D200 vs D300 vs D700 for a film guy

[greg_m4]

<p>Garrett, are those lenses ai?</p>

[heartyfisher]

<p>With sensors. There are several things to consider.<br>

1) Mega Pixels.<br>

2) Dynamic range<br>

3) Colour Reproduction.<br>

4) In Camera processing<br>

5) Something else I forget.. there may well be a #6 too... lol<br>

(sorry just teasing you High ISO, High Frames Per second fanatics)</p>

<p>1) Megapixels - Of the choices mentioned so far D200 D60, D90 D300 D700 They have basically the same number of pixels. 10-12 Mega pixels. SO there is very little to differentiate them</p>

<p>2) Dynamic Range - The D90 Has the widest then the D700 then the D300 and the D60 then the D200. There is a significant gap between The D300 and the D60. As the D60 and D200 uses an older generation sensor. The D60 scores better here because its got a better processor.</p>

<p>3) Colour on all Nikon sensors are excellent. However I have noticed the at the feel of the D300/D700/D90 is slightly different. There is a touch of "neon" tinge to it. Some people think its "bright and happy" I am not too sure i like it.</p>

<p>4) In camera processing. The New Expeed processor reduces noise and removes Chromatic Aberration. Its Acitve D lighting helps al ot with the DR. The D200 does not have Expeed.</p>

<p>For your style of photography I believe that you will be using Base ISO a lot. High ISO performance should not be an issue for you. At Base ISO all the sensors are very similar in performance except for the Dynamic range. I also believe you wont be needing the High Frames Per Second. used by Sports or Photo Journalist.</p>

<p>Price is an issue. (isnt it always ... sigh)</p>

<p>As suggested by, I think 2 others, please consider the S5Pro. It is in a D200 body(Therfore same ruggedness and build) with an amazing Sensor. The DR(Dynamic Range) for that sensor at Base ISO is the highest of any camera. By about 3+ stops above The D200 and about 1-2 stops above the D300/D700/D90. Also the colour of the S5pro is truly superb esp for skin colours and textures. ( another poster said that there is much less post processing needed. This is the reason why there is much less PP needed[colour and DR]) The disadvantage is its resolution is similar to an 8 MP nikon( although the new firmware update released this year has improved the resolution quite a bit.). For your intended use, in landscapes it provides the ability to capture the wide DR of a sunset and still keep a lot of the details of the dark foreground if you so desire. You will find that it will heve much less burnt highlights.( highlight detail recovery from the raw file is SIMPLY ASTOUNDING )</p>

<p>The S5pro is now cheaper than a D200. It used to be $300-$500 more expensive and was still a favorite of Weding Photograpers. (ie. lots of skin, lots of DR, lots of scenary). Do check out the S5pro. Or a nice P&S like the F200 EXR (http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/f/finepix_f200exr/features/index.html)</p>

[jbm]

<p>Garrett, if you want to take a look at my gallery a huge number of photos were shot with the Sigma 10-20, also a fair number with a lensbaby 3G. Mostly I have gone back to film but still use the D300 a lot. If you look under my folder "REcently..." the first 10 or so photos from Nicaragua are all D300 photos, many with the Sigma 10-20. In my other folders, all of the wide shots are with a 10-20. It is very good, but I am not sure it will support FF as you stated.<br>

Any of the bodies mentioned will be great. Let us know what you choose! The Fuji is an interesting option.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Jay</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>"My real reason for going digital though is merely the convenience of it all and the fact that I am moving abroad and will be doing a lot of traveling."</p>

<p>Garrett, I have re-read your original post, and will focus on your statement about travel. In years past, in the pre-digital age, I have lived and traveled quite a bit in Europe, film camera in hand. My next trip will be by invitation to Morocco. If I were to leave tomorrow, I would take my D80 (because I own it). For lenses, I would take the the Tamron 17-50mm zoom, and maybe buy an AF Nikkor 28mm f2.8. Although the 28mm repeats a focal length of the Tamron, the small, light lens would be great for travel. Using a crop sensor, the 28mm becomes 42mm. Why 42mm? Years ago, Mike Johnson wrote "The Sunday Morning Photographer" column on Photo.net. Mike's columns are now available on the Luminous Landscape site. Here is a link to Mike's column titled, "Why 40mm?"<br /> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-may-05.shtml</p>

<p>For small and light digital, and back-up, I would take my Canon G6 that I found used on Ebay. I chose the G6 because it's a good pricepoint in used, and it shoots RAW and jpeg. The fold-out LCD screen of the G6 works like a waist-level finder for discreet street photography.</p>

<p>I would take my Nikon FM and a couple of lenses, 24mm for sure, and maybe a 50mm, or an 85mm, along with my little Gitzo 001 tripod. This is the Galen Rowell "fast and light" set-up for landscapes. In Galen's book, "Mountain Light", it's significant to note how many of his wonderful photos were taken with a MF 24mm lens. With my interest in the Kodachrome project, I would shoot lots of Kodachrome in my FM, and enjoy every minute of it.</p>

<p>I am re-thinking my advice for you regarding the D200. But first, let's leave behind thoughts of weddings, medium format, and manual focus lenses for your DSLR. How about a focus on travel, and all the photo opportunities you will encounter. Therefore, consider the D90. Now you get a modern sensor with high ISO capabilities in a reasonably light-weight camera. The D90 doen't cost a bundle, and who wants to worry about a very expensive camera while traveling? Personally, I would also enjoy the video capabilities of the D90 in my travels. Choose a wide to telephoto zoom lens, and consider the AF 28mm lens for a compact system, and there you go. An Epson P3000 viewer will store and back-up all your digital work.</p>

<p>Regarding your lack of experience in post-processing: no big deal! Photoshop Elemements is inexpensive and easy to learn, especially with a little help.<br /> Chris</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[g._v.]

<p>Man, all this teeth-gnashing over nothing! And now the OP adds that he might be tempted to switch to a Canon 5D (not a good idea IMO but it will likely add another 25 posts to this thread...).</p>

<p>If you have $2400 sitting around then a D700 is the logical choice if you must have an FX DSLR.</p>

<p>Otherwise, you can go the relatively inexpensive route and get the D200 and either a Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 for around $1000 total. The wide-angle end of things is covered and you can continue to use your current lenses. If digital doesn't float your cork then you can sell the items for close to what you paid for them...</p>

<p>I've been shooting film as an amateur and pro since 1981. When I finally put my toe in the DSLR digital waters I got a D80 and Tokina 12-24. I have a bunch of Nikkor lenses (the Tokina is my only third-party lens) starting at 20mm including the usual 2.8 zooms and moving to a DX camera is No Big Deal to me. I actually appreciate the smaller cameras and lenses...</p>

<p>Two years later I never touch my film cameras. I still use a Nikon Coolscan V for older images but the convenience and cost-advantage of shooting digital has won me over. A month ago I picked up a D200 from Best Buy; it has to be one of the best camera deals ever. I was thinking that I would keep the D80 as a second body but now I'm thinking of selling it because I prefer the D200 even if it does weigh 1/2 pound more...</p>

<p>One thing is for certain: if the OP waits too long the D200 Best Buy deal will be history and then you're looking at a D80 for about the same price as the D200 or an additional $500+ for a D90/D300. The D200 seems like a no brainer to me!</p>

[robert_spicer]

<p>I would go for the D200. I have had the D100, D70s and the D80. I love the D200 the most. Getting started in digital can get very expensive and if you look at it this way, $650 is not much money to invest in a camera these days. <strong>BUT</strong>, you will be getting a camera that has been proven over and again just how bullet proof it is. I would start out "small" and work your way up as you get more experianced with using digital. I am not trashing the D300 or D700 but I can justify many more things I could use my money for. Just my take on it and by the way, with the D200, you will absolutely love it!</p>

[garrett_smith2]

<p>G.V. do not worry I am off the Canon wagon, that was just a bit of a side tracked idea when I saw the price but then I realized I would not have any lenses and would have have buy an adapter to make my old lenses work. Like I mentioned before Nikon has always been good to me. I read the Christopher's post and the article that he referenced and it was very interesting and helpful. I am starting to think that the D700 might be too much of a camera for me as an initial investment and the D200 would offer me more of an opportunity to get my feet wet and really learn digital without the huge price tag.<br>

As for the processing, image quality and color characteristics of each camera. Are all the opinions and feedback that I am receiving based on files straight from the camera or files that have been processed through software? I went to a seminar on Aperture when it first came out a while ago and the presenter took an almost totally black photo and "rescued" it. So as I understand it the RAW image editing programs offer a more precise way of editing photos than simply bringing a JPG into Photoshop?</p>

[lwg]

<p>I've got a D300 that I find great for me. For my uses it is perfect. I like the way it works on telephotos. My 300mm f/4 is like a 450mm on the D700. For me that is important as I won't spend the cash on a 4/500mm lens. The wide angle zooms are just fine for my travel shots. I use the D300 as a travel and action camera. For that it is quite good. For landscapes the 4x5 or Mamiya 7 is worlds better than even the D3x for my purposes. In your case I would get the D200 and see how you like it. Evaluate what needs to be changed, if anything, and then get the D300 or the D700, or even the D3X. $650 is a good place to start. I got the D300 over the D200 because of the better autofocus. </p>

[beau 1664876222]

<p>The D700 has lot of convenient features. It can make nice available-light images indoors, which is the main reason I bought it (I needed to upgrade the fam-cam when I reached the 4-kid threshold). The 900 flash is remarkable also, if you need a flash (which I only rarely do). For any commercial project, I'd be happy using the D700.<br>

One of these days I'll find my inner geek and make some kind of controlled test among the systems, because like you, I have a M6 and keep a FE2 and Hasselblad too. But if I'm bringing one camera with me for personal work, it's still the M6, hands-down. There's still something magical about the look of film, and something about the digital process cheapens the experience a little for me. </p>

[g._v.]

<p>Garrett, I only shoot RAW. RAW files have significantly more data than JPEG and can be tweaked in many more ways in post processing. JPEG is akin to a Polaroid print, while RAW is closer to a film negative. If I need a JPEG it is easy to create one from a RAW file.</p>

<p>While I have Photoshop CS3 and Aperture I prefer Nikon Capture NX2 for RAW conversion and post-processing. NX2 has a number of interesting aspects, particularly for Nikon shooters:<br>

<br />1. All camera settings are retained when working with Nikon NEF (RAW) image files.<br /><br />2. There are many automatic adjustments available that simplify the image editing process.<br /><br />3. Global and local non-destructive editing can be done without having to use a separate application and you don't need to convert the file to a JPEG or TIFF. But non-Nikon photographers can use NX2to edit JPEG and TIFF.<br /><br />4. The most powerful aspect is the ease of imaging editing using Nik Software "U Point" technology, which uses "control points" to perform operations that require multiple steps in Photoshop and more than a passing knowledge of Photoshop intricacies.<br /><br />NX2 is not a Photoshop replacement. If you need to add text to images, create borders and frames, create panoramas, combine image elements, position the image on a page when printing and create HDR images, then you still need a program like Photoshop. But for most of what a typical photographer requires in an image editing program NX2 fits the bill nicely.</p>

<p>The only thing that I use Aperture for is image cataloging. </p>

<p>Capture NX2 is available as a 60-day free demo at the Nikon USA Web site. That should be plenty of time to see if it suits you. Jason Odell's NX2 guide (available online as a download) will get you up-and-running in no time.</p>

[axy]

<p>Many things have told above, those seem all true. But additionally i can express just one issue: bulk mode shooting is still a problem for digitals. I guess you will dissatisfy when you get and use a digital camera even a d700. But for general use, it is the best choice to take a d700. </p>

[tom_zillman]

Garrett

 

As someone who has gone through a similar transition to the one you are contemplating, I would give you a couple words of advise. First, the cost of the camera body is only the tip of the iceberg. If want to get the highest possible quality from your new camera (whichever one you pick), there is a considerable amount of software and hardware that you will need to purchase as well. One night I created my "dream D700 kit" by paging through a camera store catalog. It was not by any means all top of the line stuff, just serious, current photo and computer equipment. The total for camera, lenses, computer, printer, software, color management equipment, etc., etc. was over $17,000.

 

Second, the move from the equipment that you own to any of the cameras that you are considering is a 30 year jump in technology. There's a considerable learning curve there as well as in moving to digital. Since I'm about 20 years your senior, I may be stuck in my ways a great deal more than you are, but it does take some adjustment to move from being concerned with aperture, shutter, focus and film speed to being concerned with setting all of the settings on one of these modern cameras.

 

In an earlier post, I think a comment that you made may indicate that you may not understand the crop factor. On a DX camera your 20mm will act similar to a 30mm, your 28mm like a 42mm, your 50mm like a 75mm and you 180mm like a 270mm.

 

My experience with selling used equipment doesn't follow what some folks have said. Photography equipment is generally not a good investment. A Fuji S2 that sold new for $2400 in 2004 will now bring $200-250 on the used market. All of the cameras you are considering will follow the same path. If Best Buy is selling new D200s for $650, the value of used D200s is now somewhat less than that amount. Why would someone buy used for the same price as new?

 

There are a couple advantages to using a camera with a DX sensor. You can buy inexpensive VR lens that, while they're not all that well made, are optically excellent and the VR does work very well. You can also get very good results from older consumer lenses as you are only using the center of the lens which has the least amount of distortion.

 

I wish you all the best in making the decision. I bought a D200 in the fall of '07 and have been happy with it.

[peter_n1664876959]

<blockquote>

<p>Are all the opinions and feedback that I am receiving based on files straight from the camera or files that have been processed through software?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Garrett in the case of my comments about the Fuji S5 I'm taking 6MB+ sized JPEGs OOC and doing a bit of tweaking on them, no RAW. The tweaking consists of compressing levels a bit, +5% saturation & contrast, and mild USM. That's it. In some cases I don't need to touch the OOC files. If I knew what I was doing I could probably do that most of the time actually.</p>

<p>I'm really only using this kit for convenience. I much prefer rangefinders and B&W film. I'm going to take it to the next demo I go to with the new 35/1.8 to see if I can tolerate using it in that kind of situation. Could be the thin end of the wedge though... ;-)</p>

[g._v.]

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If Best Buy is selling new D200s for $650, the value of used D200s is now somewhat less than that amount. Why would someone buy used for the same price as new? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tom, I tend to agree with you... digital cameras just don't hold their value like desirable film cameras did. I suggested the D200 because it is the least amount out-of-pocket for a "prosumer" Nikon. Much of the depreciation has already occurred and while it will probably go down even more Garrett is probably going to know within 3-6 months if digital is his cup of tea. He can mount old lenses and use the D200 meter unlike the D80/90.</p>

<p>What's the least amount of money for moving to digital?<br>

D200 $650<br>

Wide-Angle Zoom $500<br>

Image Editing Software $80-$200 I didn't notice if he already has Photoshop...<br>

Memory Cards $100 or less (I just bought three 4GB Sandisk Extreme III 30MBs for around $50 including shipping.)</p>

<p>Around $1350 would do it. Substitute a D300 and it's more like $2350. A D700? $2600 (If he is thinking about the D300 he might as well go for the FX camera...)</p>

 

<br />

 

</blockquote>

[darin_schaffer]

<p>Garrett,<br>

It may not only be the million dollar question but may also cost you that much. Seriously it can be an expensive move.<br>

I can't speak to the d300 or d700 as I have never used them, I do have a d200 and have found the image quality to be very good, even when compared to my 645 pro. I am always amazed at how quickly things get written off because they aren't the lastest and greatest. At $650 the d200 is an astounding deal and a great place to start. You can take the money you save and buy photoshop, nik silver efex pro(great for B&W) and a nice printer like an epson 3800 all for about the cost of a d700. Now you have a great start and if you decide you still prefer film you still have useful tools and arent' out a ton of money. By the time you decide you really like digital, the d700 will have been upgraded and much cheaper and you will have a nice back up in the d200. If money is no option, get a d700 or a mamiya AFD with a digital back.</p>

[ronald_peters]

<p>I didn.t have time to read all of the responses to your question, but I got the gist from scanning the answers.<br>

I have a D200 and a D300. I will probably eventually get a D700.<br>

The change from the D200 to the D300 is significant. Just the LCD alone is worth the added price. The price difference between the D300 and D700 is too steep now, this will improve in the future. In the mean time, I would go with a good used D300. Used? Why take the hit on the depreciation. The D300 produces files which will easily go to 11x14. High ISO performance is decent, usually good enough for most circumstances. Post processing can add a lot to the value of the shots. I prefer Photoshop to Lightroom. Photoshop ultimately has more flexibility for very fine tweeking.<br>

A good printing program is also very important. I use QImage. It is very important that your computer system is a color managed system. This means properly adjusting your monitor with a colorimeter and profiling your printer with the right inks and paper.<br>

I shoot both film and digital. I do my own C41 processing and scan my negatives. That way I can integrate my film work into my digital workflow for Photoshop and printing. This saves money over the cost of darkroom prints. Most good labs can scan your film for you. Once you've got the files, the rest is all digital. You can do things with your film shots digitally that you could never do in a darkroom.<br>

The Nikon primes that you have will work fine on the D300, just a 1.5x the focal length. So, a good standard lens is a 35mm. You can find a D300 manual online. Check out the lens compatibility section</p>

 

[twmeyer]

<p>"<em>Is a D300 really $700 better than a D200"</em> ... YES</p>

<p>"<em>will the D200 still be relevant for a few more years for what I am looking for?</em> "... It's not relevant <em>now</em> .</p>

<p>"<em>Also is the D700 $1500 better than the D300?"</em> ... YES</p>

<p>I made the progession from Fuji S2 to D200 to D700. After using the D700 for 9 months, I sold my Hassleblads. The D700 is that good. And it's ability to focus in very low light is wonderful. In-focus percentage is easily 3x better than with the D200. I recently processed a wedding for a friend who used the D200 and D300... couldn't believe the elevated noise levels when compared with the D700... it's huge, especially if you push the processing even a little.</p>

<p>As for the film equipment appreciating in value. KEH offered me $600 for my Hassleblad kit (3 excellent lenses, three backs, metering prism, Pelican Case, extension tubes, Polaroid) and had no interest whatsoever in my F100 with winder grip. If you can sell your old Nikon bodies for a good price now... do it.</p>

<p>Your affection for processing film will not fade... rather you will be astounded at how little control you used to have, and your black and white work will surpass anything you have done before. Color printing is liberated by digital capture, which has flexibility that far surpasses scanned film, which is severely limited by iso and the film's intrinsic palette.</p>

<p>You will love changing ISO from frame to frame, shooting in black and white and later accessing the same image in full color, or vice versa.</p>

<p>Expose with the D700 at ISO 400 and exceed image quality and the enlarge-ability of any film you have ever used.</p>

<p>Get the D700 and be happy. Get any other Nikon (including the 2lb heavier and $2000 more D3) and you'll soon wish you had bought the D700... t</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>Do you have a computer (with a quality monitor that can be calibrated accurately)? Might want to buy the D200 and a laptop for the difference in price between the D700, pretty much what I did a couple of years back.<br>

DB Cooper made some very valid points about post-processing since you aren't coming from a hybrid workflow. Steep curve ahead.<br>

I have both the D200 and the D300. If I had to winnow it all down to one camera from the nine I now own (4x5 and 645 included) it'd be the D300 for it's utility. I do a lot of telephoto work with wildlife and greatly benefit from the DX format as it provides a degradation-free 1.5x teleconvertor factor. My 200-400VR thus becomes a 300-600VR f/4 that I can easily handhold sans tripod. Used with it, or the 17-35mm, or the 105VR the results from it may be indistinguishable from MF to at least 13x19 print size. <br>

Any optical advantage to FF is on the wide end, not the tele end. If you don't need a 15mm equivalent or wider, it's not such a problem to shoot DX. There is of course the noiselessness of the D3/D700 sensor at high ISO but this isn't crippling to me as the D300 provides a useable ISO 1600, which itself was almost unthinkable a few years back. (I'd rather have the resolution improvement of a 24MP FF D3X body than a clean 12MP ISO 6400, personally).</p>

[garrett_smith2]

<p>Thank you so much for everyone's input, opinions and help with my quandary of which camera should I choose. It seems to be a question that is asked a lot in photography discussion boards so I really appreciate all the help and patience that everyone has shown.</p>

<p>I think that I have made up my mind but am going to sleep on it and wait till the morning to make it a final decision as I like to really analyze things. Right now I am about 98% sure that the best thing for me to do is to get the cheaper D200 for a number of reasons. The first reason is that I have no digital experience at all. Some of the things that you guys mentioned on paper sound great but in reality I either had no idea what they were or have no experience in using. Every camera that I have ever shot with has been fully manual, the fanciest thing that I have in any of my cameras is a built in light meter which often times is never accurate anyways. I think as a learning aid the D200 is the way to go because it will offer me the chance to really evaluate what I need or do not need in a digital camera without a large investment up front. It offers so much that I will have to initially learn in the first place that it will keep me entertained for a while. I think that I really need to become well versed in the art of digital photography and how I personally shoot before I plunge down a lot of money for something that might/might not work for me, even though that something might be a closer replication to what I am used to in shooting film.</p>

<p>The second aspect is that the D200 seems to offer a lot of the same settings that the pro Nikon models offer so I can get used to the functionality of the camera and the way Nikons work. Though the D200 is an older model to me it is all brand new so some of the more image based short comings compared to the others that it does not offer will be trivial to me. I however by no means think that I could pick any of the three cameras up and be shooting like a pro in no time. They all seem to offer so much as far as technology goes that I will be starting from scratch slowly trying to apply what I have learned over the years with film. It is all a learning experience and I still learn things about film cameras that I have shot with since high school and I am really anxious to get to shooting.</p>

<p>And the third and final aspect is price. Though I have been saving for a bit just waiting to make a switch to digital I still am not above saving money at all and putting that towards other things. It seems like making a smaller initial investment with a plan to upgrade when I am ready is far better than a large initial investment for something that I do not really know represents the best option personally for myself. </p>

<p>When I look at the bigger picture so to say and all of the comments that I have received I almost come to the conclusion that none of the cameras is a terrible decision. Sure each offers an improvement here or there but the fact is that as an absolute beginner to the digital world I would probably have no idea how to take advantage of those improvements. Again everyone has been great and given me some really good advice and commentary about the direction that I should go in. Hopefully by tomorrow morning I can let you all know what the final decision turns out to be.</p>

[aman1]

<p>

I personally shifted from using Nikon F3/AIS lenses to Nikon D40 couple of years back, and I am very happy. The only things I dislike are 1) small viewfinder, 2) 1.5x focal length multiplication. Waiting to start my job in summers (I'm still in college) to get money for D700, which should solve both these problems, and significantly improve image quality!</p>

[sky blue]

<p><strong>As for Nikon D200 & D300 - </strong>Yes, the D200 is worth $650 more than the D300 especially the ISO and noise improvments for low-light. <br>

I still use both but given the choice, I always reach for the 300.<br>

I cannot comment on the D700 yet but I presume the improvments will be worth it as well.</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>By choosing the D200, you will be taking a step backwards from your medium format film results. With the D700, you would be exceeding them... t</p>

[peter_n1664876959]

<blockquote>

<p>The second aspect is that the D200 seems to offer a lot of the same settings that the pro Nikon models offer so I can get used to the functionality of the camera and the way Nikons work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true Garrett. As a former user of Nikon SLRs the layout of the Fuji S5 seemed familiar. It is a testament to Nikon's design team that the ergonomics of the camera were fundamentally right years ago. I've had mine now for 5 months and there is still a lot to learn technically but I got used to handling the camera very quickly.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There has been over 100 responses to this thread, and it gradually shifts to more and more the usual film vs. digital debate. I have removed some of those off-topic remarks that do not contribute to the OP's question.</p>

<p>I am not sure there will be a whole lot of new ideas after 100 responses. If the thread continues to drift off track, I may simply close it as Garrett seems to have come to a conclusion. If he indeed gets a D200, I would imagine that is merely his first DSLR to test the water. If digital doesn't work for him, the cost is limited. If that works out, I don't think the D200 will be his last DSLR.</p>

[g._v.]

<p>One thing that amazes me about these discussions is how many people apparently assume that dropping $1700, $2400 or even more on a DSLR, etc. is no big deal.</p>