A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nikon > Nikon SLRs > D300 vs D700 vs D90?!

D300 vs D700 vs D90?!

Bengt Carlsson , Dec 17, 2008; 03:35 a.m.

My dilemma:
I´m going to India in the end of january 2009. My trusty D70 has got a deathsentence - some circuit(?) does´nt function well anymore according to Nikonreps. It does´nt yet show when using, but I can´t take the risk. So I´ve decided to upgrade anyway. If it was´nt for the Indiatrip, I would have stay put for a while in camerainvesting because:
1. I´m not sure yet what´s best for me dx or fx. I can afford what I decide, but I want bang for bucks. I´m not professional, but am picky.
2. I´m pretty convinced that within 1 year the D700 will be replaced to a 24mpx sensor - it´s not the right time to buy now
I own two dx lenses; the 18-70 and a 12-24. Works prefectly well for me. If staying with dx I want to buy a 17-55/2.8. I also own prime lenses; the AF versions of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Today I not use them that much - I prefer simplicity.
What shall I do? I am pushed to decide something that doesn´t feel alright.


    1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6     Next    Last

Rene' Villela , Dec 17, 2008; 03:45 a.m.

Have you thought about a D3 and D3x? They are perfect for India weather wise. You can use your DX and FX lenses. :)

More than what lenses you have would be more helpful if you tell us what you like or shoot more. Landscape, macro, wildlife, etc. Then we can see which camera is better for you! D3 or D3x! :)

Matthew Brennan , Dec 17, 2008; 04:20 a.m.


A 24 MPix D700x defeats the purpose of the D700 - excellent high ISO noise control. Why wait for D700x or a 24 MPix D800 - what specific advantages will it offer you?

If the 18-70mm DX and 12-24mm DX 'work perfectly for you' then why replace with a 17-55mm DX - compared to the much lighter 18-70mm DX it is a very heavy travel zoom by comparision.

If you are looking for simplicity and requiring a forced upgrade from your trusy but now faulty D70 body and you have the lightweight zooms aforementioned then the D90 will reprecent a fine match for your Indian travel plans and will be a fine general purpose camera for after you travels. The D90 will represent a significant boost in performance over the D70. Unless you specifically want a faster AF system the D300 / D700 might be superfluous to your needs.

james martin , Dec 17, 2008; 04:30 a.m.

I think the first thing you have to realize is that no matter which way you go it will be a substantial improvement over the D70 in terms of high iso performance, speed and ergonomics. If low light, high iso performance is not a major concern, than there really is no reason to spend the extra money on the D700, especially when you have DX lenses. The only caveat is if you plan to shoot alot of wide stuff, than the FX format is 100% for you.
I would not purchase a D300 when you can get a better performing camera in the D90 for less money and a D400 is probably about to come out.
The D700 being replaced with a 24mp D800 is really irrelevant imo. I subscribe fully to the megapixel myth.
I am in the same boat sort of. I shoot a D200 with a 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8. I am about to dump the 17-55 because it is a beast and buy some primes and trade the D200 for a D700 because I mostly shoot theatrical stuff.
Good luck and enjoy India.

Bengt Carlsson , Dec 17, 2008; 04:56 a.m.

I´m using my camera in my everyday-life. That includes everything from landscape to lowlightsituations. I prefer the ordinary angles - no supertele or superwideangle. I just want it to work, but I want reliability and quality.
I really don´t like the feeling to be pushed like now of the situation.

Rene' Villela , Dec 17, 2008; 05:47 a.m.

Bengt... if that is the case..... we all think different BUT IF IT WAS ME! i would go for a D300. Here is why:

either one of those 3 cameras will be a really good upgrade from your D70 BUT when i look at the price of the D300 and D90, the difference is so minimal and what you get for a D300 is so much more. better built to start with and access to the menu right on your finger tips not like a D90 that everything is in the menu. Those are the 2 main reason why I upgraded from a D80 to a D300. Now you will ask, why not a D700? well, the crop factor 1.5 that you get on a DX camera is so useful to me. Tele lenses are more expensive than wide angles. i like shooting birds and the longest lens I have is a 300 but the crop factor it becomes a 450 mm lens. I can't expend 8 K on a 400 mm lens so the crop is a blessing. same goes when you shoot macro.
The FX camera will be helpful on the wide angle side BUT you can go really wide on DX too. I have a Tokina 11-16 (16-24 on FX) and that is wide enough for anyone. I think an FX camera is more useful to professionals than to people like me who shoot just for fun.

I am sure others will give you their ideas and at the end you will have to figure it out by yourself! good luck!

Bengt Carlsson , Dec 17, 2008; 06:10 a.m.

Thank you all!
It´s very easy to be blind by all facts and figures these day - the options are too many!

I´ve been thinking of buying a new camera for a year or so, but the "why fix it if it aint broken"-stylish way of thinking I have did delay the process. When the D300 came I was much interested. The D3/fx did´nt give me a feeling of something I needed at all, perhaps the price? I don´t know. I read all threads on the net on how all people was excited over the fantastic D300. I thought "hey, I wait a little while, but I will get myself a D300"!

Then, suddenly, came the D700/fx out of the blue. And, suddenly, all the threads was filled with people convinced that fx was all that they had been waiting for. The dx was something for amateurs, all too noisy etc etc. Fx will fix everything, including peace on earth! (well, perhaps not exactly, but.....) In half a year!! Give me a break!

I must admit that I was influenced by all this too. But today, when I have to decide, I try to come to my senses again. And what I´ve found this far is that it is complex decition to make. Thas why I wrote to you guys.

Is fx the answer to everything? Why did so many people change their point of view concerning the D300/dx almost over half a year? Did I miss something?

Roeland de Bruijn , Dec 17, 2008; 06:21 a.m.

I have a D300, it is brilliant. Better (much) then the D200 I also own. People just want to own the best and newest toys. It is NAS (I have/ad it too)
Magnificent camera. Handle the D300 and the D90, to see which feels better in your hands. Take in consideration in what way you will travel. Walking around, maybe the lighter D90 is the way to go, shooting sports, action in low lighting and dirty environment: D300.
Good luck

Robert Budding , Dec 17, 2008; 07:07 a.m.

I went with the D700 because of its high ISO performance. Even ISO 3200 shots are remarkably clean. I have no need for more resolution. And I have no regrets in buying the D700.

Chuck Arkens , Dec 17, 2008; 07:41 a.m.

I have the D300. I use it everyday in all conditions. The first thing I did was to place body armor on it for some extra crash protection. If you can only take one camera with you take one that will work in as many different conditions as possible. I believe that is the D300. Enjoy your trip to India and don't forget to take an extra battery or two.
Take Care and Enjoy

    1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses