# D90 vs. D300s



## robdavis305 (Oct 31, 2009)

I currently have a D90 and was thinking about upgrading to the 300 and was wanting to know the major differences between the two. Thanks for your input.


----------



## joemc (Oct 31, 2009)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-news-reviews/178185-d90-d300-worth-cost.html


----------



## KmH (Oct 31, 2009)

The major difference is the D300s costs more.

You can also visit www.nikonusa.com . Open the web site in 2 windows, navigate to and click on the "Specifications" list for each cameras and compare the 2.


----------



## Don Kondra (Oct 31, 2009)

Much easier to do it here - Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ

Go to Buying Guide on the left side and choose Side by Side...

Cheers, Don


----------



## SlimPaul (Oct 31, 2009)

In my opinion, it's not worth it. There's just not enough features to justify the price difference. Wait for D300x (or whatever they'll call it :greenpbl. Maybe the next model will offer more megapixels, and certainly more features.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Oct 31, 2009)

I'd love a D300s, but my thoughts are that unless I'm making money at photography or fall into a lot of disposable income, the D90 is more than enough camera for me and the D300s isn't even close to being necessary.

It is tempting, but I'm putting my money toward lenses.


----------



## bhphotography (Oct 31, 2009)

Unless your a pro, I don't think it would be worth the money. Your using the same sensor and have the same ISO and colour range.

If you are pro, the d300s is a tougher built camera, and you could use your d90 as a backup.


----------



## DScience (Oct 31, 2009)

I think it's worth it if you won't ever consider getting a full frame. It's the best DX on the market, in my opinion. )


----------



## Derrel (Oct 31, 2009)

The D300 has a more robust AF system and a faster firing rate of 6 frames per second body-only; but with the battery grip MB-D10 attached and with the proper batteries, the D300 can shoot at 8 frames per second. That might be important to you if you're shooting college football or other action sports. It is not the firing rate per se that makes a a high FPS camera better for sports--it is that the AF system can only collect AF data when the mirror is in the down,or viewing position,and when the mirror is down 8 times per second, the AF system is supplied with data more often, and the lens can be adjusted for focus more times per second than with a slower camera.

The newer D300s has added video capture, and has a slightly better image quality at ISO 3200 than the earlier D300, and slightly better than the D90 at ISO 3200, from what I have seen.


----------



## KmH (Oct 31, 2009)

SlimPaul said:


> In my opinion, it's not worth it. There's just not enough features to justify the price difference. Wait for D300x (or whatever they'll call it :greenpbl. Maybe the next model will offer more megapixels, and certainly more features.


I doubt there will be a D300X. A D400 in about 18 months sounds about right though.

The D3000, D5000, D90, being entry level cameras, all share Nikon's entry level Multi-CAM1000 autofocus module, having 11 focus points, only 1 of which is a cross-type focus point.

The D300/D300s has the same, 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) Nikon Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus module; AF fine adjustment possible, that a D3s or D3X has.

Add 9 auto brackets (D90, only 3), up to 8 fps burst mode (D90, only 4.5),  1/8000 shutter (D90 only 1/4000), uncompressed RAW (D90, compressed RAW), 2 memory cards (D300s, not D300), Hi-speed USB, NTSC, HDMI, PAL, 10-pin Terminal, _HDMI Type C i_nterfaces (D90, only USB, NTSC, HDMI), metal body and weather sealing.

Those added features are what separate an entry level camera from an advanced amateur camera.

If you don't need any of the additional features.....don't spend the money for the D300/D300s, because the D90 and the D300/D300s have the same image sensor and EXPEED image processor, so the image quality is virtually identical.


----------



## Patrice (Oct 31, 2009)

If I had to do it all over again it would be:

D300s and 70-200 for sports...
D3 and 24-70 for events
D3x and good primes for studio and with 14-24 for landscapes....

... dream on.


----------



## KmH (Nov 1, 2009)

Patrice said:


> If I had to do it all over again it would be:
> 
> D300s and 70-200 for sports...
> D3 and 24-70 for events
> ...


Right on! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

But....double the D300S and D3 so you can have 2 lenses mounted at once and add the AF-S 400 mm f/2.8 for field sports.


----------

