I have a D200, with a wonderful set of lenses including the 18 - 200
mm lens. The D3 is not worth upgrading my d200 body but the D300
looks like it might be.
In your opinions is the D300 worth $1700 to upgrade ?
> I have a D200, with a wonderful set of lenses including the 18 - 200
> mm lens. The D3 is not worth upgrading my d200 body but the D300
> looks like it might be.
>
> In your opinions is the D300 worth $1700 to upgrade ?
Only you can answer that. The D200 is a great camera that only lacks
high-ISO performance. If High-ISO performance is paramount I would
definitely get the D300 if you are not getting a D3. I'm still considering
a D300 form my second body and a holdover till my stinken D3 arrives.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:24:17 -0500, LuvLatins wrote:
> I have a D200, with a wonderful set of lenses including the 18 - 200
> mm lens. The D3 is not worth upgrading my d200 body but the D300
> looks like it might be.
>
> In your opinions is the D300 worth $1700 to upgrade ?
Monetarily? Probably not, considering your past messages. If you
highly value having the latest and greatest (within reason), then
perhaps it might be worth the expense. Look at it from a
hypothetical vantage point a number of years down the road. Might
you then say that having purchased a D200, D300, D400, D500, etc.,
shortly after each model's release were good decisions? Will you
keep each of the older models or sell some or all of them
(eventually)? As I said, probably not (if you're like me), since
whatever image quality improvements you get will probably be very
slight. If you get pleasure or satisfaction from continually
learning and experimenting with new features and the monetary hit
isn't really too painful, then perhaps frequent upgrades would be
justified. My own preference is to skip at least every other model
upgrade, so if I owned a D200, I'd consider a D400, D600, etc. As I
recently said about my D50, I still haven't felt constrained by it
nor have I fully mastered it. If I reach that point though,
upgrading to a newer model would be somewhat like the photographic
version of the Peter Principle, upgrading when using the old camera
has become so natural that little conscious thought is needed, as if
it were appendage. Sometimes "good enough" is good enough, and most
photographers agree that the D200 is a very good camera. If you
find it hard resisting the urge to spend, maybe consider a very good
little P&S that you can tote to places that you wouldn't want to
bring the bigger kit?
Consider the D70 vs D80 upgrade:
The larger sensor of the D80 really makes no practical difference for the
vast majority of users who rarely print greater than letter size images. The
internal electronics and processing algorithms are not significantly
different to the end user. I still use both cameras and I cannot tell which
camera made which image by looking at the finished print.
However the viewfinder of the D80 compared to the D70 alone was worth the
upgrade to me.
Again the larger sensor of the D300 will make no difference in the final
print to the vast majority of non-professional users. I also seriously doubt
that the lower noise at higher ISOs is the deal maker except in the head of
those who are more technically obsessed than aesthetically gifted.
In any event within 6 months there will be the usual minimally dumbed down
version of the D300 just as the D80 stands in relation to the D200. Nikon
will keep the D40x and axe the D200/80. That only makes sense from a
marketing stand point.
The biggest unknown is whether Nikon will go to in-camera stabilization.
That would be a much more worthwhile upgrade than live preview, an utterly
useless gee gaw.
I would like to see Nikon, or anyone, come out with an EVF camera based on
an APS sized sensor.
Thanks everyone for your valuable input. Its true, I am a little
early and the price is a bit high for the features. Its about 25%
more features than my current D200. Others say its a totally
different camera. Im not sure I agree. But I am so happy with my
D200 that I was thinking of giving my D200 to my son and getting
myself the D300. My son has had his eye on my D200 ever since it came
through the door. (grin)
I think I am going to treat myself since the experince with my D200
was so good. The D300 is clearly a step up, but not a huge one and
clealry not worth $1800 dollars and the battary back will also need to
be upgraded since the battary pack from the D200 does not fit the D300
All in all, I cant afford the jump to the D3 so this shoulld hold me
and keep me happy for the next 2 or 3 years (wink)
I will let you know what I think after I get my hands on it.
Thanks again Love this group.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:13:05 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>flambe wrote:
>[]
>> I would like to see Nikon, or anyone, come out with an EVF camera
>> based on an APS sized sensor.
>
>You missed the Sony DSC-R1?
>
>David
>
In article <13mq8nefuptk53a@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> my stinken D3 arrives.
IF you feel that way about the D3 why did you buy it?
--
With or without religion, you would have good people doing
good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good
people to do evil things, that takes religion.
On Dec 22, 8:27 pm, LuvLatins <somewh...@mexico.com> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for your valuable input. Its true, I am a little
> early and the price is a bit high for the features. Its about 25%
> more features than my current D200. Others say its a totally
> different camera. Im not sure I agree. But I am so happy with my
> D200 that I was thinking of giving my D200 to my son and getting
> myself the D300. My son has had his eye on my D200 ever since it came
> through the door. (grin)
>
> I think I am going to treat myself since the experince with my D200
> was so good. The D300 is clearly a step up, but not a huge one and
> clealry not worth $1800 dollars and the battary back will also need to
> be upgraded since the battary pack from the D200 does not fit the D300
>
> All in all, I cant afford the jump to the D3 so this shoulld hold me
> and keep me happy for the next 2 or 3 years (wink)
>
> I will let you know what I think after I get my hands on it.
>
> Thanks again Love this group.
Well if you've got $1800 burning a hole in your pocket, why not get a
nice lens? That's what I'd do. The only things I'd consider as serious
upgrades in the d300 (vs the d200) would be the af (more points for
more flexibility), live view which would be useful for macro etc and
maybe also the AF tuning. No way they're worth more than 200 euro to
me, though!
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:27:35 -0500, LuvLatins <somewhere@mexico.com> wrote:
> But I am so happy with my
>D200 that I was thinking of giving my D200 to my son and getting
>myself the D300. My son has had his eye on my D200 ever since it came
>through the door. (grin)
Giving it to him is a nice gesture. It adds logic to the upgrade. Were you
to instead sell the D200 it would come down to is it worth $800 to upgrade.
>I think I am going to treat myself since the experince with my D200
>was so good. The D300 is clearly a step up, but not a huge one and
>clealry not worth $1800 dollars and the battary back will also need to
>be upgraded since the battary pack from the D200 does not fit the D300
Why a battery pack? The internal battery is good for hundreds and hundreds
of shots. I never ran one down on my D200 in a day of shooting. And the
D300 should be better (if you don't use Liveview).
Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
>> my stinken D3 arrives.
>
> IF you feel that way about the D3 why did you buy it?
Simply because there are no better dSLRs on the face of the earth. I'm sure
the camera is good, it's Nikon's insistence on tormenting their customers
with poor distribution that has me ****ed off. I should have had my D3
three weeks ago.
D300 worth the upgrade from the D200 
Linear Mode
