Digital cameras: Nikon D200 0r Nikon D300???
Nikon D200 0r Nikon D300???
by DannyKhuu - 1/18/08 12:23 PMI'm stuck. I Want to buy a Nikon D200 but now I hear all this jazz over the Nikon D300. I Would buy the D300 but the price it a bit out of my reach and if I want that Nikkor 18-200mm, I should kinda steer away a bit from the D300. So, what Do I do, buy the D200 with a 18-200mm lense, or buy the D300, and wait off a bit to get the lense? Fellow Nikonians, Please aid a fellow brother!
Nikon
by snapshot2
- 1/18/08 3:27 PM
In reply to: Nikon D200 0r Nikon D300??? by DannyKhuu
Here is a review of the D300.
The first two pages of the review point out the differences between the D200 and the D300.
...
..
.
D200 Owners Who Have Upgraded to D300
by snapshot2 - 1/19/08 7:04 AM
In reply to: Nikon by snapshot2
What do they have to say?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&thread=26372593
...
..
.
In my personal opinion,
by jump1127 - 1/18/08 10:29 PM In reply to: Nikon D200 0r Nikon D300??? by DannyKhuuI've seen many shots of both Nikon D200 and D300. I'd say that D300 is quite good though not a big leap improvement, unlike D100 to D200. If you've got a tight budget, go for D200. The really breakthrough for Nikon, today, I'd say is the new Nikon D3. But, it's in the professional category, more expensive and highly demanding the good Nikkor lenses. Nikon 18-135mm is quite acceptable regard the picture quality. But, if you're not in a rush, wait for a new coming model (D90 or so ). Besides, the sales price will drop a bit lower. Good luck and have fun with your new camera soon.
Thanks!
by DannyKhuu - 1/20/08 8:51 PM In reply to: In my personal opinion, by jump1127Thank You For All Of Your Awesome Advice! It Really Was Helpful and I'm Glad You Provided Your Opinions which I Highly Value.
D200-D300
by riteon - 2/14/08 12:39 PM In reply to: In my personal opinion, by jump1127I upgraded. There really isn't a big difference. If your looking for big Prints. the D300 12.2 pixels will help, What I did see is a nicer feel, more sturdy than the D300. The addition of live view -preview prior to shooting is a big help. Also additional color controls help. I was pleased to change
Nikon D200 vs D300
by hjfok - 1/19/08 1:24 PM In reply to: Nikon D200 0r Nikon D300??? by DannyKhuuThe 18-200mm VR lens is not that great optically, for the price you pay. There is qutie a bit of distortions. It is quite an expensive slow ultrazoom lens. It is not fast enough for low light actions. If you usually take photos in dusty environment and want to avoid dust getting into the sensor while you switch lens, then this is the lens for you. Otherwise, you can get the cheaper 18-135mm, or the 18-55mm plus 55-200mm VR. Then you can decide whether the money saved is enough for you to go for the D300.
You can read the review for the 18-200mm VR lens:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/242-nikkor-af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report?start=2
You're misinformed
by staticfive - 5/1/08 12:01 PM In reply to: Nikon D200 vs D300 by hjfokDude, you have no idea what you're talking about. The 18-200 is widely regarded as one of the best lenses out there, even at its (bargain) price of $650. There's absolutely NO way you can get that optical range without distortion; making a lens that achieves this would break the laws of physics. Plus, f/3.5 is NOT slow for something that will do 200mm (300mm full-frame equivalent). Additionally, it has VR for your low-light needs. If you don't have a speedlight for low light situations, you're probably a bargain photographer... which is confirmed since all you are doing is complaining about MONEY.
The 18-200 is worth every penny and more... and if you're buying a D200/D300 then you're most likely putting it in Photoshop and can afford the (literally) 5 seconds it takes to put on the +3 lens distortion filter.
Depends on your photo needs
by Weylen - 5/1/08 8:09 AM In reply to: Nikon D200 0r Nikon D300??? by DannyKhuuLike so many, I considered upgrading from my 200 to 300. Decided against it after having the good fortune of having a good friend let me borrow her D300 for a days shooting. The 300 is great, but for me, the 200 fits the bill. I don't enlarge beyond 16x20, shoot mostly outdoors in natural light (except for some macro stuff). A vast majority of the upgrades were simply not of interest to me, except the 100% field of view!! I am not a sports action photographer nor do I shoot in caves where ISO 1600-3200 is important.
The key to any camera choice is simply how it fits your needs. The D300 is jam packed with wonderful things. Do most of us need them?? Probably not, but that is an individual choice. If you do not enlarge beyond 8x10 or 16x20, in some respects you may actually be happier with the image quality of the D200!! I know I was. I found the D300 required a little more manipulation than I wanted to deal with. Not knocking the D300, but I have read too many threads that make the D200 sound second rate, which is total bunk, and generally comes from equipment freaks.
Thanks!
by DannyKhuu - 5/2/08 12:11 PM In reply to: Depends on your photo needs by WeylenJust bought my D300 ******* =) And thanks For all Your Wonderful tips and insight! I Did buy the 18-200mm And I Love It 
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
