D200 or wait for a D300?

James Rothwell

James Rothwell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
165
Name
James Rothwell
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there,

I bought a D40 over a year ago to get myself into photography and I now feel it is time to move on. I've got the normal 18-55m & 60-200mm lens with this D40.

I can afford a new D200 with 18-200mm VR lens and a battery grip which I quite like the idea of a D300.

I could afford a D300 but would have to make do with my current lenses for a while as I can only afford the D300 body.

What do you guys think I would be better off doing?

I mostly shoot motorsport but I'm looking into doing a bit more next year like maybe parties, weddings perhaps, or maybe even try a bit of model work.

Thanks for any help or advice I can get.
 
D300

Simple as that

My 'main' camera is a D2Xs but (same as the D200) it's rubbish at higher ISO, and Weddings tend not to take place in well lit churches - hence I bought a D300 just for the high ISO capabilities

It's already proving to be a good #1 camera and I'm already using it more than the D2Xs !!!

DD
 
I look at improving your lenses before blowing £900 on a body that is about to be upstaged by the D90 anyhow.

Looking at what you have... spend on glass, and don't body upgrade until you have the glass in place.
 
Surely the D400 is a long way off yet?

Id say stick with getting better glass unless the D200 or D300 has functions that you need and the D40 can't do as well. I have a D80 an would love the D300 Or even the D700, but better glass is what I am saving for.
 
DiddyDave said:
D300

Simple as that

My 'main' camera is a D2Xs but (same as the D200) it's rubbish at higher ISO, and Weddings tend not to take place in well lit churches - hence I bought a D300 just for the high ISO capabilities

It's already proving to be a good #1 camera and I'm already using it more than the D2Xs !!!

DD
Click to expand...

When did you get that mate?

I know you were impressed with my ISO 3200 images i posted, but i didnt realised you had one now.
 
It's always a killer question, isn't it :)

You have to ask yourself if a D300 body and your current lenses will be a better choice than a D200 and the 18-200mm VR. For motorsport, you should ideally be looking for 300mm at least...
 
Glass first, body later. Just make sure it's quality glass. The 18-200 VR , whilst better than your (I assume) 55-200 is still a consumer lens, with plastic contruction and consumer-grade optics. A bit more money gets you into the "pro" glass league and even witha D40 you'll notice the difference.

The lenses you have at present were primarily developed for the lower end consumer bodies like the D40, so a D300 would (imho) really highlight their defficiences.
 
Go for the D300, great camera, and you will notice a big difference over your d40. Even the new D90 would be a good move, but its not in the same league as the D300, Nikon still class the D90 as a "consumer" camera.
Then, depending on what type of photography you will be doing, start thinking about new lenses.
Allan
 
You could get the 70-200VR for the price (roughly) of the D300 ... that's what you ought to be getting to go with your D40. Only move from one body to another if you've seriously outgrown your existing body, or your existing body is playing up on you.

By the way, I love the high ISO quality on the D40 .. much better than that on the D200, but no where near that of the D300. Still, the D40 is a very good body by any measure.
 
Then, depending on what type of photography you will be doing, start thinking about new lenses.

Thats such an arse about face way of looking at the world :)

Its only on this forum that folks seem to put a body before lenses and keep a straight face!

If he decides he wants to do airshows, than a 55-200 and D300 really isn't going to help, if he needs a 400mm lens!

Doh!
 
allanm said:
Go for the D300, great camera, and you will notice a big difference over your d40. Even the new D90 would be a good move, but its not in the same league as the D300, Nikon still class the D90 as a "consumer" camera.
Then, depending on what type of photography you will be doing, start thinking about new lenses.
Allan
Click to expand...

Ill second that. too many people go on about pro glass.

The difference between consumer glass and pro glass is the latter is built to last and be abused to some degree.

The lenses you have will be fine on the D300..

I use the 18-55 and the 55-200 on my D300, albeit it i have the VR versions.

The time to go for pro glass is when you "need" the speed. Such as 300mm f4, or 70-200 f2.8. 17-55 f2.8
 
Monkey said:
Ill second that. too many people go on about pro glass.

The difference between consumer glass and pro glass is the latter is built to last and be abused to some degree.

The lenses you have will be fine on the D300..

I use the 18-55 and the 55-200 on my D300, albeit it i have the VR versions.

The time to go for pro glass is when you "need" the speed. Such as 300mm f4, or 70-200 f2.8. 17-55 f2.8
Click to expand...

If the only difference between consumer and pro glass was the constuction then most pros would buy sixty quid's worth of 18-55 instead of a £1000 17-55 and just throw it away and get another one when it broke....

Have you used any of the "better" lenses on your D300 by way of a comparison?
 
puddleduck said:

If he decides he wants to do airshows, than a 55-200 and D300 really isn't going to help, if he needs a 400mm lens!

Doh!
Click to expand...

Isnt that what I said? Get the D300, decide how you want to use it ( airshows?), get the lenses ( 400mm )
Dont berate everybody elses opinion if they dont agree with yours. :razz:

Allan
 
I'm afraid that better glass really does show up. If you shoot at f/8 than the differences are marginal, but a nice fast f/2.8 lens thats sharp wide open with good bokeh gives lots more creative possibilities than a slow f/5.6 kit lens.

You don't need to spend lots of get this - a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Di does this very well and its £200 and better than the 18-55 kit lens (any flavour)
 
allanm said:
Isnt that what I said? Get the D300, decide how you want to use it ( airshows?), get the lenses ( 400mm )
Dont berate everybody elses opinion if they dont agree with yours. :razz:

Allan
Click to expand...

I don't understand the logic though.. if you want to shoot airshows, you need the long lens FIRST, not a body.

Then decide after that whether the current body is holding you back - ie FPS, autofocus, handing etc

But you need the lens first. Its not a case of berating, but you are talking illogical nonsense with a body first mantra.

Buying a body than thinking "well duh.. what do I shoot?" is putting the cart before the horse in a spectactular fashion :)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If the only difference between consumer and pro glass was the constuction then most pros would buy sixty quid's worth of 18-55 instead of a £1000 17-55 and just throw it away and get another one when it broke....

Have you used any of the "better" lenses on your D300 by way of a comparison?
Click to expand...

yes i had the 24-60 f2.8 Sigma EX, excellent lens, very sharp, but heavy, and as you point out, at f8, difference is marginal.

I didnt say the only difference was construction, i said that was part of it, that and the faster aperture's, which if you need then you pay for, if you dont then you dont.
 
Monkey said:
When did you get that mate?

I know you were impressed with my ISO 3200 images i posted, but i didnt realised you had one now.
Click to expand...



About 2 weeks ago

I shot a Wedding in a 'dark' place and had to use the D2Xs at 800 - it was shocking!!!

Okay, not that bad but I knew I could have better with the D300 having seen loads of high ISO images (inc. yours ta)

And there's the other shock that I bought a nifty fifty for the D2Xs now; so my typical Wedding shoot has a 12-24 f4 on the D300 and a 50 f1.8 on the D2Xs - works a treat as a combination for the ceremony. After which I switch the D2Xs to the 70-200 f2.8 VR

Oh, and I also bought the latest version of DxO too as it has NR as part of it's raw converter - it also has ALL my lenses profiled and the D300 and it works fab too

:thumbs: all round now

DD
 
Monkey said:
yes i had the 24-60 f2.8 Sigma EX, excellent lens, very sharp, but heavy, and as you point out, at f8, difference is marginal.

I didnt say the only difference was construction, i said that was part of it, that and the faster aperture's, which if you need then you pay for, if you dont then you dont.
Click to expand...


By "better" I meant Nikon "pro" glass, not Sigma (whether EX or not). ;)


The benefit of faster glass isn't just in the ability to shoot at, say, f/2.8. When you look through the viewfinder of your D300 with your 55-200 VR attached and zoomed to 200m what you get is a dark f/5.6 image. However,ehen you do the same with something like an 80-200 f/2.8 at the same focal length then the viewfinder image is at f/2.8 regardless of what aperture you have the camera set at, giving you a much brighter view of the scene, making it much easier for the camera to autofocus.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
By "better" I meant Nikon "pro" glass, not Sigma (whether EX or not). ;)


The benefit of faster glass isn't just in the ability to shoot at, say, f/2.8. When you look through the viewfinder of your D300 with your 55-200 VR attached and zoomed to 200m what you get is a dark f/5.6 image. However,ehen you do the same with something like an 80-200 f/2.8 at the same focal length then the viewfinder image is at f/2.8 regardless of what aperture you have the camera set at, giving you a much brighter view of the scene, making it much easier for the camera to autofocus.
Click to expand...

Im not going to argue any on that because you are right....

All im saying is if what you are doing doesnt require you to buy really expensive glass, then you dont really need to.

In an ideal world, we would all have the fastest glass money can buy, but for me the D300 made more sense for the High ISO capability, and the handling as ive got huge hands.

As time progresses i will buy more and more lenses as im more than happy with my body, but for what i shoot at the moment, i dont need to spend that kind of money on glass.

PLUS, if you need a special, say 300mm f4, lenses for hire can sort you out for a weekend, but he cant rent you a body!!
 
Monkey said:
Im not going to argue any on that because you are right....

All im saying is if what you are doing doesnt require you to buy really expensive glass, then you dont really need to.

In an ideal world, we would all have the fastest glass money can buy, but for me the D300 made more sense for the High ISO capability, and the handling as ive got huge hands.

As time progresses i will buy more and more lenses as im more than happy with my body, but for what i shoot at the moment, i dont need to spend that kind of money on glass.

PLUS, if you need a special, say 300mm f4, lenses for hire can sort you out for a weekend, but he cant rent you a body!!
Click to expand...


If you have big hands then I suppose a D40 or even a D80 would be a bit awkward.

For everyone else though decent glass means that you don't need to pump the iso up high(with all the noise issues that brings) to get the shot.
 
D300, no doubt.

I can't see the D300 falling in price much more as it has already dropped from £1200 since it's release. Maybe just before it's end of production will it drop another £100 or so before it plummts but that's about it. Even the D200 before it's end of production was still £900, before the release of the D300.

I sold my D80 just at the start of summer this year as anticipated a D90 release and also it was still worth something, and it being saught after as a second hand model.
 
puddleduck said:
you are talking illogical nonsense with a body first mantra.

Buying a body than thinking "well duh.. what do I shoot?" is putting the cart before the horse in a spectactular fashion :)
Click to expand...

I suppose this is right if for instance you bought a full frame camera body like a D700 and all you had were DX lenses.

But then, some people like to do things different, just think what a boring world this would be if we were all like Mr Spock! ;)

Getting a D300 isn`t illogical Captain, its fun.

Allan
 
puddleduck said:
I look at improving your lenses before blowing £900 on a body that is about to be upstaged by the D90 anyhow.
Click to expand...
Errrr how,

The D90 is a D300 Less some features, how can it upstage the D300???

Has your D700 upstaged the D3
 
James Rothwell said:
Hi there,

I bought a D40 over a year ago to get myself into photography and I now feel it is time to move on.

I mostly shoot motorsport but I'm looking into doing a bit more next year like maybe parties, weddings perhaps, or maybe even try a bit of model work.

Thanks for any help or advice I can get.
Click to expand...

A photographer with a years experience looking to do Weddings,take a tip from someone with 200+ weddings under their belt.
DONT DIVE IN AT THE DEEP END

Get in with a pro and watch and learn not just the photographic but also the people skills you will need to do the job and do it right.Remember with weddings you
dont get a second chance
 
Flash In The Pan said:
For everyone else though decent glass means that you don't need to pump the iso up high(with all the noise issues that brings) to get the shot.
Click to expand...

Technically yes, but lets look at it another way.

The D300 can shoot 2 stops of ISO higher and get better results than its predecessor the D200.

If you assign them 2 stops of ISO to the aperture value, DOF and low light focusing aside, the 55-200 f4-5.6 Actually becomes the equivalent for low light shooting as a 55-200 f2-2.8(even *** it doesn't exist)

Now i know fast lenses focus better in low light, but ive never struggled to lock focus on my so called "consumer" lenses.

SO, technically a D300 with a 55-200 f4-5.6 is better in low light than a D200 with a 70-200 f2.8.

Its worth thinking about, because a better body gives you a benefit on every lens you own, but one fast lens is a benefit on one focal range
 
Wow. Thanks for so many replies guys!

1) 200mm is all that I need for my motorsport photography as most if not all is done at the Nurburgring and I am able to get next to the armco so most of the time I'm shooting at anything between 55mm and 120mm depending on which location.

2) I do have big hands so the D40 feels a little small sometimes although it is fairly discreet which is handy.

3) As for the weddings, I wasn't planning on doing anything on my own. I wanted to get some pro hardware and then find a guy locally who wouldn't mind an assistant (tea-bitch) to helping out.

4) I've been meaning to get a new lens and I should be able to buy a new lens at the end of October as I get paid a bit of a bonus then and will have the money to buy a 70-200mm f2.8.

From what I've read going from a D40 to a D200 isn't going to last that long, but it seems that a D300 would be the better long term choice.

I'm not disspleased with the D40 at all, I think I made a really good choice as a starter camera.


Honestly thank you guys so much for spending the time replying to me properly, writing in proper English and not just flaming me with "u iz fanboi!!11 bye A canon!!!"
 
If you do decide on the D300/70-200 combo make sure and budget for the battery grip as well as that combo feels very unbalanced without it, but with the grip in place the balance is perfect...
 
I have recently bought a D300 (coming over to the dark side from Sony) and I can safely say I am not dissapointed with the choice.

The only downside for me is that from having a number of different lenses I am now down to just one. I went for the Nikkor DX AF-S 18-200mm f3.5/5.6 G ED and although this lens is a general lens I am more than happy with it.

I recently did a very non-scientific test against a Sigma 70-300mm and this proved to me that a bit more spent on a lens does give a benefit in quality, both in use and the final quality. See http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=888483#post888483 for thread.

I wouldn't presume for you to make a choice based on this, but if you went with the new D300 it would give you a 2nd body which would allow you 2 choices of lens without the need to swap.

I never even contemplated going to a D200 though I think the better lens would be a far better choice.
 
For me, the high ISO performance of a D300 meant that all my lenses (even cheap nasty slow consumer ones) could freeze action or get enough light for a sharp shot, but there is no getting away from the fact that good glass gets nicer looking shots, else it wouldn't keep selling. IMO getting a D300 is a perfectly good idea, but then so is getting good glass... you can't lose really
 
JAMES! I'm a regular-ish at the Nürburgring along with my D300 and 70-200mm VR! ;)

Give me a shout! :D
 
I'm in a similar situation to you, I have a D40X and I really think I need to upgrade to a D300 as I feel the D40X has reached its capabilities, yet I still need to use higher ISOs and get better quality (noise-wise) images. I was tempted by better glass but I have realised that now it is the body that was limiting me, rather than my lens selection, so after the D300 will then invest in some new glass.

Let us know what you do in the end on this situation :D
 
Shak

Where did you see the Nikon D200 has finished production? According to the Nikon web site it isn't in the discontinued listings for 2006/2007, the 2008 list hasn't been put on their web page yet.

Realspeed
 
It probably will have been discontinued - the D40 ceased production long before it stopped being listed by Nikon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top