Nikon D200 vs D300

Gordon Scott

Gordon Scott

Suspended / Banned
Messages
794
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
I would really appreciate some feedback from Nikon users. I am about to make the switch from Canon to Nikon; I know quite a bit about Canon and not a lot about Nikon.

I'm trying to weigh up the added value of the D300 over getting a second hand D200 (which cost less than half the D300 new).

Also intrigued to whether there is much difference between D300 and D300s other than the addition of video.

All advice very welcome...
 
Depends what you shoot.

I do a lot of low light event work, as well as portrait and editorial and news shooting - and even in the last week that I've had just one (out of 2 bodies) D300, it's been invaluable over the top of the D200. Also, gripped, 8fps is SOOO sweet :P

However, if you rarely shoot in low light (ie rarely over iso800), then the D200 is and always will be a fine camera imo, and they can be had for damn reasonable prices. However, D300 bodies second hand are also a bargain at the moment...

If I was buying new, I'd probably have paid the £200 to go from D300 to D300s... however, there's no way that a D300s is worth £450 extra over the top of a second hand mint D300 (going for £750ish on here) - better to get a D90 as well if you want video, for about £50 more! Of course, if you can find a second hand D300s, then go for it ;)
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Depends what you shoot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info...

Sorry, should have included that. I'm switching because of the 9 shot auto bracketing against 3 for Canon. I shoot a lot of HDR, landscapes and architecture. I also shoot portraits and some low light work. Will be going for a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 probably.

I also forgot to ask about motorised vs motorised lenses... what's that all about?
 
Gordon,
I have both, d200 has become backup body, It is a great camera evn now. In good light I doubt you would see a difference in IQ, where the d300 wins is in the higher iso stakes and the awesome 51 point af system along with the 3d tracking.
 
The one thing that I miss on the d200 which wold beuseful for you doing the hdr is the dedicated bracketing button, although you can program the function button on the d300 to do that.
 
For landscape,flash,tripod work I use my D200 a lot.It has a base ISO 100 whereas the 300 is 200,I like the bracket function button on the back rather than the menu or FN button on the 300. Both are good solid cameras,the 300 is vastly superior at high ISo and has a lot of newer technology in it,but the 200 is a compatant camera.

Neither need the motorised lenses as they both have built in motors.
 
Davec223 said:
Gordon,
I have both, d200 has become backup body, It is a great camera evn now. In good light I doubt you would see a difference in IQ, where the d300 wins is in the higher iso stakes and the awesome 51 point af system along with the 3d tracking.
Click to expand...

Having gone from one to the other a year ago, I would pretty much concur with this. Bracketting is excellent, and quite easy to do with one hand.
 
Gordon the D200 SUCKS BIG TIME at high ISO's.
You will see lot's of ugly noise from 400 onwards.

And in my opinion, ISO800 is totally unusable.

Shame, 'cos other than that it a lovely body.
 
Thanks for the feedback everyone... better ISO and focusing performance on the D300 seems to be the main difference between 2 good cameras. Not sure I want to pay for the video so I undervalue the D300s really.

Will now need to decide... decisions decisions...!
 
Gordon,
I am laid up in hospital at the moment, but if you want to pop down and compare the 2 side by side you are more than welcome to, am afraid it would have to be you popping down to me as I had knee surgery earlier this afternoon. forgot to say I am not far from lymington
 
Personally love my D200 - short of a single button press, setting the AEB is the simplest thing ever, and I use it often. Everyone who uses high ISO is obviously going to slate its ability in this respect, but as mine never moves from 100, it doesn't bother me - would rather spend the money on decent glass...
 
... another thing to consider is the colour performance. I own the D300 and tried a d200 briefly before that, and i always got better colours out of the d300. Perhaps that's because i didn't spend engouh time with the d200 to get to know exactly how to tweak everything to get 'perfect' results - but the d300 performed just fine within 5min of unboxing :)
 
Davec223 said:
Gordon,
I am laid up in hospital at the moment, but if you want to pop down and compare the 2 side by side you are more than welcome to, am afraid it would have to be you popping down to me as I had knee surgery earlier this afternoon. forgot to say I am not far from lymington
Click to expand...


Ohhh.... hospital... I had a long session there earlier in the year; not fun! Thanks very much for the offer; I played with the D300s in Jessops today, next to the Canon 50D and seeing it against the D200 might be helpful. If needed I take you up on the offer - cheers.

DekHog said:
Personally love my D200 - short of a single button press, setting the AEB is the simplest thing ever, and I use it often. Everyone who uses high ISO is obviously going to slate its ability in this respect, but as mine never moves from 100, it doesn't bother me - would rather spend the money on decent glass...
Click to expand...

My Canon 300D does not come off 100 ISO either, but sometimes I wish it could, low light in churches etc. Will need to think about what the £500 difference in a second hand D200 to a new D300 will buy me in glass.
 
kumimajava said:
... another thing to consider is the colour performance. I own the D300 and tried a d200 briefly before that, and i always got better colours out of the d300. Perhaps that's because i didn't spend engouh time with the d200 to get to know exactly how to tweak everything to get 'perfect' results - but the d300 performed just fine within 5min of unboxing :)
Click to expand...

I cant say there is much difference, having spent over a year with one of each tbh. RAW shots are pretty similar in terms of colour rendition in my experience. I would also say the D200 is good to ISO800 - yes, there is noise, but hell, there is noise at 800 on a D3 if you pixel peep closely enough. However, whereas with the D200 I was loathe to go over 800, with the d300 I am happy to use iso1600 and as a lot of stuff I do regularly is low light events, the better performance was what persuaded me to change - otherwise, I would still be happily clickin away on the D200.
 
Have you thought about a 2nd hand 1D MKII, using the personal functions you can change the bracketing to 2,5 or 7, but this must be changed using a firewire lead and EOS Utility software.

Sets the Number of Shots to be Bracketed
P.Fn-08 selects the number of frames that are bracketed. In the camera’s default mode, a three frame bracket is used when bracketing is turned on. This can be changed to 2, 5, or 7 frames via P.Fn-08.

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/in...1d-mark-ii-with-custom-and-personal-functions

Just a though as an alternative to the Nikon D300 (1.5 crop) v 1D MkII (1.3 crop) and get some advantage for landscape work with wide angle lenses.
 
pete.rush said:
Have you thought about a 2nd hand 1D MKII, using the personal functions you can change the bracketing to 2,5 or 7, but this must be changed using a firewire lead and EOS Utility software.
Click to expand...

Thanks for heads up Pete, I've looked into it and am stuggling to go as low as 8.2MP even on a 1.3x sensor. It's not that I want loads of pixels, but a few more than that is what I'm looking for. I saw there is one for sale on here for £725 at the moment - so did have a good look. Cheers.
 
Gordon Scott said:
Thanks for heads up Pete, I've looked into it and am stuggling to go as low as 8.2MP even on a 1.3x sensor. It's not that I want loads of pixels, but a few more than that is what I'm looking for. I saw there is one for sale on here for £725 at the moment - so did have a good look. Cheers.
Click to expand...

What size images are you intending to print, I easily get a A3 / A2 print from this camera, any bigger and it would struggle, do you need extra MP, all it does is at noise at higher ISO.
 
fracster said:
Neither need the motorised lenses as they both have built in motors.
Click to expand...

Having looked at the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and others I note they have the motor built in. Is that so they are compatible with all Nikons range... or do I need to look for lenses without the motor?

pete.rush said:
What size images are you intending to print, I easily get a A3 / A2 print from this camera, any bigger and it would struggle, do you need extra MP, all it does is at noise at higher ISO.
Click to expand...

I can see where you are coming from, however recently produced 20" x 30" for a client (nearly A1) and can see the occasional one coming up. The D200 is about £400 and 10.2MP and D300 12.3MP. I'm not on a pixel chase and am ignoring the Canon 50D sitting at 15.1 MP because of the AEB issue. The 1D MKII is tempting though...
 
I have a D200 as a backup body to my D700 and would agree with the others who have said the D200 gets noticeably noisy from ISO 400 upwards. That said, at lower ISO settings, the D200 is a fine performer and the variety of bracketing modes is very useful for HDR work. Did you know that with Nikon you don't have to bracket both sides of metered?

If you need good performance at high ISO settings, I'd suggest avoiding the D200. It may be cheaper, but you'll only end up selling it on anyway.

Given what you shoot, have you considered a used 5D? Still only brackets 3 shots, but you get full frame, good high ISO performance and it would be great for the type of stuff you shoot.
 
andy_fozzy said:
Gordon the D200 SUCKS BIG TIME at high ISO's.
You will see lot's of ugly noise from 400 onwards.

And in my opinion, ISO800 is totally unusable.
Click to expand...

That is a rubbish statement - would you care to prove that? I find that in some situations even ISO 3200 is very usable on D200 and it certainly is a very capable camera. Of course you would not be able to produce anything useful with it at ISO 3200 in complete darkness...

For example, is this photo totally unusable (D200, ISO 1000, no noise reduction - click on image for larger version)?

 
DigitalRelish said:
I have a D200 as a backup body to my D700 and would agree with the others who have said the D200 gets noticeably noisy from ISO 400 upwards. That said, at lower ISO settings, the D200 is a fine performer and the variety of bracketing modes is very useful for HDR work. Did you know that with Nikon you don't have to bracket both sides of metered?

If you need good performance at high ISO settings, I'd suggest avoiding the D200. It may be cheaper, but you'll only end up selling it on anyway.

Given what you shoot, have you considered a used 5D? Still only brackets 3 shots, but you get full frame, good high ISO performance and it would be great for the type of stuff you shoot.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the additional info... ISO performance seems to be the main issue and thanks for pointing out the offset AEB info on Nikon, I knew you could do it on Canon, but not Nikon. My decision is now down to D200 or D300... I did consider the 5DI second hand before discovering Nikons AEB advantages.
 
By the way, here's an example of a 9-exposure, low ISO HDR I shot recently. I can't tell you what ISO I used because I lost the image files due to computer problem (whole other story).



Oh yeah, this was on a D200 :)
 
andy_fozzy said:
Gordon the D200 SUCKS BIG TIME at high ISO's.
You will see lot's of ugly noise from 400 onwards.

And in my opinion, ISO800 is totally unusable.

Shame, 'cos other than that it a lovely body.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that... this was iso 1000 on a D200 :shrug:

People34b700pix-1.jpg


I'm the first to agree that the D300 is better at high iso, and its AF is better too, but the D200 should not be written off for its iso performance, it's just not quite up there with the new boys ;)
 
I think we should be clear that 'unusable' is a very subjective term. One tog's 'unusable' is another's 'perfectly fine' and one of the purposes of this thread is to help Gordon establish which camp he's likely to sit.
 
Thank you very much for all the feedback and pictures. The info has been invaluable along with the reviews. I decided that although the D200 low light performance is going to be much better than my current camera, HDR has a horrible habit of amplifying any that is there. I also have a couple of paid jobs coming up taking photos of horses during the day and until the sun goes down / low light. Coupling that with the occasional wedding and the D300 has won!

I popped into Currys this morning as I heard on here that they were selling the D300 off for £899 and they are (despite the ticket saying £999). So am now the proud owner of a D300. I need to get a lens or two, I think starting with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 as it has some very good reviews... then something a bit longer.
Cheers
Gordon
 
Congratulations on the new purchase, I am sure that you will be over the moon with it I know I was. The darkside is not so bad you know.:lol:
 
Gordon Scott said:
Thank you very much for all the feedback and pictures. The info has been invaluable along with the reviews. I decided that although the D200 low light performance is going to be much better than my current camera, HDR has a horrible habit of amplifying any that is there. I also have a couple of paid jobs coming up taking photos of horses during the day and until the sun goes down / low light. Coupling that with the occasional wedding and the D300 has won!

I popped into Currys this morning as I heard on here that they were selling the D300 off for £899 and they are (despite the ticket saying £999). So am now the proud owner of a D300. I need to get a lens or two, I think starting with a Tamron 17-50 F2.8 as it has some very good reviews... then something a bit longer.
Cheers
Gordon
Click to expand...

Congrats :clap:
 
Well done.....:clap:

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is a cracking,sharp and lightweight lens.Try and get an old one without the inbuilt motor,they focus faster on the 200/300.......:thumbs:
 
andy_fozzy said:
Gordon the D200 SUCKS BIG TIME at high ISO's.
You will see lot's of ugly noise from 400 onwards.
And in my opinion, ISO800 is totally unusable.
Shame, 'cos other than that it a lovely body.
Click to expand...

Total *******s. Okay, above ISO 1000 it's noisey but below that it's a fine camera. Granted, the D300 is better at high ISOs, but I use the D200 for DPS mag shots at ISO 640 and 800 regularly with no complaints.

Pixel peepers - one track mind...

Main area where the D200 falls down is fast AF lock in low-contrast scenes. The D300 is much better in that respect. Not a problem when you're doing landscape work.

Mind you, with current D300 prices being so low, you've made a wise decision. Congrats. Look forward to the 17-50mm - I have one and it's probably the best buy I've made yet. Awesomely sharp.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Depends what you shoot.

Of course, if you can find a second hand D300s, then go for it ;)
Click to expand...

I got one on here, the D300s also has two card slots (one SD one CF) which is useful if you want to have back up , record video on one and stills on the other or JPEG on one and Raw on the other :cool:

Anyway good shooting with the D300
 
Gordon Scott said:
Thanks again for the congrats and further information. I've just ordered a Vibration Compensated version of the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, should be with me Saturday!
Very excited; it's my first new camera and lens in 6 years...
Click to expand...


has that got the inbuilt motor?
 
fracster said:
Well done.....:clap:

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is a cracking,sharp and lightweight lens.Try and get an old one without the inbuilt motor,they focus faster on the 200/300.......:thumbs:
Click to expand...

how much of a noticeable difference will it have, inbuilt motor and non?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top