D200 vs. D300 - really that extreme?

[Roger_Federer]

i reckon you guys convinced me not to buy the D300 :mrgreen:

Will buy a 80-200mm/2.8 zoom instead or saving money for D700/D400

Regards Timo

 

[Iron Flatline]

How is a camera body sharper than its predecessor?

 

[jstuedle]

You did not offend, but the D300 IMHO is worth every bit of it's price to upgrade. Having said that, as has been already mentioned, if you don't shoot low light, high ISO, sports or just have not explored all the D200's capabilities, stay with what you have. A good percentage of my work is very low/available light and I find the D300 is a good complement to the D3.

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?

 

[Roger_Federer]

I would really like to own a D300, but I still have to learn with my D200 and so it seems that for ME it would be a waste of money. I also think that the D400 (or whatever) will be better again, because, as ken says, 1 or 2 years in digital photography is a lot!!

But he also says that there is hardly any difference between D3-D300-D700-D90?! Is that really possible? Shouldnt fullframe be much bettter?

 

[Pure]

Full frame is better, but sometimes you get vignetting even on pro lenses.

 

[JerryPH]

But he also says that there is hardly any difference between D3-D300-D700-D90?! Is that really possible? Shouldnt fullframe be much bettter?

Full frame is in it's own world with different "rules" and constraints. You are comparing apples and oranges. In terms of high ISO low noise... its literally NO contest. ISO 3200 is about the same level as ISO 400 on the D200... visible, but so little as to not be a concern.

Vignetting... whether it does or doesn't, it's a a total non-issue for me, since I have an action in PS that addressed it in one single press of an F-key and 1 second of my time.

 

[jlykins]

Made the Jump from D70 to D300. I have to say that there was a HUGE quality improvement. I can comfortably shoot higher ISOs with the D300. As far as between the 200-300, everyone that I have talked to who made the upgrade is glad they did.

 

[skiboarder72]

Made the Jump from D70 to D300. I have to say that there was a HUGE quality improvement. I can comfortably shoot higher ISOs with the D300. As far as between the 200-300, everyone that I have talked to who made the upgrade is glad they did.

Likewise I went from a D50 to a D300. I personally wouldn't move from a D200 to a D300, I would wait another product cycle. I probably won't upgrade until the D4 comes out in 2010.

 

[jstuedle]

Full frame is better, but sometimes you get vignetting even on pro lenses.

From what I understand, the firmware upgrade for the D3 helps eliminate/reduce vignetting with certain Nikkor lenses. The camera recognizes the lens is mounted and makes adjustments in the file prior to it being written to the CF card. So at least for certain glass, it is a non-issue after applying the update.

 

[Pure]

From what I understand, the firmware upgrade for the D3 helps eliminate/reduce vignetting with certain Nikkor lenses. The camera recognizes the lens is mounted and makes adjustments in the file prior to it being written to the CF card. So at least for certain glass, it is a non-issue after applying the update.

thats good, friend is buying the d3 next week, and he has like $14000 in lenses, hahah.