Nikon D200 versus D300

realspeed

realspeed

Messages
8,016
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
Yes
I am thinking of upgrading my Nikon D200 to a D300. Just a couple of questions.

First is it worth the upgrade
Second would I see much difference if I took the same picture with same lens on either camera all things being equal.
Third what would be the most important differences.

If do upgrade it would cost several hundreds of pounds so I would appreciate serious answers only.

Thank you

Realspeed
 
Its not worth the price difference. Assuming you paid say £900 for your D200, and you sell it for £400 now, you've lost £500.

A D300 costs £900 and you lose £500 on your D200. So its costing you over £1300 for worse base ISO performance, and slightly better high ISO. Image quality wise its swing and roundabouts tbh.

No, I wouldn't do it. Keep the D200 and buy a better lens.
 
1. Yes, it's quite a step up from a D200.

2. Depends how much of a pixel-peeper you are and what you are going to do with the images

3. The D300 handles higher isos much better, has a faster shutter rate, better ergonomics (although there's nothing wrong with the D200), faster,51-point AF and so on.
 
puddleduck said:
, and slightly better high ISO. Image quality wise its swing and roundabouts tbh.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are wrong on this point"Slightly better" is a total misrepresentation of the actual truth,in my opinion.

I`m not arguing about it again, but please stop trying to pass your opinions off as absolute fact.

Cheers.
 
Thank you both for your fast response. Two completely different answers and both valid.
Doen't help me much in deciding does it?

Fracster
I don't think your comment is very useful especially as I ask for serious answers to a serious question. So I would be gratiful if you can't add anything to my questions please don't reply

Realspeed
 
fracster said:
Once again, you are wrong on this point"Slightly better" is a total misrepresentation of the actual truth,in my opinion.

I`m not arguing about it again, but please stop trying to pass your opinions off as absolute fact.

Cheers.
Click to expand...


Well slightly better is subjective, but I don't see a 2/3 to 1 stop maximum improvement as being that much. I've never seen anyone but Stevie Wonder and his blind cohorts say its more.

The base ISO is worse. Swings and roundabouts. Depends what you shoot.

You are off course free to dis-agree, and thats fine, and it would be a boring world if we all felt the same.
 
puddleduck said:
Its not worth the price difference. Assuming you paid say £900 for your D200, and you sell it for £400 now, you've lost £500.

A D300 costs £900 and you lose £500 on your D200. So its costing you over £1300 for worse base ISO performance, and slightly better high ISO. Image quality wise its swing and roundabouts tbh.

No, I wouldn't do it. Keep the D200 and buy a better lens.
Click to expand...

You can't look at it as "you would lose £500 on your D200". You're only "losing" the £500 if you've just bought the D200 for £900 (in which case you deserve all you get :LOL:) and are selling it without using it.

At most you can say the D200 has cost £500 over the ownership period. So what? There are few, if any cameras you can buy, use and sell again for what you paid for them. Cameras are consumer electronics, they have a steep depreciaton curve. That's just the way it is.
 
realspeed said:
Thank you both for your fast response. Two completely different answers and both valid.
Doen't help me much in deciding does it?

Fracster
I don't think your comment is very useful especially as I ask for serious answers to a serious question. So I would be gratiful if you can't add anything to my questions please don't reply

Realspeed
Click to expand...

It is a very serious point.PD states that the high ISO is only slightly better on the 300 than the 200, in my opinion,and many others, he is wrong.If that is unhelpful and not worth your consideration,then so be it.

Go your own way.

Edit.....Yes, I have and use both now.
 
if you give me a few days i will make a comparision between the two, going to the same places i went with the D200 to compare pics
 
YV

Most of my photography is wildlife/landscapes and should I need to change lenses my biggest worry is the dust factor. Having had serious issues on my previous D70s with dust/dirt on the sensor I would like to eliminated that factor as much as possible.
The other problem I seem to get regularly is lighting, I find the D200 tends to produce rather dark images and not that sharp a picture in the basic setup. Ok I can overcome that with altering the settings in the menu, but I would have expected better from a camera costing the amount new the D200 cost. My new sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens does help here.
Battery life doesn't worry me as I have 3 reserve backups

Realspeed
 
fracster said:
It is a very serious point.PD states that the high ISO is only slightly better on the 300 than the 200, in my opinion,and many others, he is wrong.If that is unhelpful and not worth your consideration,then so be it.

Go your own way.

Edit.....Yes, I have and use both now.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with my sparring partner here, I find the D300 much better at handling higher isos than the D200.

Anyway, PD, you change camera bodies like most people change their socks, based on the advice you're giving here one has to wonder......why? :shrug: ;)
 
Well you are saying "much better", I am saying "slightly better" but no one is quantifiying it.

I reckon it's about 2/3'rd to one stop improvement. For you that might be 'much", for me "slighly".

We do not disagree about the improvement, but just how we describe it?
 
Fracster

I do value everyones own opinion, but also I am not after comments on other peoples observations. If you care to be subjective then I will take onboard and welcome any help you can give.

Whitey I would be most gratiful if you would see any difference the cameras make and let me know. If you would PM me as this thread may get buried by then.

I am going to Focus-on-imaging at the NEC Birmingham (UK) in feb 2009
so I have until then to decide


Realspeed
 
So what you appear to be saying is, that apart from at most a 1 stop improvement in noise handling you found there to be absolutely no differences between the two cameras?
 
Moving away from image quality, a big D200 to D300 improvement is battery life.

The 100% viewfinder is very nice. The screen is excellent, very clear.

However I still don't think you are going to see THAT much of a difference in image quality even right up in big prints, especially if you live in the lower ISO bands.
 
realspeed said:
YV

Most of my photography is wildlife/landscapes and should I need to change lenses my biggest worry is the dust factor. Having had serious issues on my previous D70s with dust/dirt on the sensor i would like to eliminated that factor as much as possible.
The other problem I seem to get regularly is lighting, I find the D200 tends to produce rather dark images and not that sharp a picture in the basic setup. Ok I can overcome that with altering the settings in the menu, but I would have expected better from a camera costing the amount new the D200 cost.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

OK, I had a D200 and upgraded to a D300, so I am reporting opinion based on experience.

For Wildlife, the focus tracking is a huge help, but does take a litle getting used to. The extra focus points generally are very useful for most kinds of photography, particularly when t comes to composition, much less messing around locking onto focus and holding buttons down while you recompose. The downside is that it can occasionally be frustrating moving between 51 focus points when you want it quick, but on balance, I prefer having the 51 options and reducing it when I need to, than only having the 11 on the D200.

I generally find, across 3 nikons [same as yours, 70, 200 and 300] that they will tend to lean towards under exposure if lighting is tricky and they can't quite make their minds up on exposure. However, as I usually shoot manually anyway, it makes little difference to me. When I have used A or S modes, I would say the D300 is slightly superior. Of course you could just permanently have it dialled in +1/3 exposure compnsation if you are finding this a problem generally.

IQ generally is very similar in my opinion at lower ISO's, the D300 does seem to have a slightly better dynamic range though. However, where the D300 wins hands down and by a significant margin is the higher ISO range. Put it this way, ISO 800 on the D200 is about the same as ISO2000 on the D300 in terms of noise.


Sensor dust - tough one this as I do lots of lens changes and yes, occasionally I have had to clean sensors, but so far only had to use the inbuilt feature on the D300 once on a fairly noticable bunny, whihc it got ridof instantly. However, I will be much more impressed if it can get rid of those much smaller ones you have to zoom in to on your big screen to see, but so far, not had need to test this out.

So to summarise, for what I do, indoors sports and wildlife mainly, the D300 was the obvious upgrade and I am very pleased I did. Only you can decide if you can justify the cost, but put it this way, if you do, I think its fairly safe to say you wont be getting a worse camera and you will have a good chance of being much happier with it....IMO of course ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
So what you appear to be saying is, that apart from at most a 1 stop improvement in noise handling you found there to be absolutely no differences between the two cameras?
Click to expand...

Well bells and whistles.. but the OP did ask about image quality and I still reckon if you put an 17-55 DX on a D200 and D300 and shoot a landscape at f/11 on ISO100 you won't see £500 off difference.
 
realspeed said:
Fracster

I do value everyones own opinion, but also I am not after comments on other peoples observations. If you care to be subjective then I will take onboard and welcome any help you can give.

Realspeed
Click to expand...

Even if the comments they make are wrong?

Flashybabes and YV have been subjective enough on this topic.
 
fracster said:
Even if the comments they make are wrong?

Flashybabes and YV have been subjective enough on this topic.
Click to expand...

Yours haven't though.

Actually Yyonne and myself and not that far apart on our high ISO assessment.

ISO800->ISO2000 is a 1.3 stop improvement, I reckon its about 1 stop max (so ISO800->ISO1600).

So I think its a matter of degrees. We are not that far off, and I think terminology is a big thing. I don't see a 1 stop improvement as being worth the upgrade... but this is my opinion, and you are welcome to yours and I respect it.
 
puddleduck said:
Well bells and whistles.. but the OP did ask about image quality and I still reckon if you put an 17-55 DX on a D200 and D300 and shoot a landscape at f/11 on ISO100 you won't see £500 off difference.
Click to expand...


If you put the 17-55 on a D70s you'll probably not see a huge difference either and if it's for landscapes then at some point someone will play the S5 Pro card, so it may as well be me :LOL:

A new S5 would cost about the same as the "cost to change" between an D200 and D300 ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If you put the 17-55 on a D70s you'll probably not see a huge difference either
Click to expand...

I would agree with that, and personally I think a D70->D200 is a much bigger step up, then a D200->D300.

I think there is a huge amount of merit when people say "will I see a difference?" is to re-phrase that and ask "Will I see a difference in print?" - its a great leveller.

IMHO again, if your prints are no better, then is the money spent showing up?

My contention is that it will be hard to see that difference in this classic Vs. question.
 
Thanks again everyone for your input, it is most helpful.

Realspeed
 
I think just asking if there will be a difference in image quality is probably missing the point about upgrading.
If you get the D300, you are buying into a new system which will increase your options when it comes to what and how you take a photograph and the type of results you can obtain.
Images I took with my old D50 at first glance dont seem any better than with my D200 or D300. But, the D300 will enable me to tackle more challenging shots with a better keeper rate, which is good for me as I experiment more and attempt shots that I wouldnt have done with the D50/70s/80/200 that I had before.
Printing the results out of both at A3 will show a small but significant difference in resolution which is in keeping with the larger sensor and better processing of the D300. I also notice better colour rendition, more detail in shadows and an overall sharper image. Coupled with a good lens, I notice shots just look better, and the D300 has the ability to reduce chromatic abberation that shows up in some lenses. Any lens that I used with my D200 that produced even small amounts of CA now dont.
In one sense then, the D300 has improved all my lenses :clap:

Dont get hung up about the technical side of how much better the higher ISO capabilities of the D300 are over the earlier cameras. All I know is that when I need to use a high iSO setting I get good pictures and on the rare occasions I set ISO to auto ( something I would never dare do with the D200) I get great low noise shots at up to ISO 1000. I dont generally need to go over that but I have done so and been very pleased with the results.
I dont see any noise at ISO 200 either, but if I do, I can always drop the ISO down lower. However they acheive this drop in ISO, it works!

I recently posted a link to DXOmark. This is a utility that will actually compare the ISO of different cameras in a subjective way not the usual sweeping statements of how good or bad a camera is in one persons opinion. It will also show the true ISO as opposed to the ISO the maker claims their camera acheives. For example, a D200 at a setting of ISO 200 is actually 195. A D300 at ISO setting of 200 is actually 145. Not far off the base setting of ISO 100 of the D200 and worth thinking about when critisizing the apparently high base ISO capability of the D300!

Anyway, heres the link again, link here and another link to explain how it works, here

And finally ( always wanted to say that) If you want a new body and can afford it, just get it! I never need to analyse my reasons to buy something new if I have the funds. I probably hadnt learnt to use every feature of the D50 before I upgraded to the D70s, likewise, all my other upgrades to my current D300.
I sometimes leave some dinner on my plate before I have my pudding too!

Allan
 
puddleduck said:
I don't see a 1 stop improvement as being worth the upgrade...
Click to expand...

Thats good, no need for any f/2.8 glass then, f/4 will do just fine, lol

I upgraded from the D200 to the D300, and as FITP says its a considerable difference in IQ at higher ISO.

I get good results at ISO3200, and when i had the D200 i was worried if i needed to use ISO800.

Im not saying you dont know your stuff andy, but it doesnt do you any favours to sell a D700 because the IQ was not upto the standard you require, then buy another a few months later.
 
I'd stay at 800 on the D200 for weddings and the battery life was shocking - Over 800 on a D200 is a real struggle for low-light shooting (same applies to the D2x). For a D300, I'd prefer to stay at 1600-2000 but would use 3200 for mainly mono work. I'd say around 1 to 1 1/3 stops then.

Neither are in D700 territory.
 
taz said:
Is there any reason why you have discounted the D90?:D
Click to expand...

There's a big difference in handling between a D80/90 and the D200/300. The "lesser" cameras are plastic/stainless steel, the dearer ones magnesium, with better controls...
 
It seems to me that most of the comments above has missed one of the most important points...

... and that is for you (realspeed) to try it yourself and see.;)

You're obviously familiar with the D200, so why not go and try a D300 and see if it suits your needs. What you think is more important than what we think, after all, its your money! :LOL:
 
I hade the D200 then upgraded to the D300 at first I thought I hade wasted my money.
4 months down the line im glad I did the up grade.
There not much in it between them but you do notice the defences once you start to use the D300. I noticed the differences because my brother haze my d200, when we go on a photo shoot together I wouldn’t say the pictures are not that different but the 3” screen helps a lot on location and you can go past 400 iso to get that photo as past that where on the D200 I did notice graining past that. Plus the autofocas is a lot faster on the D300.
It’s just the small things that made the upgrade worth it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top