Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 7, 2010, 10:32 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default D90

I currently have a sony a300 and thinking very seriously about getting a d90. Anyone know what differences I would notice, would it be a dramatic improvement? Worth it or not?

I guess you may wonder what my unhappiness with my a300 is, well mostly noise but i'm just hoping for better photos overall. Am I wrong to think that the D90 produces better quality photos?

I'm no pro btw just love taking pics.

Thank you in advance for any responses.
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 7, 2010, 10:40 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Yes, the Nikon is a better performer, but before you go switching systems, what sort of things do you want to shoot, what lenses do you have currently as there might be better ways of getting the results you desire.

I'm not a Sony expert, I will admit that I know probably least about all the options as they just have so many now with lots of differences so if a body change is called for then someone else might be able to suggest a Sony option that will work well for you. However, answer the questions above first so we get a better picture or your issues and needs.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 10:51 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

it might also depend on how heavily invested in Sony you are? just the kit lens?

I have heard good things about their new a500/a550, but like Mark I am not a Sony expert.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 10:54 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default

Mark thank you for your response.

I shoot mostly indoors in low light. I got some flourescent light fixtures which has been helping in the lighting situation and made me alot happier but I need more. I dont like using my external flash (havent learned to embrace the shadows), not sure if its because i'm using it wrong or not but I like the look of the natural light and I have been happy with the flourescent lighting. I wanted to give my a300 a good shot before giving up on it thats why I got the extra lighting etc and i've been happier just dont know if i'll be more happy with a d90.

I almost always shoot my kids with the minolta 50mm f/1.7. I'm sure you know with kids I def need a high shutter speed and even with my lighting and the f/1.7 and shooting in a small room to keep more light in i'm usually shooting at 1/30 which is disasterious at times.

ok I rambled, sorry

I have the minolta 50mm f/1.7 (use almost always), the kit lens (no idea what it is as I never use it) and a minolta 35-70mm f/4 which I dont use often.

Do you (or anyone else) think that I can get better overall photos buy just buying a better lens and keeping my a300? I dont want to invest more into the a300 if i'm probably still going to be unhappy.
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 11:18 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

The A300 with the Minolta 50/1.7 is a good combination. The D90 is more flexible and powerful, but it doesn't have the tilting 'Live View' display or the sensor shif image stabilization.

If you want to give the D90 a once-over, try it first. LensRentals.com has the D90 available for rent at a reasonable price. Try one with the lens you want, and see how it goes, side-by-side with your A300.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 11:25 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default

TCav thank you.

Dont really care for live view but no image stabilization might be a problem. How much of a difference do you think it makes?

Thank you for the site also, will check it out.
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 12:40 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debbie26 View Post
Dont really care for live view but no image stabilization might be a problem. How much of a difference do you think it makes?
It depends on what you shoot, but if you do a lot of available light shooting (which I suspect you do because of the 50/1.7) then not having stabilization could be a problem.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 1:36 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
DSProtection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 963
Default

On the other hand, there are many good Nikon lenses that have built in stabilization.
DSProtection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 2:24 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSProtection View Post
On the other hand, there are many good Nikon lenses that have built in stabilization.
Besides the description does the nikon model # tell you which do and which dont? I looked at a couple of lenses and notice that they have the same ones but with different letters behind them, didnt get a chance yet to look into the differences between them. Think i'll go do that now.

I'm guessing too that image stabilization in lens make it alot more expensive. Canon lenses also come with image stabilization in lens too right instead of in camera?
Debbie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7, 2010, 2:28 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
pbjunkiee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pensacola Fl
Posts: 914
Default

I dont know, and yes

The nikon version of IS is called Vibration Reduction, and if a lens has this, it is usually more expensive, and comes with a red VR tag on the lens. And canons version of IS is also lens specific.
__________________
SportsShooter
www.85zero.com
pbjunkiee is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:39 AM.