Jump to content

D300, D200?


alana_soeh

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,<br><br>

 

I've saved up a bit of money for an upgrade but am in a pickle as to what to get. I currently own a Nikon D40,

and plan on going into the photography profession after graduating college in 2010, and would like a more

advanced camera. My major is not photography related though, and as far as I know there are no classes pertaining

to photography that I could take. So I mostly rely on reading from books and the Internet and from practice of

course (I also joined the campus paper to get more experience) for learning. I shoot gigs, portraits and outdoor

travel, mostly. I usually use aperture or shutter priority on my D40.<br><br>

 

The equipment I have are:<br><br>

 

- Lens: 18-55mm, 55-200mm<br>

- Flash: SB-600, SB-800<br>

I used to have a tripod but it broke =(<br><br>

 

I was initially considering purchasing the D300 (because of its low light capabilities among other things), but

after further reading, felt like D200 would also be good, if not better as I would be able to afford a lens as

well (I was thinking of the 24-85mm f/2.8-4).<br><br>

 

Would it be better to purchase the D300 without a lens or a D200 with the 24-85 (or another lens in the similar

price range)? Or save for a lens? <br><br>

 

Any feedback would be much appreciated! Thank you in advance =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alana, there are a couple things I would say. If you D40 doesn't give you the exposure or focus control you need then yeah, either of those models will help. The D300 is a bit better picture quality than the D200, but not by a big amount. If I were you, I would seriously consider buying better glass, even if you kept your D40. I've been recommending the 50mm f/1.8 a lot lately because it has the Nikon quality you can experience for very little money ($110). I've owned both zooms you have. I thought the 18-55 was a joke being played on me, and the 55-200mm was slightly better toward the long end. Do yourself a big favor and buy a great lens. Your work will move forward much more quickly, and once you've been enlightened by great optics, you will judge everything you shoot with and produce from it with that benchmark. Here are a couple of snapshots I just uploaded from my D200 that I took about an hour and a half ago. Both lenses are very affordable.<div>00QmE9-70015584.jpg.c523e7648b22f239805b5d2f5bbd7dd9.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the lenses you have are doing the job then I would be spending my money on a new tripod. A good one that is very hard to break. A good ball head also. That task completed I would get photo shop and spend time to learn it well. I believe its the photographer not the camera. Learn how to expose in difficult situations. Practice and get better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave the camera alone, and upgrade either your major or your college.

 

Seriously, if you are planning on "going into" a "profession", and it's not only not your major, but you can't even take electives appropriate to it, you have a much more serious problem than whether to update your camera. What type of photography do you see yourself going into professionally? Product? Fashion? Wedding and event? Photojournalism? Fine art?

 

Even if your major is business (perhaps the most useful degree a photographer can have) you have to gain experience in the business of photography, in addition to the art and the craft. A "dual major" is a useful path to pursue, provided your school offers the courses. You need to speak to a guidance counselor, you honestly have things going wrong in your life that are much more serious that anything we can help you with on an internet forum.

 

That aside, your second greatest concern, after picking a school, is mastering the tripod (as Carl said). Be prepared for "sticker shock", a good professional tripod and head can easily pass $300 US (mine cost about $550). The good thing about tripods is that, if you buy a decent one, they're nearly eternal. I have three, one is 30 years old, the other two about 10 years old (one "big" 11 pound monster, one 3.5 pound carbon fiber rig that can strap to my backpack). I fully expect them to easily last another 10 years, despite my having beat the snot out of them. Do you know how many cameras you'll go through in 10-20 years? And again, what kind of tripod and head you need depends on the type of photography you're going to get into.

 

In addition to the tripod, you need a remote control for the D40. That is without question more important than upgrading cameras or lenses.

 

Then comes lenses. I notice that people have started giving lens advice without hearing what kind of photography you want to do. This is also futile without knowing what kind of photography you're going to be doing.

 

OK, ball's in your court...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D90 is out now or at least very soon. Have you considered that one. I guess either the D90 or the D300. The technology in these cameras changes very quick and the D200 is already getting kind of old..I have one and it's a good camera but I think in 2 years it will be very old school and have virtually no value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you guys even pay attention to what the OP says anymore?

alana asked one specific question: she wants a more advanced camera and needs help deciding between D200 and

D300. so far the responses have ranged from 'keep your current camera' to 'get a D700.' i'm surprised no one

recommended a d3...

 

alana, a d200 IMO would be an excellent investment for you. it's very capable and has that 'pro' feel. sure a d300 is

newer/better, but the controls are very similar. plus as you noted, that leaves more $$ for lenses.

 

the caveat is that the d200 isnt any better

than a d40 at high ISO shooting. but if you get that rather than a d300, you can get a fast prime with the savings (or

start saving toward a pro lens like the 70-200 VR) which will carry over into your next body when you go pro. a good

tripod is also a

good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Would it be better to purchase the D300 without a lens or a D200 with the 24-85 (or another lens in the similar price range)? Or save for a lens?"

 

Eric, Maybe this is the statement that threw me. Sounds like there was an opening for a discussion about lenses. Besides there isn't a vast chasm of difference between the IQ of a D40 and D200 from what I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hear you michael. i agree the 50/1.8 is a good lil' sharp one, but of course it performs much better on a d200 than a

d40, since it will AF. :)

 

my point was just that she specifically mentioned a more full-featured camera. i've just been seeing a lot of off-topic

threads on PN lately, including one where the OP had to remind the hijackers of the intent of his original post.

 

i'd agree you can take excellent pictures with a d40--those extra 4mp do give you room for cropping, tho--but the OP

wasnt asking just about image quality, the d200 is a more 'advanced' camera than the d40 because of two command

dials, more dedicated buttons, better ergonomics, mag-alloy body, better metering, more AF points, faster FPS,

ability to meter with MF lenses, yadda yadda bada bing boo boo.

(IMO, for someone who doesnt need the latest pro body but still wants a better than entry level camera, it's a great

deal. why, it was only three years ago, it sold for $1700.)

 

the d300 probably has slightly better IQ than the D300 (and one more stop of ISO), but at that price differential--

assuming her budget is around $1500-$1700--alana would be better served IMO with a d200+ a good fast prime lens

like the 85/1.8 or 35/2 than a d300+ nothing. i'd also take the primes over another variable aperture zoom, since she

already has 18-200 covered by kit lenses.

 

OTOH, getting a 70-200 VR for use on a D40 would give her glass that would outlive her next body in all probability.

but the 70-200 is not a walkaround lens, and it looks like a pit bull mating with a chihuahua on a d40. of course,

there's no one 'right' way to upgrade one's kit... and no shortage of opinions. that's my .02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Alana. I hope you realize that when you graduate in 2010, the D300 will be older technology. Why not wait until

you're a pro to get that great camera you want?

 

IMHO, this is what I would suggest, in this order:

 

1. Tripod

 

2. Lenses (try to stay with non-DX lenses so that if you upgrade to FX in the future, you will have what you need)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advanced focusing abilities of the D300 make is a far better value than just about any camera available, especially the D200. It focuses better in good light and significantly better in low light. Consider extra features it gives you are a 'bonus'.

 

Two weeks ago I used my D200 (kept as a backup camera) to take some fun photos at the beach. I didn't appreciate how good and fast the auto focus is on the D300 until then. Needless to say, my D200 is up for sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I was initially considering purchasing the D300 (because of its low light capabilities among other things), but after further reading, felt like D200 would also be good, if not better as I would be able to afford a lens as well (I was thinking of the 24-85mm f/2.8-4)."

 

I love the D200, it's great, but it's conceivable the D40 you already own is better at low light because it was released after the D200, and usually the newer models improve on the noise factor. The D300 would of course give the best low light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in your position last year this time when I got a D40 for my birthday, but after five months using the D40 I wanted more, so I got the D200 and I have been happy since. I is a lot of features with the D200 have that the D40 don't have that you are going to want. Like using SB600/SB800 flash off camera, more focus point than the D40 and the ability to use both AF/AF-S lenses.

 

With that said, any one you choose you will be happy with it. All you have to do know is save again and get some good glass by 2010 you can look to upgrade the again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D300 has much better AF and low-light capabilities, but those advantages are not that important for portraits and travel photography. What exactly are those "gigs"?

 

If you shot wedding or sports, I would get the D300. In your case, I would save some money on a D200 and build up your lenses. If you are serious about photography, you should outgrow the 18-55 and 55-200 consumer zooms in the near future.

 

A bit off topic, but as Joseph points out, if you want to be a professional photographer in the long run, you'd better find the right major. The ability to run a small business (which could be a business of one person initially) will be important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, the 85mm and 50mm look great, and if anything will be looking to get those in the near future. They won't

autofocus on the d40, but that's alright.

 

Joseph, I've yet to know for certain, but it would be a dream to be a sports photographer.

 

And as far as majors go, in industrial engineering, we learn the business side of things, though not to the extent

a business major would, of course. I was on the verge of switching to a photo program last year, but it was met

with some objection.

 

Carl, I've been using Photoshop CS2 =).

 

Shun, the "gigs" are concerts and times vary to be in the day or night, and the ones I have gone to with my

camera have been outdoor.

 

And thank you all for the advice, I truly appreciate it.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about a D90 (sorry if somebody's already suggested this)? It has the same sensor as the D300, and some of its

shortfalls, such as its AF system, are found on the D200 as well. It has excellent exposure metering as well (same as

D300, I believe). I don't see many advantages the D200 has over the D90, in the same way that there aren't many

advantages that the D2x has over the D300. Spend the rest of the money on good glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the D90 has just become available this past weekend. Its metering system has yet to be evaluated. Nikon

has been making great metering systems for years; who would have imagined that they would somewhat messed up

the one in the D80? I can only assume that they have fixed the problem in the D90.

 

The one big advantage for the D200 over the D90 is that the D200 can meter with olders manual-focus Nikkor lenses

from the late 1970's to 1980's. It is also better built with weather sealings. But as far as technologies are concerned,

the D200 is almost 3 years behind the D90, and that makes a non-trivial difference. But the D200 is certainly still a

good DSLR today.

 

If you shoot a lot of sports or under dim light, the AF system on the D200 and D90 can be an issue.

If you mainly shoot outdoors with daylight, I wouldn't worry about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shun's right that the newer tech of the d90 (d300 hand-me-downs) make it compelling, especially if the high ISO

performance is close to the D300's. but its control layout is very similar to the d80, whereas the d200's controls are

closer to the d300. this may seem insignificant when merely comparing specs on paper, but it makes a huge

difference for actual shooting. just the other day i picked up my D80 and felt momentarily lost since there werent any

dynamic-area AF dials like on my D300.

 

if alana's intention is to get a 'more advanced' body to practice on, build up her lenses and technique, then get a pro

body when she turns pro (by that time the d400 or d500 could be out, and the d300 might be much more affordable),

IMO she'd be better off with a d200 over a d90. sure, the ISO over 800 isn't great, but there are

workarounds such as getting fast glass, i.e. the 85/1.8 and

50/1.8, which she'll need anyway evenutally.

 

if she goes for the d90, she gets better high ISO (and a second

command dial), but less dedicated buttons, no weather-sealing,and more extraneous features (like video). so there

will be more of a learning curve when she finally gets a 'pro' body. of course, this is speculation to some degree since

the d90 isnt out yet. also, if she gets a D300 now, all she'll be able to afford is the current lenses she has (except

maybe the 50), whereas with a d200, she'll still have some money left to play around with. so i dont think its

absolutely imperative for someone on the student level to have the newest camera out there, she just needs

something a bit more advanced than a d40 as she continues to learn technique and skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...