Nikon D300 vs D200 Vs D90 Vs Nikon G10 !!

[michael_hahn]

I have a D200 which I like except for the noise at higher ISO settings. I was thinking of either upgrading to a Nikon

D300 or a D90. I see the Noise in a D90 is very low and the reviews are great. Would I be disppointed going from a

D200 to a D90? Also, I like the specs on the new rangefinder type Powershot G10. If I forget about the D90, and just

get the G10 (and save 500 bucks!), I am thinkng I might be more prone to always carry it because of the size.

However; I notice that the sensor is CCD, so would the noise level be poor? Should I insead consider the equivalent

Canon with a CMOS sensor?

 

I shoot a lot of portraits, some livestock.

 

Thanks,

 

MIchael.

[photo5]

D300

[eric_arnold]

michael,

from an IQ and high ISO standpoint a d90 is just as good as a d300. that said, the build of the d300 is much closer

to what you are accustomed to with the d200.

 

hard to say whether a d90 would be disappointing to you or not. but i think if you are disappointed with the high-ISO

performance of the d200, that you will find a G10 frustrating at anything over ISO 100 or 200. you might want to look

at the panasonic lx3 as an alternative to the g10, which can do ISO 800 cleanly and has f/2 max aperture at 24mm.

but the lx3's IQ wont be as good as the G10's at lower ISOs.

 

but this is really apples and oranges, since even a high-end compact P&S will have limitations a DSLR doesn't. and,

obviously, a DSLR will have a larger form factor.

 

my suggestion is to prioritize between high ISO performance, build, and compactness, and price, and purchase

accordingly.

[gregf1]

if you were comparing the D200 to the D90, I'd say get a D200. If your comparing the D300 to the D200, and price difference is not an issue for your wallet get a D300.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Nikon G10"

 

....The Powershot G10 is a Canon model. I assume that was a typo.

 

>> "However; I notice that the sensor is CCD, so would the noise level be poor?Should I insead consider the equivalent Canon with a CMOS sensor?"

 

The G10 is about as good as a pocketable P&S with a 1/1.7" sized sensor with current technology can be. But it serves a different purpose than the DSLRs. It sensor is many times smaller than a DSLR's, I personally wouldn't expect its high ISO performance or even image quality to be on par with the latest generation of Nikon DSLRs. Chances are a D40 will be able to produce better images than a G10. Bytheway, I don't believe that Canon makes a G10 equivalent with a CMOS sensor; chances are sensor size will matter more than sensor type.

 

>> "Would I be disppointed going from a D200 to a D90?"

 

I own a D300 and just had a chance to play around with a D90. It's a very solid camera. It doesn't feel cheap, when compared to the D300. It's just relatively simplified. The D90 lacks the D200's metal body and direct controls, it can't meter with AI lenses, and it's smaller and lighter. The D300 provides many pro-grade bells and whistles such as 100% viewfinder coverage, 8fps capability with the MB-D10, and the 51 point AF that you might ot might not need. The D90 is essentially, as of now, the cheapest camera Nikon has that comes with most of its latest technologies and features. As a D300 shooter, I find the D90 very comfortable to use.

 

>> "I have a D200 which I like except for the noise at higher ISO settings."

 

That essentially means you would be happy with a D300 or D90; and you'll be extremely happy with a D3 or D700.

 

If you want to purchase a camera with better high ISO performance and a portable camera, we're essentially taking about two cameras here.

[michael_hahn]

Sorry, I meant the Nikon P6000 compared to the Canon G10. I already have the D200 ... just thinking I would like something exceptionally sharp that I could shoot in low light. I am a contax fan, and have a G2, so am used to shooting with a rangefinder. The Nikon D200 is nice, and I have some great glass for it, but when traveling it does present a "size" problem, so have been considering getting a camera I could have on my hip (like a cell phone!), and pull out when I want to take "that shot".

 

michael.

[davidfong]

Hi Michael,

 

I currently use a D200 as well. I don't know what type of glass you are shooting with so I can't honestly answer to

the type of camera you should be using. In my opinion I think you should get better glass if you don't have any, and

learn the limitations of the camera. Its better to be able to work with what you have, then to spend money on what

you think you need. I agree with Eric, the D300 will be more to what you are accustomed to then the D90. Since you

are already using Nikon, you are more wise to stick with that brand unless 1/ You don't like Nikon anymore (for

some personal reason) , 2/ You are prepared to purchase a new set of lenses ($$$$). All the cameras are good, its

the photographer who makes it better. Hope that helps.

[shuo_zhao]

>> " I already have the D200 ... just thinking I would like something exceptionally sharp that I could shoot in low light. "

 

That means D3/D300/D700/D90 (better high ISO performance than the previous generation) and some fast glass could be nice to have in your situation.

 

How much budget you have?

 

You should probably get a new Nikon DSLR for low light shooting and a G10 or P6000 or LX3 for portability. Though I personally think a compact DSLR would be a much better buy (image quality wise) than a compact with a small sensor. The D40 is essentially just as small as some of the larger P&S cameras. Its only problem with portability is that it doesn't fold flat and won't fit in a pocket (unless it's a large jacket pocket). But in return, you'll be able to get excellent image quality and relatively good competibility with your Nikon lenses and accessories. Make good use of your Nikon lenses is a good idea. I've gotten many high quality images with a 24-70 f/2.8 on a D40x. Afterall the lens matters, and most likely the quality and selection your Nikon lenses would provide far greater capability and versatility than a non-interchangeable lens on a G9/P6000/LX3.

[eric_arnold]

"Sorry, I meant the Nikon P6000 compared to the Canon G10. I already have the D200 ... just thinking I would like

something exceptionally sharp that I could shoot in low light. "

 

this is a bit confusing here, as is your question. about the 'equivalent Canon' (they dont make a P&S with a CMOS

sensor) are you saying you want a better DSLR for low-light or a compact P&S for portability? you can''t have both.

 

sharpness obviously comes from lenses, not bodies, and there are very few if any P&S cameras that can be called

low-light champions (the best of which tend to max out at around 800-1000 due to their smaller sensors, except for

the discontinued fuji f31 and f20).

 

also, at base ISO, there's not going to be a whole helluva lotta difference in IQ between any of nikon's

D-series unless you are printing very large or pixel-peeping. if high ISO performance is what limits you the most with

your d200, a d90 would be a sensible bargain, as it may actually be better than a D300 at 1600/3200. if you want the

ruggedness you're used to plus high-ISO performance, and a more professional feature set, though, a d300 is a

better choice.

 

as far as p6000 vs. g10, neither will have low noise at higher ISO values. the biggest advantage to a p6000 if you

already have a nikon system is probably the compatibility with nikon speedlites. if you want a compact with better

low-light performance than most, you should look at the panasonic lx3. also, you might be able to get better low-light

performance on your d200 with something like the new sigma 50/1.4.

[shuo_zhao]

What Eric said are correct.

[shuo_zhao]

What Eric said are correct.

[Two23]

What about a Sigma DP1 for a compact? Big sensor in that one.

 

 

Kent in SD

[eric_arnold]

kent, the dp1 is a fixed focal length camera with max aperture of f/4 that reportedly has horrible jpeg performance and a lot of shutter lag with RAW. i'm sure its crispy at ISO 100, but you're not gonna get great low-light performance out of that one except mounted on a tripod. the dp2 improves the max aperture to 2.8, but i havent seen any evidence that foveon sensors can handle high ISOs better than a high-end compact like the lx3.

 

one of the biggest selling points of the g9/g10 is the decent zoom, while the lx3 has a 2.5x zoom but the widest angle and the largest aperture. on the dp1/dp2 you get no zoom. for $800, they should have made it a f/1.4 and worked out the ergonomics and internal mechanics a little bit better. IMO, they're on the right track, but not quite there yet.

[robertbody]

I got used to the rubber grip and how it feels on a D200 (even before it, with F100), and when I went to a store to finalize my liking of D80, I just couldn't get it, the feel was just wrong. The body of D90 will be quite different from D200... D200 and D300 feel the same for features and feel (some buttons are different). The viewfinder possibly could be different. The best would be to try one in store and compare.. it could be a big change, it would be for me.

[carl_becker2]

I think you would be well served if you went to a camera store and had a good look at the D90. I had a D70 and upgraded to a D200. IMHO there is a great difference between the Dx00 and Dx0 bodies. I have not seen a D90 but since I am used to the D200 I think I would go with the D300.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "What about a Sigma DP1 for a compact? Big sensor in that one."

 

The DP1 has a large sensor, but its sensor doesn't provide any of the typical benefits of larger sensors. It has too much noise. The camera's performance, with both JPEG and RAW are not all that good. Its relatively slow fixed focal wide angle lens is probably OK for casual landscape and candid shots, but it's not all that good for portraits (unless you want your subject's nose to look big and ears to disappear). The camera is almost completely unusable if you want to shoot telephoto.