jason_walker1 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I have a D200, and I am wanting to stay in the DX format for at least a few more years. I am also wanting to take advantage of Nikon's new techonolgy. Is the new D90 or the D300 a better upgrade choice based on image quality and features? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gy Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 jason, D300 is better choice based on both image quality and features. As you will be upgrading from D200, you will feel yourself more comfortable with D300 as of ergonomics and build quality ( similar to D200 ). check dpreview for D90 review recently posted. Both cameras are compared for image quality.. Gokce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 D300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Could you explain why the D200 is not sufficient so that you need to upgrade? I am not sure going from the D200 to the D90 is really an upgrade; you'll get a newer sensor and image-processing pipeline, but the AF system is the same as the D200's. Metering could even be a step backward and you have no metering with AI/AI-S lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donald_weston1 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Depends on what he needs in a camera....with the D90, he gets a dust shaker, Expeed processor for better color and more rez then he has now in a lighter package. FPS are also very close to present levels 4.5 fps vs 5 fps.....picks your poison.....not ot mention some video capability.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolan_ross Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The D300 is the logical upgrade choice but since you mentioned you were going to move out of the DX format in a few years maybe just keeping the D200 would be a good idea. If the D200 lacks in some way then the D300 would be the way to go. The D90 would also be a good choice if you were wanting a lighter camera and had no interest in weather sealing or using AIS lenses. Also if you like multifunction electronics then the cam corder gimmick could be nice especially if you have small kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 You are going about this the wrong way, IMO. Instead of a camera, buy some FX compatible lenses such as 24--70 f2.8. Buy the lenses now, they will hold value fairly well. As you save your money over the next year, prices on the D700 will continue to drop. A year from now a D300 will be worth less $$ as it will be close to replacement. The lens will be worth about the same. You will then have a D700 and a pro class lens. Kent in SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 At least I don't think it is a good idea to buy FX zooms shorter than 100mm and use them on DX bodies. Those zoom ranges simply don't work very well on DX. That is why even though I already had the 28-70mm/f2.8 and 17-35mm/f2.8 for film SLRs, I added the 12-24mm/f4 DX and 17-55mm/f2.8 DX for my DX DSLRs. I still own all of those lenses and now the older lenses are handy on the D3 and D700. If one is staying with DX for a while, I would stick with DX lenses. Recall that last year some people bought the 28-70mm/f2.8 "for the future'; now they are stuck with a discontinued lens while other people buy the new 24-70mm/f2.8 instead. In particular, if you are concerned about rapid depreciation, I would not buy the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S now. Because of short supply, that lens stayed at its original $1699 price for months. (Recall I recommend someone not to buy it a couple of months ago.) It has recently dropped to $1599 at B&H and I think it has at least another $100 to perhaps $150 to drop. The D200 is now an "older" camera and it does have a few drawbacks, such as a somewhat limited AF system. But to have a smart upgrade, you need to understand why you are upgrading. Going to a D90 will not change that AF situation a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_lai3 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Stay with D200, get FX lenses and wait for D700's price to come down... The only advantage to me on the D300 is the lower noise at higher ISOs. Otherwise D200 is a very good camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanjo_viagran Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 "The only advantage to me on the D300 is the lower noise at higher ISOs." how about Live View.? 8fps w/grip! 51 point focus better AF ect ect agree that the D200 is a very good camera tho.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darr Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I too have the D200 and want the D700, but I am waiting for the prices to drop and investing in FX lenses instead. It only makes sense if you think about it. For me there is not enough difference between the D300 and D200 to buy when there is such a big difference between the D200/D300 and the D700. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolan_ross Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Given the rapid decline in value of these camera's it seems to me the thing to do is for a hobbyist to shoot one a lot before moving on. For many it takes time and for other's it does not. Myself with my D200 I do not shoot a large volume of pictures. I purchased a DX lens so I could shoot wide angle but the rest of my lenses and future lenses will be of the FX type because my next camera which will a full frame camera. Maybe in 4 yrs but difficult to say right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I would say the difference between the D300 and D200 is much bigger than that between the D700 and D300. I have used all three and some other Nikon DSLRs quite a bit. The D300 and D700 are actually very similar DSLRs other than the sensor size, which for some reason is extremely important for some people. To me, the D300 with lenses such as the 12-24mm/f4 can produce really great results already. I got the D700 mainly for that extra stop or two in low light as well as the full ability to use some wide lenses such as the 24mm PC-E. The D300 is a much faster camera than the D200 with far better AF and 8 frames/sec, suitable for sports photography. The extra stop in high ISO is also a plus and there are very useful features such as live view. I don't use Active D Lighting nor sensor cleaning, but those are important to some. IMO, the D300 easily trumps the D2X which in turn trumps the D200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_huggins Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 F-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 I have a D200 and would like the high ISO and AF of the D300. Even though I have many FX lenses and like the D700 I would be just as happy with the D300 at smaller focal lengths and happier with the DX for tele use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwallphoto Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 One thing no one has mentioned is that the D300 has 100% viewfinder accuracy vs. 95% on the D200. If you're a tripod shooter and careful composer, that can be an issue. I came to the D200 straight from many years of film shooting with an F3, and I'm disappointed sometimes by the 5% of some unwanted element that gets into my frames. When I can get a used D300 for $1K, I'll probably be on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_thompson1 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 D300. Do a cost analysis. How much can you sell the D200 for and how much will you pay for a D300. Is the difference worth it? Put another way you would be getting a D300 for about £500. At that price it,s a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightsmith1 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Jason, Without knowing what you mean by "new technology" or what you find wanting with the D200 any advice is likely to be on the wrong track. If you mostly do street photography or do portraits or landscape photography, neither the D300 or the D90 are going to provide any substantial gains over the D200. The D300 has a better AF system in theory than the D200 but not in practice in many situations where the D2x/D2h cameras are significantly better. It provides one more stop for higher ISO shooting but for most people this will never be used. The self-cleaning system for the sensor does not really work. The D300 is a very good camera but don't get swept away by all the hype. As someone else mentioned you would probably be better served to put the money into a new lens than a new camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_slampa Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Seems everyone is forgetting the better colors the CMOS in the D300 gives you over the CCD in the D200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now