D200 v D300

[OMS]

Hello all..

I'm a keen photographer and have been using my Nikon Film SLR for a number of years. Now I've decided to make the leap and have got very close to purchasing a D200.. however, Nikon just announced the D300. Looking at the specs the D300 is nice but £400 more expensive and I'm not sure when it will be available in the UK.

Which side of the fence do you sit... and yes either way I would be on the side where the D3 is on the otherside!!!

TIA

[flat-planedCrank]

Hi

£400 is a far bit of money (and from some stores it looks more like £450-480).
I'm on the REAL other side of the fence with a Canon Part of the reason i went for my 30D at the time of buying was the apparent lack of noise at high iso's in comparison to the Nikon offerings (including the D200). With the D300 moving to a CMOS sensor (like the Canon's) i'd be very interested to see how it performs at high iso's.

There are other real differences with the D300 as well, if you want to do motorsports / wildlife photography then the huge increase in AF sensors might sway you. As might the Live View for doing macro work.
There is a comparison with the D200 on wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D300

That said, the D200 is a great camera, won many awards, and i'm sure you would be very happy with. When i went to have a look at them in a local store the D200 was the only one that had that 'pro' feel. Very solid, good layout, a real class act.

Warehouse express has an expected stock date of November:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?/photo/digicamera...


Cheers.

[beano500]

All depends upon what your priorities are. I had Nikon film cameras before goin to a D70 three years ago. I am more than happy that I've just moved to a D2X (secondhand) even though the D3 has been rumoured to be fact for several months. I've studied the specs on the '3 and the '300 and I have to say I am happy with the D2X for the next three years since it does more than enough that the D70 (and the other mid-range ones) will not quite do or won't do so easily. (Like metering properly with manual lenses - all my macros are brilliant compared to the D70 hit and miss approach, everything comes into focus much quicker - and also the shutter lag is even less (yes LESS!) for a D2X than a D3)

The only contender for me was ever going to be the D200 and reckon if I was in your position I'd go for a good deal on a D200 and save up for three years to when a D3/D300 is available at sensible price. The results from the D200 are stunningly good and it handles more like the old film cameras.

Also, we don't know yet, but personally I don't go for the very latest technology until we've seen what gremlins the first batch comes shipped with. However minor it might be it's always a niggle if you've saved up to spend the extra on something that turns out to be only 95% of what you expected.

[_dobbo_]

The D200 is a great camera (I have one) and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.

For D300 money I'd be seriously considering a Canon 5d, should only be a bit more cash.

[OMS]

Thanks everyone, I was thinking about it on my way home this evening and I've decided to go with the D200. It's natural for the brain (at least mine) to see the next version of a great product and inexplicably decide that is what you should have even though you had been wanting the current version for a year or more... anyway you've reinforced what I'd already decided and hopefully I'll be able to share some interesting shots with you soon!

Thanks

OMS

[Yellabelly]

I have a D200 and it is an awesome piece of kit but a warning, do not expect to be able to immediately match some of the posters on here as it takes time, practice and plenty of reading the manuals, various magazines (not the top shelf items you smutty lot!) and reading loads of past PH threads
I'm on the first paragraph of the first chapter of the numpties guide
YB

[snapper seven]

OMS - I think you are doing the right thing buying a D200 now. A few months back I bought a Canon 1D MkIIn knowing full well that the MkIII was imminent but I decided to get the MkIIn as it doesn't stop being an awesome camera just because a new one comes out. I 'saved' £800 over the price of a MkIII, got it when I needed it rather than waiting and knew I was getting a camera that was tried and tested. If you keep waiting for the next camera you will never get one!

I too use a D200 for wedding photography and it is a stunning camera and I don't just mean stunning for £900, I mean stunning full stop to the point where it is prefered over our D2X. I don't think anything comes close in terms of price - except for the new Canon 40D perhaps?!

When I use my MkIIn I don't once stop and wish I had a MkIII, you'll love the D200 I promise.

SS

Edited by snapper seven on Wednesday 5th September 00:20

[Bafty_Crastard]

Looking at the specs for both models it seams the D300 is a significant step on from the D200.

See……http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/ 

Bafty

[_dobbo_]

As it should be bafty it's 3 years newer and 50% more expensive!

[beano500]

...and the d200 is now available for £799


Cool!

[Mad Dave]

beano500 said:

...and the d200 is now available for £799


Cool!

I paid £1299 body only a couple of years ago


AWESOME camera though, just awesome.

[Olivero]

beano500 said:

...and the d200 is now available for £799


Cool!

or £815 at Jessops, it dropped to £755 at one point.

[Dr Jekyll]

Yellabelly said:

I have a D200 and it is an awesome piece of kit but a warning, do not expect to be able to immediately match some of the posters on here as it takes time, practice and plenty of reading the manuals, various magazines (not the top shelf items you smutty lot!) and reading loads of past PH threads
I'm on the first paragraph of the first chapter of the numpties guide
YB

This is why I'm still sticking to my film camera (Nikon F80). If you are experienced with film, how much of a learning curve is it before you can get comparable results with digital? That's before you start using the extra facilities.

[Mad Dave]

Dr Jekyll said:

Yellabelly said:

I have a D200 and it is an awesome piece of kit but a warning, do not expect to be able to immediately match some of the posters on here as it takes time, practice and plenty of reading the manuals, various magazines (not the top shelf items you smutty lot!) and reading loads of past PH threads
I'm on the first paragraph of the first chapter of the numpties guide
YB

This is why I'm still sticking to my film camera (Nikon F80). If you are experienced with film, how much of a learning curve is it before you can get comparable results with digital? That's before you start using the extra facilities.

I switched from film to digital and didn't experience to much difficulty - after all, the fundamental techniques are the same, it's just the recording medium that's different.

[OMS]

Dr Jekyll said:

Yellabelly said:

I have a D200 and it is an awesome piece of kit but a warning, do not expect to be able to immediately match some of the posters on here as it takes time, practice and plenty of reading the manuals, various magazines (not the top shelf items you smutty lot!) and reading loads of past PH threads
I'm on the first paragraph of the first chapter of the numpties guide
YB

This is why I'm still sticking to my film camera (Nikon F80). If you are experienced with film, how much of a learning curve is it before you can get comparable results with digital? That's before you start using the extra facilities.

I personally have decided to go digital because I've been using film for the past 12 years and I feel I know what I'm doing. Therefore there's something to learn by moving to digital, also film costs bucket loads, as does developing and they seem to get more and more expensive. Saying that there are costs with digital - hard drives, software, memory etc but these costs seem to go in the opposite direction.

Either way the fundamental skills needed to take a good picture are transferable - good composition, an understanding of light, a good eye for interesting things and of course a bit of luck!!!

[Bafty_Crastard]

D200 or D300…….if you’re happy with some thing obsolete….fine…you pay’s your money and make’s your choice!!

D5 offers nothing more over the D300 especially if you have a bag full of Nikon gear

Bafty

[_dobbo_]

Obsolete? Do me a favour, that's just ludicrous.

The 5D offers full frame, and ultimately a better upgrade path, as you say though, not if you already have a bag full of Nikon gear.

Edited by _dobbo_ on Wednesday 5th September 22:22

[Bafty_Crastard]

Obsolete…....you do not acknowledge or look at each camera spec’s ….of course the technology obsolete, many of the features can also be found on the new D3

D5…full frame…...so is the D300…..a better up grade path… how? The spec doesn’t indication that

Bafty

Edited by Bafty_Crastard on Wednesday 5th September 22:50

[RobDickinson]

Bafty_Crastard said:

D5…full frame…...so is the D300…..a better up grade path… how? The spec doesn’t indication that

Bafty

I think you'll find the D300 is a 1.6 crop sensor version of the 5D.

The D3 is full frame.

[_dobbo_]

Bafty, I'm a Nikon owner and a big fan of Nikon cameras, but I'm not blind to their faults. Noise levels at high ISO remain far worse than the equivalent canon cameras. When I refer to the upgrade path, what I mean is that (perhaps with the exception of the D3, time will tell) Canon's pro bodies are far superior to Nikon's offerings.

And as Rob says, the D300 isn't full frame, but the D3 is. If I could start again, (having spent several thousand pounds in the last couple of years) I'd go Canon, and I'd be using a 5D right now - but that is just my opinion!