Jump to content


Photo

nikon d200 vs d300


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Nik Samal

Nik Samal
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 20 June 2008 - 01:28 PM

yo

can't see a photography forum on here so i'm sticking this here!

i'm in the process of buying either one of these. and just wondered if anyone here have had any experience with both. if so is there any noticeable BIG differences?? i've used d200 a few times and just wondered if it'd be worth splashing out the extra bucks for the 300, or not.

thanks in advance
  • 0

#2 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 June 2008 - 05:12 PM

Yes, the 300 is worth the extra money. First of all, you get 12.3 MP instead of 10. The 300 is MUCH faster, the LCD screen is WAY better and the higher ISO settings are really usable for the first time, up to like 1600 ISO. So by all means get the 300 if you can afford her. You'll love yours, as I do mine!

Cheers, Dave
  • 0

#3 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 20 June 2008 - 08:41 PM

Man I would love to be able to shoot at ISO 1600.
  • 0

#4 Zamir Merali

Zamir Merali
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Director

Posted 20 June 2008 - 08:50 PM

I work at a camera store and I would say you should definitely go for the 300. The aforementioned reasons are good enough but nikon also changed the entire chip design from the 200 to the 300. This gives you more colour depth and even more subtle changes in tone are visible. I find that the main difference when looking at an 8x10 from both cameras side by side is not the increases in resolution (because 2.3 MP isn't noticeable below a 11x17 print), it's the colour that stands out.
  • 0

#5 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 June 2008 - 02:15 AM

This gives you more colour depth and even more subtle changes in tone are visible. I find that the main difference when looking at an 8x10 from both cameras side by side is not the increases in resolution (because 2.3 MP isn't noticeable below a 11x17 print), it's the colour that stands out.


Yep, I forgot that. The chip is now CMOS instead of CCD which to my eye yields a much cleaner picture and the dynamic range is supposed to be better too!

Cheers, Dave

PS: Tom, here is a quarter (at 100 percent) of a picture taken with my D300 @ 1600 ISO. That's without any kind of noise reduction or suppression because I like to do that in the raw converter.
http://www.auner.net/misc/DSC_0283.jpg

That's the same with NR applied.
http://www.auner.net...DSC_0283_nr.jpg
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

CineLab

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Opal

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Wooden Camera