Nikon D300 over D200

[jamiebonline]

Hi again,

I recently bought a D200 and like it quite a lot and now I see there is a D300 at a good price in the local camera store. I think the D300 was a big step up in its time. I wonder how it does in low light compared to the D200 or other thoughts you might have. Note: I don't mean the 300s. I think that is also quite a bit more expensive than the D300. Thanks

 

[nero]

Nikon D300 definitely is better with low light compared to D200.You can have usable images up to 3200 ISO but good up to 1600ISO.

 

[Nod]

My old(er than the D200!) D70 is as good as if not better than the D200 in low light! ISO800 was the ceiling for the D200 if you want/need relatively noise free images and 400 is probably more realistic.

 

[wblati]

If you liked the D200 than definitely get the D300.

 

[allanm]

When I upgraded from my D200 and bought my D300 it was like buying a whole new set of lenses too. Better image quality, automatic CA removal, higher useable iso and loads more and they still hold their own today. I still have one and love using it.
Buy it

 

[nero]

Just have a look at the link which gives a good comparison against both the cameras
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D200-vs-Nikon_D300

 

[wblati]

is the 300's iso at 3200 usable/ great?

 

[nero]

It is definitely usable usable at iso 3200.
One of the links
http://www.dphotonews.com/Nikon-D300-High-ISO-photo-samples~news-381.html

 

[andyscott]

D300 is a cracking camera, used to be my wedding workhorse.

 

[twist]

Skip a step and get the D700. Bit more but ultimately if you keep changing worth it for what they cost