D200 vs D300

<p>My D200 has just reached 85,000 shutters. And i'm starting to get a little nervous about how much longer it will last. I use my camera everyday for work, and i'm shooting my first wedding next week. When it comes down to it, I need a new camera. But i'm not sure if i should step up to the D300 or just get another D200. I have been extremely satisfied with my 200. The only thing that i didnt like is the noise at high ISO's. What are some of your opinions on the 200 and the 300. Would you suggest shelling out the extra couple hundred dollars for the upgrade. I have read a decent portion of the dpreview on the 300. What are some other things that you guys have noticed that you really like. </p>

<p>I would be more concerned with relying on 1 camera (with 85,000 actuations) at a wedding. :)<br>

My D200 performs nicely alongside my D3, no complaints from me.<br>

I'm personally going to wait and see what gets released next, on the principal that I will only upgrade every other generation. YMMV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i'm not sure if i should step up to the D300 or just get another D200. I have been extremely satisfied with my 200. The only thing that i didnt like is the noise at high ISO's. What are some of your opinions on the 200 and the 300. Would you suggest shelling out the extra couple hundred dollars for the upgrade.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>yes, absolutely, no question. it's kind of a no-brainer actually, especially since you have an issue with high-ISO noise. the d300 gives you at least a stop/stop-and-a-half of latitude here over a d200, and the control layout is very similar, so the learning curve will be quite manageable. you may want to wait a bit for the new nikon body to be released as d300 prices will likely fall.</p>

<p>btw, i believe the d200 is tested to at least 100k cycles and maybe 150k, so you should have a ways to go.</p>

<p>You need a new camera and should have had a back up all along. Your clients have been lucky. You too unless you had an equipment failure clause in the contract. Otherwise you did not perform the job, no excuses.<br>

If you feel high noise limits you, then D300. If not, another D200 will do.</p>

<p>I enjoyed my D200. It was very easy to adjust to the D700 and I expect a D300 also. If you need better high ISO then it's a logical choice with improved AF. I agree with Tobey about a backup body missing.</p>

<p>I found the upgrade to the D300 worthwhile. The lower noise and the ability to dial in the focus for every lens useful.</p>

<p>Wait few weeks for D300s, a small upgrade of D300. It supposed to come out this month.</p>

<p>Agreed! It's a no brainer. Other than improved high ISO performance, the AF in the D-300 is far and away superior in focus acquisition, track & lock and speed.<br>

Image quality is up due partially to a CMOS sensor (runs cooler) (less noise) compared to a CCD sensor in the D-200.<br>

There are many more reasons to get the 300. Much has been written about the D-300, probably more than any othercamera out there; I think this sums it up.."The D-300 is NOT a replacement for the D-200, is a totally redesigned camera from the ground up."</p>

<p>Get the 300..keep your 200 as backup.</p>

<p>Have & shoot a D200 alongside a D300. Both are great cameras. I think there's a chance that in the near- to mid-term future the D300 (but probably not the D300s) will be seen as a classic. Your question does have a big timing issue in it, depending on what you want in a camera. If you want video and "features" like that, you might want to wait for the D300s. If you DON'T want those things, you might want to buy a D300 while you can. Anyway...</p>

<p>The things I like about the D300 compared to the D200:</p>

<p>Its write speed, even with 12- and 14-bit raw (all I shoot) is exceptional. I sometimes stall the buffer on my D200 shooting sports pictures. It has never happened in real life with the D300 and fast cards. Can I make it happen? Yes, but in actual use I have not had it happen.</p>

<p>The AF speed and coverage is faster and better.</p>

<p>There is probably a full stop's worth of ISO available at the same IQ and the dynamic range is somewhat better, too.</p>

<p>Silly thing - I like the info button because I wear glasses but shoot without them and I can read the info screen easily without.</p>

<p>There are probably other pluses. There are a few minuses. You will have to totally re-learn the AF system. I am still working on that. There are other controls that will require a little study or review. It is a more capable, customizeable tool but it requires and rewards investing time to learn to use it.</p>

<p>Overall, I would say go for the D300. It is an incredibly responsible, flexible tool. It's a photographer's camera, and a great one at that.</p>

<p>I use the D300, with the D200 as a backup. They are pleasantly familiar from a user's point of view, but the D300 is a substantially better camera when you work anywhere near the limits of the D200's performance - especially when it comes to noise, AF performance, and battery life. That bigger LCD is great, and I continue to be surprised how often I use the live view mode.<br /><br />Mind you, the D200 still does a great job! I especially like using it at ISO 100 with studio strobes for certain kinds of product shots.</p>

<p>Wedding shooters can generally make good use of the newer generation cameras' better high ISO performance. The D300/D90/D5000 (and the unannounced D300s) should be able to easily outperform the D200 in low light. The D700 would be a even better choice for you. Aside from the high ISO performance, the D300/D700 are better cameras than the D200 for the reasons Matt mentioned. <br>

Anyway, a 2nd camera in general would be really nice for you in case of equipment failure or malfunction. </p>

<p>...which I why I added the D300 to the D200 rather than replace the D200...</p>

<p>The D200 is a battery hog. I suspect that the D300 gets more shots per charge. My D700 is quite stingy on power compared to the gluttonous D200.</p>

<p>You're kind of over a barrel. You need a new camera before you go to this wedding, at least as a backup. Then again, you shouldn't take new gear to an important job. If I were you, I'd act quickly and test the heck out of the new body.</p>

 

<p>alright! i found a d300 with the 18-200 vr lens for $1700. My ex girlfriends dad is hooking me up. there is about 5500 shutters on it already. it has been serviced by nikon recently. im getting it tomorrow. and because of my work, i'll be able to fire off at least 2000 shots before the wedding. thanks for the input guys. i dont think i will regret it. </p>

<p>I wouldn't shoot a wedding with the 18-200mm. You can get a brand new D300 for $1569 with a one year warranty from B&H Photo. If you shoot that many frames you can afford a new body.</p>

<p>Better to have a backup camera, whatever it is. I've been waiting quite a while to find a replacement for my D200. Some rumored new camera keeps me waiting. I rent/borrow backup bodies when doing event shooting because you never know what will go wrong.<br>

If you start doing a bunch of weddings, you'll want a D700.</p>