Nikon D200 or D300
- Thread starter maxalmon
- Start date
juniormc8704
New member
I honestly cant believe Nikon thinks its going to sell enough D200's at 300 less. The D300 is 5x the camera. Dont even hesitate, you wont be sorry. D300 is simply amazing in every way. The ISO noise at 800 on the D200 is gotta be 5x that of the D300. that reason alone is worth the 300 bucks.
Just my two pennies.
Just my two pennies.
juniormc8704
New member
they sure will.
snommisbor
Premium Member
D300 has the newer sensor and the vivid colors you can get are incredible. It is like shooting Velvia on my 4x5 camera. You will love the D300.
juniormc8704
New member
any digital nikon lens will work on any nikon dlsr. i have lenses from WAY back, and they work well. Even lenses from the 35mm days. the difference is, for auto focus to function on a D40, you must have a lens with a built in motor, where with the d60, d80, etc, all have built in motors in the body, and can auto focus a lens regardless if it has its own motor or not.
Phyl
New member
In addition to more px, bigger/brighter LCD, better view finder (95% of your actual image or better compared the 80-90% on the D40-D200), and cleaner high ISO capabilities (this will allow greater DOF on a photo of a fish in poor light conditions), the camera has a much improved AF engine with many many options.
A great benefit of the D300 is that there is amazing detail in the camera, in spite of blowing a shot with either over or under exposure. Not that any of us does that on purpose, but every once in a while THE capture ends up being blown for one reason or another. The chance of recovery on a D300 is greater.
Your existing lenses will all work. I use the 105 VR for my macro shots and I've used the 55-200 as well (though I don't really care much for it).
If I was going to get a D200 I'd buy one of the MANY MANY low shutter count models flooding the market.
A great benefit of the D300 is that there is amazing detail in the camera, in spite of blowing a shot with either over or under exposure. Not that any of us does that on purpose, but every once in a while THE capture ends up being blown for one reason or another. The chance of recovery on a D300 is greater.
Your existing lenses will all work. I use the 105 VR for my macro shots and I've used the 55-200 as well (though I don't really care much for it).
If I was going to get a D200 I'd buy one of the MANY MANY low shutter count models flooding the market.
juniormc8704
New member
if you can afford the nikon 105, get that. Or for about half the price, you can get a TAMRON 90mm macro, which is what i use, and like it so much, i havent been able to justify the 105 yet. I would have to have a 105 in hand to convince me to change my lens.
CorvetteManZO6
New member
I have had the Nikon D200 for 2 years now this February. Never any problems with it and love it! What I hear about the D300 it’s just as good as the D200 if not better. But has a little more bells and whistles. I have been to over 38 states with the D200 and still haven’t had a chance to use everything the D200 has to offer. Its save bet that the D200 is more than enough camera.
juniormc8704
New member
At this stage, you have no need for anything better than that 105mm. Ive got a 150 as well, and really never use it.
Indigo Man
New member
The D300, if for any other reason the ISO and very low noise levels, low light shooting will never be the same. Frame per second with the extra battery is a stunning 8 frames, I do a lot of wildlife shooting and it was hard with my previous D70s. I also use the 105 vr, it would be hard to find a better lens, the fast af is nice.
Dave
Dave
