Just wondering the reasons of those Nikonians who will NOT upgrade their D200 to D300. My reasons are: 1. I have it for just one year, and still D200 is surpassing my needs, photography experience and knowledge - still a lot to learn... 2. I still have to pay off my last year NAS expenses and on my NAS wish list are 70-200 VR, second SB800 and some other stuff. 3. I'm really happy with my D200 and like it a lot (I'm sure D300 would add more to it) ... and really can not afford to upgrade now - probably will wait for the next model (D400 ?)... Just looking for other reasons to feel better with my D200 and cure my NAS a little... Thanks all!
Only monetary for me, and I'm sure many others. The price difference between the 2 can pay for a 10-20mm zoom and a new tripod, which I need. At this moment I haven't made a final decision and I seem pathetically unable to do so, but that would be the main reason why, the much wanted additional equipment that would be delayed, and probably with a better return than a new camera.
Lotsa reasons, actually. My D200 is a great camera (as is my D70), and the high noise features and extra megapixels of the 300 just don't interest me that much. I still have a lot to learn on the 200. I can't afford the dang thing (D300), 'specially after buying the 17-35 this year. For landscapes, the D200 is all that and more.
And, yes, I know that lots of folks are saying that the D300 is essentially a > half-price (original MSRP)D2x, but I never really had a hankering (southern US term - longing) for that camera (too dang big and, frankly, too much camera for me). I guess I just don't feel the need to upgrade bodies, unless the changes are more monumental (such as they were from D70-D200).
Now, I'm sure I'll drool when Nikon announces (as most expect) the high MP D3x (or whatever moniker they give it) but, I expect it'll be way outta my price range too. Eh, c'est la vie - I'm happy with what I've got.
I've had my D200 for a year and it still exceeds my needs. Low light sensitivity is not a significant issue for me. 10 mp is more than enough for the prints I do. So I'll keep it until it either breaks or my needs demand something better.
- I just got the D200 last month - Its way more than enough camera for my skill level and will easily last me for at least 2-3 years if not more. - Monetary reasons... I would be tossing money out the window for nothing
New is nice, but how much better a picture would the D300 give me? In my case, absolutely no difference.
My next one will likely be a D3 or D4 but until then, the D200 with my CoolPix 8800 as backup are all that I need and then some.
_________________________________________________________________ Just your average enthusiastic Nikonian from Montreal, Quebec, Canada!
My D200 works just fine for me. In fact, I'll probably buy another so I'll have a second digital body.
Next year, I'll probably give myself a nice Christmas present. Whether it'll be a D3 or D300 remains to be seen. It's hard to decide to buy either when nobody's had a chance to do an extensive evaluation of the cameras. I'm not an "early adopter", I prefer to let others do the de-bugging for me and wait for the prices to drop.
For the record, I'm definitely not satisfied with the D200 performance beyond ISO 400. My D70 did better at ISO 800. Grain I can live with but the randomly colored noise the D200 sensor produces is unacceptable in my book. And I'm totally unimpressed with NR in PPing. But for now it's deal with it or change systems and I don't want to do that. Most shots it doesn't make a difference. But when you shoot a lot of available light and need to crop the noise rears its ugly head.
So I'll wait a while and decide what my next body will be. In the meantime I'll keep on shooting with my D200 and FF cameras.
My D200 is great (apart from the damn grips falling off!)
I really want full frame but dnt need the speed and size of the D3 - so I will wait for the next generation D400? and hope that they add FX full frame to that otherwise I will have to switch to the Canon 5D!
As good as the D300 sounds, I just can't afford to upgrade everytime a new body comes out. When the D300 hits the stores it will only have been two years since the D200 came out. The time between the D100 and D200 was greater than that. What next: a D400 only a year later next time? The features the D300 will give sound great. And as much as my NAS will make me drool over it I have to remember I (like most of us I suspect) don't even use all the features of the D200. The megapixel increase is not enough to even notice. I shoot mostly in the 100-400 ISO range (did this when I shot film as well) so any high ISO performance upgrade is lost on me. This leaves the nice big improved screen. Have to admit, I would like to have that. But not at the price it would cost me after selling my D200 and then adding funds to buy the D300. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all knocking the D300. I am sure it will be better than we even imagine. But what it offers is not enough of an upgrade for me. I will skip this one and wait for whatever comes after the D300.
The only thing I would like from the D300 is the better/faster focusing. I find the focusing a little slow on the D200 - but it does work and I simply have to take my time (hard to do sometimes when shooting a wedding - but that's another story). Other than that, I can keep shooting with my 2 D200's and be perfectly happy. Hopefully by the time NAS grabs hold of me, the D400 will be out and worth the upgrade.
I own my D200 for 1.5 years now, and like you and several others have mentioned it still surpasses my needs. In addition, I got my D200 just after it came out and I had to send it for repair because of banding issues. So this time I will sit back and wait for the experiences of the other users. Maybe next year after the first price drop, but who knows...
My reasons not to upgrade: 1) I just upgraded from a F100 to the D200 a month ago. I do not have the cash to do a second upgrade. 2) My daughter has just started college. 3) The D200 is enough camera for me. It will let me learn the digit side of photography. 4) I could use the cash to get SB800 or the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens.
1) There's far too much other kit to get first. Speedlights, macro, long lens for wildlife, real ballhead, CF tripod, computer upgrade, RSS bits and bobs, etc. All of these things will make a much greater difference to my photography than a new body.
2) The D300 doesn't have the magic trigger for a new body for me: the dynamic range of B&W film.
I'm actually stunned at how quicky the D300 came out. I was expecting at least another year or two before the temptation existed. The D200s wasn't going to be enough to worry me.
Sure the new AF and high ISO would be nice for sports or concert shooting, but I can't really justify it right now. The D200 is just too great a camera to lose the money on a trade up. And there's NO way I could justify a second body at the moment. It's the D400 for me at the earliest, and only if there's a few more years before it comes into being.
>I'm resisting the D300 until; > >Software I use, supports its raw images >I see too many noiseless high ISO images >I can't ignore increased dynamic range >I feel Lo1 (ISO100) is demonstrated to be fine >
I probably will not upgrade because I upgraded to the D200 from the D70 in July. There are many features of the D300 that I'd like to have but not enough to justify the expense when I have a new tripod, 80-200mm f/2.8 VR, 12-24mm, and 500mm VR on my want to buy list.
I preordered both the D100 and the D200 when they were first announced and at this point and time I have no regrets and would do a repeat given the same set of circumstances,,. Nikons new product cycle seems to be around 48 months which is about right for me,,. I'm not looking for a new SLR every two years!! The D300 was a total surprise to most and perhaps a bit ahead of its time,.. Personally for me,,,,I don't think the D300's 20% more resolution,,extra speed or any of the new features would change my photographic out put a whole lot,,. I think the jury is still out on both noise and Dynamic Range,,. The D3 Series may have a step up in those categories with the FX sensor,,. None the less its exciting times for technology,,should be fun to watch this all play out over the next 18 months,,.
I've owned the D200 a year and a half, having upgraded to it from the D70s. It's not a money issue, I could buy the new body without much sacrifice, but the D300 just doesn't "wow" me right now. Probably because I am still so enamoured with my D200 .
I don't need: - more megapixels - low noise high ISO - a 51 point focus sensor (yeesh, 11 is enough!) - live view (eeeewwwwwwwwwww)
The D200 is plenty camera for me. A friend bought his a few days before I did. He shoots a lot of low light outdoor high school athletics, and may go D300. His back up is a KM 7D, so he is waiting to see what Sony does before committing. Even if I wanted a D300, I would wait for the bugs to be ironed out and the price to come down.
I've had my D200 for a year. The D300 just isn't the same improvement over the D200 that the D200 was over my D70. When the D200 dies, I'll replace it with a D300 no doubt. But in the meantime, I'd rather spend the money on a new lens or a new tripod & studio strobe.
High ISO performance, *greatly* increased resolution, larger LCD screen, LCD screen on the back instead of top, longer battery life, room for a second CF slot are all reasons I'd consider trading up. The D300 has some of these, and lacks others. I wish Nikon had waited a while after the D3 was released before coming out with the D300 and adding some of these additional features. Who knows--maybe we'll see a D300x in a year or so.
I've only had my D200 for 2 months. Its a monster that I'm still learning to tame and loving every minute I spend with it. While a D300 would be nice I think other things would be more beneficial to my photography in general. Right now I'd consider new glass (still waiting for an update to the 70-200 zoom-micro to appear), perhaps a flash, or more likely a holiday to an exotic photoraphic location before a body upgrade. That said when I finally get my hands on one a different story might unfold.
I'm nearly done. Only one more shot. Just give me five minutes...
I've been shooting a D200 for a year now. I love the photographs from this camera. After reading the press releases on the D300 it is not worth my time to make the change. Cost is one very good reason, but what I would be getting for the cost is bigger. The "improvements" are just not large enough. If at some point in the future there is a DX00 that has full frame with lots of sensor space and latitude, then cost benefit will kick in.
I will upgrade from my D80 for the following reasons
1. Shooting info can be seen clearly on the back LCD, I have a lot of difficulty seeing the tiny symbols on the top LCD and get tired of having to tilt the camera back to check something while on a tripod.
2. Better & faster AF will come in handy on occasions.
3. Better High ISO if 800 looks as good as 400 on my D80 that will be great.
4. Less flex in the body, my D80 has plenty of give when mounted on a tripod, It is also about the same with the grip on.
5. Real mirror lockup. Although I like using the exposure delay on the D80 which is available on the D300 as well.
6. 14 bit ( we will see), More focus points to choose from.
7. Better build then D80.
8. Much less $ then D3.
9. Live view might be handy on occasion. Want someone to take your photo for you? put on live view thats what most people are used to.
I will not "upgrade" to the D300. I shoot portraits with a D200, and many of the camera features are unnecessary for my type of photography. Even more of the D300 features I don't need, like the high ISO (don't do weddings) - so I am staying put.
The new lenses is another matter altogether. I love my 35-70mm f/2.8, and don't plan to get rid of it, but that 24-70mm may be too good to not have. We'll see.
Hi! I've had my D200 since last October. I absolutely love it. I know this sounds crazy, but I told my wife that it might be the last DSLR that I buy. That would be a lot safer to say if I were 85, but I'm only 36. Can I tough out the remainder of my life with only one (killer) DSLR? Probably not. Still, I'll have fun trying.
Oh, yeah. The reasons I won't upgrade.
1. I love my camera. The feel, metering, response, everything. I moved up from a D70, and am very glad I did. 2. I don't make a living off of photography. I'm a serious amateur, and I don't need to update my equipment to keep up with the competition. 3. The noise at high ISOs has never bothered me. It's MUCH better than with film, and that's good enough for me. 4. If I spent that kind of money, it would be on the 70-200 2.8. 5. I don't want to get in the habbit of upgrading everytime a new model comes out. It would be nice, but totally unnecessary for me. 6. I love my camera. Yeah, I know I already wrote that.
Hmmm....I've already put in my pre-order for the D300....the only question is, buy 1 or 2?
Funny thing is, my D200 right now has the least number of shutter clicks, far behind my D70 and D2X. I actually bought the D200 "by accident." I was looking for an 18-200VR for my wife to use on the D70 as her general "walkabout" lens, but they were backordered for months everywhere I looked. She was surfing ebay, and found an auction for a D200/18-200 outfit, and it was from a Nikon authorized dealer with a decent rep. She wanted me to bid, so I figured I would go ahead, but put a maximum bid limit that I knew was way too low, since we really weren't looking for another body. Surprisingly, I wound up winning the auction and got the outfit for more than $200 less than any other reasonable place (like B&H) were selling it for. It arrived new in box with USA warrantees, all legit. I figured she would keep the 18-200 and I would sell off the D200, but when I went to do that, my wife objected: "What do you mean you are selling my new camera?!" So now we have the D200 too....
She's been pretty comfortable with the D70 and didn't have time to study up on the D200, and I love my D2X, so I didn't really start using the D200 until our trip to Alasak a few weeks ago, when I brought the D200 and D2X, and really found the feel of the D200, it's quality, and the smaller size/lighter weight compared to the D2X just fantastic!
With the D300 coming out, giving me (I hope) the faster autofocus that the D2X provides over the D200, plus the same pixel resolution, plus all the new features, I'm seriously thinking that the D300 will replace my D2X...and at a great price point.
I will definitely buy one D300, and if it delivers as expected, I will buy two, and likely sell the D2X. The D200, however, will stay as my backup camera. I cannot see, from published specs, what the D2X will actually give me over the D300 other than the voice memo (which I have never used), the viewfinder curtain (which is handy, I admit), and the much longer battery life, which I can make up with the extra grip, with the convenience of only having to carry it when I need it.
I maybe made a "bad" decision, waited too long buying. I always do that, cant decide, compare, wonder, read specs and tests, and time flies. Bought the D200 2 months ago and even though the D300 only costs a little more than I paid for the D200 it wouldnt make sense to change. I would loose quite a bit on my D200, and I dont think the D300 would make me happier. Most of its added features I would never use anyway. Kind regards Nielsen
Who knows what I will do. I bought a Fuji S2 Pro and a D70 and they were enough for me. I then sat back while my wife bought a couple of S2s and a Fuji S3 Pro. Still did not need more. The D200 came out and I drooled but my D70 was still cranking along nicely. Then came the sensor repair and I decided it was time for a D200 with MB D200. I bought it and thought I would never need to upgrade. I am pleased with it and it does all I want, except, high ISO. Then----my wife came home with a new Fuji S5 with much better low light capability and I started drooling over the D300. Right now, I will not buy the D300 since I am trying to retire from the practice of law and trying to balance my retirement with living expenses and travel along with buying photo gear. I am not doing real good with my budget since I bought a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR AFS lens, a Kirk tripod foot, a 55-200mm VR for travel and other stuff along with tickets to Prague in December. At my rate of indecision, I might not upgrade or then again, I might just decide to take some savings and buy a D300 with drive. Do I need it? Not now, probably never but depending on the day of the week or the phase of the moon, I might just justify another $2000 or so. Who knows?
I was happy with the D70 series. Went to the D200 and it fills 95% of what I need. To me it is a F100 digital. The other 5% I can fill with film. Now to your question I will not anytime soon improve to a D300. One big reason is simple finances. I am very happy with the D200. The biggest change that I like about the D300 the D200 doesn't have is the 100% viewfinder. 100% is why I like the F2,F3HP and F4's.
I have used the D200 but I do not own one. I really think it is a great camera and I regret I did not have more time (I had it for a whole week)to become more familiar with it. Ever since I have used it again from a friend photographer who does street photography, this time with the MB-D200 which I wish was not that tall. The MB-D10 seems to be about right and I have heard it could fit other cameras! Will I go for the D300? If I go for it it will not be immediately. I am using my D1X and getting beautiful files from it. Since I have had it for a year now I am already familiar with it and understand its operation. Most of all, I am very satisfied with the files I get from the D1X. I also use the D70s. This camera has less than 3k actuations on the shutter and being light, easy to carry and use and performing beautifully like it does, my photographic necessities are well covered with both of these cameras. Yes, I wish I would order the D300 but I feel like it is not the right time yet.
I have had my D200 for one+ year, and it is still more than enough for me. Last month we had the family gathering and we had a family portrait. I was so amazed about the output result from a 10MP camera! The picture was enlarged to 30"X20" and was still crystal clear!
Will I spend $1000 ~ $2000 for the photo equipment by the year end? Yes, I may. But I have already set my eye on the new 24-70mm lens, not D300. If there is any place accepting pre-order of the lens, please let me know!
I have 2 D200's and a new D2Xs. I am selling one of the D200's and getting a D300 to replace it. So I will keep 1-D200 because it is too much of a hit to take selling 2 of them. I am also spoiled with 3 bodies (Hardly ever change lenses anymore.) I will pass on the D3 and wait another year for the D3x which should suit my landscape shooting needs better. We'll see.
For two decades I shot with an FE2 and fixed focal length, manual lenses. When I wanted to go into digital photography, I considered the D50, D70s, D40x, etc, but bought the D200 for a higher price (but still reasonable at $1300) because of my old lenses. I use my D200 like my old FE2: Manual focus, aperture priority auto, one shot at a time, on a tripod. OK I use matrix metering, and that is the only difference. So why should I upgrade to the D300?
I've had my D200 for less than two years (everyone has). It was tough getting my wife to approve it. Getting her to approve a move to the D300 would be all but impossible. And, at any rate, even if I could get her to agree to it, it would be unwise financially for us at the current time.
And my D200 is pretty awesome, and I love it, and when I do someday replace it with a new Nikon, I want it to be something really, completely and totally way better. The D300 looks like it will be better, no question about that. But I'm content to keep using and enjoying my D200 for another two or three years and see what the D300's successor brings.
I'm really holding out for better noise and more dynamic range. If the D300's successor, in two or three years, gives us another stop or two of dynamic range, then that will be an upgrade to really shoot for.
In the end, the D200 reached a level of uberness that replacing it with something that was so much better as to compel one to buy it would be a really tall order, and I think that's true. The D300 looks like it'll be better, but I don't think it's really a must-have. Maybe the D400, compared to the D200, will be. In fact, I hope so.
Quoting Seth_ Leigh, "that replacing it with something that was so much better as to compel one to buy it would be a really tall order, and I think that's true. The D300 looks like it'll be better, but I don't think it's really a must-have. Maybe the D400, compared to the D200, will be. In fact, I hope so."
Sums up my felings, the new focusing would be nice, and I can think of some use for the viewable LCD and the extra MP would be nice for croping micros, but all and all it does not seem woth it. I think I would buy some 1.4 glass first,
I'm actually betting that the new 51-area AF system (with lots of cross-type sensors) will be way, way better than the 11-area with one cross-type of the D200. It's not that the D300 won't be great. I'm sure it will be. I just don't have the kind of money lying around to buy one, and the D200 is already great, so I'm well-served for the time being. The D200 is great, the D300 will be even greater, and hopefully the D400 will be mind-boggling.
The D500 will actually be an autonomous photo-taking robot, and we won't "own" one as such, but rather pay Nikon $1800 to have one go around taking photos for us and assigning us the copyright. }>
- I am looking to upgrade to a D300 after 2 years first for the live view and second for the improved AF. The D3 is not on my short list because I do not need 11 fps or 25,600 ISO (some of course do) but I might consider a D3x if one comes out.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
I don't really care about FX that much except for the low light in my case. But, i can understand why many would not care about that so much. The thing I would expect you to want is the improved dynamic range. I think we'll see 1.5 to 2 F stops of increased dynamic range. From reading your many thoughtful post, I guess I'd expect you to be a dynamic range kind of guy.
I can understand why anyone would want a D300. It's so much for so little money, it's almost like stealing. But,while I tend to think of the D3 as having it ALL, ALL the time. The D300 will have ALMOST ALL, part of the time. The D300 will be more of a chinese menu. At one time I can have either A or B, but not both at the same time. I do worry that people are expecting too much from the D300. Where the D3 has 12 channel write, I don't think the D300 has this from what I've read. So if you want 14 bit D/A you are limited to 2.5 FPS shooting rate on the D300. If 12 bits is OK, then you can get 6 FPS (or 8FPS with the battery pack/grip). Your getting mostly an improved D2Xs for 40% the price with the D300. But, there is a reason that the D3 cost 125% MORE than ( or about 2.3 time the D300). Sometimes it seems that no matter what Nikon does it's no going to be enough for some people. I love to read your post because of technical accuracy and their thoughtful organization.
But, mostly Len, I see you to be a dynamic range kind of guy. <G>
D2X -- The meaning of life. D2X & D200 -- Having it all. On order D3, D300 and 14-24 F2.8
>Just wondering the reasons of those Nikonians who will NOT >upgrade their D200 to D300. >My reasons are: >1. I have it for just one year, and still D200 is surpassing >my needs, photography experience and knowledge - still a lot >to learn... >2. I still have to pay off my last year NAS expenses and on >my NAS wish list are 70-200 VR, second SB800 and some other >stuff. >3. I'm really happy with my D200 and like it a lot (I'm sure >D300 would add more to it) >... and really can not afford to upgrade now - probably will >wait for the next model (D400 ?)... >Just looking for other reasons to feel better with my D200 >and cure my NAS a little... >Thanks all! > >http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1040/1318156042_b7360fc4a7.jpg?v=0 > > >RF70 >
1. still happy with my 1.5 years old D200 2. do not need 12 million pixels 3. I shot almost all at 100 iso, with tripod if necessary 4. if the dynamical range of the D300 sensor would be far more better thant D200 (I do not know), I might be tempted, but I guess I'll wait on a more affordable FX...
I was very tempted to place a pre-order for the D300, but reality set in, soooo it's.............. No for the D300, but YES for the new 14mm-24mm. As a hobbyist, the D200 is plenty for me. I 'd much rather spend the money that I'm saving up for on a new lens
Dont have a D200, but buying a one and cancelling my D300 order. Dont get me wrong, the 300 is awesome, but at this stage, Id rather get a D200 and a good lens for the price of just a D300. Plus it doesnt hurt that they get all the bugs out before I buy one.
Well, I got my D200 for exactly 1 year now, and won't be upgrading...
-the present (PATA) CF-Cards will be replaced by the new SATA CF-Cards in a few years time, then everyone need to upgrade (including those D300 folks).
-I was excited that Nikon had finally added many more cross-type AF Focus sensors, but disappointed to find that these were all located in a vertical band about 15% the width of the screen. Come on, Nikon, have you ever heard of the Rule Of Thirds? This feature would have been enough for me to consider upgrading (low light shootings), but atlas...
Got my D200 3 months ago, now they sell D300 for the same price ! I am having a very hard time controlling my NAS, reading stories here about how "bad" the D200 does ISO and focus doesnt help either (even though I havent really noticed these "shortcomings"), every day I still think about the D300. I try to convince myself that D200 is more than enough for my amateur, once-in-a-blue-moon serious photography, read the Bjørn Rørslett test of D200 over and over, and the conclusion here http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page31.asp to get the "pleased and satisfied" feeling I did a good purchase, but again, its hard. We always want better, dont we ? It will cost me app. 1200 dollars to upgrade to D300 and that is simply crazy, talk about throwing away money ! D*** you NAS !
My reason is simple, I have two D200's and a D2XS, and I'm on the waiting list for the D3. Once I get the D3 (and check it for performance issues), I'll sell one of the D200's. The other one is going to stay until my son is old enough to shoot (in about two years). I'll give him this one and will get whatever the current model is at that time. If the D200 survives all that, it will move on to my daughter next.
Just wondering the reasons of those Nikonians who will NOT upgrade their D200 to D300. My reasons are: 1. I have it for just one year 2. I still have to pay off 3. I'm really happy with my D200 and like it a lot
Just looking for other reasons to feel better with my D200 and cure my NAS a little... Thanks all!
I would have been happy with the D80 ,I like the extra strength and weather tightness of the D200. With metering with older lens - CF cards we use in the other two cameras so the -- D80 was out.
I haul my camera to work everyday / 15 day vacation / its ready for anything. I am also happy with my D200 I have no buyers remorse following my basic rules to live by " Life is short - eat dessert first "
This obsessive compulsive keeping up with the next guys new model is classic rat race. One soon learns that faster frames per second is meaningless to most , selectable points metering wont help the average person.
Most electronic manufactures try to make their last product obsolete as quickly as possible. ( maybe the DX lenses will drop in price )
One day, I hope to be able to justify a second body for my bird photography. In orde to have one very nice camera behind a 500 mm lens on a tripod for sitting/wading birds, and one very fast camera behind a 300 mm lens for hand held shots tracking birds in flight.
I was thinking of a D2h as a second camera next to the d200. These thoughts have changed just now.
But first i need to get some more time to go out there where type 2 kind of pictures can be made. Might very well be that D300 is not available by then
Just my thoughts on why I won't be buying a D300 anytime soon:
1) I see ISO 200 as a problem until proved otherwise by a wide array of production camera images. If LO (ISO 100) is equivalent to a D200's ISO 100 then it might be worth it down the line. On my front though, I am never fond of pushing beyond the native sensitivity of a sensor.
2) I stand on the position that all people are currently buying is a press release. From my perspective, the conspicuous lack of D300 demo images (in comparison to the D3) conveys that this is not yet ready for production.
3) In contrast to a lot of people, I see the D300 as pretty seriously over-priced. People can keep saying that "it is a D2X at half the price" but I doubt that is the target market. D2X owners presumably have the money to buy a relatively comparably priced D3. The marketing push (and timing of announcement) would suggest that is supposed to compete with the Canon EOS 40D. You can buy a 40D with an IS lens from Best Buy for $1499 (as opposed to D300 body only for $1799). Even if the D300 is a substantially better camera, it is out of line with the semi-pro cost point (yes, the reviewers call the 40D semi-pro too). The $1799 price also sets a pretty substantial gap for D80 owners looking to step up (nearly doubling up the price). This is all a long winded way of saying that I think the D300 may see a price cut next year to make it competitive. If 1 and 2 above are addressed, I'll still wait on 3.
4) I find my D200 to be an exceptional camera that meets all of my needs for the time being.
>Just my thoughts on why I won't be buying a D300 anytime >soon: > >1) I see ISO 200 as a problem until proved otherwise by a >wide array of production camera images. If LO (ISO 100) is >equivalent to a D200's ISO 100 then it might be worth it >down the line. On my front though, I am never fond of >pushing beyond the native sensitivity of a sensor.
Some really really good RAW>jpeg ISO 100's have been posted in another forum that show incredible resolve and DR.
>2) I stand on the position that all people are currently >buying is a press release. From my perspective, the >conspicuous lack of D300 demo images (in comparison to the >D3) conveys that this is not yet ready for production.
The D3 is the star of the show, no doubt, but the latest reviews from some respected reviewers show the D300 to be everything it's been advertised to be. The D300 is the new Nikon flagship DX pro model but it is riding on the coattails of the phenominal D3, so there is little doubt as to why it's getting less press. hint- nothing to do with any "problems".
>3) In contrast to a lot of people, I see the D300 as pretty >seriously over-priced. People can keep saying that "it is a >D2X at half the price" but I doubt that is the target >market. D2X owners presumably have the money to buy a >relatively comparably priced D3. The marketing push (and >timing of announcement) would suggest that is supposed to >compete with the Canon EOS 40D. You can buy a 40D with an IS >lens from Best Buy for $1499 (as opposed to D300 body only >for $1799). Even if the D300 is a substantially better >camera, it is out of line with the semi-pro cost point (yes, >the reviewers call the 40D semi-pro too). The $1799 price >also sets a pretty substantial gap for D80 owners looking to >step up (nearly doubling up the price). This is all a long >winded way of saying that I think the D300 may see a price >cut next year to make it competitive. If 1 and 2 above are >addressed, I'll still wait on 3.
While the 40D is indeed an incredible value prosumer camera, it is crippled compared to the D300. As one mag reviewer recently put it, "The D300 has 69 user adjustable parameters before you even start setting shutter speed, aperture etc. The manual in English only is 420 pages. This is the most complex and fully featured DSLR ever made as far as options, controls, and selection of functions or parameters goes."
>4) I find my D200 to be an exceptional camera that meets all >of my needs for the time being.
Mine is too (exceptional camera)... and will still be long after the next couple of upgrades (hopefully )
I'm inline for this one as the features and performance *look to be* a step above for what I do most. The final determination of how much, if any, easier it makes my life, won't be determined until I have it in my hands. That's the ONLY true test for any body or anybody.
As I've mentioned in other threads, the D300's new features aren't adding up to a compelling uprgrade for me. I don't need the superfast sequence shooting. I'm concerned that the new AF system is optimized for action and may well be a step backward for creative composition. 2 megapixels is a slight bump in resolution. Live view looks useful in a few limited situations but it's not a must-have feature. All-in-all, the D300 has a lot of improvments of modest interest to me, but they don't add up to a must-buy upgrade for me.
What will tip the balance one way or the other is the D300's image peformance. If it's a signficant step forward in important image areas, I will probably upgrade. If it's just a couple more megapixels and an incremental improvement in high ISO performance, I'll pass.
I Have had my D200 since Febuary of this year. I had a D70S before and only switched from that because I got it for a steal of a deal, and I liked what it had to offer for sports shooting. I am quite happy with everything up to 800 ISO, and that serves about 99% of my shooting. There is the odd time a strong ISO 1600 would be nice, but for now I will invest in extra SB-800's to give me more portable studio lighting options.
If I step up, I am going with a D2XS. I really like the Pro Body feel the D2XS offers me, and my partner shoots a D2X and I really like what he gets with his up to 1600 ISO. Plus D2XS's will come down in price eventually. A D3 is what I truly want, but as many have stated I want to see some real life testing on both the D3 & the D300 before I upgrade. Not to mention the $5000.00 price tag it comes with.
The D200 is a wonderfull, diverse camera, and with proper operation can give you stunning results.
just my 2 cents worth.
D2XS SB-600 3 x SB-800's 2 x 35-70mm AF-DF/2.8 70-200mm VR F/2.8 20-35mm AF-D F/2.8 50mm F/1.4 28mm F/1.4
I've been using a D50, and I've been ready to upgrade. I bought the D50 thinking that anything more would be too much for me. I quickly tired of the D50, and I wish that I had never purchased it (even though it is a fine camera) because the expense of the D50 caused me to delay getting the D200 which is what I had subsequently determined that I really wanted. Anyway, I was all set to purchase the D200 when the D300 was announced. I will be upgrading from the D50 to the D300; however, if I had purchased the D200, I wouldn't consider the 300 to be a worthwhile upgrade.
All that said, I hope that it's not crazy to purchase a 1st off-the-line D300: I'm sure that there will be bugs to fix, but it seems that many people here believe that Nikon will take care of their customers. Who knows, if the price drops, I might just buy the D200 instead.
My Reasons are : 1 - My D200 is serving me well in my work. 2 - My wishlist includes other stuff, like the 70-200 VR. 3 - The upgrade of the body may come to my list after a year, so i'll wait till i see the D300 on action and study it more, i may wait for the next releases, maybe D400 ! or jump to D3x ! depends on the budget then, but now lenses are what i think of.
I'm more than happy with my D200. Great camera!! I will not upgrade to D300 because I don't think its a huge upgrade! I'd rather go for D3, but then it hasn't got the built in flash, which is such a handy asset to have at odd times. Besides I just bought my D200 about 7 months back. And I still have to get the best out of it!
It's all about the green. I've had my D200 since Jan and it took me about a year to save up for it. Well... it and 3 lenses, SB-800 and a new tripod. Plan is to start saving for D3X (or by that time D4X) which cost about the same as all my gear combined. Please remember, them who are upgrading, to donate your older models to schools (well maybe much older model) for the next-gen Nikonians.
I like to skip camera models, i.e. D200 - D400 - D600 - etc. Technology doesn't change enough with each model to justify me buying the next model. Also, I wait until a new camera has been on the market long enough for someone else to find all the bugs. I'm tired of doing their beta testing at my expense. I'm happy with my D200 as my main body and my FujiFilm S3 as my backup. I keep my 70-200 VR lens on the D200 and my 17-55 DX on the S3. I use the D200 for sports and the S3 for portraits. Works great for me.
1. The D300 doesn't offer that much of an advantage over the D200 to justify another expense on that scale. 2. After almost saving up for a D2Xs, the D3 is within easier reach financially. 3. The build quality of the D200/D300 is a limitation for me, it is a great camera, and I have a lot to thank it, but the daily abuse I throw at it is better reserved for a more robust camera (D2 or D3).
I have never actually seen a D2X but i thought the body was of the same construction and build quality as the D200. if not what are the differences ? I am pretty hard on my D200 and earn a living with it, however next one will be a D3 or D4
Have read through quite a few replies to the original post and agree with most. My D200 is everything I need, nothing I can see on the D3300 would be sufficent to make me part with my hard earned cash. Jon.
I should have bought a D80 and would then have a lightweight spare body and the latest toy, I suppose.
However, if you think about the things that you can toss away every year or two: computer, flat-panel TV, car, good-quality suits, jewelry settings, watches, houses, significant other, and so on, your life can readily become a financial disaster! A plan of buying every other version of this camera might be sensible...
Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the peculiar capacity to turn all of its subjects into works of art. Susan Sontag, On Photography, p. 149. 1977.
I was planning on buying a second D200 body in November. The D300 release is poor timing. I will buy that instead but not until the bugs have been fixed. This doesnt help me in my quest to afford a 400mm f/2.8. That is serious cash that I dont have...
I must have a D300 and I have NO reason to justify that. Argh!!!!
I too was almost bitten by the D300 bug, but that too seems to be fading. It would of cost me around 900.00 to upgrade, including selling my D200 for 1,000 or so. I since invested in good glass,a Nikon macro 105mm VRII lens for 750.00-----Hey I'm still 150.00 ahead. Yes maybe in time I'll go to the D300 after the bugs if any are worked out. The D200 is a proven performer, the D300 let's wait and see, but I assume it will be just as good and/or better.
I will not upgrade because my next purchase will either be a used D2Xs (once the D3"x" comes out) or a D400. I figure I'll skip generations unless some stagerring development comes along. Since I have a D200, I guess I'm on the "even number" upgrade cycle
----- This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
Having used the D200 extensively and also after playing with a D300 the strongest reason I can give to someone to sell their D200 for a D300 is if you need cleaner High ISO images---for example, if you are a wedding photographer. https://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID202/26380.html
That said I have a D200 and D70 backup. I will sell my D70 and get a D300 to have both D200/D300. Also, for a lot of things I do I prefer to use ISO 100 for slower shutter speeds but if I needed to shoot at ISO 800 or 1600 the difference is "clear"
Albert J Valentino Nikonian Moderator Emeritus Vantage Point Images Mastery of Composition is the Key to Great Photography
Bought my D200 midsummer 2007, am very happy with image quality. Also acquired HP's Pro B9180 13" printer. D 300'S resolution will not be superior in my opinion, 5fps on the D200 is good enough for me. However if I had'nt already outlayed that cash, would've got the D300 as an upgrade to the D70s. Will buy better glass. 80-200mm F/2.8D excellent match for the D200 50mm f/1.8 also stellar Tokina 12-24 f/4, have'nt used it that much, but should be quite good also.
I now wish I had bought a D80 instead of a D200 a year ago. I would keep the D80 as a lightweight spare body and buy the D300. I really cannot carry two metal-body cameras around--too much money and weight for me.
Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the peculiar capacity to turn all of its subjects into works of art. Susan Sontag, On Photography, p. 149. 1977.
With a D80, the second you add that grip, you gain that weight penalty back. And if you use a full rig with bracket and battery pack, you're going to be one of the strongest photographers on the planet. You'll be begging for your D200. TFC
Like most I recently upgraded to my D200 (I actually have a D2X but its mounted in a custom UW housing and is a pain to remove) my reasons are simple, in about a year when all the hooplay is gone the price will drop then I'll consider it ,then wait until the next best thing comes out (hopefully a full sensor model at a better price then the D3) I love my D200 (hell I love my good old D100!!) As far as my underwater needs I can't beat my D2X ,plus the price of a new housing would kill me (Nikon please come out with a UW digital SLR!!!)
1. 15 cross-sensors are great. But they are all bunched together in the center and I use the side ones more often than not. So no improvement for me here.
2. Improved high ISO performance, great! Except that I don't do weddings and normally don't go beyond ISO 400 anyway, as I shoot wide open or very close to it. So not improvement for me
3. Synch-speed seems to still be 250. (320 with "loss" of flash power or something like that) At the same time the minimum ISO is now 200. (we'll see how -1ev works) So no improvement for me either.
Everything else I need I get from my D200 already. So I'll get more glass before a new body, and wait to see what the D400 brings, or until my D200 (at close to 125,000 actuations already) dies to get the D300.
I am going to upgrade. I just gave my D100 away to a very good friend and will use both the D200 and D300. I do a lot of nature stuff and do rather large enlargements and am looking forward to the additional gigs to help out here.
I can't say I am an anxiously awaiting the D300 as I was the D100 but still am looking forward to it and using the amazing en-el4a battery as well.
A but what is a small piece of change?
A place where this Virginia Beach guy hangs a few of his photos:
Bought my D200 in May new for $1300...and its a much better camera than I am a photographer. I've completed my lens kit and am going to spend the next 3 or 4 years finishing wearing out my D70 & D200 using the glass I have (Nikkors: 12-24, 24-85D (actually love this lens), 80-200 f2.8 2r, 300 AFS f4 with TC's 1.4/1.7, and a Tamron 90 _+ kenkoPro 1.4 (they work very well together).
At the price I paid it was a great deal for a new camera. I won't lose much at I think the used market is going to hold at $900-$1000 - unless Nikon reduces the price point and keeps the D200 in the line (remember they have to make it for the Fuji S5)
I'm sure the D300/D3 are going to be very, very good cameras, but in 3 or 4 years we well see some great new stuff....in the mean time 98% of my shots are already covered with the D200, and don't forget that D70 - still a great camera with small files.
I lament the loss of the ability to buy a camera body and use it lovingly for a very long time. As new and better film came out, you just loaded it. I used a 1940s-vintage Leica this way for many years.
Eventually, as DSLR technology matures, the changes will become cosmetic and unimportant and possibly some manufacturer will make a camera that can have its sensor upgraded. Meanwhile, I will continue to buy a new DXXX very few years.
Photography, though not an art form in itself, has the peculiar capacity to turn all of its subjects into works of art. Susan Sontag, On Photography, p. 149. 1977.
Oh, I don't know about that, Crabby. The D200, D70, et al will still last many years and still take great shots barring any mechanical failure or misuse. If memory serves me, the film bodies were updated too. Although, maybe not as frequently...
Hi all. I agree with those who are interested in upgrading to a FF rather than the 300. Having had the opportunity to hold and shoot the D3 and D300 at photoplus in NYC, I am aware of the upgrades the D300 has over the D200 but at this point I am still a satisfied and proud D200 owner and would rather invest in glass - maybe the 85 1.4?
If anything, I'm considering to learn the basics of B&W film photography and contemplating the purchase of a F100.
Ultimately I think that many of us are getting too caught up in the technology war and forgetting about what really makes great pictures - us!
Long live Nikonians and as always, thanks - you guys rock.