Nikon D200 or D300?

ph03n1x

Yes, I know everyone's going to be like D300 of course! But I want a good upper level camera that's not too expensive and I see a D200 at Adorama for $549 which to me is a pretty decent price. But if I do find a D300 should I pounce on it no matter how many actuations? Because I tried a D300s today with an 18-200mm lens and in one word, it was amazing. It just made me feel like a real pro because the picture was beautifully sharp, which makes me consider getting the lens, and the speed of it was just mind-blowing. My D50 is like a turtle compared to it. But then I look around I see a D200 and think, eh is it worth it? Is the performance good? Is the battery life good? Anyone wanna vouch for either? I'm really on the fence for this.

ziggy53

Prior to the D300 the D200 was the best Nikon prosumer dSLR. The D300 has "much" improved high ISO noise and a presumed better AF system as well.

If your intentions include low light photography the D300 is going to be a much better choice.

If you work mostly in good light and have good Speedlights for indoor work, the D200 can still be a decent value.

Eclipsed

Well, start by comparing the two on Nikon's website.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product-Archive/Digital-SLR/25235/D200.html

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product-Archive/Digital-SLR/25432/D300.html

You will notice that they are both nice cameras and the differences are not so huge. If you will be doing a lot of low light shooting, the D300 will be stronger with extra ISO level. The extra resolution of the D300 won't matter unless you are doing huge prints. The FPS speeds are almost identical with both cameras. The D300 has more AF points but unless you do sports and fast moving object that you have to have the camera track, I would say you wouldn't benefit from that. If you are not a pro and have a limited budget I would say that you should get the D200 and buy some good glass. Of course, if you have plenty to spend, get the D300. But, with DSLRs, it is often the glass that matters most, so splurge on that.

Just my opinion though.

ph03n1x

I won't be taking pictures in low light as much as I will action shots.

Eclipsed

Indoor action shots or outdoor shots in daylight? For indoor shooting the D300 has the edge. For outdoor shooting, the D200 would perform fine.

ph03n1x

Both, seeing as I'll be photographing my cousin's varsity games; but I have my 50mm 1.4

Ekaj

You'll find the auto focus far superior in the d300. That said, if money is an issue, I would go with the d200. It is still a very capable camera, but it is a generation old. Between those two cameras, I would go with a used d300 if you can find one well priced.

Eclipsed

If you are going to be photographing indoor and outdoor sports, you are going to be getting mixed lighting. For sports, the D300 is definitely going to be a better choice over the D200. Unless money is an issue, go for the D300.

ph03n1x

Adorama has a D200 used for $580. Anyone know how much a used D300 goes for? Because I'm expecting around $1,000.

jsqueri

I was choosing between the D200 and the D90 and went with the D200. I love it, but it is grainy in low light.

A note about Adorama. I bought one for 500 rated as E-. Its grip was falling off and when I checked teh actuations saw it was at 125k. I returned it for the E+ for 600, an intact grip and only 25k clicks. FYI.

Harryb

If $ is not consideration the D300 is the way to go.

If you only have a $1,000 to play with go with the D200 which is a fine camera.

zoomer

If you are not shooting in low light get the d200 and spend the extra money on a good 70-200 f2.8 lens.....you said action shots are your focus.

Qarik

as soon as you mention sports...D300.

It has about 1 stop of clean iso over the d200 so you can shoot faster shutter speeds..and the AF is far superior to the d200. Then save up for the 70-200mm!

ph03n1x

One of my friends is telling me now that a D90 would be more worth it because of a better sensor and better pictures at higher ISOs. Anyone agree or disagree?

ziggy53

ph03n1x wrote:

One of my friends is telling me now that a D90 would be more worth it because of a better sensor and better pictures at higher ISOs. Anyone agree or disagree?

It depends on how you would use the camera.

The D200/D300 have both screw drive for AF/AF-D lenses and the ability to meter with older manual "F" mount AI-S lenses, giving more versatility overall. They have the most advanced AF systems of their respective era except for the professional class Nikon cameras.

The D300 has a better metering section, a better viewfinder and more durable shutter and body.

The D90 has a similar imager and image processor to the D300 but lacks the ability to meter manual focus AI-S lenses. To use those lenses on the D90 you would either use an external meter or "estimate" the exposure by a number of means. The D90 probably also has a smaller and less torque-y AF motor for AF/AF-D motors. The D90 has less responsiveness and a smaller shot buffer. The D90 has video capabilities too.

The D90 is a great value and I consider it on the low end of the prosumer Nikon line, but it is a prosumer camera, no doubt. The D300 is at the high end prosumer level.

A pretty good comparison here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D90/verdict.shtml

Also the feature comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d90,nikon_d300&show=all