D300 vs D200 - DPChallenge Forums

09/04/2007 10:35:23 AM · #1

Comparison of features:
//www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond300/

$1,799 for the D300 (estimated)
$1,499 for the D200 (current price at B&H)

I was considering buying the D200 when the D300 was announced. For $300 difference, I guess it would be crazy to buy the D200 now rather than wait for the D300. Right?

I could care less about the 12MP, but the auto-focus sounds great -- if it's easy to use.

The 200 ISO starting point is odd, but it can be "boosted" to ISO 100 (any ideas on how practical that is?).

EDIT: fixed link

Message edited by author 2007-09-04 10:39:40.

option

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/04/2007 10:40:29 AM · #2

you would be crazy to buy the D200 RIGHT NOW. Wait until the D300 comes out, then make your choice. The D200 will likely be driven down in price, making it a more attractive option...

Nikolai1024

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

09/04/2007 10:43:42 AM · #3

I think the screen on D300 is going to GREAT! Higher pixel density than any other camera. Can't wait to see it in the store.

option

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/04/2007 10:51:13 AM · #4

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

I think the screen on D300 is going to GREAT! Higher pixel density than any other camera. Can't wait to see it in the store.

You may want to read this first... the screen may be 920,000 DOTS, but that only equates to 307,000 PIXELS. Still the biggest screen on the market, but not by as much as everyone thinks...

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

09/04/2007 11:00:45 AM · #5

you should wait til they are side by side in the store, the price on the D-200 should drop another $150-$200

lowonenergy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/04/2007 11:01:32 AM · #6

What i don't understand of Nikon is, why they start at ISO 200??

Can anyone explain that

09/04/2007 11:04:34 AM · #7

Originally posted by option:

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
I think the screen on D300 is going to GREAT! Higher pixel density than any other camera. Can't wait to see it in the store.

You may want to read this first... the screen may be 920,000 DOTS, but that only equates to 307,000 PIXELS. Still the biggest screen on the market, but not by as much as everyone thinks...

This came up on Flickr too:

//www.flickr.com/photos/brendanfalkowski/1270647267/

I'll just reprise myself here:

For my part, I actually researched some more and found this site which cast more than a little doubt on Nikon's assertion (of a better quality screen). Here If you note the RGB color chart about halfway down, the explicitly say that Stripe is of poor quality and Delta array is "best". This is a little troubling. I was willing to take Nikon at their word, but this looks kinda bad at first glance

However, I think I know what Nikon might be trying to say, if you notice the triangular pattern to the delta squares. Each pixel site is sharing with the next or others around it to create the colors, effectively reducing the needed amount of "dots" per pixel by 1/3 (correct?) If this is more correct for this instance, then Nikon has 307,200 pixels in the same area, each covering a smaller area than that of their Delta counterparts, and each able to cover the full range of the RGB scale of 256x256x256 brightness levels.

If, as they say, everyone else is using Delta pattern with an actual lower resolution to begin with, and then each pixel site is also using shared RGB "dots", then that would also affect brightness levels available.

Or it could be crap and it's just marketing hype. The press guys seemed to think quite a lot about the LCD though, so I'm leaning to the side of Nikon not being bald-faced liars at this point. The least thing they need is bad PR about something as silly as an LCD at this point.

Message edited by author 2007-09-04 11:05:28.

Nikolai1024

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

09/04/2007 11:04:57 AM · #8

Originally posted by lowonenergy:

What i don't understand of Nikon is, why they start at ISO 200??

Can anyone explain that

Because there is not improvement in image quality at ISO 100 vs 200.

09/04/2007 11:08:06 AM · #9

Originally posted by Nikolai1024:

Originally posted by lowonenergy:
What i don't understand of Nikon is, why they start at ISO 200??

Can anyone explain that

Because there is not improvement in image quality at ISO 100 vs 200.

The point is for people who do a lot of studio work, and are trying to minimize f/

I hardly ever take my d200 off of ISO400, when I do, it's to push it to 800.

lowonenergy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/04/2007 11:38:39 AM · #10

thanks

msieglerfr

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

09/04/2007 12:25:08 PM · #11

IMO, the transition D200 -> D300 is not as exciting as that of the D100 -> D200.

Live View, yep but how useful is going to be?

14 bits vs 12 bits, yep but is it going to be noticeable to a great extent? Probably not!

Larger Screen, that is a good one, and probably of better quality than that of the D200, though, 2.5 inches is more than OK (1.8 inches was rather small)

12 Mp (CMOS) vs 10 Mp (CCD)...the increase in MP is not a lot...the CMOS will be better at higher ISO (I never shot above 800-1600 ISO, so who cares then?)

Dust removal sensor...I don't like that, an additional moveable part in the camera, if it breaks down, the cost will be rather high...not very useful in my opinion as long as you pay attention.

100 % coverage in the viewfinder. Finally!

So if you have already a D200..my adice is...don't go for it.
If you do not have a D200...why not!

I still think that Nikon might have done a breakthrough by changing the crop factor from 1.5x to 1.1x (a pseudo full frame compatible with DX lenses).

Message edited by author 2007-09-04 12:26:38.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

Voigtlander Ultron 21mm f1.8

09/04/2007 12:50:25 PM · #12

There is no way I would sell up my D200 to get a D300 sorry.

The D3 is a revolution for Nikon and I would sell a kidney to get one (maybe not) but definately would sell the D200 for one.

I need to win the lotto first though as £3500 is a tad over my current budget of £0

msieglerfr

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

09/04/2007 01:01:03 PM · #13

Agree with MAK, the D3 is going to be a big success...

09/04/2007 01:31:59 PM · #14

I wouldn't sell my D200, but I think I could convince the wife to sell the D50 and D70 towards a D300 ;)

Yes, I'd rather have a D3, when I start bringing in more on photography, I'll do that.

TonyT

Nikon D3X

09/04/2007 01:37:46 PM · #15

Anyone need a kidney?

Will trade for D3.

09/04/2007 01:39:49 PM · #16

Originally posted by TonyT:

Anyone need a kidney?

Will trade for D3.

Start selling plasma ;)

09/05/2007 04:54:53 PM · #17

Am seriously considering purchasing the D300 and the 18-200mm Nikon lens and just going for it. It feels "rash" to spend this much money at this stage in my photography, but I expect it will give me years of pleasure.

Nuno

09/05/2007 06:12:30 PM · #18

Well I'm quite excited about this. But my piggy bank is boing to be mad!

I love the D3 but unfortunatly, even for most pros it will be too expensive.

But I want to buy also new lenses so only full frame know thinking in to the future.

So I thing in January 08 I'll get:
D300 with grip
70-200 f2.8 VR
24-70 F2.8 (full frame Nikon top quality)
85mm f1.8
and probably the new 14-24 f2.8

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

09/05/2007 06:13:37 PM · #19

I think at this point, if I were to come into enough money, glass would be first. Right now, bills come first :|

breadfan35

Nikon D3

09/05/2007 06:28:18 PM · #20

Originally posted by lowonenergy:

What i don't understand of Nikon is, why they start at ISO 200??

Can anyone explain that

It has an ISO Lo setting equivalent to ISO 100.

And for the record, I wouldn't sell my D200 for a D300. But I might get e D300 to go along with it if I can't find a way to get a D3.

Message edited by author 2007-09-05 18:30:37.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

09/05/2007 06:32:56 PM · #21

not sure about nikon digital. plenty of use of nikon manual film cams, but on my 10d i always use iso200.

i actually think the images are better at ISO 200 vs- 100

09/06/2007 08:29:21 PM · #22

Originally posted by Nuno:

... :
D300 with grip
70-200 f2.8 VR
24-70 F2.8 (full frame Nikon top quality)
85mm f1.8
and probably the new 14-24 f2.8

Thanks, Nuno, for your take on this, but that's a lot of glass! My thought is to buy the D300 and one lens to start with, hoping to expand with a second lens within the year. It will be possible to buy the D300 bundled "w/18-200mm" lens (I assume that is the popular Nikor f/3.5 lens). Is that too slow for you, and/or do you think that is a good or bad choice?

Shadowi6

Sigma 10- 20mm f/3.5 EX-DC HSM

09/06/2007 08:42:18 PM · #23

Hi larry,

I've just bought the d200 :)

I don't really need the latest & greatest and when I asked in store what to expect the D200 to reduce by when the D300 comes out they said $50-$100 so it wasn't a big deal to me. The D2oo is an awesome machine and compared to our pro point & shoots an amazing step up.

It enabled me to spend some more money on the glass I wanted. I really wanted wide angle first so got a 10-20 sigma, then thought that tele would be good to so got the Nikon 70-300 VR Then decided I needed something to fill the gap and ended up with th 17-50 2.8 Tameron.

Looking back I could have just started with a 18-200 range & saved some money but I would still want wider & longer.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

09/06/2007 08:45:22 PM · #24

Well, I think it might be worth the difference for the CMOS sensor alone. Nikons seem to have a lot more noise than Canons!