Nikon d200 VS d300s

[robert_delaurentis1]

<p>I agree with the D200 choice you've made. I have a D300, and its great. But I've learned over the last two years that its the lenses far more than the body. Besides there is a freedom in not sinking an entire budget in a camera body. Look, the D300 is better than a D200, but as others have already said, the differences are less than the difference between a fast lens and a budget one. If I knew then what I know now - and mind you I still adore my D300, I'd grab that D200, a fast wideish prime like a 20mm 2.8, and some brackets that let you mount the camera on a bike for some amazing unique images. The D200 will work in snow and rugged environments very well. Use your budget for some used Nikon lenses. At some point, you'll be ready for a new body, and at that point, with the experience gained on the first 500 you've spent, you'll make a much more informed decision.</p>

[geoff_jansen]

<p>Ok, Thanks Guys.. now for the lenses do you have any good ideas one some lenses that would be good? i was looking at the sigma 70-200 f2.8 but have read some bad reviews on it... what do you think?<br>

and do you guys know of any online used camera sites perferably in canada?</p>

[dejansmaic]

<p>I own the D200, D300 & D700.<br>

D200: poor battery performance, poor ISO performance >400, good images with fast glass. Good for landscape with tripod, so so for sports...need good lighting, fast glass & monopod<br>

D300: great battery performance (>1100 shots RAW per charge w/o grip), very good ISO upto 800, even 1600 is ok. Good for sports, great for landscape w/tripod<br>

D700: just great</p>

[rick_williams6]

<p>Hi Geoff.<br>

Great choice considering your budget mentioned earlier.<br>

Personally I shoot a D3 with a Nikon 80-200 2.8 VR and a D200 in my bag as backup. This Nikon 80-200, as with most Nikon lenses, is an outstanding performer on both bodies in my opinion.<br>

Get the great glass over a compromise any day I say... you won't regret it I assure you.<br>

Rick.</p>

 

[r_johnston]

<p>Do a search on eBay for Cameta Camera, a camera store in upstate NY. They use eBay to increase the business they do in the store. They are a Nikon Dealer so all have a US Nikon guarantee, have good business practices, and also sell used cameras with ratings you can depend on. Once when I ordered a battery pack they advertised, they apologized as it was out of stock, due to being sold in the store. Waited for one to come in, and they gave me a better than advertised price for waiting.<br>

From time to time they run an auction on various cameras. You can do a search for D300 that have been sold, to find out the lowest price. Then, bid no higher. You may lose some to other bidders. But, if you are patient, and wait until one is offered that no one notices, you can get a really good deal. <br>

If you get involved in a bidding war, stop bidding. Personally I do not bid on anything until less than five minutes before it closes. Then use a "snipe" program to enter a bid higher than the latest, and get it for less then the top price Im willing to pay. Saved over $700 on my D200 and used some for a 70-300 VR from them. It took me 3 months to get the price that I wanted. The wait was well worth it.</p>

 

[geoff_jansen]

<p>Hey, Guys I just bought the d200! I really like it.. now i need some lenses, what do you guys think would be good?<br>

I think im going to get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 but what else should i get? and if you guys have any experince with the Sigma 70-200 please let me know what you like and dont like about it!<br>

Thanks<br>

-Geoff</p>

[mizore]

<p>Everyone can use a 50mm f/1.8 on a DX body (serves at short portrait lens and is cheap). If you're willing to work with manual lenses, pick up a used 24mm f/2.8 or so which will work as equivalent angle to 35mm lens on full frame. You probably know if you like wide angle or not from earlier shooting. You can also pick up either a 18-70mm or 16-85mm slower lens for a walking around lens. The 18-70 is cheaper and older; the 16-85 has VR. If you get either with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, you'll have most of the range covered, just not with fast lenses at the lower end.</p>

<p>Did I say that everyone needs a 50mm f/1.8 AF D? AFS is even better since you can just grab the focusing ring and adjust. This is the lens when you are just walking around wanting things to be simple and light weight.</p>

<p> </p>

[thorkild]

<p>Hi, interesting. I am going from my D60 to either D200 or D300. Primarely because I need a more robust body for outdoor use. I have a couple of Nikkor AFS lenses and hope they will work with the new body. As I am not operating higher than 800 ISO the D200 should be OK, and I have some very attractive offers on used bodies. I don't need the many new features on the D300s and is first of all looking for a quality camera that can stand outdoor work. Should I go for the D200?</p>

[avishek_aiyar]

<p>I had the same debate in my head. I was/am using a D60 upto this point. I have a decent collection of manual focus lenses (Kiron 105 AI, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180, Leica R 60mm macro elmarit) and was getting a lit fed up with the histogram metering. Especially under macro conditions, focusing is a pain in the ass as it is and I just felt that I did not want to deal with metering as well.<br>

So......just spent $620 on the bay and got myself a Nikon D200 with 1000 clicks. I guess its $50-$100 more than what you could potentially get it for, but there are not too many around with such a low shutter count.<br>

The D300 was out of question for me, because the cheapest used one would be at least $400-$500 more expensive and I frankly don't care about high ISO performance that much.<br>

I see people arguing all the time that the D300 is the state of the art with better handling of noise, high ISO performance.....but personally I had to draw the line somewhere. Nikon is always going to come up something that outshines the previous model and 1-2 years down the line, people are going to bitch about the D300s, claiming that the D400 has it all!!!<br>

I would rather spend the bucks on glass.<br>

Avi</p>

<p> </p>

[a_done_lamon]

<p>Was just cruisin' round the net looking for info on the Nikon D200 and found you guys....I was just curious to see if it was worth it to buy a D200 I saw on Ebay for $200.00, and judging from the responses I've read here it looks like it may indeed be so. I AM rather partial to a camera with a high ISO.... the majority of pictures I take aren't in the most well lit of places, but seeing the prices for the newer Nikons out there nearly gave me a coronary, so I'm thinking that this baby might be a pretty good bargain. So....what d'you guys think? Is $200 a decent price for the baby or should I sell my house, my car, my husband and our 5 kitties n' buy myself something newer? Oh, the lens is a Sigma 28-90 mm D-series....is it worth the trouble?</p>

[mario_stan]

<p>Yeah, sell your husband first, I'm sure that'll make him much happier.</p>

[vuhoang]

<p>I'm having a D200 and thinking of exchange it for a D90.<br /> My biggest concern is that will I get a much better IQ at higher ISO.<br /> How many stop does the D90 advance over D200 ?<br /> For you guys that used a D200 and switch to D90: do you miss the controls on D200? Is the AF system of D90 less advanced than D200?<br>

<br /> To Lamon: If I find D200 cameras for 200 bucks each, I would buy a pair of them. If you intent to invest into Tamron I suggest 17-50 f/2.8 which has reasonable range on DX and lightly priced.<br>

Whatever you choose, selling your husband is a must :D. If this is done successfully, I guess you have enough to get the D3s + 24-70 f/2.8 Nano + 70-200 f/2.8 VR II + 24 f/1.4 + 35 f/1.4 + 85 f/1.4 + 105 f/2 DC + SB400 + SB900 :D</p>