D200 to D300

[www.roelandebruijn.nl]

I currently own a D200 with Sigma lenses (17-55 and 55-150 at 2.8)

Should I update my D200 to D300? I am trying to breaktrough in bridal

photography, so light and ISO's are important to me. I could also save up money

and buy better (Nikon) lenses. Is the update worth the premium I will have to

pay for the D300?

[tim_knight]

Roeland, Are happy with the quality of pictures you get from the Sigma lenses? If so you have the fast glass you need. That leaves the camera and only you can decide if you can afford the D300.

[elliot1]

Feature wise, the D300 offers a host of improvements and advantages. Image quality wise, the D300 does offer some improvement over the D200 at ISOs above 400 although PP can balance out that advantage to a point.

 

What ISO do you want/need to shoot at? Will you be using flash?

[rombon]

My opinion backed by personal transition from D200 to D300 is that the upgrade is well worth the price, especially if ISO over 200 is important to you. Also do not underestimate much better and more reliable AF system in D300. Ant there is a bonus: at least double number of exposures on a battery with D300.

 

Regards, Marko

[hash]

>> I am trying to breaktrough in bridal photography, so light and ISO's are important to me.

 

Maybe what you need is flash units.

[jim_orr]

I just did switch to the D300 from the D200. I never complained about the 200 and never will, it is a beast that has served me well and will continue to (as a back up). The extra frame per second actually makes a difference in sports shots, also the images are basically ready out of the camera. I used to adjust most of my D200 shots with contrast and exposure before saving. With the D300, I look at them and say"looks good to me" and move on. High ISO is a nice bonus as well. You still have to be careful not to trust it too much or let it get too high, because the camera is not a miracle worker. Finally, I wont shoot much anymore with the 200 because the 300 is clearly better. Jim

[joe_a2]

I shoot a D300 and previously shot the D200.

 

I would recommend keeping the D200, and investing some money in REALLY GOOD lights and upgrading your lenses. I love my D300, but the D200 is still a great camera with great output.

[ShunCheung]

For wedding photography, the superior high ISO performance and low-light AF capability on the D300 should make the upgrade worthwhile.

But do you feel those weaknesses on the D200 so that you need the improvement?

[www.roelandebruijn.nl]

Do I feel the weaknesses of the D200? Well I dislike shooting with my SB800. So I do have a working solution to low light, namely speedlight. But I do not really like using a flash. This is partly because I am just not that proficient with it, yet. But also because it cramps my style a bit. I try to shoot PJ style so as to minimize my being there have an effect on the proceedings. Using flash makes being invisible rather hard ;)

So my question should probably be: will the upgrade to the D300 make using a SB800 unnecessary? Shooting indoors at the venues and for the party.

[ShunCheung]

Compared to the D200, the D300 will give you an extra stop on higher ISO: very usable ISO 1600 and decent 3200, but it somewhat depends on the exact situation. If you want the best high ISO performance, the D3 is roughly another 1.5 stops above the D300 and, of course, over 2 times the cost.

 

I would say the D300 will make the SB-800 unnecessary in some situations but not in all situations. Keep in mind that if you have strong overhead lights, there can be a lot of up-to-down shadows on faces. Regardless of how good a camera's high ISO performance may be, some fill flash to eliminate the shadows may still necessary.

 

Again, I am generalizing here. A lot depends on each exact shooting condition.

[frank_skomial]

"I am trying to breaktrough in bridal photography" AND "so as to minimize my being there have an effect on the proceedings" - so, do you really want to become a wedding photographer with this attitude ?

 

Ideally, a hired photographer plays "first viloin" there, and people obey his/hers orders when there is proper time for that... e.g. not to step before your camera, push back nasty pocket camera shooter aside, etc. You must be visible there and play major role, or else you will be photographing backs of pocket camera shooter crowd, and may not get chance to do your job. You photography will not differ much from the snapsooters crowd, even if you get D300.

 

If you want to get rid of flash D300 may not be enough, and prepare yourself for D3. You would only use NO flash, when you are not allowed.

 

As a professional wedding photographer you need to provide your own controllable lighting of sufficient quality and quantity. The bar has been raised and without proper lighting you could get outraced by snap shooters.

[juan_parm_nides]

Simply, I agree Frank Skomial.

[georges_walker]

From the business point of view, actually you are not going to pay for the upgrade but your customers; including betters lenses!

 

If you are good enough at shooting, your customers will pay you based on your quality, from every project you shoot, you will be able to save a percentage just for the D300 fund.

 

While in business, as long as it well managed, customers become "partners" in our adquisitions.

 

Do not hesitate about upgrading, focus in the good business you need instead.

 

Good luck.

[trunfio]

Quick suggestion: If you really dislike shooting with the SB800, then I would suggest read

the strobist site and see if you then feel the same way. Learning to use the SB flashes well

has totally changed my shooting style.

 

Do you have a backup body? If not, consider keeping the D200 you own and getting a

D300. I had a camera fail at a wedding, not good.

 

If you are happy with the Sigma lenses, no need to upgrade. I really only upgraded to the

Nikon equivalents because I use my lenses all the time and was looking for build quality

and wasn't concerned about price. But both those lenses are good lenses. And for

wedding work, I find the 70-200 Nikon kind of heavy. The 50-150 Sigma is a better walk

around tele.

[www.roelandebruijn.nl]

Thanks for all the feedback.

I will take this in consideration. Will let you know about my decision. But will probably stick with my D200 for this season.

 

Reaction to Frank Skomial: off course it is important to make sure you get the shots you need off the day. But I want the couple to enjoy the day, and for me to get my shots. So I try to minimize my presence. This off course does not mean other people can creep in front of me. I will not hesitate to remedy that kind of situation.

[vic_.]

Roeland, Do you have a backup camera? Or do you go to the wedding shoots with just one body, which could be suicidal? If you need a second camera, then the D300 might be the camera to get, with the D200 as the backup body.

 

You really need two cameras for such shoots, just in case...