nikon d200 v d300

fontmoss

fontmoss

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
ok its a biggie but if you can form an orderly queue then id like to hear your opinions either way. right now im a very green newbie, 8 weeks and counting but utterly smitten. using a d40 which i love but i feel left wanting in some respects. Specifically the ISO range, quick access to controls (although setting up the fn button for ISO and leaving wb on auto has helped) better quality shots at 1600 and to a lesser extent (inasmuch as it doesnt necessarily affect the images) how much better both these models feel in the hand compared to the d40.

ok so ultimately im probably going to love both of these but as its going to be mean saving up and selling of beloved bike kit to fund i wanted to feel out how justified the cost difference is between these 2? I know from reviews ive seen that the d300 is a stronger contender for those high ISO shots but strong enough to justify the cost jump?

ok, let me have it
 
having owned both the D300 is far better ISO than the D200

The D200 gets noisy from ISO640 up where as the D300 can have little noise at ISO3200

another one to look at for you with wanting higher ISO would be the D90
 
I agree with Whitey....the D90 is worth a serious look and is between the two in cost.

I upgraded from a D40x to the D90 and find it vastly better on ISO, handling and more...
 
yeah id thought about the 90 but have no interest in the video feature and having handled them i much prefer the 300. Also the leap up would be as much about having control as the ISO quality
 
whitey said:
having owned both the D300 is far better ISO than the D200

The D200 gets noisy from ISO640 up where as the D300 can have little noise at ISO3200

another one to look at for you with wanting higher ISO would be the D90
Click to expand...

:plusone:

Don't know about the D90 but had the D200 and only just got a D300 and what a change. For me the change was well worth it for the iso as well as a few other things. :clap:
 
i posted before i saw defiances reply, i was worried i wouldnt see that much of a jump but you reckon its worth going for new d90 over old d200? (as theyre at the same price more or less)
 
The D90, based on all of the opinion i've seen on here, has much better ISO performance than the D200 and I can certainly confirm that the D90 is excellent at high ISO when i have used mine. I have been very pleased with the output so far in terms of quality and have seen a marked improvement over the D40 in every way. The controls are also much much better than the D40 and a lot easier to use. I haven't tried the video function yet and I just view this as being a freebie add-on. The rest of the changes are worth the money alone.
 
ok, hmm maybe the real question is d90 or d200 then
 
If you are going to get a D300 get one quick. Nikons price increase on 1st March supposedly has a huge price rise on the D300's rrp.
 
I have a D200 and I love it but would swap it for my Dad's D300 in a picosecond, no question in my mind get yourself a D300
 
If you are going to get a D300 get one quick
Click to expand...

that really isnt going to happen *sigh* maybe by the time i put together the money something will have replaced the 300 and itll be cheaper
 
Owning both, it depends entirely on what you want to photograph.

Edit.....saying that I still use my D70s for landscape and weddings.
 
it'd be for 'portraiture' i use that in the loosest sense because i cant call what i do that whole heartedly. i prefer using available light (although some would say its because i cant use a flash) and would like to feel confident with images at 800 and in some instances decent quality at 1600. id also like to have control over my settings and more choice with regard to ISO settings.

someone has also pointed out the d2 is a good bet at 1600? god are there no easy decisions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top