Real 'World' Differences between D200 & D300

wibbly

wibbly

Messages
5,192
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I guess this is aimed at those who have owned/own a D200 and traded up to a D300.

What are the real world differences between a D200 and a D300, and have you noticed that much between them?

I am looking to trade up from a D70 and have kind of made my mind up on a D300. There are certain things I do like about it including the bigger screen and the live view. However, there are D200's to be had at bargain prices, and foregoing the liveview I'm wondering what real world differences actually exist and if they are really noticeable.

Cheers
 
Rockwell, just another man's opinion not gospel.

The high ISO from the D300 would kill the D200 in low light.
 
I have both and use both. One has better abilities than the other. I prefer the user interface of the D200 and its lower base ISO,I use it a lot for landscape,portraits,weddings etc etc.It is a good camera in certain circumstances.

The 300 murders it in most areas,high ISO,AF,battery life etc etc.

Depends what you photograph, the 300 is twice the price but is the better of the two in all round practicalities. Saying that, I like my 200 and would not be without it.
 
Mr Mike said:
Just my opinion, if your thinking about the D300 buy a D90!

They are more or less the same camera but in different clothing,
Click to expand...

You are joking, aren't you?!. Please say you are.

D300 uses the 51 point CAM3500 sensor, and has beautiful AF performance, you have got a better build/sealing, lens fine-tune, 6 fps shooting (7 with grip) etc

The D90 is a slightly smaller body as suits those coming from a D40-D80, which has video capability and possibly better low light ISO performance.

There are a few other things too.
 
Mr Mike said:
Just my opinion, if your thinking about the D300 buy a D90!

They are more or less the same camera but in different clothing, D90 does some things better. Not going into detail because i dont know and wouldnt like to give false info, quick search on web or wait for all the techies on here, they should show how close they are.
Click to expand...

There is definitely plenty to distinguish the D300 from the D90. If you don't know and aren't looking to give out false info why say something you can't explain/justify? :thinking:
 
^^ Because you read somewhere that the D90 is based on the D300 and i might mention 90% of D90 is like the D300 or something silly like that
 
The D200 is a cracking camera, I've not felt the need to upgrade.

I've also no doubt about the enhanced capabilites of the D300, but as regards the lowlight capabilites, you could always use a tripod or with the money saved get faster glass.

As regards the Physical differences the bodies are identical(apart from the bigger screen) or they certainally look the same to my eye. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I've also fitted a grip to mine, which goes some way to solving the battery issue, but also adds weight.
 
D300 v D200 I would go D300

D300 v D90 I would go D300

D300 v Fuji I would go D300

The Fuji is a great people camera, lovely colours and skin tones, but as slow as a slow thing.

D90 is a great option, but not in the same league with AF, weather sealing and robustness as the D300

The D200 was a lovely tool in its day, and is still great at low ISO, but the newer sensors are so much better once the ISO goes up.

A lot depends on what you are shooting, if you do not need high ISO and are considering a D200, you would be as well looking at a used D2x.
 
If your budget stretches to the d300 I would go for that as it improves on the d200 in most areas.

like you say though, the d200 can be had for a very reasonable price (got mine for around half the price of a used d300)
 
I've just upgraded from the D200 to the D300s. What a difference having the 51 point sensor and 7fps. :thumbs:
 
I have used and owned extensively an S5 pro, D200, and currently shoot with 2* D300's.

The difference between all 3 bodies is vast. I shot with an S5 and a D200 side by side for a while. S5 has slightly better high iso performance than the D200, but has a max of 1.2fps when shooting raw, or 3fps for jpeg with the super pretty high dynamic range mode turned off. Can be annoying, but depends what you do.

There was something about the colour produced by the S5 that was otherwise unmatched, the high dynamic range (no, not /that/ HDR...) was great, and the controls and ergonomics of it were just as good as the D200.

D200 to D300 is a massive jump again, the likes of which I hope I'll only see again going from D300 to D3/4. Fantastic AF on the D300, very very very well featured, fantastic high iso performance (compared to being 'tied' to iso800 for usable images on the D200), and so much other stuff that is just...'right'. 8fps is fantastic for when you need to use it, I'm happy with the colours, dynamic range, and the auto functions (awb and even auto-iso) all work as well or better than expected for very fast moving situations.

D200's are about 400 s/h atm, D300's are a pretty steady 750ish, and will usually have less use than the D200's... imo, it's definitely more than £350 worth of camera more, however, if you just shoot landscapes or studio stuff, then the things that are important to me might not apply to you :)
 
Adamski said:
I've just upgraded from the D200 to the D300s. What a difference having the 51 point sensor and 7fps. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

D300s owner, now im green with envy :p

out of my price range for a long while, px ing my much loved d80 wouldnt even make a dent in the price.

would love to have a go of one though.
 
nikonman said:
D300s owner, now im green with envy :p

out of my price range for a long while, px ing my much loved d80 wouldnt even make a dent in the price.

would love to have a go of one though.
Click to expand...

And I'm also getting my free SB900 courtesy of Nikon's offer :D :nikon:
 
And I'm also getting my free SB900 courtesy of Nikon's offer
Click to expand...

Can you tell us more? I have just bought a d300 and was Not offered an SB900 FREE:shake:

I will say though I feel a bit spoiled with a D300 coming from a 35MM film camera:eek: - Yes I have only just made the jump - and yes it feels as if its a jump to light speed;) there is a lot to take in - but one thing is for sure 51 point autofocuse with a 17 - 55 f2.8 is very fast and the 50mm f1.8 is amazingly fast - Low light shooting is a pleasure and has never been easier - Playing around with the iso is a parameter I have not been used to messing with - I am even dabling with full manual and I have only had the camera a short while.

D300 is a great camera:thumbs:
 
For casual users, the D90 will be as much of a camera as a D300.
To power users, who change settings regularly i.e. -> ISO, WB, who need 51 focus points, who need bang on focus for wide aperture shooting (AF-Fine tune), then the D300 is unparalleled.
 
Well let me hang my head in shame :$

I hold my hands up and admit making a complete fool of myself, based on the OP saying he is looking to upgrade from a D70 and likes the idea of a larger screen and liveview i suggested the D90 as it does both things he specifically asked about. He is also talking used 2nd hand kit so for the same sort of money NEW he could have a D90.


Lardinio said:
You are joking, aren't you?!. Please say you are.

D300 uses the 51 point CAM3500 sensor, and has beautiful AF performance, you have got a better build/sealing, lens fine-tune, 6 fps shooting (7 with grip) etc

The D90 is a slightly smaller body as suits those coming from a D40-D80, which has video capability and possibly better low light ISO performance.

There are a few other things too.
Click to expand...

I am aware that the D300 has a far superior body/build and with its price tag i would hope so. You say it yourself the D90 is a great upgrade for those coming from D40-D80, correct me if i wrong but the D70 falls in there too as the D80 replaced it?

TriggerHappy said:
There is definitely plenty to distinguish the D300 from the D90. If you don't know and aren't looking to give out false info why say something you can't explain/justify? :thinking:
Click to expand...

As i stated above based on what the OP asked about i answered to the best of my knowledge and obviously i have stepped into something i know very little about, i didnt say anything false because i was unsure

Nadeem said:
^^ Because you read somewhere that the D90 is based on the D300 and i might mention 90% of D90 is like the D300 or something silly like that
Click to expand...

Exactly as you wrote ive read many times in different places that the D90 was based on the D300 and minus the 51 point focus and 7 fps there is little difference, if anything the D90 is slightly better in low light. I have never looked into the D300 in that much detail so the things i had read came to mind and i posted an opinion based on that. Obviously i should research before posting anything i do not have first hand experience with


:coat::exit:
 
D200 is a brilliant, brilliant tool that performs admirably in any given situation. Compared t the 30D and 40D bodies we have here at work it is on another level with regard to build quality and user friendliness. IQ is probably the same at the 40D, there or thereabouts.

Where the D200 is trumped by the D300 is in the obvious areas; AF is quicker on the D300 and the noise handling and high ISO capabilities of the '300 are far superior. hat's not to say the D200 is bad; it's just older technology that has been superceded since its introduction four years ago.

It's always going to be a better bet to buy new technology if only to future-proof yourself, but we've got to a point now were a 10mp camera like the D200 is more than capable for producing great results when combined with god glass; the new technology we're getting on the D300s and future cameras will only helps us eek that little bit more out of a situation.
 
There is one aspect of the D200 that was briefly touched here, but no ones seems to be picking on it. Compared to the D300 (I have no clue about the D300s) the D200 has far better image quality at low ISO. At ISO 200, the D200 just beats the bananas out of the D300.

As for battery life, D300 may last longer; but the whole idea of battery life is very subjective to what you shoot, what you shoot with and how you shoot. If you use in-built flash then that's going to eat into your battery life. If you use lens with VR, that too will eat in to your battery life. Personally, I don't use either much (flash hardly ever). As such, I've always found the battery life of the D200 more than suitable for a whole days' shooting.

Back screen, the D300 has close to 1MP screen compared to a much lesser resolution of the D200 (can't remember the exact resolution, but it's such a big difference). The difference between the 3" screen of the D300 coupled with the higher resolution makes a huge bargaining point.

Live View, I'm not one who uses that; but it's another advantage in favour of the D300.

Sensor cleaner, another great feature of the D300 and I love it big time. It was one of the features, the lack of which pushed me away from the D3 and in favour of the D700.

fps :shrug: .. coming from the old film days, when 2 fps were great to have. I have been more than happy with what the D200 could perform. I don't see this as a big advantage for the D300. Keep in mind, there is a hack to make the D300 go up to 9fps (or was it 8) without the need for the extra bulky grip.

In the end, it's a mixed bag :bang:. If you shoot landscapes, or studio work, where you'd use low ISO mostly, then the D200 may be the better of the two. If you want an overall more advanced camera then the D300 is of course the way to go.
 
Adamski said:
I've just upgraded from the D200 to the D300s. What a difference having the 51 point sensor and 7fps. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Same here, and ditto on the free SB-900. ;)

The thing that sucks for people buying a D300 right now (you can pick up factory refurbs for about £900 atm), is that if you were a previous registered Nikon DSLR owner, and you wanted to get an SB-900 flash anyway, it actually works out cheaper to buy the D300s once you subtract the cost of the flash (and with a better warranty too, the D300 factory refurbs are only 6 months Nikon warranty).
 
specialman said:
D200 is more than capable for producing great results when combined with god glass;
Click to expand...

With the price of some lenses, you'd think the big man had made them himself. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top