Is the Nikon D300 worth 2 x second hand Nikon D200's ??

**Dabhand16** · 01-02-2008, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Don't forget if you're planning on getting the D300, that it takes CF cards, not SD.

So does the D70s

Charlotte · 01-02-2008, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

So does the D70s

You mean to say the D50 is the only one that takes SD cards

VinnyP · 01-02-2008, 01:58

20% more megapixels is nice to have. You can lose 18% of the image to cropping and still have the same size file as a D200. But it depends on what you are shooting and what you do with it. For anything fast moving like sports or wildlife the much better AF performance, high ISO and 8FPS will make it a worthwhile upgrade. This clear advantage gets blurred if you only take RAW ISO100 shots of landscapes. However the improved dynamic range and the post processing opportunities of 14bit may help to justify the cost.
Going back to the original question if I was faced with the choice of 2 D200s or one D300 I'd get the 2 D200s. 2 bodies adds a lot to some shooting opportunities and having a backup gives peace of mind.

**Dabhand16** · 01-02-2008, 10:10

Vinny has made a very important point here, which is what you are using your cameras for. Anyone who is using their cameras to earn money must surely put having two bodies over having the latest kit. For the majority of us happy snappers having two bodies is not nearly so important, although those who do a lot of sports and event photography would find it very convenient to have a tele and a wide angle available instantly.

**Dabhand16** · 01-02-2008, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte

You mean to say the D50 is the only one that takes SD cards

In the pre D40/D80 series - yes as far as I know.

simpbow · 01-02-2008, 13:27

Great thread, i wouldn't say no to either of them there both good cameras, so anyone thinking of changing i know of a good home where you could send it.

***Dave*** · 01-02-2008, 13:31

Here's another question then. For the same money you can have

a) a new Nikon D300 with kit lens (let's be good & say 18-70mm rather than the 18-55mm lens)
b) a second hand Nikon D200 & new Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 Pro lens

Now which combination do you reckon would produce the best quality images, if used by the same photographer, for the majority of shots ?

**Dabhand16** · 01-02-2008, 13:48

On average, the faster glass ought to win in most situations. It will also allow more flexible shutter speed settings and better differential focus/DoF control.

However, as you well know, it is not as simple as that

If you were going to walk around with the camera for an extended period, the 18-70 is lighter. For average shots where the DoF or shutter speed is not crucial, there might not be such a difference.

If you wanted to enlarge/crop/ or crop+enlarge, the pendulum might just start swinging the other way.

Anyway - you have the lens, if you get a D300, you will have the best of both worlds.

Charlotte · 01-02-2008, 13:53

D300 + Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8

And sell my body if I really had to. I mean my D50 body

Well it would pay for the p&p anyway

**Dabhand16** · 01-02-2008, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte

sell my body if I really had to. I mean my D50 body

VinnyP · 01-02-2008, 14:45

No question the D200 with the 17-55. In fact a D60 with the 17-55.