Comments on: Nikon D80 vs D90 vs D300

By: Jack B

Jack B — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:58:46 +0000

This is a really great article. I would emphasize the importance of how a camera feels over any individual feature. I personally prefer the larger and weightier D300 (I shoot with a D200 which is essentially the same weight/size).

One other note: now that the D300s has come out, second hand D300 cameras are easier to come by and are close in price to a new D90 making the comparison even more valid.

By: Phatman

Phatman — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:44:39 +0000

The D300 is better in every way simple as. It’s just a question of price that’s all.

By: Gary Montagner

Gary Montagner — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:40:42 +0000

Thank you for the great review.
I really enjoyed reading through it all.

Please keep it up.
Cheers, Gary

By: Rainer Lehmann

Rainer Lehmann — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:40:31 +0000

I do not agree on your image quality comparisons. The D90 came out a year later and has higher color depth, higher dynamic range and much better low light ISO sensitivity than the D300, so the overall image quality is better, and noise performance over 800 ISO quite a bit better. I have a friend who has a D90 and we shot the same pictures in low light (I have a D300) at 1600 and 3200 ISO. The D90 is simply better there. You don’t see it always on clear objects (like yours). I even found the D300 noisier in light to heavy shadows at ISO 400 than my D200 or D70. I couldn’t believe this and repeated trial pictures over and over again !! But the D300 always was less clean in the shadows, even at ISO 200.

By: Craig M.

Craig M. — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:20:04 +0000

Your article was very interesting. But I would like to point out, that since digital cameras continue to evolve and improve, one may be hard pressed not to “move up” to the next best camera available. Nikon and Canon seem to crank out new cameras about every 18 months. So I seriously doubt that a professional, owning a D300 will keep it longer than a few years at most — because they’ll want the next, latest great thing. Pit the Nikon D300 against the Nikon D700. No contest. And the price is justified in the same way you justified it between the D90 and the D300. This is where I disagree. I feel, (as Ken Rockwell, correctly points out in his comparisons), that the D90 is a standout for the performance and value. More important is a good lens. For the savings, you could get a D90 and an excellent lens which will do more for your pictures than a D300 and a lesser quality lens. It all comes down to price/performance value. As for me, I considered the D80, D200, D300 and finally the D90 when it came out. I made the plunge. I coupled the D90 with the Nikon 18-200mm lens. I consider myself a prosumer/photo enthusiast. The pictures I have taken and amazed even ME. The layout is superior on the D90 and the noise reduction — very visible in pictures — is superior in the D90. With a great len(s), the video can yield some great results — provided you know the limits of this first generation video capability. All in all, I find it nearly impossible to beat the price/performance threshold. Oh, and, I purchased a Delkin skin for my D90, which, for a mere $35 came a long way in giving me protection against the elements as well as bump and scratch protection. I trimmed a little bit off the bottom of the Delkin skin so that the D90 would accept a battery grip. I may, in time purchase a 10-24 or 12-24mm Nikon lens, as wide angles are great. But for now, I can’t imagine a better combination than the D90 and 18-200mm lens. I spent less money on those two items than what the D300 alone would cost. I see no useful benefit of 51 focal points and additional weatherizing or magnesium body. The polycarbonate body on the D90 is rugged enough and the Delkin skin gives me additional. Hey, for just slightly more than the D300 body, I even managed to get a Nikon Speedlight SB-600 Flash unit. Dollar for dollar, and considering price/performance, I honestly feel the D90 is a better way to go for most individuals. (With all due respect, It is worth reading Ken Rockwell’s comparison reviews on these cameras, too). A nice job on the reviews. Keep up the fine work.

By: mattatouille

mattatouille — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:18:31 +0000

I think D300 is only a good investment if you really need the extra shooting speed. I would much rather get a D90 and spend the difference on a lens, either wide-zoom for landscape, a high-quality sigma midrange F2.8 or longer telephoto. I think shutter durability might be a little exaggerated..I think in general Nikon is very conservative with this figure. Plus if you’re going to be shooting more than 100,000 actuations, you’re probably in the enthusiast-semipro range anyways. People like that will appreciate the D90’s diminuitive package to couple with a D700/. If you’re going to spend for a D300, I say its way better to just bump up to D700 since you’ll get a camera that can last you many more years with the FX sensor (as in usefulness). I see DX having a timeframe of no longer than 5 years at this point.

By: John SMith

John SMith — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:35:29 +0000

When I bought my D80 midyear in enlgand it was £450 with 18-55 kit lens while the D90 was £800-900 with 18-105vr.

Basically the D80 was similarly priced in jessops to a D40 or D60.

The advice should be(If you allready have a decent digital body), if you bought a 70-200vr f2.8 for £1500 vs the £1000 for a D300 youd have a far better investment.

The D300 will be worth 2/3 to 1/2 that in 2 years while the lens may devalue in 5 years but will probably be relevant for 10 years. Ie buy lenses till you have good ones then buy a better body.

By: Drew

Drew — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:43:20 +0000

Thanks for the review. I was especially interested in the part where you mentioned that the D300’s AF was superior to the D90’s. In my experience, in real world shooting indoors with fast moving subjects i.e. my kids, using AF 11pts, there isn’t much difference in the AF between the 2 cameras.

The D300’s “3D” 51pts mode seems to me to work in areas where there is enough contrast between the subject and the background e.g. a bird in flight, however, it really doesnt work that great in the situations in which I shoot.