

They're actual tests of imaging performance, and they're not a specific website's numbers- they're the consistent numbers out of a tool that does a very good job of measuring sensor performance and giving an apples-to-apples comparison.

Frankly, if you're benchmark is a 1.5fps difference, then I think that's a heck of a lot more specious than DXO numbers for a given camera- from motorcycle racing to Bald Eagles battling over a fish in flight, I believe that I've probably maxed out my camera's frame rate a dozen times in the last 7 or so *years*.

 

[hogfaninga]

I'd suggest actually looking at what the DXO benchmarks do before posting something like this.

They're actual tests of imaging performance, and they're not a specific website's numbers- they're the consistent numbers out of a tool that does a very good job of measuring sensor performance and giving an apples-to-apples comparison.

Frankly, if you're benchmark is a 1.5fps difference, then I think that's a heck of a lot more specious than DXO numbers for a given camera- from motorcycle racing to Bald Eagles battling over a fish in flight, I believe that I've probably maxed out my camera's frame rate a dozen times in the last 7 or so *years*.

I don't put much stock (actually no stock) in lab tests (DXO--yes I have seen it-so I don't need your suggestions--thanks though) and prefer real life examples instead of controlled lab tests which can be manipulated easily (not saying they did this, but they can be). I owned a D90. Nice camera. That said I sold it and have the D300 which is a nicer camera and since I shoot a lot of sports I prefer having the 8fps (I have the grip) than the 4.5 fps of the D90. Plus it has a lot more features than the D90 that I like.

WOW the post you quoted was made over 2 months ago. I guess better late than never, huh?

 

[gkarris]

There's a good review of exactly this question at:

http://tech.spotcoolstuff.com/slr-digital-camera/nikon-d80-d90-d300-review


Myself, I'd go for the D300, primarily because it is weatherized and more solidly built. (It also takes amazing photos)

Great site! (They also like the Olympus E-420... )

I don't put much stock (actually no stock) in lab tests (DXO--yes I have seen it-so I don't need your suggestions--thanks though) and prefer real life examples instead of controlled lab tests which can be manipulated easily (not saying they did this, but they can be). I owned a D90. Nice camera. That said I sold it and have the D300 which is a nicer camera and since I shoot a lot of sports I prefer having the 8fps (I have the grip) than the 4.5 fps of the D90. Plus it has a lot more features than the D90 that I like.

WOW the post you quoted was made over 2 months ago. I guess better late than never, huh?

Tell me about it. While trying to figure out which dSLR and lenses, I kept ending up at sites that had pictures of these cards with lines on it...

I guess there's truth in it, but I want pictures! (sorry, I don't take pictures of cards with lines and numbers... LOL)

I found this site to be pretty cool:

http://www.motleypixel.com/

 

[compuwar]

WOW the post you quoted was made over 2 months ago. I guess better late than never, huh?

The thread's still active (I typically only read active threads and comment after reading the thread,) and my response is still relevant.

I've seen many photographers who's subjective opinions haven't been born out by objective testing- there are places a D300 is better and places it's worse- since anyone can get and measure results with DxO, manipulation is pretty rare. Since the results are pretty easy to see difference-wise anything that wasn't true would produce empirical evidence to the contrary quite quickly. The noise and dynamic range results tend to be very accurate in my experience, and I've yet to see actual photographs that haven't backed them up other than where the photographer didn't expose correctly for the scene.

 

[diemos]

I'd say get the D90

 

[hogfaninga]

The thread's still active (I typically only read active threads and comment after reading the thread,) and my response is still relevant.

I've seen many photographers who's subjective opinions haven't been born out by objective testing- there are places a D300 is better and places it's worse- since anyone can get and measure results with DxO, manipulation is pretty rare. Since the results are pretty easy to see difference-wise anything that wasn't true would produce empirical evidence to the contrary quite quickly. The noise and dynamic range results tend to be very accurate in my experience, and I've yet to see actual photographs that haven't backed them up other than where the photographer didn't expose correctly for the scene.

Like I said I have owned both and I along with the vast majority on the Nikon boards disagree with you. I'm not going to continue to debate because it isn't worth it. Like I said the D300 is a much better camera. You disagree. Fine. Good for you.

Have fun shooting.

 

[MacJenn]

The D300 is a much better camera. I'm surprised anyone is trying to debate that. Pretty stupid to.

 

[gkarris]

The D300 is a much better camera. I'm surprised anyone is trying to debate that. Pretty stupid to.

That's what the review above said, but would I trust a poster with a pic of a little green shuffle in their post?

 

[Cliff3]

The D300 is a much better camera. I'm surprised anyone is trying to debate that. Pretty stupid to.

The D300 body has a more comprehensive set of features, and if you need those features then you need them. However, the D90 has benefited from a year of extra sensor development, and Nikon has put that year to good use and significantly improved on the sensor. When the D300 successor is released late this year or early in 2010, it will leapfrog past the D90 again.

 

[hogfaninga]

The D300 body has a more comprehensive set of features, and if you need those features then you need them. However, the D90 has benefited from a year of extra sensor development, and Nikon has put that year to good use and significantly improved on the sensor. When the D300 successor is released late this year or early in 2010, it will leapfrog past the D90 again.

Not true. The sensor in the D300 is better even though it is a year older. Check out dpreview who did a 34 page review on the D90 and in it compared it to the D300. Their review of the D90 is the most extensive I have found.

Here are the differences so lets end the speculation:

Quote from Digital Review, D90 and D300 comparison:

-The Nikon D90 offers 12-bit image processing compared to the Nikon D300 were 12-bit or 14-bit can be selected; internal full 16-bit.

-Nikon D90 Body is made of polycarbonate versus the Nikon D300 which is made of the superior rugged magnesium alloy and features enhanced weather seal protection.

-The D300 provides faster start up (0.13 sec) and minimal shutter lag (45ms) compared to the D90 (0.15 sec start up and 65ms shutter lag).

-The D300 offers phase-difference detection Auto Focus in "Tripod shooting mode" (not available on D90).

-The D90 incorporates a 420-pixel RGB sensor for metering compared to the Nikon D300 with a higher end 1,005-pixel RGB sensor. Leveraging the data provided by the1,005-pixel RGB Matrix Meter, the Scene Recognition System in the Nikon D300 provides more precise subject identification, optimizing autofocus, exposure and white balance detection.

-D300 offers both a CPU and AI exposure meter coupling to support metering with older type Nikkor lenses.

-The Nikon D90 features 11 focus points versus the Nikon D300 with a broader AF coverage with 51 focus points.

-The Nikon D300 uses a faster AF module (CAM 3500DX) and offers 15 cross type sensors, Fine AF adjustment is possible on the D300 to match the lens in use.

-Viewfinder frame coverage of approx.96% with the D90 compared to 100% coverage with the Nikon D300.

-The D90 offers Continuous shooting at approx. 4.5 fps versus approx. 6 fps with the D300. The D300 can shoot at up to 8fps with the optional MB-D10 vertical battery grip accessory.

-The D300 offers a greater degree of customization total of 48 custom settings.

Actual pictures (RAW):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp

Now it is up to everyone considering these 2 bodies if the price difference is worth it for the better D300. For me it was.

 

[Cliff3]

Not true. The sensor in the D300 is better even though it is a year older.

The 14 bit depth option is the one sensor-related feature where the D300 sensor has an advantage over the D90. Everything else in your post was not related to the sensor and therefore in refutation of something I didn't say. As I did say in my post, the rest of the D300 body's feature set is more comprehensive than that of the D90. And yes, I am very familiar with those features - my D700 body was derived from the D300 body. If I had to pick one to be a backup body for my own personal use, it would not be the D90.

 

[Cliff3]

The camera's exposure meter has absolutely nothing to do with the imaging sensor.

 

[cgurr1]

I picked up a d90 for christmas and it is an incredible camera. That being said if I had the extra cash I probably would have went for the d300. Both cameras have areas where they are better than the other. From photos I've seen, I do think that the d90 does handle noise better though.

And I'm going to have to agree with cliff3 on this one. Hogfan, EVERY D90/D300 thread I read on here and on the Nikon forum I have to read you justifying your buy of the d300. Let it go man!! Both cameras are incredible and BOTH have areas that beat each other. The d300 as far as technical terms go IS a better camera, but the d90 DOES have better noise performance, statistically DOES have better dynamic range, etc. I have no problem with you stating your opinion but EVERY time someone says that the d90 trumps the d300 in any area you have to come in and be its saving knight. State why you bought the d300 and let it be it.

 

[MacJenn]

Looks like the D90 people are the ones doing the justifying and are insecure. hogfan provided the proof with a link and he is the one who gets attacked. That is whats funny here. I read that review from digital preview and they stated the same thing. The D90 has nothing at all on the D300. Nothing. It is a huge review that covers everything. I am shocked anyone can say with a straight face that the D90 is as good as the D300 overall. People who do that are just justifying their D90 purchase.

 

[cgurr1]

I'm not justifying the d90, I said that the d300 IS the better camera and if I had the extra cash I would have a d300 instead of a d90. That being said, there ARE a few points that the d90 outshines the d300. On the flip side there are MORE areas that the d300 has that outshine the d90. I know I butted in and took sides but I wasn't trying to be an ass, I just noticed that in this and a Nikon forum the only topics I see him post in are the d90/d300 and its always about justifying the d300. There are PROVEN points that the d90 is better in and he continues to argue about them. I have no problem with the guy

 

[cgurr1]

Looks like the D90 people are the ones doing the justifying and are insecure. hogfan provided the proof with a link and he is the one who gets attacked. That is whats funny here. I read that review from digital preview and they stated the same thing. The D90 has nothing at all on the D300. Nothing. It is a huge review that covers everything. I am shocked anyone can say with a straight face that the D90 is as good as the D300 overall. People who do that are just justifying their D90 purchase.

When did I say that the d90 was better than the d300?? I said I would rather have a d300! Anyways you can go look at different sights and different reviews and the majority say that the d90 has better high ISO performance. And by dxo's test it STATISTICALLY has better dynamic range. Those are the only two points I commented on that the d90 is better in. Oh yea and the FN button! Other than that the d300 is the best DX camera on the market!

 

[kallisti]

Looks like the D90 people are the ones doing the justifying and are insecure. hogfan provided the proof with a link and he is the one who gets attacked. That is whats funny here. I read that review from digital preview and they stated the same thing. The D90 has nothing at all on the D300. Nothing. It is a huge review that covers everything. I am shocked anyone can say with a straight face that the D90 is as good as the D300 overall. People who do that are just justifying their D90 purchase.

The question isn't whether the D300 is "better" than the D90. If they were equal in price, I doubt anyone would opt for the D90 (though it's image sensor IS marginally better, so in theory it may actually take better images all other things being equal ). The real question (i.e. the one the OP asked) is which one is a better body for someone without any Nikon lenses.

I would argue that a D90 plus an extra $550ish to spend on lenses is a wiser choice than a D300 for most people. If you have an infinite budget, this clearly isn't the case. If you have specific shooting needs that can only be met with a D300, this isn't the case. If you are under the impression that magnesium alloy magically improves the final image in a way that plastic can't, this isn't the case. If you feel that a more expensive body makes you more like a pro and therefor you are guaranteed better shots, then this isn't the case. For everyone else, a D90 probably IS a better choice.

Oh, and I own a D300.