# FPS for dog photo shooting



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

Hi all.  I take a few hundreds pictures a month by just taking dogs pictures using my canon P&S (SD1000) but now I want a SLR.  I want to know what you think should be the minimum requirement in the # of frame per second (FPS) for the SLR body to be able to capture, so I could comfortably keep shooting the photos of randomly & rapidly moving dogs at the field, then throw away bad frames.  I've been doing it with my Canon P&S SD1000 and it doesn't work well at all.  My SD1000 is impotent, and it sucks.  More specifically I'm considering a Nikon D90 (4.5 FPS) or a D300 (6.5FPS).  Does D90 shoot fast enough for my particular requirement?  Thank you in advance for your opinions.


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

By the way my Canon SD1000 shoots at continuous 1.7 FPS, and it's useless for dogs running around.  So it needs to be faster than that.  Thank you.


----------



## Flash Harry (Sep 23, 2008)

Any DSLR will do, they'll all be better than a P&S, but, besides your FPS rate its probably more to do with your shutter speed and technique. What type of dog shots are you after, are they race dogs? Post an example then someone here could give you "pointers". H


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

Thank you Flash Harry.  I currently don't have the photos unfortunately (I'm away from my PC).  The dogs are at the medium size outdoor fields.  They are generally running around and my dogs especially go so very fast (Corgis as they try to herd other dogs around).  I literally guess our dogs may be running & unexpectedly turning really at 30mph if not faster (I'm just guessing).  What's difficult is to keep shooting them as they UNEXPECTEDLY turn and keep running nonstop.  Another difficulty is that I shoot at sunset situation, then once we come home, we shoot indoor under poor lighting, though they tend to move around less indoors but they are obviously not still.  So the challenge I face is rapidly & unexpectedly moving dogs at the field particularly at sunset, plus poor lighting indoor (but still dogs chase after another fast indoors).  Thank you.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Sep 23, 2008)

It shouldn't all be about frames per second.. it should be about the quality of shots within the frames per second.... ie proper freezing of action, good focus and composition.... any entry level DSLR and some skill by you should be able to achieve this at 3 fps...

btw... if you utilize the D90 4.5 frames per second you get a total of 6.17 hours of shooting before you've reached the expected life cycle of the shutter mechanisms (100,000).... lol... you could buy a brand new D90 on friday and blow it up in one weekend of intense shooting....

I guess then you could sell it on ebay and says it's only three days old....


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 23, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> any entry level DSLR and some skill by you should be able to achieve this at 3 fps...


 
Still trying to unload that D60...........
I know you still want the D300


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 23, 2008)

> Thank you Flash Harry. I currently don't have the photos unfortunately (I'm away from my PC). The dogs are at the medium size outdoor fields. They are generally running around and my dogs especially go so very fast (Corgis as they try to herd other dogs around). I literally guess our dogs may be running & unexpectedly turning really at 30mph if not faster (I'm just guessing). What's difficult is to keep shooting them as they UNEXPECTEDLY turn and keep running nonstop. Another difficulty is that I shoot at sunset situation, then once we come home, we shoot indoor under poor lighting, though they tend to move around less indoors but they are obviously not still. So the challenge I face is rapidly & unexpectedly moving dogs at the field particularly at sunset, plus poor lighting indoor (but still dogs chase after another fast indoors). Thank you.


It sounds like you are having problems shooting fast objects in lower light situations.  Are you getting shots that are blurry?  If so, a faster fps won't help with that.  
You could shoot at 10 frames per second, but if the shutter speed for those shots is only 1/30 or slower,  you are still going to get blur.  
What you probably want is a fast shutter speed...and to get that, you need either or a lens with a larger max aperture or a higher ISO setting.  ISO performance (how much noise it shows) will differ from camera to camera...so you would want to choose a newer one with good high-ISO performance.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Sep 23, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> Still trying to unload that D60...........
> I know you still want the D300




meh.... read my siggy.... i'm a big boy now....

you ready to sell that D700 yet?


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

Thanks dEARlEADER, so basically you are  saying both D90 & D300 between my choices are suffice in terms of the FPS.   

Big Mike, yes I'm getting  quite many blurry pictures using my P&S.  First I was shooting with the auto  mode, then as I started learning the camera, I have switched to manual mode to  bring up the ISO but anything beyong 800 is useless with my Canon SD1000  P&S.  I can't remember what specific ISO setting is more prone to a blurry  photo, but I do get many to say the least.  And I was aware of the importance of  capability to shoot at high ISO, so that's why I was looking at Nikon D90 and  D300.  

If you guys are saying the  FPS don't matter at all for my application, then I'd consider the D90.  It's  cheaper than D300, and they say D90 is better at higher ISO than D300.   

Are you sure faster FPS  doesn't help me at all?  I've heard a higher FPS is for sport shooting, and my  application involves much of fast moving animals and for that I was particularly interested in the 3D tracking focus of these cameras.  

Thank you.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Sep 23, 2008)

hoboahoy said:


> Are you sure faster FPS  doesn't help me at all?  I've heard a higher FPS is for sport shooting, and my  application involves much of fast moving animals and for that I was particularly interested in the 3D tracking focus of these cameras.
> 
> Thank you.



A faster FPS will surely give you more selection... but if your technique is off.. all you will end up with is more crap frames per second (CFPS)... if your shutter/aperture and ISO combinations are CORRECT for the exposure you might be perfectly happy with the results of 3 FPS

pro sports photographers need serious FPS because this is what puts steak on the table... if ur not shooting pro you can get desirable images at slower frame rates with a little effort...


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 23, 2008)

> Are you sure faster FPS doesn't help me at all? I've heard a higher FPS is for sport shooting, and my application involves much of fast moving animals and for that I was particularly interested in the 3D tracking focus of these cameras.


A faster fps will help you to get more shots when the action is happening, so you have a better chance at getting a shot at the optimal moment.  However, practice and good timing will also help that.  But none of that will matter if the shots are blurry...which is solely a result of the shutter speed and had nothing to do with how many frames per second you are shooting.

When choosing your camera, also consider the price of a good lens.  You want a 'fast' lens (large maximum aperture).  For example, if you have a lens with a maximum aperture of F5.6, you might get a shutter speed of 1/30 (not very fast).  If you have a lens with a max aperture of F2.8, that is two stops bigger, so you would get a shutter speed of 1/120 (1/125)...which would go a long way to helping you get sharp shots.  If you had a lens with a max aperture of F1.8, you could get a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster.  
Shooting fast moving subjects in low light, is just about the hardest thing to do well, because of the limitations of the equipment.  The best lenses for the job are very large and expensive, just look at the gear that pro sports shooters use.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 23, 2008)

hoboahoy said:


> they say D90 is better at higher ISO than D300.[/quote]
> 
> Not sure where you heard that, but I have used both the D90 (Don't ask how) and I own a D300 and the D300 has lower noise in my opinion.  Please keep in mind that both are very clean up to ISO 1600.
> The one thing you should be more concerned with is faster lenses (Larger Aperture - F2.8) this will allow you to keep the ISO down and still get good shutter speed.
> ...


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

dEARlEADER, Big Mike, SpeedTrap, thank you all for valuable comments.  I'm reading your posting carefully to learn from them.  I have no skill much, but from what you say either D90 or D300 is good with a combination of fast lens.  I'd say my budget is $3000-ish max, anything beyond that is outrageous for my recreational photo shooting.  You are all very helpful.  I do see you guys do not necessarily recommend a D300 over D90 for higher FPS.  I got that.  Thank you.


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

Speedtrap, I'm thinking of a D90, plus 18-200mm VR, plus a prime 50mm F1.8.  I saw someone's dog photo taken with the prime, and got blown away, but I still need the convenience of zoom.  My dog parks are pretty large, and I see the dogs as dots from the other side of the field.  For that I just have to have a zoom.  Thanks again.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 23, 2008)

The problem with the 18-200mm is that the max aperture at the long end of the zoom is only F5.6...which will make it hard to get sharp shots of moving subjects.  A better option, would be the 70-200mm F2.8...but of course it's bigger, heavier and more expensive.  You might also consider the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm F2.8.  

The 50mm F1.8 would certainly help you to get faster shutter speeds, but it's not great for subjects that are far away.  

Like I said before, this is why pro sports shooters use lenses that are huge, and really expensive.  

Of course, an easy solution is to shoot during the day when it's bright out.


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

Big Mike, I hear you loud & clear about the 70-200mm F2.8, but that's beyond my budget though that must be a nice lens.  I just can't justify the cost.  Part of reason why I think of the 50mm prime F1.8 is relatively cheep and small, so it's more practical where I see myself with the  18-200mm VR simply for convenience at expense of charpness.I just checked the 70-800mm Tamron, Sigma, they are arround $700-800, which is reasonable in price, but they seem too huge, another inconvenience.  These lens may be bigger than my Corgi dogs... but I'll definitely remember your suggestion of these particular Sigma & Tamron (Nikon 70-200 F2.8 is impossible due to the price).


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 23, 2008)

Not sure where you are located but here is an example of a good setup for you.
This is in Canadian Dollars.

D90 - $1119.00
Sigma AF70-200mm F2.8 APO EXDG (Nikon) $1099.00
Sigma AF24-70mm F2.8 EX DG (Nikon $529.00
Nikon 50mm F1.8 AF-D $149.00
Total $2896.00

Or 

D300 $1769.00
Sigma AF70-200mm F2.8 APO EXDG (Nikon) $1099.00
Sigma AF24-70mm F2.8 EX DG (Nikon) $529.00
Nikon 50mm F1.8 AF-D $149.00
Total $3546.00

This would be everything you need for a long time.
If you are in the US the price will be lower and if you are in Europe it will be higher.


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 23, 2008)

SpeedTrap, thank you for taking time to prepare the figures.  Yeah I'm in Tucson Arizona USA.  My afore mentioned figures came from B& H photos web site...this hobby is EXPEN$IVE.  Yeah those hardware set would last me long.  Lots to learn for a beginner.  Nice gear.  I just need to make up my mind between D90 & D300.  Being a casual nonprofessional, I feel I stress more of practicality (like portability & lighter smaller lenses etc).  Maybe I'd appreciate a smaller camera D90 (istead of D300), if everybody says D90 provides sufficient FPS.  I'll play with the idea and will decide for the next few weeks till the D90 body only comes out.  Thank you, Speedtrap.


----------



## uplander (Sep 23, 2008)

As someone who shoots dogs in action all the time, I'll put my 2 cents worth in. It's not about FPS but if definately helps. If I were going to try to stay at the economical end of the spectrum,I would look to get a Rebel XTI or a 10D and a A Canon EF 70-300 mm f/4-5.6IS USM This setup will get the shots in decent light.
Examples / 10D + EF 70-300












On the other end of the spectrum I would go with a Canon 40D or the 50D and either the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L I USM or the EF 100- 400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM.
Examples
EF 100-400




EF 70-200





The thing is it's not really about FPS but about IS and AF points with AF being more important. Getting the shutter speed up there in the above 1/500th sec or better, the faster the better.

Your on the right track tho, A P&S just will not cut it. A DSLR is the way to go.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Sep 23, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> Not sure where you are located but here is an example of a good setup for you.
> This is in Canadian Dollars.
> 
> D90 - $1119.00
> ...




errr... i'd stay away from recommending that 24-70 2.8 Sigma.... believe me i searched the entire internet for a reason to convince me to buy it and came up dry.. it's soft at 2.8 .... why buy 2.8 glass if you have to stop it down to f4 to get a decent shot...

however... i believe sigma just announced a revamp of that lens with HSM at photokina... maybe they cleaned up the image quality too... i'd wait till that lens comes out in the next couple of months instead of the current one...


EDIT : don't forget about used gear.... you can find the Nikon 28-70 2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 in the range of $800-$1000 a piece.... these are still top notch lenses and you would have enough change left over for your body... these lenses are available all the time on the nikon forums...


----------



## Aggressor (Sep 23, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> errr... i'd stay away from recommending that 24-70 2.8 Sigma.... believe me i searched the entire internet for a reason to convince me to buy it and came up dry.. it's soft at 2.8 .... why buy 2.8 glass if you have to stop it down to f4 to get a decent shot...



I agree.  I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and I almost never shoot at 2.8.  I have to consciously remind myself...  f4 and no more.


----------



## uplander (Sep 23, 2008)

Shooting dogs in action ...unless your in an enclosed pen or yard. 50 MM will not cut it . A 70-200 has barely enough reach. A zoom in the 70-300 or 100 -400 will get it done. A decent body with good high ISO performance will do justice with a lens with a smaller aperture. You can armchair quarterback this all you want but getting out there and doing it will show you what works and doesn't. I don't wanna be a prick about it but show some examples to back up  wht your spewing


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 23, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> errr... i'd stay away from recommending that 24-70 2.8 Sigma.... believe me i searched the entire internet for a reason to convince me to buy it and came up dry.. it's soft at 2.8 .... why buy 2.8 glass if you have to stop it down to f4 to get a decent shot...


 
I own this lens and I have to say, it is not soft wide open.  This lens has been around a long time and I know many pros that use it.  it is a bit long in the tooth but for the money it is a good lens.


----------



## Chewbecca (Sep 24, 2008)

I suggested the 50mm f1.8 lens to you because it was a good lens for INSIDE, that would do better in low light situations than the 18-200mm lens.

When I use the 50mm to shoot my dog, I am in my fenced in yard.
This was shot on a cloudy day, in mainly the shade (we have two trees in our backyard that really shade it).
I don't remember what my aperture was set at (I believe it was f2.2 or f2.5), and I *think* my shutter was 1/800 or a tad higher).


















Some more from the sunshine shooting I did (the other pics from the other thread):
























All shots taken with the D300 and 50mm f1.8 
She was in non-stop motion, so all are completely frozen.
Again, I don't like shooting ANYTHING in direct sunlight like that, but I didn't have a choice, really.  And they didn't come out too bad considering.
One of the problems with using the 50mm f1.8 for shots like this (regarding the FPS and just in general using it for action shots with dogs) is: Obviously, you have to be closer to get a good, sharp shot.  But, due to that fact, you'll often cut off parts of the dog in your photos.  Taking that into consideration, unless you're a coordinated saint and are perfect, the FPS isn't going to be THAT much of a use because as the dog moves, you're going to cut off parts of it.  My shots from that sunshine shooting came out GREAT...if you don't worry about the fact that I cut off paws and even most her legs in a lot of the shots.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Sep 24, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> I own this lens and I have to say, it is not soft wide open.  This lens has been around a long time and I know many pros that use it.  it is a bit long in the tooth but for the money it is a good lens.




wow... i surprised to hear you say that.... wish you were around last week when I dropped two grand on the Nikkor...

what about lowlight focus?  do you this lens to shoot your weddings?


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 24, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> wow... i surprised to hear you say that.... wish you were around last week when I dropped two grand on the Nikkor...
> what about lowlight focus? do you this lens to shoot your weddings?


 
Low light focus has everything to with the Cameras AF system and very little to do with the lens, but I have had no problems in any light. I shoot in some dark reception halls with my D700.  This is the only lens in my lineup that is not Nikon, I will replace it in time, but it is tough when on a print that is 16X20 I can't tell the difference (I borrowed the Nikon 24-70 to test it).

It is possible I got lucky and have a good copy, but that means that everyone else I know who shoots with this lens got lucky as well, Or maybe there are a few people out there that got un-lucky and are just a bit more vocal about the problem.

I firmly believe in going and testing everything myself.  If I believe half of everything I read on my equipment, I would have saved up for a hassy and only work in the studio.  The Real world and test labs are very different places.

And as for my D700, when I order my D3X you can buy it off me J


----------



## Mystwalker (Sep 24, 2008)

P&S are not too good at capturing moving targets - not even crawling babies.  I imagine dogs are much faster and agility type dogs even faster.

The "FPS" you are talking about is called "shutter speed" on a DSLR.  The faster the shutter speed the better chance you have of capturing moving target without the "blur" - I'm assuming you want to jump to DSLR to get rid of blur.  This is original reason I jumped to DSLR - to get rid of blur of my daughter running around.

Before you dive into DSLR - you will want to know that shooting moving targets in an indoor environment (dog show/competition?) may require top end lens which will cost more then the camera itself.


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 24, 2008)

Uplander, very nice photos you have taken.  I am again very impressed with what experienced photographers could do with the skills and the equipment.  

Uplander & SpeedTrap, according to what you said, I see the AF capability as one of the utmost priority features.  If my decisions so far isn't wrong, both Nikon D90 & D300 are said to have a decent Auto Focus system.  The difference between them is 11pts vs 51pts  where they have both 3D tracking capability.  Is D300 noticeably better in AF function when I operate under poor lighting or under quick unexpected movtions of the dogs?  If the D300 51pt AF can make a noticeable difference to freeze the moment, like Uplander or Chewbecca have demonstrated in the photos, I would choose the D300.  Please advise.  

Chewbecca, I'll respond back to your email later (sorry I haven't had a chance last night), but I'm firmly set to obtain a prime 50mm F1.8 in accord with your suggestion.  Thank you.  Now Im trying to decide on the camera body (wither D90 or D300) and longer range lens(es).  

Thank you.  You are very knowledgeable.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 24, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> The "FPS" you are talking about is called "shutter speed" on a DSLR.


 
Actually they are not the same, FPS are how many Frames per second you can shoot. For example the D60 shoots at 3.5 framers per second no matter what the shutter speed is (this is asuming you are shooting at shutter speeds of 1/60 or faster)  and the D3 shoots at 8 framer per second with the MB-10 Grip and proper batteries.  Shutter speed only refers to how long the shutter is open (30 sec to 1/8000 sec on the D300)


----------



## Mystwalker (Sep 24, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> Actually they are not the same, FPS are how many Frames per second you can shoot. For example the D60 shoots at 3.5 framers per second no matter what the shutter speed is (this is asuming you are shooting at shutter speeds of 1/60 or faster) and the D3 shoots at 8 framer per second with the MB-10 Grip and proper batteries. Shutter speed only refers to how long the shutter is open (30 sec to 1/8000 sec on the D300)


 
Oops ... you are correct.  I had my mind on graphic cards and getting max "fps" for Crysis.  

Shutter speed on DSLR - how fast a DSLR can take continuous photos


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 24, 2008)

hoboahoy said:


> Uplander & SpeedTrap, according to what you said, I see the AF capability as one of the utmost priority features. If my decisions so far isn't wrong, both Nikon D90 & D300 are said to have a decent Auto Focus system. The difference between them is 11pts vs 51pts where they have both 3D tracking capability. Is D300 noticeably better in AF function when I operate under poor lighting or under quick unexpected movtions of the dogs? If the D300 51pt AF can make a noticeable difference to freeze the moment, like Uplander or Chewbecca have demonstrated in the photos, I would choose the D300. Please advise.


 
The auto focus is a very important thing to consider, but you also need to consider what else you are doing with the camera and what you may be doing in the future.

If you have the money I would consider the D300 over the D90 as long as you do not need the video of the D90, here is why.

1-The D300 does have a 51 pt AF, but you change it to 11 pt if you want to, as well there are several other choices as well.
2- 6 FPS out of the box and if you add the MB-10 Grip you can get 8 frames per second (I have the grip for mine and I like it)
3- Weather sealed magnesium alloy body, if you ever get attacked by a dog you can beat them back with the camera (kidding)

The d300 will allow you to grow and do more in the future, but you need to be aware that there are no auto modes on it. Just Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Manual and Program. You will not find the Green Auto, Landscape, Night and Portrait modes you find on most consumers DSLR. On the other hand no one asks to borrow your camera because they have no Idea how to use it.

You will initially become frustrated with the D300, but once you get past that and read the manual a few times you will be very happy with it.


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 24, 2008)

Thank you SpeedTrap for a straight forward response.  I fully understood your opinion with my limited ability.


----------



## Lyncca (Sep 24, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> You will not find the Green Auto, Landscape, Night and Portrait modes you find on most consumers DSLR. On the other hand no one asks to borrow your camera because they have no Idea how to use it.


 
I will have the money one day to get the D300 and I can't wait to get rid of those stupid settings that take up room on my dial!


----------



## dEARlEADER (Sep 24, 2008)

Lyncca said:


> I will have the money one day to get the D300 and I can't wait to get rid of those stupid settings that take up room on my dial!




meh... then when you get your D300 you will reprogram all of those settings into your stored shooting banks....lol...


I love the D300 shooting banks.... they are a little more flexible i suppose than the stupid ones on your dial....


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 24, 2008)

Lyncca & dEARlEADER, is the D300 easy enough to be used by my wife (non techie, but can handle a PC or ipod)?  If the programming is a one-time thing, I have to take the initiative and program it first, but then I'm a total noob so I'm hoping I won't have issues while I read the manual and navigate myself through for programming.  Would my wife or myself have problems with the D300?  You make it sounds like the dials get quite annoying for people once you get used to the operations.


----------



## Chewbecca (Sep 24, 2008)

I bought David Busch's Nikon D300 book, and that has been more useful to me than my manual EVER will be.:mrgreen:


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 24, 2008)

It shouldn't be an issue.  Some of us just get annoyed at camera companies because they put these 'idiot modes' on to cameras that cost thousands of dollars.  I haven't used the 'picture' modes on my cameras...except for testing them out when I first got the cameras.  So you wouldn't be missing much by not having them there.

If the camera has aperture priority and shutter priority (which is does) then you and/or your wife will be OK.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 24, 2008)

Hehehe...







That's awesome!


----------



## hoboahoy (Sep 24, 2008)

Sugoi inu !#?!!!  (= Cool dog)


----------



## Alex Europa (Nov 2, 2008)

Chewbecca, I LOVE those photos. Great work!

- Alex


----------



## K_Pugh (Nov 2, 2008)

don't know if anyone mentioned but another advantage of a good SLR over a P&S is less shutter lag/delay.. I hated my old Fuji S5000 for it, moving up to a D70 at the time made a huge difference.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 2, 2008)

I did not read the entire thread, but I am pretty sure that someone explained to you the differences between # of pics per second (FPS) and shutter speed (the speed at which EACH picture is taken).  You are not looking for a high FPS camera, you are looking at increasing shutter speed.

Any camera (even a P&S!) can take a picture of running dogs clearly without blur as long as it is bright enough and you know how to set your camera up (by 1/250th of a second most but the very fastest motion can be eliminated... example, at 1/250th shutter speeds, even spinning helicopter blades look almost static!).  However, where SLR cameras excel are in those areas of more challenging shooting situations like lower light, indoor situations and even night shooting.

To get a fast shutter speed, you need either very bright conditions or:
- A camera that supports fast shutter speeds (most of them do already, even the P&S)
- Setting the camera to higher ISO levels
- having a fast lens that can do consistent F/2.8 or bigger (numerically smaller)


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 2, 2008)

Well I tried but did anyone mention that ye old D90 is so fast it takes HD movies? How's that for fps?  LOL


----------



## kundalini (Nov 2, 2008)

Since this thread has been resurected, I'll throw my 2¢ in the ring.

I've never held the D90 so I have no input about it. However, the D300 is a piece of work and you'll not regret its purchase. But to get the most out of it, you will want top shelf glass in front of it.

*Shutter Speed at 1/8000*

*6 FPS*

Both of those links were shot with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.


----------



## Lyncca (Nov 3, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Since this thread has been resurected, I'll throw my 2¢ in the ring.
> 
> I've never held the D90 so I have no input about it. However, the D300 is a piece of work and you'll not regret its purchase. But to get the most out of it, you will want top shelf glass in front of it.
> 
> ...


 
Nice photos in such low light! I just ordered my D300, and then its time to start saving for the 70-200 2.8.... Does it ever end??


----------

