| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2010 11:18:24 PM · #1 |
I know it's not a new camera, but I've been considering switching formats to Nikon, now that I have a LITTLE experience under my belt. It seems to be a very popular older model and looks like a used one might satisfy my amateurish needs needs.
Any thoughts?
Anyone else have experience with the Pentax K100D Super AND the D200 who could comparatively speak to the D200's abilities in low light?
|
|
|
|
05/04/2010 11:24:45 PM · #2 |
IMO you should see a pretty good step up in low light from the k100. However, I use a D90 and think it may have a somewhat "newer" sensor and processor.
Originally posted by wormtown:
I know it's not a new camera, but I've been considering switching formats to Nikon, now that I have a LITTLE experience under my belt. It seems to be a very popular older model and looks like a used one might satisfy my amateurish needs needs.
Any thoughts?
Anyone else have experience with the Pentax K100D Super AND the D200 who could comparatively speak to the D200's abilities in low light? |
|
|
|
|
05/04/2010 11:27:16 PM · #3 |
| The D200 is ok in low light... but you might be better with a D90, or D300. |
|
|
|
05/04/2010 11:31:07 PM · #4 |
| for me it was a large step up to a D200 but the only step from here would be a D3 or such, this camera does everything that I could want, & it beats a number of the 'pro' photographers doing the business. I love the solid feel of the camera, & whilst their are now better low light cameras, it more depends where you point it imo |
|
|
|
05/04/2010 11:46:37 PM · #5 |
It is a battery hog, so buy several and charge them up. If you need to. Of course I shoot a lot, and zoom, and auto focus, and preview the LCD. I shot about 700 pics a day on some vacations. It's a good Camera, Nikon has good lenses, too like the 70-200mm VR is my favorite. It works on an FX, full Frame camera, too. If you get DX lenses you won't be able to get a Full-Frame shot if you later decide to upgrade to the FX format.
You could switch to Canon before you get too many lenses.
It's not the camera Make, it's the brain behind the camera, that plans, creates, and seeks out interesting scenes, then Post-Processes them. |
|
|
|
05/05/2010 01:29:50 AM · #6 |
I certainly appreciate all of the input. I have held a number of Canons in my hands and must say that prefer the Nikon (and Pentax) rotating start up buttons(s) to the Canon switch.
I am also quite puzzled by the myriad of Nikon lens types, and know nothing about their compatibility. Can I assume that lenses compatible with Nikon's cropped sensors are incompatible with their full framed cameras? Is there any overlap?
...in case some day I win the lottery and can pick up a D3s :)
The EN-EL3e seem to be fairly reasonably purchased on Ebay. I've been managing many squads of rechargeable AA's as the power source for all of my cameras thus far :)
Message edited by author 2010-05-05 01:32:06. |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 04:08:11 PM · #7 |
| ...great. After more reading, now I'm thinking about a D300. |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 04:21:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by wormtown:
...great. After more reading, now I'm thinking about a D300. |
I have and still use the D200 but if I were to choose today and had the money go for the D300. At first glance it doesn't seem like that large of a jump, but trust me you will find the low light capabilities of the D300 far out do what the 200 can. Plus there are some really nice features on the 300 that I wish the 200 came with. Your other option would be to go with a D700. I must say this camera kicks ass. |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 04:44:52 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by wormtown:
Anyone else have experience with the Pentax K100D Super AND the D200 who could comparatively speak to the D200's abilities in low light? |
I have no direct experience with the K100D. However, I'll confirm the comments about regarding the D200 sensor for low light... It's... challenging, let's say that.
The sensor in the D80/D200 is *not* a first choice for low light work. D90/D300 is a good step in the right direction for low light shooting. D700/D3 is a whole 'nother league (also remember they are FX vs. DX), and its low light performance far eclipses them all.
Originally posted by wormtown:
...great. After more reading, now I'm thinking about a D300. |
Unless you have a compelling need for one or more of the (relatively short list of) additional features the D300 adds to the D90, I'd recommend saving a little cash and pick up a D90.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2010 05:57:18 PM · #10 |
FWIW, I love my D90, which I have had approximaately 4 months now. And when I do start to outshoot it in 5 years time or so, I plan to get the D700 if not higher.
I remember Eric, aka  Shutter-for-Hire, giving me a long list of reasons as to why a D90 made more sense for me than the D300. Really it is pretty much the same camera, only the D300 is bigger and I believe full-frame sensor. The D90 has a cropped sensor.
So, what it really comes down to, is how much camera do you really want/need?
Message edited by author 2010-05-11 18:01:06. |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 06:08:28 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
FWIW, I love my D90, which I have had approximaately 4 months now. And when I do start to outshoot it in 5 years time or so, I plan to get the D700 if not higher.
I remember Eric, aka Shutter-for-Hire, giving me a long list of reasons as to why a D90 made more sense for me than the D300. Really it is pretty much the same camera, only the D300 is bigger and I believe full-frame sensor. The D90 has a cropped sensor.
So, what it really comes down to, is how much camera do you really want/need? |
The D300 is not a full frame sensor - it is cropped just like the D90. I wish it were FF :-) |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 06:18:54 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Really it is pretty much the same camera, only the D300 is bigger and I believe full-frame sensor. The D90 has a cropped sensor. |
No, absolutely not -- both D90 and D300 are both DX sensors. In fact, they are the same sensor, but the D300 pulls data out as 14-bit, the D90 truncates to 12-bit. If you don't know what that means, you probably don't care.
There are many, many comparisons of the D90 vs. D300 online -- a little googling will find more comparisons than you probably want to read.
In my opinion, the only compelling "pulls" to a D300 are the AF-points (and that's a might big deal), 14-bit vs. 12-bit raw depth, and body build. Other differences are fluffy.
On the other hand, the D90 has, in my opinion, two features going for it over the D300... DSLR video, and 2 EV exposure bracketing. The latter is a big deal to us HDR-junkies -- I can set my D90 to shoot a burst 3-frame bracket at -2/0/+2, which to get the same burst exposure on a D300, you have to shoot five frames -2/-1/0/+1/+2. The D300 firmware only lets you bracket exposure 1 EV per frame, the D90 allows 2 EV. If that sounds interesting or relevant to you, that might be a big deal. Or you might not care at all.
All just depends on what you need. Or want. Want/Need -- what's the difference really? ;) |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 09:34:55 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by cdrice:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Really it is pretty much the same camera, only the D300 is bigger and I believe full-frame sensor. The D90 has a cropped sensor. |
No, absolutely not -- both D90 and D300 are both DX sensors. In fact, they are the same sensor, but the D300 pulls data out as 14-bit, the D90 truncates to 12-bit. If you don't know what that means, you probably don't care.
There are many, many comparisons of the D90 vs. D300 online -- a little googling will find more comparisons than you probably want to read.
In my opinion, the only compelling "pulls" to a D300 are the AF-points (and that's a might big deal), 14-bit vs. 12-bit raw depth, and body build. Other differences are fluffy.
On the other hand, the D90 has, in my opinion, two features going for it over the D300... DSLR video, and 2 EV exposure bracketing. The latter is a big deal to us HDR-junkies -- I can set my D90 to shoot a burst 3-frame bracket at -2/0/+2, which to get the same burst exposure on a D300, you have to shoot five frames -2/-1/0/+1/+2. The D300 firmware only lets you bracket exposure 1 EV per frame, the D90 allows 2 EV. If that sounds interesting or relevant to you, that might be a big deal. Or you might not care at all.
All just depends on what you need. Or want. Want/Need -- what's the difference really? ;) |
Yeah that whole 1EV thing bugs the hell out of me. The way the buttons are laid out and the general aim of the controls for the DX00 series is very different from that of the DX0 series. The DX00 has more of an emphasis on single button push operation for things you may frequently need to change on the fly like WB and ISO, as well as AF and Metering. There is also no mode dial; PSAM only controlled using the mode button and command wheel.
D300 is definitely larger and heavier, which may be good or bad depending upon your hand size and form factor expectations. It also syncs at 1/250 not 1/200 and allows bracketing of 9 images. D90 also maxes out at 1/4000 and has a lower FPS.
So... yes, there's a lot of differences. I think the main ones though, that will apply to any user regardless of preferred genre, are the way it handles and the AF system. |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 10:54:29 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
Originally posted by snaffles:
FWIW, I love my D90, which I have had approximaately 4 months now. And when I do start to outshoot it in 5 years time or so, I plan to get the D700 if not higher.
I remember Eric, aka Shutter-for-Hire, giving me a long list of reasons as to why a D90 made more sense for me than the D300. Really it is pretty much the same camera, only the D300 is bigger and I believe full-frame sensor. The D90 has a cropped sensor.
So, what it really comes down to, is how much camera do you really want/need? |
The D300 is not a full frame sensor - it is cropped just like the D90. I wish it were FF :-) |
Sorry, my mistake! I've only had the D90 for all of 4 months. And thanks for clearing it up for me. Anyhoo...carry on, I'm learning a lot reading this thread. |
|
|
|
05/11/2010 11:05:46 PM · #15 |
Don't buy a D200... it's old technology... sorry Brad =P ..... vitaminB
Get a steal on a used D90... it ROCKS!
much better overall image quality and MUCH better in low light, and takes SD cards as opposed to expensive CF cards in the D200/D300...
Message edited by author 2010-05-11 23:06:02. |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 05:35:53 AM · #16 |
| for me personally, I believe the D-200 out performs the D-300 in low light. Ive noticed more noise in long exposure night shots taken with my D-300 say 20 minute exposures vs 30 and 40 minute exposures taken with the D-200. However Alot of other things could be factored in, like choice of lens while shooting and location while taking the shot. Either way the D-200 is a nice camera and if you can get one for a decent price, I say go for it... |
|
|
|
05/12/2010 07:23:15 AM · #17 |
I love my D200, but I think my D70s is better in low light. It's not the strong point of that unit IMNSHO.
|
|
|
|
05/13/2010 12:50:34 PM · #18 |
Adorama has refurbished D90s for 650. You can also check out the D5000 which is pretty close to the D90 but cheaper and it has a swivel LCD. IF you already had Pentax lenses check out the K-x. There is a review in last months popular photography.
Canon T1i also has pretty good noise control.
One point to remember about the D5000 is that it can only use internally focusing lenses so Nikon's 50mm f1.8 won't focus on it. In the end this is why I didn't get a Nikon. I couldn't justify the price difference between a D90 and Rebel T1i. I could get the T1i with both kit lenses for the same or less than the Nikon D90 with just one lens. I also bought a 50mm f1.8 for shooting inside.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/24/2025 10:27:57 PM EST.
