Would you sell my D90 if you were me?

I can happily email my address to you and would even paypal $25.00 to you for you to ship it to me where I'd happily give it a loving and nurturing home for the rest of it's life !

:)

--
http://flickr.com/photos/joe_i/
 
After carrying the D300 around for a few hours, I am thinking my original plan to keep the D90 as a "light rig" option isn't well justified. The D300 didn't feel that much heavier, even though I was also carrying my D700 in a backpack. Would you sell my D90 if you were me?
About a year ago I held both the D700 & D300 in a camera store. To me I could not feel a significant difference in size or weight. That would point me towards the D90 as a light rig. And its body is smaller, which is nice. So I would go for the D700 & D90 combo.

Both the D300 & D90 give you a crop camera and more "reach" than the full frame D700. The only way that I'd keep the D300 is if it provides significantly better IQ over the D90. If you are satisfied with the D90's IQ, then keep it and the D700, and sell the D300.
 
That would be my argument as well. I think you would miss the D90 more than the D300.
--
Why Not Help Someone to Feel A Little Better Every Day?
 
But in light of your current inventory...I would ditch the D90.

Especially based on your earlier weight comments.

If you need the D300 for wildlife type shooting or sports....cool...

Personally if reach wasnt an issue (for my type of shooting it isnt) I would also get rid of the D300. The D700 is FF and has a smidge better specs....so if long range shooting wasnt an issue, being a minimalist I would lighten my bag even more.

Only reason I keep my D70 these days is for P&S duty. But it is never in the bag with the shoots I go on....just in my backpack for day to day light kit shooting "just in case".

Roman
--
Warning....Follow my advice at your own risk.
I dont know my aperture from a hole in the ground.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
a D5000 would make more sense IMO.

Better video implementation - mostly due to the flipscreen.

You've got a fast DX, and an FX - the D5000 would complement these nicely being smaller, lighter and less "pro".

I sold my D90 body today, but, I had to wait till tomorrow for my D5000 + 18-55mm VR + SB-400 combo to arrive.

To me it's just a better "small camera" to complement my D700 setup.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmkayfive/
 
I'm suprised that no one's mentioned that the D300 and D700's metering are more similar to each other than to the D90. The D90 tends to emphasize what's under the focus point more than the Dxxx and Dx bodies in Matrix mode, and part of what made the D300 "click" for you may have been this behavior. So for consistency's sake the D90 should probably go. After that, eNo, you should check in with a local therapist to do something about your camera equipment compulsion... ;-)
 
That's interesting, never heard of anyone going from a D90 to a D5000.

It doesn't seem that there is much difference between the two, based on specs:

D90 5.2 x 4.1 x 3.0 22oz D5000 5.0 x 4.1 x 3.1 19.8oz
a D5000 would make more sense IMO.

Better video implementation - mostly due to the flipscreen.

You've got a fast DX, and an FX - the D5000 would complement these nicely being smaller, lighter and less "pro".

I sold my D90 body today, but, I had to wait till tomorrow for my D5000 + 18-55mm VR + SB-400 combo to arrive.

To me it's just a better "small camera" to complement my D700 setup.
 
If you think the weigth difference is not relevant, keep the D300. It's the only advantage of the D90.
What about the video? You forgot about the Jello video. :)
You can keep posting here, why not, many keep doing it.
I've noticed. ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's easy to argue about equipment and technique, but hard to argue with a good photograph -- and more difficult to capture one .



Gallery and blog: http://esfotoclix.com
Special selections: http://esfotoclix.com/store
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22061657@N03
 
Yes.
I would sell the D90 and cut your losses.
I would sell the D300, except if you do wildlife photography.

I would buy a cheap second hand D40/D60 for the light rig.

When I look back at my latest "expedition", I ended up using the light rig more often than the heavy stuff. And picture wise? Well..... there uhm... I hate to admit it, there is virtually no difference.

Don't worry about "museum" value. There won't be one. I could have kept my D100 (the first sub $2000 DSLR) but sold it anyway. As an investment, my bets are on a D1. But should be in mint condition including boxes, manuals etc.
 
sell the camera with the highest monetary value to fund your psychiatric visits.

Who knows if you should sell any? Why didn't you first ask if you should be buying them?
 
Another option - find someone - a friend or relative - who can't afford a really good camera and donate it to them. They'll be happy and you'll feel good.
 
I would sell the D300. That would leave you with an excellent light weight cam (D90) and a Pro-level body (D700). If I owned all three of the cams you have I don't think I would ever use the D300.
 
D300 is an amazing camera....amazing metering as many here said, actually can figure out lighting in both incandescent and fluorecent lights for a change, so much better than any DXX camera, plus the sheer speed of 8fps with a grip!!!! But then your D700 can probably do the same plus incredible high iso. I think D300 and D700 are too similar to keep them both, unless you do a lot of BIF/Wildlife and need both fast fps and 1.5 crop. I'd sell D300 and get some nice lens instead or some cash plus cool point-and-shoot to carry when you don't want to carry any DSLR, something like Panasonic LX3 or Canon S90/G11 type...
--

Current gear: Nikon D300, Nikon D80, Canon 20D, Fuji F72EXR, Panasonic ZS3, Canon SD870IS.

 
I would hold on to the D300 vs. the D90 - the D300 has a superior AF system and will be the better telephoto option of the two.

The D90 is a halfway step in this company.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmkayfive/
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top