[Dave]

With the arrival of the Nikon D300, there has been a downturn in prices of second hand Nikon D200's. It has reached such a point that you can now buy 2 second hand D200's for near the same price as a new Nikon D300

So the question has to be, is the D300 worth paying near double the price of a s/h D200 ? Will the majority of photographers really notice any difference in the images they produce between the 2 models ? If so , what ?

Note I started this thread as a means of discussion & not slamming anyone who does buy a D300 .... I would love the camera, but already having the D200 I cannot justify
a) the price difference &
b) the photographic ability to make full use of any difference , to an extent where it makes a difference in my end images

Discuss

[Charlotte]

Whilst perhaps not a logical upgrade for a D200 owner, for me with my D50 it makes more sense to go with the D300 than to go for a D200, which is really only a stepping stone to the D300. So yes it would be worth it for me to pay the extra for a D300 at the outset. Otherwise I would end up buying a D200 which would still leave me feeling sure that I would want a D300 down the line. i.e. It would not work out cheaper for me in the long run to buy a D200, as I'd also ending up forking out for a D300 as well!

The features of the D300 which are over + above the D200 which appeal to me are :

More mega pixels!
Newer type CCD
Superior noise handling at high ISO's

[orangepeel]

the price disparity is probably less to do with the functionality of the respective bodies and more to do with peoples perceptions regarding their value.

[billz]

Struggling with that decision at the momentThe d200 is a great camera and with used prices falling is looking like a great bargain.

[Dabhand16]

For those who have a D200 the D300 is not as much of a leap as it is for those of us who have D50/D70s.

I am in the latter group, but you will be better off waiting for the D400, so if you want two bodies, the D200 x 2 route might be the best option.

[Charlotte]

The D200 does have one advantage over the D300, other than price ... the down side of (the D300) having more pixels is that you collect larger files ... which I'd notice considerably with either of them

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

The D200 does have one advantage over the D300, other than price ... the down side of (the D300) having more pixels is that you collect larger files ... which I'd notice considerably with either of them

But on the other hand, memory cards and HDD's are getting cheaper..........

[Charlotte]

Thanks Graham, I needed a 'pos' to cancel out the 'neg'

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

Thanks Graham, I needed a 'pos' to cancel out the 'neg'

I jumped onto the picstop bandwagon and got two Sandisk Extreme 3 4 gig cards for under £40 inc p&p

[Dave]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate on this thread, so please don't take anything personally. Hopefully it draws out more debate, that is good for all those considering an upgrade

Re D300 over D200

More mega pixels!

& ? Unless printing A2+ prints you'll never notice the difference.

Newer type CCD

giving what ?

Superior noise handling at high ISO's

Fully agree , although with caveat of a) how often do you need high ISO & b) with decent Noise reduction programs, is it that important in the grand scheme of things ?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

For those who have a D200 the D300 is not as much of a leap as it is for those of us who have D50/D70s.

Same argument was in place with Canon 30D vs 40D, but the difference here is nearly twice the price of s/h models. I think the argument is same for those with D200 or not, as I could sell my D200 on EBAY & be in same position as someone who has just sold their D40 / D50 / D70 . We would both be there with £1100 / $2200 + in our hands ready to buy a D300, knowing that a second hand D200 is available at approx half the price