I see no reason to upgrade. . .yet

[eirik_wilberg]

I have to agree with Marko... It's not "just" an upgraded D200, its a new camera.

 

I moved up from the D70s, and the upgrade put the fun back in photography for me... the D300 doesnt get in your way, it just gives you very good results.

 

If you have a D200 and you're happy with it... dont try a D300, dont even think about it.

Because if you do try the D300, you wont go back to the D200.

[mjt]

i'm in complete agreement with David Craton concerning the FPS requirement. in addition to shooting sports with a D2x and D200, i've been accused of shooting nighttime football with an S5. during regional playoffs, a shooter for an out-of-town rag (using Canon Mk III) came over to me on the sidelines and said, "you're kidding me, right?", nodding at the S5 around my neck and D2x on my left shoulder. the S5 was my primary body (w/long zoom) and the D2x w/17-35 relegated for sideline action.

 

i told him to meet me in the media room during halftime. i downloaded the shots onto my MacBook Pro and let him fumble through the shots in Lightroom. his reaction? "dam, i'm not showing my shots".

[dcraton]

Yes, pic is resized per p.net rules. The point is capturing the ball hitting the bat at a D1 university women's softball game where the pitches travel upwards of 70 mph (103 fps) at less than 40 ft. by the time the ball leaves the pitcher's hand in most cases. Better be ready. . .do the math and know your sport. And we all thought math was useless in high school. Hah!

 

Eirik. I posted that I did try a D300. It's not the quantum leap I want. It's a nice cam. I am not tied to the D200, I am tied to spending money wisely. I went back to the D200 for the reasons stated.

 

MJ, cool. Keep firing and right on.

 

Bill K. Nice shot!

 

To all, I learned a lot and thanks. I appreciate your input as even in disagreement, there are things to learn and consider.

[eirik_wilberg]

David: Sorry bout that, I can be abit bombastic at times...

 

if the D200 serves you well, I dont see a reason for you to upgrade at all, as you have figured out on your own.

 

I am not a pro, so the D300 was not a buisness decision, and I could have gotten a used D200 for half the price of the D300, but I have a bad, bad case of NAS...

 

My reasons for choosing the D300 over the D200 when I upgraded from the 70s was: Battery life, high-iso performance, better monitor.

I didnt want to have to get a battery grip for a D200, as my arms arent the best around and the D300 + 18-200VR or 10-20 Sigma is already heavy enough<div></div>

[dcraton]

Eirik: no harm done and I did not take it personally at all, just explaining myself. Nice shot BTW! I have that same lens and absolutely love it.

 

As I said, if I wasn't in business, my purchasing decisions would be entirely different.

 

IHMO, you made a wise choice to get the D300 as that is a great upgrade for you from the D70 and your reasoning is excellent.

 

Thanks much.

[ShunCheung]

David, the difference between you and me is that I don't shoot baseball or any sports with predictable action. I shoot wildlife and surfing; there is no one moment when the ball hits the bat that I need to capture. Instead, for surfing, there are many twists and turns such that the "moments" keep on coming. The same for wildlife where the animal's behavior and motion is not predictable; you might think you have one good shot but the next one 0.1 second later can be even better. A slow camera such a Fuji S5 would have been very limiting in my type of photography. To respond to Michael's point: the Canon 1D Mark III's well known AF problems aside, if the other photographer using a 1D Mark III is totally beaten by your S5 shooting football, he clearly is not very good at using his camera, although you may have very good skills.

 

I used to think Canon's 45 AF points was too many and therefore the Multi-CAM's 51 was way too many. Well, I was wrong. Now with 51 AF point, for a slowly moving animal such as a swiming duck, I can keep the best composition while switching AF points one at a time to follow the animal's motion. It is far superior to the D2X's 9 AF point when I had to adjust the composition to keep an AF point at the animal. If anything, I can use a couple more rows of AF point above and below the current ones. Now, that is on a D300. On a D3 where the AF point are more concentrated in the center because of the larger sensor size, I would imagine that it is a bigger problem.

 

I totally agree that one should borrow or rent a D300 for a day or two. I didn't notice how good the D300 was until a couple of days ago, I went back to the D2X (not D200) for about 15 minutes and immediately realized the differences.

 

This morning I was watching a lot of elephant seal action. I took a series of 80 images of these two young bulls fighting, and every image is a little different.<div></div>

[dcraton]

"sports with predictable action". . .now that's an oxymoron. Oh there are patterns if you know the game, team, and players, but. . .

 

Shun, per your own author here at p.net, baseball is one of the hardest sports to shoot: http://www.photo.net/learn/sports/overview. Furthermore, to catch a ball on the bat often requires showing up early for batting practice to watch the players' swing as each is different, talking with the SID to know which players need to be covered, and you only have less than a half a second to know when to fire. And that is only one part of the game. I will give you this, you admitted you have not shot baseball and other sports and that makes what you posted understandable from your perspective. I will mention this, anyone who has shot sports can and will tell you that it is not predictable and that shows inexperience, which is OK as I don't shoot weddings and am terrible at it.

 

We shoot a lot of nature as well for corporations and office prints. Yes, surfing too. Dirt surfing. Nothing about photography is predictable. Hence, alert awareness, anticipation, and constant work on the craft will suffice. Go shoot a Kindergarten Christmas party with 20 kids and parents. . .now that's sports photography.

 

I will say it again. I did use the D300 and took it back. My post was not to be convinced, I was just curious if others had the same experience. It's not the quantum leap I want or need. However, I am considering options and future upgrades. Didn't I say this?

 

IMHO, you missed the mark here. But, I like you anyway. Merry Christmas.

[ShunCheung]

David, let me repharse it this way: you are providing an example, catching a baseball on the bat, that requires good hand-eye coordination instead of fast AF and frame rate. IMO that may be why you are not seeing the advantage of the D300 (and D3). In fact, the batter is not even running at that moment; you can easily use manual focus and get the same result. The batter's location and his/her motion are largely known beforehand; that, in my book, is predictable action.

 

However, not every type of sport, including baseball other than batting, and other action photography such as birds in flight, animals running ... work that way. And in many of those situations the D200's AF will show its limitations and the D300 will have a big advantage because of its short shutter lag, high frame rate and superior AF.

[dcraton]

Shun. All I can say is go try and do it with any cam. Your perspective on baseball photography is innocently incorrect and maligned via your admitted lack of experience. Incorrect on your part. Go try it and see how ?easy? it is. The batter?s location and motion are not known depending upon the following.

 

Here are the variables: how fast is the pitch, will the batter swing, will the batter bunt, will the batter get some "chin music", what is the count, is the batter a first pitch hitter, swing low or swing hi, which side of the field are you shooting from, where is the sun, how many outs, are there men on base and do you have your second cam pre-focused on a possible play at another base or the plate, will it be a: strike, ball, Texas leaguer, bloop single, HR, rope down the line, etc??? Do you want the pic to have the ball hitting the bat, the batter looking up as the crowd rises, anticipation as the ball comes in about 3 feet from the plate, how tight or lose is the batter?s swing, grimacing as the ball just goes under the bat, on and on and on.

 

I provided you with only one example in order not to post up too many pics to preserve space.

 

What I am saying is this: it takes more experience, intuition, and knowledge of the game than just a good cam to get a great shot. My D200s serve me well. I am sure the D300s would be even better. If you are relying on gear alone for a great shot, well enough said.

 

Sometime, just for fun, go get a press pass from an SID and stand on top of a dugout and shoot a college game. Till then, you might want to respect a different view from maybe someone who might be more experienced than you in one area of photography.

 

I never intended this to be a debate. I suggest we drop the egos here and move on. I will say this again. I tried the D300. It is a wonderful cam, but not enough for me to warrant the upgrade per the reasons stated. My perspective only. I am glad you like yours.

 

BTW, your D300 is already out of date, has limitations, and obsolete. It is the nature of the current rate of technology in that most products are bygones by the time they hit the shelves for sale.

 

You love it now, but if you are like me, you will ditch it sometime for the newer and better model. We all do. And I will.

 

Peace.

[mars790]

" I really dont see it much of an upgrade at all per IQ" - "It's not the quantum leap i want or

need"

 

Let's not compare the D300 to the D200. Let's compare it against the D2X.

 

-at least equal in IQ at low ISO

 

-major improvement at high ISO (not as valuable to me as others but...)

 

-oh, how i gaze upon the LCD screen - cough

 

-better AF system

 

-Active D-Lighting (now used at all of my interior shoots)

 

-more extensive custom options (the extent of which are still impressing me)

 

Pro glass really shines on the D300. Images are smoother and more detailed compared to

my D200 and I love(d) my D200. Even if it's not the quantum leap that you hope - any

small improvement of IQ is very valuable. And the added features are over the top (imho)

 

The D300 isn't for everyone. It needs an experienced hand to get the most out of it. I think

you would enjoy the possibilities. I'm now using D2X mode I for my kitchen shots and

spending less time color correcting-partly due to the superior metering and auto WB. I

could go on.

 

Like you say, all we can give is our own perspective. I am not trying to convince you to

make a purchase. My career is just starting but this tool is already helping me. Don't tell

Nikon, but i would have paid $500 more. That is how pleased i am with this camera.

 

btw, my D300 isn't obsolete until Nikon drops the D3X or a D400. At which to both i say -

yes.

 

Happy Festivus!

[elliot1]

My primary criteria for judging the worthiness of a camera is the quality of the image it supplies with regard to color, contrast and exposure accuracy. The D200 excels at all of these. Its consistently accurate exposure without blowing out highlights and beautiful color rendition are attributes which may keep it a very attractive camera for some time to come. I cannot comment on the D300 as I do not have one.

 

I have yet to see side-by-side comparison shots that show any significant difference in image quality (at lower ISOs) from any Nikon DSLR camera to another at any price range up to $5000. Whatever differences I have seen are minimal, usually related to color saturation, contrast and exposure, and could easily be adjusted in-camera through settings or through a Photoshop like program.

 

While there are numerous improvements in the D300, putting advanced Photoshop-like features into a camera (like noise reduction and D-Lighting) to me is a non-issue. 8fps is about as useless as 5 or 11 (yes, there are exceptions, of course, but for high speed action, 11 is simply not fast enough to get that exact moment). Now, had Nikon greatly increased the dynamic range of the D300, that would be a different story.

[rf1]

I believe you will be fine sticking with the D200. The D200 is "new" for me right now and I have not begun to explore the possibilities. The D300 is a step up but as others might have said - a "step up" happens just about every 18 months. I had the D80 - waited until the D200 came down in price and really dont feel like I am missing anything right now.

[michael_alger]

I find it interesting that the reasons the D300 increasingly tempts me are barely discussed here. Me being an amateur, coming from Leica SLR to D200 a year ago. D200 made me switch to digital and so far, I was quite happy with it. My limited budget (The Leica period was made possible by the well know auction site) is - well, tends to have been more and more - dedicated mostly to glass.

 

So, having not tried the D300 yet, this is why I see less reason not to upgrade every day. My question is, which of these arguments can you comment on, based on practice rather than on my theories:

 

Ever noticed an ugly dark spot of dust while somewhere in the nature? The D300 dust removal feature, worth anything?

 

The 95% view finder of the D200, ever had problems to properly frame a picture, e.g. when doing macro on a tripod? The 100% of the D300 should come in handy here. Same for the life view in combination with the said-to-be very good display.

 

Off course, the other goodies (high ISO IQ...) should be welcome as well, however, 100% viefinder, please anybody tell me, that I do not have to upgrade, yet...