Is a D200 worth considering rather than a D300?

dod

dod

TPer Emeritus
Messages
16,680
Name
Ebenezer McScrooge III
Edit My Images
Yes
Interested if you've used both. I love the D3 but there are times I'd just like to have less bulk. I had a D300, loved it, but for the amount of usage this would get I'm not sure I can justify the extra cost?

So, is the D200 that much less of a camera than the D300?
 
barneyrubble said:
As long as you don't want high ISO from it it will be fine.
Click to expand...

this, the D200 is perfectly capable up to iso800, but infinitely less so after that, whereas the D300 is, at a real pinch, good up to 3200.... that said, try separating me from my D300's... though you could make it easy, I'd happily swop one for your D3 ;)
 
Had both, unless you desperately want the high ISO performance [D200 gets very noisy over 800]and focus tracking, then D200 will suit you just fine. Focus is marginally slower, and I do mean, marginally. Its a lovely camera ad if it wasn't for the karate stuff, I would probably still have mine. :thumbs:
 
you can get clean files at 1600 with the correct exposure and a bit of noise reduction. its perfectly usable.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
I'd happily swop one for your D3 ;)
Click to expand...
Not a hope in hell :p

Yv said:
Had both, unless you desperately want the high ISO performance [D200 gets very noisy over 800]and focus tracking, then D200 will suit you just fine. Focus is marginally slower, and I do mean, marginally. Its a lovely camera ad if it wasn't for the karate stuff, I would probably still have mine. :thumbs:
Click to expand...
I'm thinking holidays, leaving in the car, extra reach for birds, that sort of thing, certainly not as a back up to the D3's :)

King_Boru said:
you can get clean files at 1600 with the correct exposure and a bit of noise reduction. its perfectly usable.
Click to expand...
That sounds okay, the 1D MkII I had was okay at 1600, if it's in the same ballpark that's acceptable :)

Thanks folks :)
 
For half the price (used) of a D300, as a 2nd body for general work then it's great. i used one for magazine double-page spreads for two years without a hassle... and shock! Horror! I shot at ISO 1000 without editors clamoring for my head!!! :)
 
Joe T said:
Get the D300 no contest!
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Not only is the D300 head and shoulders above the D200, it is also better in most respects that the D2xs, being beaten only by the weatherproofing, built in grip and other pro spec handling aspects of Nikon's previous top camera. The D300 has better AF and IQ than the D2xs and as the OP already has a D3 and is used to that, the D300 makes even more sense.
 
thanks for the input folks. Difficult decision between want and need to be made :)
 
Your D3 must be similar to my 1Ds by weight and size. 40D size body with a prime feels great after handling that beast. Hence if your backup doesn't require all the bells and whistles AF (if so then it is D300), I would rather go for D90 or even D5000. I fail to see why D200 would be better than D90, particularly in terms of the ISO performance.
 
I'm also seriously thinking D200 rather than d300 as a backup (I've had 2 previouslY)

It's very good at low ISO, and for family type stuff as an easy carry round camera, would work really well.

I intend to pair mine (wichever I end up with - probably the d200 though), with the 18-200 vr
 
Dod its simple really if you need high iso then it has to be the D300 but if its not going to be used over 800iso then you want to save £300 and go for the D200 on paper there as different as chalk n cheese but in the real world theres not a great deal of difference
 
itsdavedotnet said:
this, the D200 is perfectly capable up to iso800, but infinitely less so after that, whereas the D300 is, at a real pinch, good up to 3200.... that said, try separating me from my D300's... though you could make it easy, I'd happily swop one for your D3 ;)
Click to expand...

King_Boru said:
you can get clean files at 1600 with the correct exposure and a bit of noise reduction. its perfectly usable.
Click to expand...

I hate pushing mine above 400, and I don't like the output at 400 to be honest!
 
I have both a D300 and D200, as has been said up to iso 800 the D200 is ok. In your situation having the D3 for the high ISO stuff I would go for the D200.
 
daugirdas said:
Your D3 must be similar to my 1Ds by weight and size. 40D size body with a prime feels great after handling that beast. Hence if your backup doesn't require all the bells and whistles AF (if so then it is D300), I would rather go for D90 or even D5000. I fail to see why D200 would be better than D90, particularly in terms of the ISO performance.
Click to expand...

Looked at the D90 but it's SD cards and I can't be bothered with two card formats. I actually considered that to be one of the failings of the 1D series.

Dangermouse1964 said:
Dod its simple really if you need high iso then it has to be the D300 but if its not going to be used over 800iso then you want to save £300 and go for the D200 on paper there as different as chalk n cheese but in the real world theres not a great deal of difference
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I'm thinking really. :)
 
Dod, as you may be aware, I have the 200 and 300, the 300 kicks the 200`s bottom all over the place for high ISO and AF.Yet for landscape low ISO stuff, I prefer the 200.I do like the dedicated bracket button, the base 100 ISo and the general feel of the camera.

If you want a camera for birding, the 300 is better in general.No arguments about that at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top