Where next from D200? D2x or D300?

S

snp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Edit My Images
No
My D200 is getting a little battered and tired, and I may replace soon, especially since my backup body is on long term loan to my other half whilst hers is repaired (it became her backup!!). I'll probably go the mint/secondhand route, and I'm trying to decide which would be the better option - a D2x which, until the advent of the D3, was a top level beast, or the D300 which benefits from recent technological improvements.

Size/weight of the D2x is not a problem, and I don't use a built-in flash so this wouldn't be missed. But are there many noticeable differences between it an the D200, being that I don't badly need higher fps or more focus points? On the other hand the D300 has better high ISO performance - but just how much better, realistically, is it? I was impressed with a friend's D700 performance at 6400 - how does the D300 compare to this?

Thanks in advance for any ideas or advice.
 
i would say grab a d300, the sensor is improved upon the older generation of nikons. I have a d200 at the moment. I would upgrade next to a d300 or d700, especially if the frame rate isn't an issue. I think the d300 isnt as good as the d700 with the iso, but it is better than a d200 or d2x. Think of the nice (higher quality than your monitor) screen on the back of the d300, great for checking you got the focus spot on.
Get a d300 or 700.

by the way i still happily shoot my d200, what a camera it is!
 
i owned a d2x from release up until a couple of years ago and now have had a d300 for the last few months, i have to say i prefer the d300. it took a lot of thinking to decide to go for a d300 rather than another d2x but in the end im very glad i did.

the operation of it (everything from it being quicker to cycle/zoom through images, the wide spread of focus points to the very very nice lcd screen - which is incredibly useful) as well as the picture quality to me certainly beats the d2x. it feels faster and although the picture quality is fairly similar, i think the d300 trumps the d2x pretty well.

ive always disliked the iso performance on the d2x, but it never really bothered me as i tended to stick below 400 in most situations. i still do with the d300, but ive taken a few shots at 1000+ that i'd never would have attempted with the d2x, and they've come out perfectly and have certainly allowed me to consider taking more images in low light. although not as good as the d700, i reckon theres still nothing that beats the d300 in the high iso crop sensor quality.

i had to grip my d300, and whilst i prefered the feel of the d2x, given second hand they're both fairly similarly priced id still pick a d300 everytime. im not too fond of grips, the last time i had one was on a d100, but the d300 grip is very well made and feels almost as good as an inbuilt one.

for years the d2x was my perfect camera and although its still extremely good i couldnt go back to it after using the d300. its similar, sure, but its better in practically every way.

ive never owned a d200 so couldnt comment on the differences
 
D300 for sure, great camera. I still have a d200 and to be honest I don't think I've used it since the d300 arrived
 
Got to add to the D300 list. I've used both of the others and the D300 is the best of the bunch.
 
I went from D200 to D300 and found it great

better ISO being on of the factors

now I hardly used it mind you I went back from D300 to D200 and taking the ISO out of the equasion then i didn't find it much of a drop back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top