Upgrading from a D40

[spang1mw]

I have had my D40 for a while now and am thinking about upgrading soon. I'm torn between the D200 and the D300. I'm wondering if the upgrade between my D40 to the D200 would be a big enough upgrade in itself and save the money I would have spent on the D300 on new lenses instead. Thanks for the help!

 

[Mach0]

D300

 

[orb9220]

Yep went to D200 from a D40 and ended up with a D90. Which has served me well last 3 yrs. But would welcome metering Ai and Ai-s manual glass. And fine tune lens feature. Build would be welcomed. And consider a D300 a D90's Big & Tougher Brother!

I love the D200 and still miss it even tho have a D90. And if not needing a lot of lower light work wouldn't hesitate using one. But the D300 does give you more leeway and Higher Iso performance for lower light needs.

Only you can decide if you need the extra's of the D300 or even consider a D90 if build and metering old manual glass isn't a concern. As the D90 is considered a smid'gin better at higher iso use. The D300 With all the benefits of the D200. More capable and faster AF stage. Greater torque for driving AF and AF-D lenses is welcomed. I would have my sights on a D300 if at all possible.
.

 

[spang1mw]

Yep went to D200 from a D40 and ended up with a D90. Which has served me well last 3 yrs. But would welcome metering Ai and Ai-s manual glass. And fine tune lens feature. Build would be welcomed. And consider a D300 a D90's Big & Tougher Brother!

I love the D200 and still miss it even tho have a D90. And if not needing a lot of lower light work wouldn't hesitate using one. But the D300 does give you more leeway and Higher Iso performance for lower light needs.

Only you can decide if you need the extra's of the D300 or even consider a D90 if build and metering old manual glass isn't a concern. As the D90 is considered a smid'gin better at higher iso use. The D300 With all the benefits of the D200. More capable and faster AF stage. Greater torque for driving AF and AF-D lenses is welcomed. I would have my sights on a D300 if at all possible.
.

Thanks for the help! From my research into the D200 most of the complaints were about the poor high iso performance which is greatly improved in the D300. Most of my photos are landscapes and not needing to use very high iso's. I never go above 800 on the D40. But a few hundred dollars isn't that much when deciding between the camera I'm going to have for the next few years... that's why I keep thinking about going with the newer D300.

 

[orb9220]

Yep would then eliminate all doubts and just bite the bullet for the D300.
I have used the D200 and many think that 800 iso is the max for it.
But I was happy shooting 1250 as long as I could nail exposure.


Green 1250 Sooc 1 of 2 by Orbmiser, on Flickr
.

 

[KmH]

The upgraded Multi-CAM, 3500DX auto focus module having 15 cross-type focus points (51 total focus points) in the D300 is alone worth the extra cost.

Add the option of 14-bit Raw files, and the D300 is hard to ignore.