D200 vs D300 vs D700 for a film guy

[kayuh_laju]

<p>Technical officer 1: D700 sir, yes sir.</p>

<p>Captain "Smith": Are you sure?</p>

<p>Technical officer 1: Positive sir, D700 sir, yes sir.</p>

<p>Technical officer 2: Canon 5D Mark II sir, yes sir.</p>

[emraphoto]

<p>i work on a d700 and let me star by saying it is a smashing camera! you have to see iso 4000 to believe it... that being said my advice would be as follows.<br>

get a d200. you are coming from the film world and really the only MAJOR handicap the d200 has is above iso 800 you're going to get, well... film like results. i for one don't think thats such a bad thing ( i still shoot A LOT of neopan 1600). the d200 is a well thought out and well designed camera. it's also pretty tough. is it a d700 (or d300)? no it isn't but it's a great camera.<br>

invest the remainder in lenses with some thought to the future. the d700 might be in your grasp (without breaking the bank) in the near future and perhaps by then you'll have a few zeiss zf's to slap on the front of it.<br>

forget the digital out resolves 35mm mentality. if you are shooting critical work (landscape) you aren't shooting 35m anyhow. 35mm was a medium of convenience originally and the digital capture most certainly falls in that framework. when you realize how much $ (both in materials and time) you will save to get pretty much the same results you will be able to decide for yourself. </p>

<p> </p>

[heartyfisher]

<p>Keep shooting film... ... Its a great medium.. even the $8000 d3x may only be equal to a good film expoture. </p>

<p>If you really want to start playing with lightroom or photoshop. Get a high end P&S that produces Raw. or a D60 for your travels. You can get a good scanner to scan your film then process in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Once you are more comfortable with the medium then you can decide. The longer you put it off the bettter the gear you will eventually get. It will easily take a year of mucking around with your new camera and PC and Software to get comfortable with Raw processing and Photoshop and get a workflow going. Not forgeting the space requirements and backups and memory cards and camera settings, monitor calibration, and a system crash or 2. By that time. Who knows the D700 may be obsolete(well maybe not)... but it wont be more expansive. We may well be reccomending the D400 and D700x then. Many of us film shooters started with a P&S to get our digital feet wet.</p>

[heartyfisher]

<p>Just wanted to expand on my suggestion to keep shooting film. For what you describe as your photography methodology and the subjects you choose. Film is a great choice. Digital definitely has its advantages over film but for your choice of subjects I think film still have a big advantage over digital.</p>

[garrett_smith2]

<p>A lot of what you guys are saying is true. If I really want a fantastic landscape shot I will bring my MF stuff, although it is super cumbersome. For travel I usually have the Leica or the F2. I am really intrigued with the idea of being able to see a shot as soon as I shoot it, though I am not going to lie and say that I do not enjoy processing the film to see how the photos turned out. It is kind of exciting. I think that gets to another problem for me is that I have never had a problem getting the results I want from film, though sometimes it takes a couple rolls to get one good shot, maybe that is where digital could be more fun just clicking away without ever having to change film. </p>

[noah]

<p>It's really a choice only you can make. But my advice would be go for the D200 or skip to the D700. The D300 seems like it wouldn't offer that much improvement over the the D200 for your uses.<br>

I had to make the same choice as you. I was experienced with digital but had to buy my own gear for the first time (I had worked at a newspaper that provided gear since 1997). I was leaning towards the D200, but when I went to B&H to see the cameras first hand the viewfinder of the D700 is what sold me.<br>

It might not be 100 percent, but it's large and bright and it gives a better view than the smaller finders on the cropped cameras, in my opinion. The larger focusing screen is great, and it seems to make manual focus lenses easier to use, which might be an issue for you. It is for me, I use mostly Zeiss manual focus glass with my D700.<br>

Now that I've been working with the D700 (Two of them, actually), I really appreciate the amazing high iso capability. It's the first digital camera (with the possible exception of the full-frame Canon 5d), that really feels like a film camera to me. The lenses behave the way they should and the depth of field is different than the crop cameras. It's really a great camera and I've been more than happy with the results.</p>

 

[emraphoto]

<p>the problem with the point and shoot idea is the limitations with point and shoot digital cameras are great. i would prove to be a frustrating intro to the digital realm if you are coming from an m6... <br>

the "finding the materials" part of your post (OP) was the deal breaker for me. IF i can find my film of choice in my travels (neopan) i am lucky. if i can find d-76 in my travels... well you get the idea. </p>

 

[tholte]

<p>Scratch the 200 and if you have the money, get the D700. If you want to get your feet wet in the digital world and save a thousand dollars, get the D300 and see if you like the filmless process. "I feel with film that the camera is only as good as the photographer but with digital it seems as though the camera is only as good as the person doing to post processing." Definitely not true and a feeble excuse by film only shooters to curtail their imagination and creativity. You can do as much post processing or as little as you want. Before the film nuts blast me, I still shoot some 35mm and medium format with my Pentax 67. Get the D700 and don't look back! </p>

[joe_plumber]

<p>How about a little cannon P&S? Then you have a digital camera, that wont weigh you down, yet keep shooting film for what is important. It will save you thousands of bucks, which you should invest, and buy a camera that <strong>could actually compete with your MF film</strong> in about five years. None of the cameras you mentioned will do that.</p>

<p>If you dont like that suggestion, then one last thing: dont buy the D300. Its in between, not cheap enough to make you glad you bought a DX camera. At least the D200 is cheap so you wont have have felt completely ripped off when you need a new camera in a few years.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Others have mentioned this, but the process of switching from film to digital is a lot more complex than the camera. The elements of workflow (importing, processing, storage, archiving) are different from film and add cost and time. It becomes more complex the more you want to make sure you don't lose your work. I would think through those elements, because carrying the necessary equipment while on the road, maybe not as convenient as film!</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Don't get too excited Shun, just presenting alternatives that most do not consider. Many serious Canon photographers are using Nikon, Contax, and Zeiss lenses on their 5D bodies with exceptional results. My apologies for not mentioning stop-down metering. Suffice to say that despite it's horrible reputation the Kodak SLRn produces stunning results superior to a D2X at low ISO. The most telling result was that the Kodak SLRn with a 400/2.8 AND TC-14B out-resolved a D2X with JUST the 400/2.8! The comparison used the converter to make up for the view of the crop sensor body and used the base ISO of each. </p>

[tcalbaz]

<p>I might as well throw in my 2 cents in too : )</p>

<p>Perhaps you might want to just get your feet wet first before jumping into digital photography. I have several camera's; the D70s, D200 and the D700. I love them all for varying reasons. I do portraits, weddings and landscapes as a sideline.</p>

<p>You might want to just pick up an inexpensive 6 megapixel D70s and try it out to see if you like it. This way you can keep using your investment in prime lenses. If you find that you do like the Digital medium then by all means jump in, sell the D70s and go right to the top with a full frame FX format D700. If budgets a concern then the D200 or the D300 are both excellent camera's too in DX format.</p>

<p>Please let us know what you decide upon!</p>

<p>cheers!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't understand why people suggest the D300 over the D200 for Garrett. I don't at all have the impression that he needs fast AF or high ISO, and battery usage should never be a concern for landscape work. All he needs is to carry an extra batter or two.</p>

<p>The main advantage is that the D200 is now very inexpensive. That plus a 12-24mm type DX lens will take care of most wide-angle issues. That will give Garrett an opportunity to get familiar with the digital workflow.</p>

<p>Or he can go straight to a D700. The downside is that some of his existing lenses may or may not work well with the D700. I always feel that it is risky to invest all of your budget into a DSLR body (that will certainly depreciate rapidly) and leave no money to update some lenses.</p>

<p>I don't think it is a good idea to get a digital P&S or something less than a D200. For an established film photographer, that would be a very poor introduction to digital. Today, a new D200 is merely $700 to $800. You cannot save a whole lot by going to a less DSLR, new or used.</p>

[peter_n1664876959]

<p>Garrett I'm a film guy, I use Leica MPs and a range of Leica glass and also have a 35mm film scanner to digitize my B&W shots for the internet. My job is computer-based and late last year decided to buy a dSLR for family snaps and suchlike and the main criterion for me was the absolute least post-processing out-of-the-camera files I could get. The last thing I want from my hobby is more time in Photoshop or other computer apps!</p>

<p>Long story short I bought a Fuji S5 Pro which is a D200 with a Fuji sensor. Amazing JPEGs straight out of the camera, no need for RAW, absolutely minimal post-processing - in many cases none needed at all. You can still buy them new for around $580 from the UK. This is the only digital body I'll ever need.</p>

<p>No digital camera can give you the look of Agfapan 100 + Rodinal but this Fuji & my old Nikkor glass is awfully convenient... :-)</p>

[rick_lee]

<p>"I shoot mostly landscapes, travel shots and have done some weddings here and there but mostly for friends. Photography has become a hobby for me but I would love to seriously get back into it like I was in school pursuing the more artistic and experimental side."</p>

<p>I would recommend the D300 for some very simple reasons. First is the high ISO capability. Whether he is visiting a cathedral in Germany or a museum in Perth, camera flashes are rarely allowed. The high ISO performance will be a Godsend as it will when doing weddings. As for experimental photography who knows where that will take him. With any of these cameras he must add a good flash and that brings him up about $300.00 on the price. In all liklihood his old flashes will not serve with any of these cameras unless he has an SB-600 or SB-800 about the house. </p>

<p> Garett said that the $3K of the D700 would preclude his buying any lenses for sometime. He will not be at all happy with his primes while in his travels. He specifically said he was looking forward to not lugging camera equipment around and those old AI's lenses will cripple the D300 and preclude him from experiencing the true convenience of high quality autofocus zooms. Its like going to Disneyland and not riding the rides.</p>

<p>So here is the deal. I will take Garrett at his word that he is limited to what a D700 costs and we will call it for a year. The D700 costs $2995.00 form B & H with an instant rebate of $300.00. So I figure he has $2699 to spend. He should buy: D300 kit with the 18-200 AFS VR zoom. (It is as good a travel lens as exists anywhere). $2199.00 from B & H. He should add an SB-600 flash $225.00 and a Nikkor 50 mm F1.8 for $134.00. (For when he waxes nostalgic.) All of this comes to $2558.00. That leaves enough for shipping, a spare battery and CF card. If he wants to substitute the grip for the 50 mm lens and push the price a little I would not quibble but he doesn't really need it.</p>

<p>What a wonderful travel setup this would be. In his current idiom (35 mm) he will have the rough equivalent of 27 - 300 mm. The VR (for at least non-moving subjects) will give him <em>at least</em> two stops over the non VR version so given that wide open wide open this should put him at something like the film equivalent of a 27 - 300 AFS F1.8 to F3.5 that alone should make him grin. And then routinely shoot this rig at 1600 ISO without much noise at all!!!! Life-changing. Oh yea. With a single 8 gb card he is carrying the equivalent of 30 - 36 exposure rolls of film with a useable ISO range from 200 to 3200 and the ability to push or pull that a little. If somone had told me they could do this for under $3K in 1970 when I was shooting an F2 I would have told them they were watching too much Star Trek". </p>

<p>So finally there is his concern about the learning curve in photoshop. It will take him about two hours to get the hang of doing absolutely everything he can do now in the darkroom. The rest will be just icing on the cake. In fact, he will probably be be overjoyed with elements and save the expensive program for later.<br>

When/if he goes to the D700 he will need to think about some lenses but my bet is that he will not be inclined to do than anytime soon. </p>

<p>Garrett you are in for an e-ticket ride. Good luck in your travels.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Hi Garrett,<br>

I feel that I have some similarity to your photographic position, so I will offer some thoughts. My main interest is landscape photography, and for many years I have shot with my Nikon F4, and mostly AIS lenses. When the D80 was introduced, I jumped into digital, using a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as my primary lens. I would like to have gone with the D200 so that I could meter with my AIS lenses, but the price difference from D80 to D200 was significant. I also use an AF Nikkor 85mm 1:1.8D for both the F4 and the D80. As a long-time slide shooter, I still hang on with film, as I enjoy it and am happy with the results. I am also happy with the results of the D80, which is, to my understanding, nearly the same sensor as the D200. Since I nearly always shoot landscapes using a tripod, high ISO performance isn't a concern.</p>

<p>I also bought a Pentax 67 and a few lenses, as it is a very good choice for landscape photography. In addition to the quality chromes I can produce, I have become very attracted to the aspect ratio of the 6x7 format, which is very close to the 4x5 aspect ratio. In reading reviews of the D700, it is often pointed out that the D3 has an option to shoot at a 4:5 aspect ratio, whereas the D700 does not. This is meaningful to me, and is more meaningful than high ISO performance, and other digital features. It will be interesting to follow the evolution of the FX format, and hopefully the 4x5 shooting option will become common.</p>

<p>In the meantime, I see the D200 as a very attractive option for jumping into digital. The price of the D200 has fallen proportionally more than the D80. You will end up with a rugged, versatile camera body capable of professional results, especially when using a tripod. For travel photography abroad, I would think that the D200's ISO 400 would suffice for shooting hand-held. My D80 has produced some wonderful urban photographs at dusk, using a tripod and low ISO's. I have recently entertained the thought of selling my D80 and buying a D200, as the sensor of these cameras is, for me, good enough. The weather sealing of the D200 is attractive, and I could also meter with my AIS lenses.<br>

Chris</p>

<p> </p>

[laverephoto]

<p>When I went digital, I got my feet wet with the very consumer oriented D70. The price was low enough to get me rolling. Before I upgraded to the D200, I had the money to get some decent lenses. I will eventually get up to the full frame models, but my images are standing up pretty well with the last generation's technology.</p>

<p>If you are just entering the digital world, budget carefully. You are in for some expenses as far as computer hardware and software. Everything you think you will save on film will likely go into those expenses. That's another reason to live within your means on the body.<br>

Coming from film, you have probably minced the differences between dslr's v. your medium format kit. Even the D200 will be so nimble compared to your medium format manual cameras, that you will have a whole new world of creative possibilities. As for the quality of film, certain 35mm films can still outperform a dslr, but a modern digital camera like the D200 outperforms 35mm high ISO film easily.<br>

If you are on a budget, better is better, but good enough is good enough. Live within your means and you will be happy. If you are creative, you will find ways to keep your image quality high without going into debt for the tiny incremental improvements that we see from one generation of cameras to the next. </p>

[johnw63]

<p>Shun mentioned..</p>

<p>"I don't understand why people suggest the D300 over the D200 for Garrett."</p>

<p>I'm with you there, for the price. What I think are the reasons are...<br>

1) Better high ISO noise for low light stuff<br>

2) Active D lighting to control bright spots<br>

3) Reduced CA on all lenses.<br>

4) Larger and much better LCD screen<br>

5) Much better battery life</p>

<p>Even with all that, the price of the D200 at Best Buy makes it almost depreciation proof.</p>

 

[pankaj purohit]

<p><strong>D700 </strong> is better as <strong>you can use your existing 35mm SLR lenses</strong> on that as the same focal length behaviour and the size and shape of D700 is <strong>more compact </strong> than other two described.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>interesting thread... have to agree with shun here as the voice of reason and moderation once again....</p>

<p>for landscape, i don't think you can go wrong with a D200 at current prices. it's a pro-caliber body and if you're not shooting over ISO800, many of the advantages of the d300/700 will be somewhat extraneous. the LCD is nice and the active d-lighting too but for someone just diving into digital, getting a d200 and some new glass might be a better use of money than dumping more money into a newer body, especially going the d700 route since in all likelihood you will have to spend even more money on glass than with a d200/300. that's just the way it goes with FX.</p>

<p>for example you can get a new d200+ nikon 12-24 (or a tokina 11-16) for less than the price of a nikon 14-24 alone. if you're printing really huge you'd want a A900 or a 5dmkii anyway, unless you have 8 grand for a d3x...</p>

<p>OTOH, to be perfectly honest, if you're shooting landscape at base iso, you can get great results from a canon G10. probably not what d700 owners want to hear but it's the truth.</p>

<p>then again, if you want to use your older nikon lenses, a d200 is an amazing deal, since the depreciation hit has already been factored in--those cost $1600 three years ago and now go for $650. even if you decide to upgrade the body in a few months, a low-actuation d200 can be sold for almost what you'll pay for it.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>Given that you have good film cameras, I might be tempted to scan slides and then process the scans with Lightroom and/or Photoshop. The steepest part of the learning curve for migrating to digital is the post-production software.</p>

<p>Given the features vs cost in real-world terms, the question isn't D200 vs D300 vs D700, it's DX vs FX sensor size. IMO, if you decide to go DX for now, get the D200, otherwise, get the D700. As you know, the big cost over time won't be the body - it'll be the glass. You could get a D200 with non-DX lenses to start, with an eye toward going to an FX body later on.</p>

<p>If I didn't already have a D200, the Best Buy deal would be <em>very </em> hard to turn down, especially for a first DSLR for an experienced photographer. IMO, $1k+ for D-Lite and a couple of stops better high ISO performance just isn't worth it when I consider putting the money toward nice glass that will go on a newer body later on (or a <em>lot</em> of good software). YMMV. If you get the D200 and think you will want to go FX in the future, about the only DX lens you'd want to get might be something in very wide-angle, if very WA is appealing to you.</p>

<p>Your transition should be a smooth one in terms of camera migration, since you're already a skilled camera user. Digital post isn't a panacea, but it is way more versatile and powerful than wet darkroom techniques (although traditional B&W printing still has the edge over digital for now, IMO). In the end, nothing beats getting the initial capture right, and you already know how to do that. Good luck, and enjoy the new tools, whichever way you go!</p>

[garrett_smith2]

<p>Everyone makes such great points and this choice just gets harder and harder by the post. If I do go with the D700 I will probably have to unload some of the film stuff. I would hate to do this because I would be spending lots of money on a depreciating asset while my film stuff just seems to go up in value. The D200 is an attractive option for me because of the build quality and the fact that it feels so much more like a film camera than the D90. I really do not think that I would need the extras that the D300 has to offer but then again I have never had those options available to me so it would be uncharted territory. Maybe these are things that I have been missing in using film? I do not know one side of me says that I should save the money buy the D200 and learn my digital style, what works and does not work for my personal interests while not investing a ton of money. Once I figure it out then I can invest in something more substantial that really suites me and my needs. Looking forward to more comments it is so helpful to me and my decision which I plan to make by the end of the week.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I have (and can strongly recommend) the D300, and obviously the D700 would be the top choice if price were no object, but in Garrett's position (no need for very high ISO or state of the art AF), I think I'd go for the D200. Bestbuy currently has them at $650 USD - cheaper than a secondhand D200 from KEH, and more than $1000 less than a new D300. The picture will change a bit when the D300's successor is released, of course (which many tarot card readers expect to happen this year). I'd agree that it's worth investing mostly in FX lenses with an eye to the future, probably supplemented by a standard or wideangle DX zoom for convenience.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Perhaps it is just me, but it looks like Garrett is converging to an answer.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the D700 is still $2400 at B&H. Nikon USA requires the stores to list it by the minimum advertisting price $2999.95 minus the $300 rebate, but if you put the D700 into the shopping cart, the final price is $2399.95.</p>

[peter_n1664876959]

<p>Blimey I would never pay $2400 for a dSLR. A Leica film body yes, the cost of ownership of a Leica is next to nothing, but a dSLR depreciates very quickly. OTOH that D200 at BestBuy for $650 looks pretty good to me!</p>