Outgrown my D60 - upgrade ideas??

[NicolaB]

Hi all, wanted to pick your brains (and work out how much money I'll need to save for this!).

I've had my D60 for about a year now, have been very pleased with it indeed, but found it pretty limiting in several areas, particularly AF issues photographing birds in flight (have had some very frustrating kite trips to Gigrin), and noise levels in poor light. The menu systems for many of the settings are a bit clumsy as well.

The two potential upgrades I'm looking at are the D90 and D300 really.

My main dilemma is:

Is the D90 is enough of an upgrade, although all reviews regarding it's performance at high ISO levels have been very favourable

Would getting the D300 be too much of a steep learning curve to get good results, bearing in mind that I've only had a years experience in using a DSLR at all?

any advice would be fantastic.

[Richard G.]

I would say D60 to D90 is defintely enough of an upgrade.
Nice article here by Thom Hogan suggests even D80 to D90 is worth it (Just look for the section titled "Should You Get a D90?" if you don't have time to read the whole thing).

Having said that, if you can afford the D300, that would be another step up again. And I think it would be relatively familiar, after the D60, and easy enough to find your way around any new features, just a matter of practice.

[RogerTheCat]

I have the D300 having upgraded from a D100. I think you may find it easier to use than you think. It just tends to do things better, for instance I can now go to much higher ISOs and have more focus points. The picture quality is a great improvement. There are a lot of settings most of which I will never use but if I mess up the settings there is a button to reset the camera to the factory settings.

On the down side I shoot all my images in raw and the file size does cause my PC a few problems. Also the D300 comes with its own photo software which really grinds on my PC I have 3 gig of memory but it still super slow. Finally if you are new to DSLRs you could buy the D90 plus lots of other things such as a lens, tripod etc which you may need for the price of a D300.

[NicolaB]

Thanks both,

I already have a Velbon Sherpa Tripod, Sigma 50-500mm lens, sigma 105mm macro lens, Nikkor 55-200mm VR lens as well as the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the D60, so already have a fair selection of kit (looking a the list it's actually quite a lot to accumulate in a year! ouch!) so am not too concerned about buying more lenses for the time being. My boyfriend is keen to buy the D60 off me, as he's managed to get the photography bug as well, so that'll also help with the cost (and also keep the D60 handy if I need to borrow it as a second body).

Am definitely leaning towards the D300 now, my main worry was about it's beginner user-friendliness, but you have definitely lessened my worries now!

[pressld2]

Hi Nicola,

Even though the D300 body is now available at under £900 (I paid £1100 less than a year ago) I think in your shoes I'd go for the D90.

I don't think the D300 would be too steep a learning curve, in fact I'm sure you'd pick it up in no time. But I'm not sure the difference in the specs between the D90 and the D300 is enough to justify the price difference.

They both have the same sensor, 3 inch screen with Live View and a pop-up flash that works with the Creative Lighting System. Differences between them that I personally wouldn't care about are:

• Fastest shutter speed - D90 = 1/4000sec, D300 = 1/8000sec. (I've just checked in Lightroom and in three and a half years of using a DSLR I have taken exactly one photo at a shutter speed higher than 1/4000 and only six at that speed. I'm normally struggling to get 1/250th!)
• Highest ISO setting - D90 = 3200, D300 = 6400. (I'm still unimpressed by the high ISO performance of the D300 and try never to go over 400.)
• Burst rate - D90 = 4.5 frames per second, D300 = 6, or 8 with the battery grip and the right battery. (6 frames per second was a novelty that soon wore off for me - these days I'm normally in single shot mode or in low speed continuous. There's a bit less editing to do that way!)

Probably the most significant difference for me is that the D90 has 11 AF points whereas the D300 has the same 51 point AF system as the D3. But is that worth the extra £330? I'm not at all sure that it is.

Then there are a few things in the D90's favour: It has the high definition movie mode, it weighs less and it takes SD cards the same as your existing D60. If you go for the D300 you'll need to budget for CF cards. They're not that expensive these days but it all adds up.

Hope this helps!

Dave P.

[momji1971]

Just to throw a spanner in the works, the sensor isn't the same in the D90 as the D300. I believe it's a new sensor in the D90.

Also if you can stretch to it, the D700 is perfect for low light situations.

As for the learning curve. My girlfriend has a D60 and has no trouble at all going between using hers and my D300. It's a camera that can be as easy or complicated as you need.

Go to a good shop (not jessops in my opinion) and let them know your gonna spend lots of hard earned cash. Then get the cameras out and try them. See what feels good to you.

Good luck and let us know what you get!

kind regards
Stu.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by momji1971

Just to throw a spanner in the works, the sensor isn't the same in the D90 as the D300. I believe it's a new sensor in the D90.

Thanks for the clarification Stu, I didn't know that.

Originally Posted by momji1971

Also if you can stretch to it, the D700 is perfect for low light situations.

It will certainly give you much better high ISO performance than the D300 but you will lose the "benefit" of the 1.5x crop factor that a DX sensor gives you. (I put "benefit" in inverted commas as not everyone sees it that way!)

Dave P.

[NicolaB]

Thanks again

I'm looking to buy around the end of May (I'll have saved up enough potentially for the D300 by then) so will let you know what I decide on! There's a good camera shop in Swansea where I bought the D60 from, so am likely to go there for a good play with both

[Fourwings]

I have no knowledge of Nikon, I use the brand begining with "C", and before we get started on another pointless debate on which make is best, the answer is NEITHER, they both have their good points and their bad points.

With that out of the way, my advice to you Nicola would be to go for the best you can, ie, the D300. Its a superb camera and you have the best possible spec so you will never be left with that feeling of wanting upgrade to something better. As Dave said earlier these cameras are only as complicated as you want them to be and they are all easy to get the hang of.
The list of lenses you posted shows that you are are serious about your photography, so why not match those lenses to a seriously good camera.

[GaryB]

I am a Canon shooter, but I also upgraded my camera body because of frustration caused by AF performance for birds in flight. My advice is to get the body with the best AF you can afford (which sounds like the D300 in this case), otherwise you will find yourself upgrading again in 12 months (which is what happened to me)