Considering a new Nikon

[WolfSpring]

I currently have a Nikon D40, which I am happy with, but I already realize that it is entry level and I plan on getting a better one and passing the D40 to the wife. We are going to have some extra money real soon and I'm looking between 1500-2000 I can put into a new camera and/or accessories. As I am happy with the Nikons I have read about i am sold on them, there is no debateing here, I respect cannons and all, but I'm sold on Nikon, anyway. the question is do want to shell out and get a D200, which looks a little overkill in some areas, and little expensive in comparison to the D80, wich isn't lacking anything I can't live without. Is there another option I'm not thinking about with the Nikons? If I get the 80 I can afford another lens also. If I buy the 200 I may be tapped out to sharing the two lenses I have for the D40 now.

This is what I know. The D80 Takes SD, I have several 2G already. The 200 takes CF teh biggest I already have is 512K. The D80 takes the wireless remote, I have that. The 200 takes a cable(someone said 100 bucks.) The D80 is lighter, the D80 gets more pictures per battery life(How they have the same battery) Other then that the 200 has wireless transfer, and a couple of options I'm not sure I'd use. Any input, advice or comments or possible flaws in my thinking are greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

[bemmermazda]

Go with the D80. Its a great camera that wont let you down. With the extra money go with a nice telephoto.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I agree, D80 and other accessories.

 

[ilockert]

hold out for the d300. Thats what im doing, I was going to pick up a used 200 but the 300 is suppose to be great when it gets here

 

[Icon72]

D80 and extras. Much better use of the cash.

 

[soylentgreen]

I shoot Canon and I agree. Get the D80 and a 70-200 VR. No offense, but the D200 & D300 is a whole-lotta-camera for a "amatuer". Especially if you do not use all of the features it was built for. I am not saying you won't grow to use them eventually, but by than the D400 will be on the horizon.

 

[emogirl]

d80...specs wise there is very little difference betweeen d200 & d80, except for a more rugged build....many of the 'professiona' options, you'll never understand, need or want... so, save your money on the body and buy great glass! that will take you much further than the body.

 

[WolfSpring]

Most of you have backed up what I thought. The 300 is not much better then the 200 for the price they are putting on it, the only, and I mean only thing that appeals to me better then the D80 about the 200/300 is the wireless transfer, but thats not really that great, but the D80 has a wireless remote trigger, and the 200/300 state they have a cable. As far as the D80 does it have a remote flash?

 

[el_shorty]

For the wireless transfer on the D200 you would also have to buy the Nikon WT-3 Transmitter, and that's $580 on B & H.

 

[Mike_E]

I have and love a D200. The reason I bought it was mainly because I am tough on my equipment (I'm prone to diving in head first too ). Being able to change the WB, ISO and image quality without having to lower the camera is a plus too. If this doesn't sound like a problem to you then the D80 should be fine.

 

[JerryPH]

D80 will be fine.

As far as the debate of D300 vs D200 and how good each one is compared to each other, its all speculation until the D300 gets released mid December.

The released info so far in terms of how much better the D300 is than the D200 is not enough to cause me to want to upgrade. I'll wait for the D400 or whatever model they use to replace the D300 with. 95% of the time, its the photographer that makes a picture a "great pic", not the camera.

 

[Garbz]

The D80 has all the wireless flash options of the D200/300.

Seriously though I see no reason why anyone who hasn't got too much money and his priorities messed up would want to upgrade a D200 TO a D300. The cameras are all too similar. Yes the D300 has a drool worthy autofocus, but not much else. Noise? Stop viewing your pictures at 100% and start printing and you'll see even acceptable results can be pulled at ISO3200 from the D200, err just.

As for D80 vs the expensive ones? That depends on you. I choice the D200 purely for it's rugged build quality. But mind you mine has been dragged through snow at -10degrees, and several dust storms here in Australia, and been smashed into a cliff-face during a rock climbing incident and it's less than a year old. So I guess you can see why.

If you look after your camera and intend to upgrade in a few years anyway a D80 + accessories would suit better.

 

[sabbath999]

Seriously though I see no reason why anyone who hasn't got too much money and his priorities messed up would want to upgrade a D200 TO a D300. The cameras are all too similar. Yes the D300 has a drool worthy autofocus, but not much else. Noise? Stop viewing your pictures at 100% and start printing and you'll see even acceptable results can be pulled at ISO3200 from the D200, err just.

The interesting question will be for those of us who want to upgrade, because there will be a big price difference between the D200 and D300 once the D300 is released and people move out the old 200's at discount...

I have not seen any good pictures showing what the D300's high ISO noise levels are, do you know of any that are out there?

 

[Mike_E]

Here is a Korean site with a shot @6400 and a 100% crop (unverified). http://translate.google.com/transla....com/bbs/vx2.php?id=newproduct_nikon&no=28412

Here is another with some D3 shots as well. (also unverified) (we may all be talking about the D3 for decades to come!)

 

[hirschizer]

I've got one thing about the d300 vs the d200 i'm looking at both right now and i don't have much money and well the d300 is full sensor now i got a question about the lenses aren't they going to be more expensive so some people might prefer to go with the d200. also are they continuing the d200 because it's not a full sensor so it might not compete with the d300