Deciding between D90 and D300 to replace D200

<p>Features that go along with advancing technology (less noise at higher ISOs, Active D Lighting, better color saturation in camera, etc.) have convinced me that it's time (or perhaps too late) to sell my D200 and upgrade to a D90 or D300. I shoot about half from the trail and half from the car/condo/home, so the weight issue is only about half biased toward the lighter D90. I shoot with a couple manual focus lenses that will meter just fine on a D300, but not on the D90. I'm not a pro, but I value the rock solid feel of my D200. On the other hand, I'm not a pro and have several competing hobbies; cost is a factor. If I hadn't sold my FM (or my N80 for that matter), it would still work today the same as it did in the 70s. It irritates me that cameras are like computers theses days: either prototypes or obsolete. Either the D90 or the D300 will be obsolete by the time I buy it (or shortly thereafter). It's a very close race and I can't seem to make up my mind. Thanks in advance for your insights.</p>

<p>I first purchased the D300, but had to return it and go with the lighter weight D90 because of a problem with my wrists. Given the choice, although the D90 is a very fine camera, there is no question that the D300 is far more capable. The ability to optimize autofocus for each individual lens is something that doesn't get discussed much, but makes a huge difference. Since, in addition, you have lenses that won't meter with the D90, and you enjoy the feel of a solid camera, you should definitely get the D300.</p>

<p>I would dispute your statement that cameras are either prototypes or obsolete. You may want a better camera when one comes out, but the capabilities of the camera you have will not be affected. Furthermore, the two possibilities you are considering are very thoroughly sorted out, with the exception of the one advantage of the D90 -- video capability -- which is very primitive. Get the D300. You'll be happy with it.</p>

<p>I would suggest that its"too late". There is a new D400 on the horizon and its expected in june this year probably ship by august or xmas. You sound like a person who can wait.. Wait for the D400 its an upgrade of the D300. If you cant wait.. then the D90 is a good little camera. but as you know it wont meter with your manual lenses..</p>

<p>maybe it's not time yet, to upgrade your D200. how about upgrading your lenses and spread the savings among your other hobbies?</p>

<p>OR wait for the D400 so you can buy the D300 cheaper.</p>

<p>Whoa, is the D400 coming out soon? YES! Which means I can get a D300 cheaper!!!<br>

Anyways, in response to the OP, I'd say go D300, the handling of the D300 is very similar to the D200 and you'll slip right in immediately. Plus, since you have MF lenses, yeah, D300 is the way to go. I miss the dedicated bracket button though. But do you really need to upgrade?<br>

I've had the itch to purchase a D300, but I cured it by printing large.... the D200 even with its "horrible" noise is perfectly fine (just had a A3 giclee image printed... the D200 is still very capable imo :) ). My next purchase is going to be a new lens. I'll probably wait till the D300 gets to sub 1k value before I get one.</p>

<p>Save your money. It doesn't sound like you have any compelling reason to upgrade.</p>

<p>IMO it's too soon to be replacing a D200 (or a D80, like I have) already. I know what you are saying about the frustration with digital cameras, I feel the same way, but it's just a fact we have to face. Digital cameras are nothing like their film counterparts. It's like comparing a video camera to a movie film camera. But I would try to get the most of what you have now before replacing your D200. My plan is to shoot with my D80 for at least 5 years, even though of course cameras will have come (and gone) in that time that may be capable of slightly better images, or have a couple new features. The longer I keep my cash in my wallet the better camera I'll be able to afford next time.</p>

<p>A camera really only becomes 'obsolete' to the photographer using it when the camera no longer fills the photographer's needs. Sounds like your time has come.</p>

<p>If you need weather sealing and a better autofocus system (for fast action sports), go for the D300. If you don't, get the D90. Although other cameras will be released with more features in the future, IQ improvements will be hard to beat - the D90 really delivers with accurate metering, color rendition, white balance and autofocus!</p>

 

<p>Obsolete may be a bit strong for the digital camera industry and I certainly use it as hyperbole. I've had my D200 for (only?) 2 years and at the time it was an upgrade for the D70. The rock solid feel and ability to meter with long MF teles and old MF micros were important to me then and still are. Of course it felt like it weighed twice as much. I've since carried the D200, a couple lenses and my G1127 to the summits of Guadalupe Peak, Mt. Whitney, Wheeler Peak and others. Obviously the weight isn't that big a deal. At the same time I remember using long MF lenses on my D70 and just guessing at the exposure. I virtually never shoot sports or more than a frame every few seconds. To guess at the exposure and confirm it on the LCD isn't that big a deal either.<br>

The pros and cons of the D90-D300 feel so close they barely matter. Perhaps it is the shortness of life that so bothers me. I bought the D200 when the price broke and dropped to like $1300. Extrapolating my desire to upgrade in two years from the D70 to the D200 and now the D200 to something else, perhaps waiting for the D300 price to drop is the right move? I am going to Alaska this summer and that is adding some urgency and helping me justify the upgrade. Yeesh.<br>

Again, thank you all for the input.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There is a new D400 on the horizon and its expected in june this year probably ship by august or xmas. You sound like a person who can wait.. Wait for the D400 its an upgrade of the D300."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is merely speculation. Nobody here really knows when such camera will be available. There is also no guarantee that any newer camera will be an "improvement" from the older model. For example, in a sense the Canon 50D is a step backward from the 40D in terms of high ISO performance.</p>

<p>And Vince:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If I hadn't sold my FM (or my N80 for that matter), it would still work today the same as it did in the 70s."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The same is true for your D200. As long as it is not damaged, it still works the same way today as the first day you had it, and it will continue to work the same way 10, 20, or 30 years later. DSLRs being "obsolote" is merely in your mind.</p>

<P>

At least I haven't seen any compelling reason why you need to upgrade from the D200.

</P>

<p>Sort of a <em>men and their toys</em> thing? That's a somewhat sheepish reality for me and (as always) you are absolutely right Shun. I suppose that's why you've been a moderator here for so many years. Perhaps a better way of framing this is "I'm going to Alaska and it seems like a good opportunity to upgrade my D200." People, including me, buy on emotion and justfity with logic. Things like an extra two stops of ISO (800 vs. 3200) of acceptable grain performance and Active D-Lighting are real, but may be mere rationalizations.</p>

<p>I have had a D300 since the 2nd week after it came out, and now I also have a D700. I almost never use Active D Lighting (and auto sensor cleaning) on either camera. I also have a D200. The D300 (and presumably the D90, which I have never used) will give you about one extra stop at higher ISO over the D200. At least to me, the big advantages for the D300 are its far superior AF capability and 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10 and the right batteries. Whether those advantages are meaningful to you or not is completely up to you to figure out.</p>

<p>In a sense the D90 will be a step backward from the D200 because of its inferior construction quality and inability to meter with non-CPU lenses.</p>

<p>And I really value those two attributes of my D200; the solid build and support for old lenses. The AF improvements and all those cross type sensors sound great. As does the superior noise performance at higher ISOs. For me the D200 maxes out at 800 and I read that the 300/90 sensor delivers similar performance at 3200. Of course for the difference in price I could keep the D200 and buy a 180/2.8 or another 85/1.8 (I sold one a few years ago) and have a similar impact on speed.<br>

Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize the extra grand for a D300? Thanks again for the dose of reality Shun.</p>

<p>It seems that each new step camera wise isn't all that intriguing to the previous owner but often a substantial improvement for the next previous models/series. The D300 may or may not have been a "must have" for the D200 owner, the D400 (or it's light duty equivalent) will definitely be more tempting - and more expensive - yet the D300 price may not fall all that quickly. So you'll be in the position of wondering not so much about the D300 anymore but squeezing up to the D400.</p>

<p>To keep it ugly, the D200 used price will fall again anyways - and the D700 will have dropped some more.</p>

<p>The D300 seems to fityour interests better than the D90.</p>

<p>You give NO clue as to what lenses you have. Lenses are FAR more important than whether you have a D90 or D300. If you already have the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, then you might consider a D300 IF you need the 5 frames per second deal or 1/250 sync. Otherwise, the image quality between D90/D300 is the same. As for the lenses you did mention (but don't have) I looked at those too, and ended up buying the 70-200mm f2.8 VR since that lens outperforms those other two in the real world. I have the 85mm f1.8 and it's the worst lens I've ever used when it comes to flare. It and its sisters are going on eBay next month. I would rather be using a D200 with the 70-200mm f2.8 VR than a D300 with a lesser lens, myself. You mention that cameras are now like computers and quickly lose value. I agree, and that's why I've been putting most of my money into excellent lenses. And an extensive lighting system.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>SAVE your money. For decades it has bothered me because whenever a new model camera comes out, people rush out to buy it. Generally I use a camers until it is worn out, it took me over 20 years to wear out the FM. <br>

New camera's with new features do <strong>not</strong> mean better pictures. Using what you have until it you automatically use it to the fullest does. I've found many using digital cameras who do not know all the features or use the ones it has. I've seen better pictures come out of camera's that cost 10% of Nikons some use. So it is highly likely they will not use many features that they spend the money to buy. For many, spending on photo seminars with Professionals or on Photography or Photoshop courses will improve their pictures more than a <strong>new camera.</strong> <br>

As for the decision about what to buy, if you really must buy one. Take a sheet of paper, draw a line down the middle from top to bottom. List all reasons to buy on one side or the other on the other side. When you have all reasons down, make your decision on what is <strong>most important</strong> to <strong>you.</strong> Only you know what you use it for or how and how much.</p>

 

<p><em>"New camera's with new features do <strong>not</strong> mean better pictures."</em> Actually, image quality is improving with the release of almost all new cameras lately - better high ISO results, larger dynamic range, greater color range and improved exposure all help to make pictures better. I have seen many pictures from the D90 and in many cases they are noticeably improved over other Nikon cameras I have owned and currently own. I owned and used D200s for almost two years. Based on the results I have seen with the D90, there is no doubt in my mind that I would rather own a D90 over a D200.</p>

<p>Kent, exactly. Notice how your 70-200 and 17-35 just APPRECIATED $200-250? Compare that to a camera body. Just had the Geek Squad in doing some repairs and when I asked if I need to upgrade my computer because of new technology, he asked, does it do everything I need? Doesnt the same question apply to our camera bodies? We also discussed how computer innovation has slowed now that it meets the needs of most of us. Isnt that likely what will happen to camera bodies. Just how high an ISO do we need. How large a print? I rarely shot at higher than 200 ISO in film (often at 64 or lower)and still dont print too many at poster size. </p>

<p>Thank you all for the compelling answers and input. The D200 does do everything I need and it works very well with my 12-24/4, 50/1.8, 18-200 VR, 105/4, 80-400 VR and 800/11. Only two of those are manual focus, but they meter just fine on the D200. It's always been <em>want</em> more than <em>need</em> and it still is.</p>

<p>Seems like you have a case of NAS. Wait until you need a feature then you will know exactly which body fills the need.</p>

<p>Hi Vince,</p>

<p>You have a nice set of lenses.</p>

<p>If you go with the D90 the 80-400 will be less effective than on the d200 because the motor in the d90 is not as powerful. The D300's motor is more powerful than the D200 and the 80-400 users have reported much better and faster focusing on that lens. If you use that lens a lot then the d300 is definately worth considering.</p>

<p>If you do pull the trigger and get a camera for the summer trip(The D400 will probably will not be available in time for your summer trip, Oh well) I would suggest(as many have already) that the D300 is the better choice for you. wait as long as you can. the prices will probably fall soon. but sorry it will probably fall more after the d400 is announced probably as soon as you paid for the d300, lol. I still think you should just wait. The d200 isn't all that bad ;-) and you already know how to use it. so you can concentrate on enjoying your trip and picture making.</p>

<p>Shun, Yes the d400 announcement date is speculation but the D400 book with ISBN(release date july / august) is real enough to make me believe that at the very latest the D400 will be available by Xmas. That's what I am budgeting for..</p>

<p>[ And yes it will be a nice upgrade for me from a D70 :-) I am also waiting for the 80-400 update lol. only joking(slightly) about the d70 I do have an s5pro to tide me over till the D400 :-) I am hoping the D400 will have colours and DR high enough so that I wont miss my S5pro when I upgrade my D70 but I will probably use both the S5pro and the D400 together like I do now with the D70/S5. (PS: I still use and get nice pictures from my D70) ]</p>

<p>Deciding to get back to photography after a very long time and having been given a loan of a D40 to play with, I decided to buy the best I could afford. I chose the D90. Well, it chose me to be honest. And there in lies the real reason to buy a new camera, will you have to have it. The D90 for me is wonderful use, very responsive and a joy to hold, and I am very happy that I made the right choice. However, if I had invested in lenses for a previous model and could not use them I dont think the D90 would make financial sense. Unless of course, it chooses you!</p>

<p>Like many of you I have a D200 and am looking for something lighter in weight to take on vacation. So, I am considering the D90. It seems to have somewhat better noise control at ISO800 and above which is also important to me. But, is it enough of an improvement to justify spending $1200? That, I don't know yet. </p>

<p>I have a D200 and love it. I'd like the improved high ISO performance of D300/300s but what I'm REALLY waiting for is for them to tame the highlights with a digital sensor. I want the forgiveness of color print film or better. I strongly suspect that a D400 or whatever replacement for D300/300s Nikon comes up with will be the best to date at handling a full dynamic range. Maybe a nifty improved HDR function--that's worth waiting for IMHO. And you can bet the video capability will be a substantial upgrade as well. I'm holding out.</p>