For those who have owned the D200 and D300...advice pls

I'm a studio and street photographer - no need for fast AF, no need for high FPS, no need for high ISO

shooting above 800.

 

I've read every bit of literature out there on the web, and while the D300 seems to be touted as the second

coming, I can't seem to find an honest unhyped comparison of the image quality in average situations:

 

1 ) How does the image quality (noise in shadows particularly) compare between d200 and d300 at LOW

ISO? Everyone talks about the benefits of the CMOS sensor for high ISO situations, but I haven't heard

much honest discussion about low ISO comparison to D200.

 

2) Do you find the extra pixels to be helpful when printing large, making crops, or is the increase fairly

negligible? I've read reviews that say it's essentially not important and others that say it makes all the

difference.

 

I picked up a D200 with vertical grip and 1 year warranty for 1000 bucks yesterday - trying to decide if I

should keep it or return it and get a D300. My longterm plan is to get a D3, but I have some DX lenses so I

have to slowly make the transition over the next couple years. So, with money being an issue, not having

the glass I want now, and my D70 no longer acting as a stopgap solution, keep the d200 or take it back

and get a d300, knowing I'm going full frame in 18 months-2 years?

FYI, I shoot RAW exclusively.

Personally, from what you describe as your shooting style, the D200 should be perfectly

adequate.

If you don't have a compelling reason to get the D300, stay with the D200. If it is meeting

your needs until you get a D3 (or similar) why upgrade? The D200 is a good camera.

 

You may want to check over at nikonians.org for a comparison. I know someone did a

noise comparison which I believe showed that at lower ISO the difference between the

D200 and D300 were not that great. If I find it I'll post the link.

 

I upgraded tot he D300 for the high ISO performance. Otherwise, the D200 was more than

adequate for me.

keep the d200. i honestly can't tell the difference b/w the low iso images, though i've not looked closely. the D300 is much cleaner at iso800 though. The extra MP is relatively insignificant for your type of shooting, I shoot birds and must sometimes crop heavy, so the extra MP (+faster AF & FPS) is nice.

 

Liveview is nice, which i unexpectedly use quite often in daily PJ/street shooting w/ MF at wierd angles when i cannot look thru the viewfinder. I've also been quite impressed with the Active D-Lighting when shooting in high contrast, underexposing slightly to save highlights and still keeping nice shadow detail. helped a lot for shooting xmas lights.

 

save your money for a D3 if that's your plan, they're not cheap. what's the benefit of a d300? you don't need the AF or FPS or high ISO, which are the real selling points IMO. How much would u value liveview, active d-lighting and a 3" lcd?? you could have $1800 more saved toward the D3.

First, I cannot find the comparison I referred to above, so, ignore my statement as it is

unsupported. My apologies.

 

OTOH, I did find this http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?

az=read_count&om=26909&forum=DCForumID202&viewmode=all which purports to show

improved IQ of the D300 over the D70 and D200.

With D300 at low ISO you are generally one ladder higher. D300 at 200 ISO is a something as D200 100 ISO and so on. It doesn't make much of the difference till ISO 400 where D300 is much cleaner. There is some noise but it has different character (it is finer and much more film like). At ISO 800 D300 is much better then D200 and perfectly usable. I didn't shoot ISO 800 on D200 if it was not absolutely necessary.

 

I don't find additional pixels to be very important at least not enough to be a reason buy a new camera.

 

For me a reason to buy D300 was top quality of the picture up to ISO 400 and a much more precise autofocus system.

 

Regards, Marko

After post their is not much difference. With what you mentioned above you don't need the d300. The WB is much much better, little better contrast and better exposure and much better AF. The active D lighting and in camer D lighting is great and does what it says. Go to www.Kenrockwell.com some don't like him but he does exhaustive testing on everything and is of value. Some of his opinions are a little on the eybrow raising side but for the most part there is a lot of good information. Also see www.scottkelby.com scroll down for a great and short evaluation of the how the D300 is better than even the D2x

I have both. For studio it would seem that the D200 is fine. For street, the lower noise (about 1 to 1.5 stops in my experiments) might be beneficial in allowing you to shoot in lower light conditions.

 

For me as well, it's the small things about the D300 that tip it over the edge for me - the bigger LCD, the ability to zoom in quickly on a pic, the slightly-better Custom Settings, etc.

three arguments for the D300:

 

1.) Significantly better dynamic range, especially in the highlights, and you'll really be able to take advantage of this as you shoot NEFs not JPEGs.

 

2.) 25% more resolution. Does it make "all of the difference"? No, but it helps. What I think people see as a big difference is the difference in tonality. Even at ISO 100 and 200 the D300 brings out shadow detail far better than the D200 (or the D2Xs for that matter). I figure this as a big help as means I have less processing work to do.

 

3.) better AF and metering.

 

 

Between ISO 100 and 400 there is very little difference in low level noise. Above 400 the differences become increasingly apparent.

Lose the D200 and go for the D300. Image quality is much better on enlargements. Its better in dull light situations, and if you're shelling that much out anyway, Id pay the extra for the extra....I see a huge difference in the picture quality. No where near the noise. I bought 2 when they first came out. Im still saving for the D3 but until then..*drool drool*....I'm extremely happy with the d300. Even if you only shoot outside....cant go wrong....and at least with this is you decide to do inside stuff...your prepared

My Nikon rep said reviews were mixed on low ISO IQ. He did not have his long enough to try for himself. I think

I`ll get the full frame 22MP D3? when it arrives.

 

Until then for my pics at 100 ISO, the D200 is fine.

I'm not an expert, and I've only held the D200 once in a camera shop. But I did just recently get the D300 and have been playing around with it for a couple weeks now. During my research I found a handful of reasons that mattered to me to choose the D300 over the D200.

 

 

#1 Noticeably better quality pictures (to the naked eye) at ISO's 800 and higher.

 

#2 Better build. (so I was told) The D300 has better seals against weather and dust - thus giving you longer camera life. Self cleaning sensor.

 

#3 Noticeably better picture quality in SOME situations...such as: better shadow detail, better low light performance, better white balance, metering, and better AF.....all of which can give you better quality photos in some situations.

 

#4 Better battery life. I was told w/ the D200 you really need a to purchase a battery grip w/ it. I just bought a $36 2nd battery for my D300 and that gives me more then enough shots. Two batteries is a heck of a lot cheaper then that $250 grip.

 

#5 The extra pixels are helpful if you are blowing up pics and cropping. This probably doesn't matter to the average user really - but I am planning on blowing up many of my pics for framing.

 

From what I know the D200 is a great camera and I was actually planning on buying the D200 at first. But I was not looking to buy used and after comparing the small price difference I went w/ the D300. If you are OK w/ buying used and $ is an issue then I think you'll love the D200 w/ a battery grip. You are saving nearly $1000 by going w/ the used D200.

 

I didn't want used so going w/ the D300 was a no brainer for me. I wasn't actually aware of the hype surrounding the D300 until I bought it and spent some time here reading people's opinions and then hearing it won the camera of the year. (I've been out of the photography loop for 15 years) All I know is I love this camera and the build quality is obvious once you hold it in your hands and take a picture.

 

As of right now I don't think there is another camera on the market of this quality and price. For me "features" really don't mean much. I want a camera that is build like a tank, will last a long time, and take great pics. If you were buying new I think you'd be a fool to buy the D200 over the D300. There is only a $200 difference in price.

From what you're telling us I don't think you'll need the D300. If you're happy with the D200 - - stay with it. It's a great camera, though I must say I love the sharpness of my D300 - so superior to my D200.

 

Lil

Save your $$$$$. Keep the D200. You won't see any difference in image quality after post processing. And you can afford another lens now.

Marko, your observation about the noise "some noise but it has different character (it is finer and much more film like)" is likely correct. Others have reported the same thing. It appears some noise reduction is being applied within the camera even when noise reduction is turned off. The D3 shows the same characteristics. I believe that the equivalent D200 image processed with advanced noise reduction software will be at least equal to the D300 image and possibly have more detail.

Get the D300. You'll soon find you'll need faster focussing, dynamic D-lighting, live view, lens specific fine focus adjustment, a status screen on the main lcd, dust reduction system, 100% viewfinder, a few extra pixels, and more cross hair type focusing spots. I owned the D200 and now have the D300. I'm not kidding. It's an amazing camera. That, or screw it and get an M3/M6/Hexar RF (which I also have). Truth be told, I often take my Minolta Tc-1 because of it's size and find it more than adequate.

<<I'm a studio and street photographer - no need for fast AF, no need for high FPS, no need for high ISO shooting above 800. >>

 

you answered your own question. d200.

Thank you everyone for your replies! I still have a week before the return policy expires so I

am going to put this thing through the paces to see if it will work for me.

Your hardware is ok but I would close the gap in pixels and in noise and color with getting good plugin software to A. UP-Rez the resolution which you can double in software without anyone being the wiser. B. Elliot posted interesting review on DXO software for improving noise and you can see about bringing forth shadow detail while holding down noise.

 

The software will I think make up for the main advantages of the D300 over the D200. There are always ways to save money and work around not wanting to upgrade until the time is of your choosing. Thats when the time will be right for you and it will be apparent to you when it is.

Just shoot the camera. Its not that big of a difference. I'd be more concerned on the shooting and the pics than obsessing on the difference between these two cameras. I've been shooting street w/D200 since it came out, and it works fine on the street. I tend to shoot it at 320 even in bright daylight, because I don't like the over clean, sanitized look of ISO 100. The noise can be very grain like.

I own a D200 & just sold a 20x30 print from it. I was simply blown away with the fact that the image lost absolutely nothing in terms of sharpness or image quality. The image was photographed using a Nikon 35-70/2.8 AFD, mounted on a Gitzo tripod & cable release, lens hood, etc. If I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't have believed the image would hold up that well to that much magnification. The image was a sunrise shot of a farm scene at ISO 100, with quite a bit of the farm still in shadow. I have NO plans of upgrading to a D300. To sell it for slightly more than 1/2 of what I paid for it after only one years use is totally unnecessary & would be a waste of my hard earned money. If I had a real NEED for better high ISO performance, maybe, but for images I've taken & sold, which include sunset afterglows where the sun has already set, NO digital noise is even remotely visible in 12x18 enlargements.

while I was happy with the D200 - a combination of some weird electrical behavior of the

D200 (which scared me away from the used digital route) and a larger than expected

Christmas bonus resulted in a returned D200 and a shiny new D300 for me.

 

I'm off to shoot!

Ron, I did the same thing as you with my D200, minor post processing and was amazed at how good an image was made at that size, so was my client who immediately asked what camera I was using .. and so, was my printer who shoots Hasselblad digital .. both wanted to know what I did to the image .. the printer took my jpeg image, merely enlarged and removed a spot of dirt from my cliet's shoe and asked what mp camera that was .. so, if I can amaze a guy who shoots big files at 22mpx .. I think I'm more than satisfied with my D200 at 8x10, and 16x20 ....

 

I held and test fired the D300 in the store this week .. because of all the glowing commentary I read here ... but heck, it does nothing for me .. that I can't accomplish shooting the D200 ... and I even shoot at higher ISO's like 800 to 1000 for events ... not a problem.

 

I've stopped giving cameras 5-star ratings; nothing is coming out that is so revolutionary to produce better pictures .. only minor tweaks here and there, and some marketing fluff ... perfect cameras don't exist and no high end camera is blowing away the lesser priced cameras in picture quality, otherwise, we'd all be throwing them in the dumptster for the new generation .. easy boy, hold your hats, another new camera a'coming ..

Elliot wrote:

 

"It appears some noise reduction is being applied within the camera even when noise reduction is turned off. The D3 shows the same characteristics. I believe that the equivalent D200 image processed with advanced noise reduction software will be at least equal to the D300 image and possibly have more detail."

 

> Of course there is subtractive NR, that is required with all CMOS sensors -- the process is similar to long exposure NR where a black frame detects ambient noise and subtracts it from the final image. This is no different then what happens with the D2x and Canon cameras.

 

However, your assertion that software accomplishes the same and that the D200 is in any way superior to the D300 is incorrect. I see differences in detail and noise even at modest ISOs (I will be posting examples of an ISO 280 shot in a new thread on this very topic).