D200 vs. D300 - really that extreme?

Roger_Federer · Oct 28, 2008

Hello!

I've read at Ken Rockwell's webpage, that the D300 is far superior to the D200 in nearly all respects (sharpness, colours, speed, battery life, display, contrast, etc.). Read here!
He recommends to sell the D200 for funding a D300...now I have a D200, would it really be worth it, to sell the D200 for buying a D300? Can anybody contribue from his/her own experience? Is it really that extreme?

Best Regards Timo

Mike_E · Oct 28, 2008

Maybe Ken is better than his D200, but I'm not better than mine so I'll be keeping it for a while.

dEARlEADER · Oct 28, 2008

well ... it's not just Ken... you could check out reviews from Thom Hogan and DPreview as well....

the consensus is the D300 is a drastic redesign from the D200 and is a better camera..... that doesn't mean the D200 isn't a great camera....

as far as switching you should evaluate the differences and decide whether or not this is important to you.... nobody here can make up your mind for you.... if you are happy with your D200 I don't see any reason to switch.... the D200 has already dumped it's value so there is certainly no financial advantage to getting out now....

skiboarder72 · Oct 28, 2008

The D300 is to the D200 as the D200 is to the D100

Sw1tchFX · Oct 28, 2008

If you don't shoot above ISO 400 much, shoot only RAW, don't shoot sports, and don't need 51 AF points, stick with your D200, wait for the D400.

Consider the 17-55 f/2.8 instead.

TamiyaGuy · Oct 28, 2008

In my opinion, the D300 is much better than the D200, but not enough to warrant instantly upgrading. Yes, the battery life, FPS, image noise, quality, etc are all better, but you would be much better off getting a £900 lens instead. Remember, using ISO 200 with an f/2.8 lens is much better, no matter what difference the camera body makes, than ISO 800 with an f/5.6 lens.

stsinner · Oct 28, 2008

I think that a lot of people think that a better camera will make them a better photographer, but most of them probably never leave the AUTO setting much. The D300 is only worth the money, imho, if you're making money with your photography and you are a trained professional.. If you're not a professional with a very trained eye and a penchant for the very fine subtleties of the picture, using an eye loupe and blowing things up to 40 inches, unless you've just got money to burn, the D300 is just a status symbol. Ken Rockwell even says that in his reviews-if you don't understand ISO, White Balance, metering, stopping down/up, etc., the more complicated cameras are a waste of money for you, and you won't realize their full potential. Now you may, but I surely don't. I could give you a short dissertation of each, but as for using them each effectively enough to justify upgrading my camera body, I won't claim to be able to do that.
As a recreational photographer, I think that the D200 is more than sufficient. Invest in better glass to hang from it.

JerryPH · Oct 28, 2008

The only people that want you to believe that the D300 is FAR better than a D200 are the marketing people. It has a couple of advantages, and shoots pictures SLIGHTLY cleaner at ISO 1600 than the D200 (which can be cleaned in noise reduction software so that its as good as ISO 200!).

I have my next camera going to be a D700 or D3, for me thats a proven real upgrade. A lot of people did the upgrade from D200 to D300, but its now a thousand dollar upgrade, and I am sorry if I offend anyone, the D300 is not a thousand dollars worth better than a D200.

Everytime I grab my friend's D300, its so close that you have to REALLY be pushing the envelope to see the differences... and how often does anyone shoot at those levels? Maybe 2-5% of those times?

D40 · Oct 28, 2008

I would say even if the D300 is a lot better, that you are better off keeping the D200 (as it is a great camera) and saveing for a D700/D3 with a full fame sensor. Like the previouse posters said, that is a much better reason to upgrade...and it may be that most pro bodies will be moveing to the full frame sensor and then you would want to upgrade from the D300 again...

Just my thought!

sabbath999 · Oct 28, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
If you don't shoot above ISO 400 much, shoot only RAW, don't shoot sports, and don't need 51 AF points, stick with your D200, wait for the D400.

Consider the 17-55 f/2.8 instead.

+1

Joves · Oct 28, 2008

I upgraded from the D80 to the D300 which I think made more sense. I dont think that if I had the D200 I would have myself. I still have my D80 and use it as a back up and, my general abuse camera.

djacobox372 · Oct 28, 2008

skiboarder72 said:
The D300 is to the D200 as the D200 is to the D100

No... the d200 was a bigger step. Not only did they improve the imaging system more dramatically, they added compatibility with non-cpu lenses.

djacobox372 · Oct 28, 2008

JerryPH said:
The only people that want you to believe that the D300 is FAR better than a D200 are the marketing people. It has a couple of advantages, and shoots pictures SLIGHTLY cleaner at ISO 1600 than the D200 (which can be cleaned in noise reduction software so that its as good as ISO 200!).

I have my next camera going to be a D700 or D3, for me thats a proven real upgrade. A lot of people did the upgrade from D200 to D300, but its now a thousand dollar upgrade, and I am sorry if I offend anyone, the D300 is not a thousand dollars worth better than a D200.

Everytime I grab my friend's D300, its so close that you have to REALLY be pushing the envelope to see the differences... and how often does anyone shoot at those levels? Maybe 2-5% of those times?

Well said... whenever I see someone with a d300 WITHOUT a $1000+ lens attached, I think to myself that they should have bought a d200 and a $1000+ lens.

BUT, if you already have your share of $1000 lenses, then by all means it's a nice upgrade.

Garbz · Oct 28, 2008

Well lets put it in perspective. Look at Kens lens collection. If I had loads of money to piss against the wall, then I too would have upgraded to the D300 by now.