d200 over d80?

fontmoss

fontmoss

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Is it worth the extra money to go d200 over d80, they seem to have comparable specs in terms of images? The 200 offers better weather sealing and would meter with my old manual lenses as well as faster shutter speed but is it worth the extra cash (admittedly second hand there isnt a huge amount in it)

or should i just start saving for the 300 which seems to have much better quality images in the ISO 800 - 1600 range (which would be a big boon for me) which may mean a long wait. Although price rises may be offset by a drop if new models announced.

coming from a d40 so a fair few differences from it regardless of d80 or d200.
 
I'd say go with the D200!

The D300 is wonderful, but it's more than 2x the price of a new D200 (if you can find a new D200, that is). Put the difference towards glass.

You can always continue to save-up for a D300; and one will come at a very competitive price sooner or later. At which time you would be able to sell your D200 and put the difference from your saving.

Mind, going from a D40 to a D200 can be a bit frustrating; you will not have the "bezel" option to set the camera for different shooting modes (landscape, portrait, macro, etc.). So, you'd have to be rather comfortable with playing around with "A" and "P" settings.
 
I went from a d40 to the d200 and its the best move I made,if you can afford it go for the d300

Cathal
 
I went for the D200 over the D80.
Because the D200 has more buttons on the body, meaning you don't need to go into menu's to make settings adjustments.

The other reason is because I'd have spent the next however long wondering if the D200 would have been a better option. And I'd would have to have sold the D80 and got a D200 sooner or later! If you know what I mean?!
 
I've got a d80 and my best mate has the d200. It's a difficult choice I guess, they share the same sensor, but the d200 is four channel and the d80 is two. This only really means that the d80 is slower, the image quality is almost identical. I'd be tempted to say get the d80 and spend a bit of cash on a good lens or 2. There a rumours of a d400 coming out so the price of the d300 should drop for you to upgrade to that at a later date.

My only quarm is, having never used a d40 im not sure how much of a difference you'd get from a d80. From the point of view of self development I might recommend getting the d200, a few extra functions and a semi-pro body might be worth it. It is a difficult decision, even when they were both new.

I picked up the d80 in a very good deal so got that instead. It is a lovely camera, and I've only had it for 6 weeks, but I did enjoy borrowing my mates d200.

Whats the price of both? I havn't seen a d80 online since i bought mine, and havnt seen a d200 for ages.
 
I have a D80 which is a great camera but I do think after reading your post if you go for a D200 your going to wonder if the D300 would have been a better buy -sorry:|
 
cheers guys, bezel aint a problem-use manual lenses so never out of 'm' mode anyway but cyb makes a very, VERY good point, hmmm. money aside id go for the d300 any day, maybe start savin pennies...
 
echo what everyone else has said.

personally i prefer the tougher bodies (d100, d70 and d300 user) and better placed buttons and such.

but t'other thing to consider if on a budget is if you're going to have to switch over your cards cf <--> sd and whether that's an issue for you

d300 - d200 - d80 - d40 in that order :D

but if you're having no problems getting shots with your current cam then get better glass as they all essentially do the same thing :)
 
I never looked at a lower-level Dxxx camera, I have the D200 and it is a fab camera, if you have the money then buy it, if you think that you Might be better with the D300 then save for that.

I'm looking at getting a D300 and will be selling my D200 at some point. Albeit a much-saddening parting....but one that business-wise will make financial sense.
 
get reasonable pics with current camera but looking for more control and better high (low??) ISO quality.

d90 looks nice but for 400 i can get d200 and more than that id want a d300-which as said before may be a better long term option. damn if pressed id go for the 300, maybe i need to alter my timescale
 
its early days (had DSLR since christmas) although many, many clicks! Thus far low light candids/portraits are by far what i take the most pictures of, all of it is available light (dont have a flash and may get one but for most of what i do it seems inappropriate) so realistically the d300 is what im after and the d200 would be a stepping stone. Have i just answered my own question? lol i probably have
 
I have a flash, with the D200, and tbh, the stuff the D200 produces with flash is great. I shoot without flash for icehockey, and the light is terrible and I have to shoot upto ISO 1000, now with certain PP stuff, and resizing for use only on facebook. Its fine. You cannot really see it. As for prints, I would be reluctant to shoot about 400 for a big print. However, I have shot upto 800-1000 and got a decent 20x16 from it.

I am getting a D300 purely for business purposes. Its going to be better for low-level lights at weddings and not having to use flash and use natural light. Maybe it'd be a good stepping stone for you? Or if you can wait get the D300 then.

What glass have you got?
 
glass is limited, got an old manual 50mm and the 18-55 kit lens plus a 28mm on its way. was thinking about a sigma 24-70 f2.8 or maybe a14mm non fisheye
 
If your shooting low-light then I would suggest spending the money on faster glass tbh. f1.8's or f2.8's even then in low-light you'll end up struggling with any camera. Obviously though the D300 would handle the noise better. But knowing you can up the ISO if need be on any camera. Do you really need a new camera?
 
need is such a strong word ;)

fast glass is def a good idea but even with a f1.8 lens i find myself wishing i had a usable 1600 or could even select something between 800 and 1600 (which isnt an option on the d40.) glass is obviously going to make a difference but when i find myself using a fast lens and still pining for a stronger ISO range i do start to wonder..
 
:lol: ISO 1600 isnt very useable on the D200 - answer your question? :)
However...

2992465787_e635db8de6.jpg


taken ISO 1200 [ish] on a D200 at f3.5 and I was still only getting 1/20s shutter speed!
 
ohhh so maybe a d200 would satisfy (for now)

so much to think about....
 
what glass do you have btw? i love my 50 and the 28 on its way should be fun too. now its just a case of whether to get a nice mid range 2.8 or a 'normal' telephoto

then a wide angle

then a nice telephoto
 
im thinking about a 10-20 or a 14 fixed from sigma, have you used the latter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top