26 replies to this topic

[Tony]

I have decided to make a change.  I really like the Nikon D70, however I am tired of having to work around its limitations/shortcomings.  Those being inability to handle the red and yellow channels and also its Limited Dynamic Range, thereby producing overexposed images. It served as a very good bridge camera into Digital Photography. So, I have done quite a bit of research in my quest to upgrade.  I believe I very much like the reviews on the Nikon D300 and especially the D3300.

 

   If anyone has extensive experience with either or both, I am very interested in your sharing your knowledge.  Fortunately all the Nikon lenses I have are compatible with both the D300 and D3300.  

 

Many thanks.

 

Tony

[Merco_61]

If you get a D3x00 body, you will lose autofocus on all lenses that aren't AF-S. This includes the 28-105, by the way. The D300 and D300s on the other hand work fully with any lenses made after 1977 within the limitations of the lens itself, except the ultra-rare F3AF lenses. You will even get metering back with your series E 50/1.8.

 

The D300 is a workhorse, but the later D300s has even lower noise levels and higher DR at high ISO settings.

 

The 12 MP sensor is, however, dated and even the D7000 gives cleaner files when the ISO is cranked up. The D300 is easier to use without taking it from the eye as the controls are more customizable, but if you don't work that way the D7000 might be a better choice. The D300 and D300s have one weakness and that is the rubber grips. They swell when subject to ozone and the double-sided tape used for mounting can lose adhesion when used extensively in hot conditions. This weakness is shared by all Nikon DSLRs, but the pro bodies are more often affected as they aren't babied like the consumer-oriented cousins.

 

In your case, I would look for an amateur-owned D300s or a D7000. They can often be found quite cheap as people upgrade to FX, the D7200 or the D500 and don't need the old body anymore.

[Tony]

Thank you very much.  I am digesting all the information you have provided. Admittedly I am drawn to the D3300 and I understand the issue about losing auto focus.  I now use a tripod on about 99.9% of my shots so I am using manual focus to make certain it is where I want it before I activate the remote control.  It would be a small sacrifice in order to obtain a very high quality camera.  I am still in the embryonic phase of the quest.  Again, many,many thanks for your assistance.

 

Rgds,

 

Tony

[TBonz]

The other cameras Peter suggested are much higher quality cameras than the D3300 in my opinion.  The D3300, while it is a nice capable camera, is basically at the low end of a fine line of quality camera bodies.  The two cameras that Peter suggested were both at the top of the DX line at one point in time and are still very high quality cameras.  I sold my last D7000 about a year ago, but that was only because I was purchasing my second D4 and wanted to offset some of the cost.  I would certainly recommend the two bodies that Peter suggested along with the D500, D7100 and D7200 as your best DX choices available.

[leighgion]

I owned a D300 until I upgraded to a D700. Excellent camera. The high ISO performance was fantastic for a DX camera of the time, the body is built like a tank and it has the full range of hardware controls. I never had a D300S, but all accounts it was the same only better, plus video. If you're willing to buy second hand a few years behind the curve, I'd heartily recommend either model as it'd be a huge upgrade from a D70.

 

Here's some of my D300 stuff:

 

From a Kingdom by the Sea by Leigh, on Flickr

 

Purple Triumph by Leigh, on Flickr

 

God is a Spider by Leigh, on Flickr

[Ron]

Nice work, Leighgion.

 

--Ron

[Tony]

For the past three days I have been looking into the reviews and ratings of the Nikon D90.  I have found that this model is nearly identical to the D300/s cameras and produces just as good or even better photos than the D300/s cameras and for hundreds of dollars less.  If anyone has extensive experience with this Superman of a camera from Nikon, I will certainly be very grateful in the sharing of information.

 

Thanks a bunch for any assistance.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Merco_61]

The D90 has no metering with manual focus lenses, a much less capable AF, worse ergonomics and a shutter rated for far fewer exposures (100000 vs 150000) than the D300/D300s. It's in between the D300 models when it comes to picture quality. The D90 viewfinder shows 96% of the frame, the D300 shows 100%.

[Tony]

The D90 has no metering with manual focus lenses, a much less capable AF, worse ergonomics and a shutter rated for far fewer exposures (100000 vs 150000) than the D300/D300s. It's in between the D300 models when it comes to picture quality. The D90 viewfinder shows 96% of the frame, the D300 shows 100%.

Once again, your insight is greatly appreciated.

 

Tony

[etphoto]

Going to the D90 (other than the savings in $) isn't much of a jump from the D70. If you're going to change go bigger. I never used a D300 on a job but my mother has one and did shoot with it a lot. Nice camera.

Twitter: @PhotographyET

[TBonz]

As someone who moved from a D100 to a pair of D90s, they are also excellent cameras.  I didn't keep them long before I moved to D7000 bodies - partly because my son needed some gear, but mostly because I felt the D7000 was a better choice for the photography I was doing - and the images pretty much confirmed my expectations to the point that I sold the second D90 to help finance a second D7000.  While you will likely see some benefits to the D90 over the D70, the D300 or even one of the D7xxx series would do you better.  Photography isn't a cheap hobby / habit / passion.  I think you really need to determine what you are most comfortable with in terms of bang for your buck, but the advise you have gotten is solid.  The D90, to me, would be like walking up steps and instead of putting one foot on each step, you put both feet on the next step before beginning the climb again.  The D300 and D7xxx would be more like walking up the stairs normally.  The D7200 and above would probably be more like jumping a few steps at a time...

[Ron]

I concur with what everyone else has said. I have no experience with the D90, but while I do think it would be a significant step up from your D70, I don't think it goes quite far enough. 

 

Personally, I think you would be a good candidate for a D7100. They are fantastic cameras which can be had either new or used for relatively little cash. The D7200 would be even better then the D7100 but is a bit more expensive. And, while the D7000 is a good choice and a camera I use quite a lot, it's also beginning to show it's age. 

 

The important thing, I believe, is to buy a camera that you can grow into. I know, I know... Nikon would prefer that you buy each camera they sell in sequence. Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

Yea - I'd say just go buy a D5 now and get it over with !  But, that is far from the right answer...As Ron said, it is a growing process and the key to that, using my earlier analogy, is to take the right step - not too big and not too small...they are all excellent cameras and each have features that one may find more desirable than another - and different people will see it the opposite way...

[Ron]

Trust me. If I could afford it, I'd be toting a D5. But seriously, besides the cost, it's probably more camera than I can handle anyway.

 

--Ron

[etphoto]

Yea - I'd say just go buy a D5 now and get it over with ! But, that is far from the right answer...As Ron said, it is a growing process and the key to that, using my earlier analogy, is to take the right step - not too big and not too small...they are all excellent cameras and each have features that one may find more desirable than another - and different people will see it the opposite way...

I came soooo close at picking up a D5 this year but just sent my camera to Nikon for repair instead. I bought another lens instead.

I still might pick one up, idk. Be kind of a waste of money though because I really don't "need" it.

Twitter: @PhotographyET

[Tony]

Well, first of all let me say how impressed I am with everyone's willingness to be helpful.  Did I say, Impressed?  I meant over whelmed.  Again, many thanks.

 

Here is my dilemma, I want a Nikon camera that will take care of the issues I have with the D70, and hopefully do it at minimum cost.  I have studied the reviews on all the equipment mentioned in this thread and admittedly I am still sitting on the fence, wondering which side to land on.  I mentioned the Nikon D90 because there are excellent reviews offered by direct, hands on experienced users.  I do not place much credence on the reviews offered by companies who have them for sale, since their motivation obviously is making as much as they can on each sale. 

 

Here is a link to a reviewer that I place a lot of trust in:

 

Nikon D90 Review: Digital Photography Review

 

I didn't want to post a lengthy review here in case it is not allowed.  I have checked around the Portland, Oregon camera sales/service centers and found one that has a Nikon D90 for sale with only 4,000+ shutter activations, supposedly in excellent condition for only $175.00 and offers a 14 day warranty.  As far as Live View Mode goes, I do not need it.  It would be smarter to just purchase a camcorder.  Regards to having only 100,000 shutter activations, I believe at my age, I will not be around long enough to use up the remaining 96,000 shutter clicks.

 

Well again, many thanks,

 

Tony

 

I concur with what everyone else has said. I have no experience with the D90, but while I do think it would be a significant step up from your D70, I don't think it goes quite far enough. 

 

Personally, I think you would be a good candidate for a D7100. They are fantastic cameras which can be had either new or used for relatively little cash. The D7200 would be even better then the D7100 but is a bit more expensive. And, while the D7000 is a good choice and a camera I use quite a lot, it's also beginning to show it's age. 

 

The important thing, I believe, is to buy a camera that you can grow into. I know, I know... Nikon would prefer that you buy each camera they sell in sequence. Ain't nobody got time for that!

 

--Ron

Ron, I am curious as to your meaning that the camera is showing its age.  Are you having to affect repairs more often than what is reasonable?

 

Thanks, Tony

[Merco_61]

Since one of your goals with the upgrade from the D70 is to get more consistent exposures, wouldn't it make sense to avoid a body that frequently blows highlights? See the list of cons in the DPreview article you linked to. 

[Tony]

Since one of your goals with the upgrade from the D70 is to get more consistent exposures, wouldn't it make sense to avoid a body that frequently blows highlights? See the list of cons in the DPreview article you linked to. 

Yes, this is one instance where I did not see there were more pages of reviews.  Okay, the first line item on the Cons section states:  Over enthusiastic metering is a little prone to blown highlights.  Isn't there some way to prevent or correct that problem? i,e., go to a higher ISO number?  I think the key words are: a little prone.  I take that to mean not always prone.  Well, thank you for pointing that out.  I am eagerly awaiting your reply.

 

Tony

[Merco_61]

The D90 is always on the verge of overexposure, and often over the threshold. That is the main reason it gets the better S/N ratio compared to the D300 that meters more conservatively. I have always found the D90 gives overly bright captures. 

The "a little prone" part means slightly blown rather than sometimes blown IMO.

It is possible to program an offset into the metering, but then you get noise in the shadows and sooty shadows instead as the algorithm doesn't introduce highlight protection and just shifts the exposure downwards instead.

Going to a higher ISO would accentuate the problem as the exposure latitude gets less with more amplification of the base signal.

[Ron]

 

Ron, I am curious as to your meaning that the camera is showing its age.  Are you having to affect repairs more often than what is reasonable?

 

Not at all. What I meant was that, compared to current cameras with better sensors and upgraded software, it doesn't deliver quite the same level of image quality.  It's still perfectly serviceable and I do, in fact, use it a lot. I often pair it with my AFS 16-85DX lens as a walk around kit. And, given a choice, I would easily recommend it over the D90. 

 

--Ron