D200 to D300....
Discussion
I have both.
The D300 has a larger, higher-res monitor which scrolls faster.
The shutter goes off with more of a 'snap'.
It will do a stop better in low light (I'll take it to 1600 as opposed to 800 for the D200)
The controls are almost identical so you'll be able to use it instinctively.
On the down side I find that it tends to underexpose deceptively and if shooting JPG the CMOS sensor (as opposed to CCD) to my eyes doesn't get the colours right. But that may be just my settings/software. And the centre press doesn't return the focusing point to centre (nor does the top display tell you which one is active)
Hence I use the D200 for work and the D300 for good snaps. Not sure if it's a worthy upgrade; if it's low light you're after go for a newer model.
The D300 has a larger, higher-res monitor which scrolls faster.
The shutter goes off with more of a 'snap'.
It will do a stop better in low light (I'll take it to 1600 as opposed to 800 for the D200)
The controls are almost identical so you'll be able to use it instinctively.
On the down side I find that it tends to underexpose deceptively and if shooting JPG the CMOS sensor (as opposed to CCD) to my eyes doesn't get the colours right. But that may be just my settings/software. And the centre press doesn't return the focusing point to centre (nor does the top display tell you which one is active)
Hence I use the D200 for work and the D300 for good snaps. Not sure if it's a worthy upgrade; if it's low light you're after go for a newer model.
Simpo Two said:
I have both.
The D300 has a larger, higher-res monitor which scrolls faster.
The shutter goes off with more of a 'snap'.
It will do a stop better in low light (I'll take it to 1600 as opposed to 800 for the D200)
The controls are almost identical so you'll be able to use it instinctively.
On the down side I find that it tends to underexpose deceptively and if shooting JPG the CMOS sensor (as opposed to CCD) to my eyes doesn't get the colours right. But that may be just my settings/software. And the centre press doesn't return the focusing point to centre (nor does the top display tell you which one is active)
Hence I use the D200 for work and the D300 for good snaps. Not sure if it's a worthy upgrade; if it's low light you're after go for a newer model.
Pretty much agree with all of that. However you can definitely use the centre press to re-centre the focus point on the D300. Mine does. Maybe a menu item?The D300 has a larger, higher-res monitor which scrolls faster.
The shutter goes off with more of a 'snap'.
It will do a stop better in low light (I'll take it to 1600 as opposed to 800 for the D200)
The controls are almost identical so you'll be able to use it instinctively.
On the down side I find that it tends to underexpose deceptively and if shooting JPG the CMOS sensor (as opposed to CCD) to my eyes doesn't get the colours right. But that may be just my settings/software. And the centre press doesn't return the focusing point to centre (nor does the top display tell you which one is active)
Hence I use the D200 for work and the D300 for good snaps. Not sure if it's a worthy upgrade; if it's low light you're after go for a newer model.
One of the things I like about the 300 is the buttons all being in the same place.
I also like the weather proofing, size and weight of the 200 so want to keep that ideal.
300 has a bigger screen and better AF and will be better in low light.
Is there another model that fits the bill,Im out of sync witht he current Nikon range.
I also like the weather proofing, size and weight of the 200 so want to keep that ideal.
300 has a bigger screen and better AF and will be better in low light.
Is there another model that fits the bill,Im out of sync witht he current Nikon range.
Gad-Westy said:
Turn7 said:
Is there another model that fits the bill,Im out of sync witht he current Nikon range.
Nikon never really replaced the D300. The D7100 and D7000 seemed more aligned with the D90 in terms of size. Shame, it doesn't look like Nikon are in any hurry to offer an alternative. Good discussion. I love my D200 and I've been thinking about going to a D300 at some point. I also have a very early D70 which I sometimes use in tandem with the D200. Maybe I should just add the 300 and run that and the 200 together?
Also interesting what you all say about the 300 focusing faster as I do find the 200 limited when shooting motorsport.
Also interesting what you all say about the 300 focusing faster as I do find the 200 limited when shooting motorsport.
Turn7 said:
Gad-Westy said:
Turn7 said:
Is there another model that fits the bill,Im out of sync witht he current Nikon range.
Nikon never really replaced the D300. The D7100 and D7000 seemed more aligned with the D90 in terms of size. Shame, it doesn't look like Nikon are in any hurry to offer an alternative. nonuts said:
The D7000 is consumer, D300 was pro as I remember so I would assume that the D600 is the logical replacement for the D300.
Not really, the D600 is more of a consumer full frame. There have been rumours of a D400 professional crop body for a while but nothing ever seems to get announced.Don't be convinced that the upgrade from the CCD found in the D80/D200 to the CMOS found in the D5000/D90/D300 is actually an upgrade.
Yes, low light and high iso performance is better, but I always found that the normal light and sub 800iso performance from the earlier CCD gives much more pleasing colours and detail. I owned a D5000 and have used a D90 on occasion and decided to "downgrade" to a D80 a few months back. I'm far, far more pleased with the results out of the camera from the D80 over anything I've ever taken on either the D5000 or D90. Obviously all my opinion as some may prefer the muted tones and soft details from the CMOS and some will argue that all can be corrected in settings or post processing but I never came away from processing a picture from the CMOS 100% happy yet images tend to come off the D80 with minimal processing, if any at all. It's just so much more consistent.
I do, however, miss a few of the features from the newer cameras such as the 3d tracking auto focus.
It's a toss up of what you deem as an upgrade and what features you use. For me, the image quality from the earlier CCD is more important than the extra features from the newer camera and the low light performance isn't all that bad if you stick to 800iso or lower and just use a faster lens.
Yes, low light and high iso performance is better, but I always found that the normal light and sub 800iso performance from the earlier CCD gives much more pleasing colours and detail. I owned a D5000 and have used a D90 on occasion and decided to "downgrade" to a D80 a few months back. I'm far, far more pleased with the results out of the camera from the D80 over anything I've ever taken on either the D5000 or D90. Obviously all my opinion as some may prefer the muted tones and soft details from the CMOS and some will argue that all can be corrected in settings or post processing but I never came away from processing a picture from the CMOS 100% happy yet images tend to come off the D80 with minimal processing, if any at all. It's just so much more consistent.
I do, however, miss a few of the features from the newer cameras such as the 3d tracking auto focus.
It's a toss up of what you deem as an upgrade and what features you use. For me, the image quality from the earlier CCD is more important than the extra features from the newer camera and the low light performance isn't all that bad if you stick to 800iso or lower and just use a faster lens.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Saturday 21st September 10:36
budfox said:
File sizes on a d800 are ridiculous. I'd go D600 for full frame and d7000 for DX.
Workwise I'd use the D800 on DX mode for the extra range and have 15Mp. The D7000 is 16Mp so will have bigger files. I've tried running FX and DX cameras togther; it's a nightmare because the effective focal lengths are so different you need two sets of lenses. Well that was my experience anyway. And whilst the D7000 is a great camera it won't pass the 'Cor that's a big camera I bet that was expensive' test at weddings 
Now you see I love running FX and DX side by side. I have 24/35/50/85mm primes which gives me all sorts of options. I have to shoot a wedding soon and I'll be going 35mm f2 on the D700 for wide stuff and 50mm f1.4 on the D7000 for creamy portraits.
That will be a perfect combo I think, and as for the "big camera" point I really don't care, and nor should anyone. In truth, I've always found that using two bodies shows a certain level of seriousness.
That will be a perfect combo I think, and as for the "big camera" point I really don't care, and nor should anyone. In truth, I've always found that using two bodies shows a certain level of seriousness.
budfox said:
That will be a perfect combo I think, and as for the "big camera" point I really don't care, and nor should anyone. In truth, I've always found that using two bodies shows a certain level of seriousness.
It's still customer perception, just in another way. Yes they shouldn't care, but it matters what they think on the day.One of the great things about photography is that there are always so many ways to do things
Nice to see there's still a lot of love for the venerable D200! I replaced my D70S with a D200 a couple of years ago, and although i probably don't use it enough to be totally au fait, I think it's still a good all rounder. Agree about the low light issues, I really need a faster general purpose zoom.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff