Nikon d200 VS d300s

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by geoff_jansen, Jan 24, 2010.

  1. Hey guys, i have a friend selling a nikon d200 in really good shape for about 500$ or i could buy a new d300s for about 1800$ iv been reading alot of reviews about the two but i can deside on what would be better for me... I take pictures of mostly sports and a little bit of wildlife. At the moment i shoot with a olympus e-410 and i know that the d200 would be a huge upgrade, but that also means i dont have any lenses that will work on a nikon...
    So i need your help, Buy the d200 and get some pretty good lenses or buy the d300s and not get the greatest?
  2. Geoff -
    I've shot the D200 and D300 for years - never had any complaints about either.
    D300s has a better High ISO (shooting in low light)
    D300s has a better AF system (Sports)
    D200 will deliver good results, but it is 3 generation old tech now.
    My advice - if you're shooting low light - get the D300 and some ok glass. If you're doing baseball, soccer, outdoor stuff - get the D200 and get some great glass.
  3. i just got D300S and the quality at high ISOs is amazing. maybe it's because i've never had a higher end DSLR and for over a year been shooting film but i'm amazed. i only have a video as an example at this time. it was shot at ISO 1600, 3200 and HI1 - - most of it shot at night. the photos look even better. i would certainly recommend this camera.
  4. How about a D90? It's way cheaper. What specifically do you need at the D200/D300 point that the D90 doesn't have?
  5. The D200 is the first digital camera I have owned-I bought a new one within the last year and I find that it does well at or very close to its native ISO of 100. I find that 400 is max for decent image quality, whereas th D300 does very well at higher ISOs. I am saving my pennies for a D700 or some other full frame digital.
  6. The D200 was announced in 2005. Yes, technology changes, but let's consider the reason. If computers aren't selling as replacements, or software versions aren't released requiring more RAM or storage space-that's the market hype...
    My favorite camera is film, and (the N90S) went out of production by 2002. We're looking at the D200 as a second camera-not a replacement due to the features and digital option. The D200? What a price NOW. Go for it-not because it has 2008-2009 bells and whistes. Some do collect one or more bodies from every camera generation? Don't get caught up in that world, go with quality pix, features and save yourself some money for great vacations!
  7. I too would say, get a D90 and glass. AF is the same as on D200, but sensor and high ISO quality is D300s level. You can always upgrade your body later on, if you find you really need 51 AF points or the more rugged body. But coming from a Oly 420, I would take the D90 with kit zoom 18-105, the 70-300 AF-S VR (!) and start shooting. Shoot RAW, try Capture NX2 (and learn how to use it, it's a great software).
    D200 is a good camera, but it's good in things you don't really need right now. At the end of the day, it's all about the picture, not the camera. I own both D200 and D300. I would not buy the D300 if I would not have money left for good glass, and I would not buy the D200 any more today except for general shooting in good light. I will change mine for a D90 soon, anyway, since I need a backup body with similar image quality as D300 and cannot afford a second D300 (or D300s).
  8. D200 is OK, D300 is fantastic. I wouldn't spend $500 on a D200, but I would spend $1800 on a D300s. After you get the D300s, you won't feel the need to upgrade for many years.
  9. Thanks for the help so far.. i will mostly be using the camera for skiing and biking.. witch are both outdoors and usually pretty good light. as for the d90, if i was to buy a d90 i would rather spend the extra 400$ and get the d300s, so id say the d90 is sorta out of the picture...
    and if this makes a diffrence.. I do know how to use a camera pretty good, as i have been published in online bike magazines and many bike websites....
    But yeah, like i said the d200 is 500$ so that means i would have about 1000$ to spend on lenses (possably a little more) but if i was to get the d300s i would only have about 200-300$ to spend...
    At the moment i would say 2000$ is my MAX budget.
    Thanks Again!
  10. Steve: I was acctully looking at your comparison earlier today! and yes i would say that is good enough quality!
  11. Unless you're constantly shooting at or below ISO 800, skip the D200. It's excellent at the lower ISOs, but it's a dog above. I'm not sure shy the D90 is out of the picture, but for argument's sake, the D300/D300s is much better for ISO 800-2000.
  12. Why don't you take a used Nikon D300? Price is not more than 1000-1200$, with almost 5000-30.000 shots. Or a new D90, if you want video options.
    I don't like 18-105VR. Take a single good lens first, maybe a Nikon 16-85VR AF-S or Tamron 17-50/2.8 AF or AF-S or with VC (but it has a higher price with VC=VR) and a cheap and very good lens like 50/1.8 AF-D (120$). So you have two lens to start your life with Nikon.
    After that you can complete with 70-300VR AF-S, 80-200/2.8 AF-D ED, 70-200/2.8 VR AF-S, etc...
    Good luck!
  13. I don't know what those of you that are shooting the D200 at ISO 100 or 800 are doing, but I consistently shoot / shot mine at High 1 and had no issues. Of course I did use a noise reducer in post...but really...
    D200 is a good high ISO performer. D300 / D300s is great. Based on his budget of $2,000.00 then the D200 is the way to go.
  14. For sports and wildlife you need a good, zoom and faster telephoto lens. I recomand 70-200VR but is 1700$. Or AF-D 80-200/2.8 ED.
    Canon have cheeper solution like 70-200/4 (600-800$) and 70-200/4 IS and 70-200/2.8 (1000-1200$) . Canon 7D is a nice competitor for D300.
    If you don't have faster lens f/2.8-4 you must compensate with a good iso.
    Btw, I am a Nikon user, but in this case we don't have a cheaper solution for tele lens.
  15. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    i will mostly be using the camera for skiing and biking.. witch are both outdoors and usually pretty good light ...
    But yeah, like i said the d200 is 500$ so that means i would have about 1000$ to spend on lenses (possably a little more) but if i was to get the d300s i would only have about 200-300$ to spend...
    At the moment i would say 2000$ is my MAX budget.​
    Geoff, I think you have already answered your own question. Sports and wildlife photography both demand some long lenses, includng photographing skiing and biking. If your overall budget is $2000, most of that should go into lenses. While the D300/D300S are much better sports/wildlife cameras than the D200, you clearly cannot afford them with the current overall budget. (I currently own both a D200 and a D300, and I have used a D300S for over a month with over 5000 images from it.)
    It makes absolutely no sense to spend $1800 on a body (or somewhere around US$1550 or so on the D300S in the US) and $300 on lenses. You'll be so limited by the lens that you are merely wasting your D300S body.
    I would first work out which lenses you need; I think that is the higher priority. Get the D200 for now and save for a better camera later on. For lenses, Nikon has various options. You can still get the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D for about $1000. A couple of years ago I sold my 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S for about $850; a used one is an option if you want AF-S.
  16. Totally agree with above post. Wildlife is all about lenses. Ones that will do what you want aren't cheap. First you need to find the lens (lenses) you need that will do what you want. I would budget at least $1,500 for that, and that's buying used. (Such as used Nikon 80-400mm VR or 300mm f4 + TC-14E.) Buy lenses. WIth the money you have left, buy a camera.
    Kent in SD
  17. Thanks Guys, your posts really helped. I think im going to go with the d200.. but if you still have more suggestions please tell me!
  18. A D200 is a really good camera at $500. Produced excellent results for me. Battery life is a bit short; you might want a spare battery for an afternoon of shooting.
  19. FWIW, the difference between the D90 and D300s at B&H is over $700 now.
    I agree with the above posters that you should pick your glass first.
    Lastly - you should be able to articulate why you want a higher price point option over a lower; otherwise you are wasting your money. (You don't have to tell us your reasons, but you should have some.)
    "if i was to buy a d90 i would rather spend the extra 400$ and get the d300s" is just silly if you don't need the extra features the D300s has, even if the difference was one penny (note that the IQ on these two cameras is basically identical). Same with e.g. the 70-200 vs. the 70-300.
  20. Geoff, maybe a total different suggestion... An Olympus E3? Build and speed are A OK, certainly comparable to the D300/D200, for wildlife/sports the extra cropfactor of 4/3rds isn't a bad thing, and you already have Olympus gear.
    Unless you really want to switch to Nikon.
  21. IMO, old technology is still good when it comes to any DSLR produced after 2007. I still use a Canon 30D, and have mostly bought better lenses to produce higher quality photos. Go for the $500 D200
  22. Here's a thought - get the D200 for $500.00 and then get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 zoom for under $800.00 - I use both the Sigma and the Nikon 70-200 and personally I prefer the Sigma - it is a little lighter than the Nikon, and the zoom is backwards, but to my hands - it's a better fit.
    Funny thing is that my wife who shots with me all the time - loves the Nikon and won't touch the sigma.
  23. Even with digital, lenses are a better investment. The difference between D200 an D300 image quality is smaller than the difference between a cheap consumer-grade lens and a nice pro one. The D300 and a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR would cost $2,400. I would rather buy the D200 @ $500 plus the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR for a total of $2,300.
    The D300 will be available to you next year of the year after for $500. (Sometime after the D400 comes out.)
    The only reason I would choose the D300 would be if you know you will absolutely need the extra stop or two of ISO, in which case, I might skip straight to the D700. (Which is what I did...)
  24. I've too owned both the D200 and the D300s cameras. The D200 is a respectable camera, even today. My opinion of the D300s is very high, though, and I would recommend it over the D200 if you are using it for professional purposes. The built in video feature is especially nice on the D300s, as is being able to use two cards at once.
  25. I agree with the D200 choice you've made. I have a D300, and its great. But I've learned over the last two years that its the lenses far more than the body. Besides there is a freedom in not sinking an entire budget in a camera body. Look, the D300 is better than a D200, but as others have already said, the differences are less than the difference between a fast lens and a budget one. If I knew then what I know now - and mind you I still adore my D300, I'd grab that D200, a fast wideish prime like a 20mm 2.8, and some brackets that let you mount the camera on a bike for some amazing unique images. The D200 will work in snow and rugged environments very well. Use your budget for some used Nikon lenses. At some point, you'll be ready for a new body, and at that point, with the experience gained on the first 500 you've spent, you'll make a much more informed decision.
  26. Ok, Thanks Guys.. now for the lenses do you have any good ideas one some lenses that would be good? i was looking at the sigma 70-200 f2.8 but have read some bad reviews on it... what do you think?
    and do you guys know of any online used camera sites perferably in canada?
  27. I own the D200, D300 & D700.
    D200: poor battery performance, poor ISO performance >400, good images with fast glass. Good for landscape with tripod, so so for sports...need good lighting, fast glass & monopod
    D300: great battery performance (>1100 shots RAW per charge w/o grip), very good ISO upto 800, even 1600 is ok. Good for sports, great for landscape w/tripod
    D700: just great
  28. Hi Geoff.
    Great choice considering your budget mentioned earlier.
    Personally I shoot a D3 with a Nikon 80-200 2.8 VR and a D200 in my bag as backup. This Nikon 80-200, as with most Nikon lenses, is an outstanding performer on both bodies in my opinion.
    Get the great glass over a compromise any day I say... you won't regret it I assure you.
  29. Do a search on eBay for Cameta Camera, a camera store in upstate NY. They use eBay to increase the business they do in the store. They are a Nikon Dealer so all have a US Nikon guarantee, have good business practices, and also sell used cameras with ratings you can depend on. Once when I ordered a battery pack they advertised, they apologized as it was out of stock, due to being sold in the store. Waited for one to come in, and they gave me a better than advertised price for waiting.
    From time to time they run an auction on various cameras. You can do a search for D300 that have been sold, to find out the lowest price. Then, bid no higher. You may lose some to other bidders. But, if you are patient, and wait until one is offered that no one notices, you can get a really good deal.
    If you get involved in a bidding war, stop bidding. Personally I do not bid on anything until less than five minutes before it closes. Then use a "snipe" program to enter a bid higher than the latest, and get it for less then the top price Im willing to pay. Saved over $700 on my D200 and used some for a 70-300 VR from them. It took me 3 months to get the price that I wanted. The wait was well worth it.
  30. Hey, Guys I just bought the d200! I really like it.. now i need some lenses, what do you guys think would be good?
    I think im going to get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but what else should i get? and if you guys have any experince with the Sigma 70-200 please let me know what you like and dont like about it!
  31. mizore

    mizore A Gringa in Nicaragua

    Everyone can use a 50mm f/1.8 on a DX body (serves at short portrait lens and is cheap). If you're willing to work with manual lenses, pick up a used 24mm f/2.8 or so which will work as equivalent angle to 35mm lens on full frame. You probably know if you like wide angle or not from earlier shooting. You can also pick up either a 18-70mm or 16-85mm slower lens for a walking around lens. The 18-70 is cheaper and older; the 16-85 has VR. If you get either with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, you'll have most of the range covered, just not with fast lenses at the lower end.
    Did I say that everyone needs a 50mm f/1.8 AF D? AFS is even better since you can just grab the focusing ring and adjust. This is the lens when you are just walking around wanting things to be simple and light weight.
  32. Hi, interesting. I am going from my D60 to either D200 or D300. Primarely because I need a more robust body for outdoor use. I have a couple of Nikkor AFS lenses and hope they will work with the new body. As I am not operating higher than 800 ISO the D200 should be OK, and I have some very attractive offers on used bodies. I don't need the many new features on the D300s and is first of all looking for a quality camera that can stand outdoor work. Should I go for the D200?
  33. I had the same debate in my head. I was/am using a D60 upto this point. I have a decent collection of manual focus lenses (Kiron 105 AI, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180, Leica R 60mm macro elmarit) and was getting a lit fed up with the histogram metering. Especially under macro conditions, focusing is a pain in the ass as it is and I just felt that I did not want to deal with metering as well.
    So......just spent $620 on the bay and got myself a Nikon D200 with 1000 clicks. I guess its $50-$100 more than what you could potentially get it for, but there are not too many around with such a low shutter count.
    The D300 was out of question for me, because the cheapest used one would be at least $400-$500 more expensive and I frankly don't care about high ISO performance that much.
    I see people arguing all the time that the D300 is the state of the art with better handling of noise, high ISO performance.....but personally I had to draw the line somewhere. Nikon is always going to come up something that outshines the previous model and 1-2 years down the line, people are going to bitch about the D300s, claiming that the D400 has it all!!!
    I would rather spend the bucks on glass.
  34. Was just cruisin' round the net looking for info on the Nikon D200 and found you guys....I was just curious to see if it was worth it to buy a D200 I saw on Ebay for $200.00, and judging from the responses I've read here it looks like it may indeed be so. I AM rather partial to a camera with a high ISO.... the majority of pictures I take aren't in the most well lit of places, but seeing the prices for the newer Nikons out there nearly gave me a coronary, so I'm thinking that this baby might be a pretty good bargain. So....what d'you guys think? Is $200 a decent price for the baby or should I sell my house, my car, my husband and our 5 kitties n' buy myself something newer? Oh, the lens is a Sigma 28-90 mm it worth the trouble?
  35. Yeah, sell your husband first, I'm sure that'll make him much happier.
  36. I'm having a D200 and thinking of exchange it for a D90.
    My biggest concern is that will I get a much better IQ at higher ISO.
    How many stop does the D90 advance over D200 ?
    For you guys that used a D200 and switch to D90: do you miss the controls on D200? Is the AF system of D90 less advanced than D200?

    To Lamon: If I find D200 cameras for 200 bucks each, I would buy a pair of them. If you intent to invest into Tamron I suggest 17-50 f/2.8 which has reasonable range on DX and lightly priced.
    Whatever you choose, selling your husband is a must :D. If this is done successfully, I guess you have enough to get the D3s + 24-70 f/2.8 Nano + 70-200 f/2.8 VR II + 24 f/1.4 + 35 f/1.4 + 85 f/1.4 + 105 f/2 DC + SB400 + SB900 :D

Share This Page