Nikon d200 VS d300s

<p>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... <br>

So i need your help, Buy the d200 and get some pretty good lenses or buy the d300s and not get the greatest?<br>

-Thanks</p>

<p>Geoff -</p>

<p>I've shot the D200 and D300 for years - never had any complaints about either.</p>

<p>Differences<br>

D300s has a better High ISO (shooting in low light)<br>

D300s has a better AF system (Sports)</p>

<p>D200 will deliver good results, but it is 3 generation old tech now.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>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 - <a href=" - most of it shot at night. the photos look even better. i would certainly recommend this camera.</p>

<p>How about a D90? It's way cheaper. What specifically do you need at the D200/D300 point that the D90 doesn't have?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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).</p>

 

<p>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. </p>

<p>Geoff - here is a comparison I ran a few years back. Take a look. <a href="http://dustylens.com/d200_vs_d300.htm">http://dustylens.com/d200_vs_d300.htm</a><br />Here, also is a 100% image from a D200 and a Tamron f2.8 28-75. Is this enough quality for you? Click on for a 100% image.<br /><a href="http://dustylens.com/Perry-1478-C.jpg">http://dustylens.com/Perry-1478-C.jpg</a></p>

<p>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...<br>

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....<br>

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...<br>

At the moment i would say 2000$ is my MAX budget.<br>

Thanks Again! </p>

<p>Steve: I was acctully looking at your comparison earlier today! and yes i would say that is good enough quality!<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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...<br>

Good luck!</p>

 

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

If you don't have faster lens f/2.8-4 you must compensate with a good iso.<br>

Btw, I am a Nikon user, but in this case we don't have a cheaper solution for tele lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i will mostly be using the camera for skiing and biking.. witch are both outdoors and usually pretty good light ...</p>

<p>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...<br />At the moment i would say 2000$ is my MAX budget.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>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!<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>FWIW, the difference between the D90 and D300s at B&H is over $700 now.</p>

<p>I agree with the above posters that you should pick your glass first.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>"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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Unless you really want to switch to Nikon.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Funny thing is that my wife who shots with me all the time - loves the Nikon and won't touch the sigma. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>The D300 will be available to you next year of the year after for $500. (Sometime after the D400 comes out.)</p>

<p>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...)</p>

<p>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.</p>