I am thinking of moving up from my D40 to something a bit more capable. I have the chance to buy a D200 in excellent condition for a very good price. My question is should I spend the four hundred more on a D300? All you D200 users out there let me know your thoughts.
Alan, Welcome. I recently moved up from a D50 to a D200 and I am glad I did so. Of course there is a steper learning curve then a D40 but it is worth the time. So if you get a D200 and put the extra money into some new glass I don't think you will be sorry. Good luck, Peter
I have had my D200 since it was first released in the US and I still love it. My advice is to think about the differences between the two cameras. Will the updated features and performance on the D300 benefit your photography? If so, will it be enough of a benefit to be worth an extra $400 to you? If the D200 has all the features and performance you want, then there may be no need to spend the additional cash. However, if you think the D200 may only just meet your current needs and wants, then it probably makes sense to go with the D300 instead.
>I am thinking of moving up from my D40 to something a bit >more capable. I have the chance to buy a D200 in excellent >condition for a very good price. My question is should I spend >the four hundred more on a D300? All you D200 users out there >let me know your thoughts. > >Alan I used my D200 for a very long time, and still make use of the pictures I took with it. I also owned the D40 for quite awhile. It was my backup camera that I always tucked in my bag on overseas trips. The D200 and D40 are two of my favorite Nikons.
The upgrade from a D40 to a D200 will give you only a modest improvement in image quality. The real gain will come from specific features and customization options the D200 gives you. For example, you can autofocus easily with non-AF-S lenses with the D200, and do aperture priority metering with AI/AIS/and AI-converted lenses as well. That alone might be worth a migration.
The D300 adds some more features that the D40 doesn't have, 12MP resolution, and offers better low-light performance. Whether you want to pay the extra money for the D300 depends on whether you need those specific features. If you shoot sports, you might like the 8 fps you can get with the D300 and the MB-D10 and the 51-point autofocus system with 15 cross-type sensors. Or, you might need Live View capabilities. One intangible is that the D300 is much closer to the latest technology than the D200; there's a fairly big jump between them. But if you don't need specific features, save your money and put it towards a lens. Both the D200 and D300 take great photos.
There is a difference in how the two cameras feel in my hands - I prefer the D200's feel. Both are terrific cameras that take great pictures. The D300's focusing system is a bit better. If you would go for a battery pack, the D300's MD-10 is considerably better than the D200's MD-200.
Most people would not notice a significant difference in the pictures taken with the two cameras. Although I use a D300 exclusively now (I recently sold my D200 to my niece), I still think the D200 is an awesome camera. You can't go wrong with either if you don't specifically need the D300's improvements.
I have a D200 and D300. I bought the D200 to supplement my 4 mpx D2h for situations where I wanted more resolution.
It was a compromise because the AF was not as solid as the D2h, which, in its day was probably the best. I also lost the 8fps.
When I got the D300 I had everything I wanted from my D2h (mainly the AF and frame rate) plus even more resolution. I kept the D200 as a backup camera.
I think it would be helpful if you discussed your shooting interests. For me the decision would be a no-brainer (D300) but that is because of the frame rate with the MB-D10 and the far superior (in my opinion) AF.
Plus LiveView is a wonderful thing. I recently spent 12 hours over 5 days shooting an owl nest buried in a tree buried in the woods. I got absolutely perfect focus but only because of LiveView.
If you are more into landscapes or portraiture then these benefits may mean nothing to you and as long as you can and do fully frame your shots the extra 10% pixels (in each linear direction) are not terribly meaningful. And in any event, 10% is 10%. Not much.
Okay, thanks to all of you for your input. With respect to you D300 users I have gone for the D200. As I am a simple hobbiest photographer who will be shooting landscapes and scenes around town I feel the D200 is ample camera for many years to come. The camera came with a nice 18-70 mm AF-S lens. I would like to buy a fixed length 85 mm Nikkor some day.
One last question, does anybody know how large a CF card the D200 will take?
Sat 14-Apr-12 04:06 AM | edited Sat 14-Apr-12 04:08 AM by Del
Alan, I own the D200 and the 18-70mmAFS...they are great. In a year, I bought the D300 because for what I was doing, I got a little lower noise, faster focus, sensor cleaner, live view for macro, etc. I use 8GB cards in each and not to interested in going to larger cards...trading off cost, risk, etc. I use the D200 now as a back up and a loaner when on photo shoots with friends. del
Congratulations on your new D200. Mine continues to serve me very well. While I typically use 4GB cards in my D200, I have used 8GB and 16GB cards in it with no problems. Note that the maximum write speed is limited by the body and there is very little if any advantage of using cards faster than about 30MB/sec aside from the faster upload speed when transferring the images to your computer via a fast Card Reader. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
Great choice ! I have owned my D200 since it first came out back in 2006 and it has served me very well over the years. Suggest you look into purchasing an 18-200VR lens. Best thing I ever did. It has replaced all my other lenses and I use it almost exclusively for my amateur photo needs.