Need another DSLR - D300 or D200?

[jasonsmith]

I shoot weddings and have been using the Nikon D200 for a couple of years now.

I have been very happy with the D200 other than the level of noise in images

over 400 ISO.

 

I had an unfortunate accident a couple of weeks ago on my honeymoon in Italy

where I slipped down a flight of stairs into the Grand Canal. It wouldnt have

been so bad had one of my D200s not been around my neck at the time. I can

safely say that a D200 will not work again once it has been submerged in sea

water.

 

My dilemma is - I am heading home next week and have some weddings booked in

December. I have another D200 but need another camera for a backup. As the

D300 is about to be released it makes sense to upgrade however I have some

reservations.

 

1) There always seems to be issues with the first release of Nikon DSLRS

2) It's annoying that the D300 takes a different battery and vertical grip.

This would mean I have a spare MBD200 and a number of EN-EL3 batteries that I

cant use with this camera..

 

I guess I am looking for opinions on whether the D300 is with the additional

expense...if the claims of reduction in noise are true that could be worth the

upgrade alone....

[nickwhite]

As I understand it your EN-EL3 batteries are fully compatible with the D300, you just have the option to use the EN-EL4 type in the new grip.

 

Would you need the grip on the D300 with the increased MD speed?

 

Maybe the best option might be to pick up a used D200 for now, or even a D80, D40 etc for a temporary backup, then get the D300 after the bugs have been sorted by others?

 

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/NikonD300/page2.asp

[wgpinc]

If you shoot weddings you might want to consider a Fuji S5. Supposed to be the killer wedding camera, handles like the D200 and the price has come down. Good luck.

[jasonsmith]

Thanks guys

I wasnt wanting the grip for increased speed - although I would certainly welcome it. I prefer using the MBD200 on my D200 as it makes for easier vertical shooting, and for me makes the camera more comfortable to hold. I also like being able to load two batteries for extra shooting time.

 

I actually picked up a D40 to use on my holiday after the D200 died. Whilst it works OK for a holiday camera I wouldnt really like to use it for something as important as a wedding.

 

For me the backup needs to function exactly the same as the primary camera. From what I can gather althought the D300 has some enhancements it seems to have the same layout and controls as the D200.

[daverhaas]

Jason -

 

Another thing to consider is that even though the D300 will be "available" in November, Nikon is famous for not meeting demand for the first few months (at least here in the States).

 

Unless you're already on a wait list for the D300, I think that the chances of you getting it before January are slim.

 

The S5 is an excellent wedding camera. I bought one just for that purpose. Shooting either raw or jpeg, the S5 handles skin tone and contract better than anything this side of the 5D. And it uses Nikon accessories and lenses. Noise is slightly better up to 1600 ISO than the D200.

 

There are two drawbacks to the S5

1. The battery - It looks like the EN-EL3, even charges on the Nikon Charger, but it won't work in a Nikon, nor will the Nikon battery work in the Fuji. However, the MB200 will work on the Fuji, but only with the Fuji battery.

 

2. The Menu's - having used a D70, D200 and D40, the Fuji Menu's drive me bonkers. To me they are cumbersome and poorly laid out, but then again, I'm used to the Nikon's.

 

Dave

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

I shoot weddings and got to spend a little time with a D300 at Photo Expo this past Friday. I still wasn't a full production unit and I couldn't put a memory card in it, but here's my take on it: I shot the secne Nikon had set up with the D300 and my D80 and could only judge noise by zooming in on the camera's LCD. The D300 may only be a stop better at noise than a D200, maybe. The AF is considerably better. The D300 has a much snappier, responsive feel when you release the shutter.

 

If you shoot ceremonies and receptions in low light it's absolutely worth it to get the D300.

[Gup]

Jason, your best bet is to pick up a lightly used D2x on eBay or elsewhere. They are trading for less than the D200 cost when first introduced. I paid about $6100 before tax for my D2x here in Canada and last week one sold for $2300. I wouldn't shoot a wedding with anything less. The new Nikons will still be available in 6 months, or so, when they are tried and proven. Meanwhile, upgrading to the D2x will thrill you no end. You'll think you died and went to Ontario.

 

Keep Smiling!

 

Gup.

[ShunCheung]

Unless you must have another DSLR immediately, I would wait a bit for a D300. Maybe you can borrow or rent another DSLR for backup.

 

Incidentally, both the D200 and D300 used the EN-EL3e batteries. There should be no difference in that sense. For the grip, the D300's MB-D10 can use either the EN-EL3e, EN-EL4/EN-EL4a (for the D2 and D3 series) or 8 AA batteries.

[bsd230]

Since you won't really need until December, it might be worth it to wait until the release the D300. If they are having issues then get a D200 which I'm sure can be had at a nice price after the D300 is released. The D300 will probably be better at High ISOs and the larger file size is always helpful on large prints, not to mention it gives you more cropping options. I own the D200 and find it to be an excellent camera but all things being equal would take the D300 without hesitation, provided it lives up to the hype.

[jasonsmith]

Thanks guys - good advice. If the D300 really does perform better with low noise then the purchase on that basis alone will be worth it for me. The D200 as it stands is noticeable noiser than the Canons. I will look at the D2x or maybe renting a D200 for my next wedding although that can be kind of expensive here.