D80 to D200: how much of a step-up?

[Loa]

Hello,

I'm asking for some feedback from people who have used both, because if you simply compare the stats, those 2 cameras are nearly twins. The only notable differences are the 3 to 5 fps (and of course bigger buffer), and timelapse photography.

But that's on paper (on computer screen).

Now I know that the D200 is more rugged, but how much of a difference is there between both cameras?

I'm asking because I wanna wait for the hypothetical D90 to show up before getting a D300. For my needs, if the D90 is as close to the D300 as the D80 is to the D200, I'll put that hundreds of dollars difference on lenses.

Yet there must be more to the D200 that can't be listed. What is it?

Thanks

Loa

[cyclohexane]

Yet there must be more to the D200 that can't be listed. What is it?

Ease of use. The D80 is more menu-driven, and buttons are more overloaded akin to the D70 with each button doing multiple things depending on whether the camera's screen displays the menu, image review, or nothing at all. The D200 has hard buttons for pretty much everything you need to change while shooting, and there's a lot less "modality" in the button layout. Very few of the buttons have more than one function.

Coming from a D70, the D80 might actually be better as the interface is closer to your D70.

The 1,005-pixel matrix meter in the D200 is theoretically more accurate given the added hardware; in practice the D80 shows this to be essentially true; it meters hotter and less accurate than the D200, but this is not merely due to the reduction to a 420-pixel matrix meter. The D80 also weighs the area under the focus point significantly more than other cameras, which complicates things a little. Can we really blame the meter when the firmware is doing its own thing too?

1/250" flash sync vs. 1/200". Even 1/3 stop of extra ambient light control is better than not having it.

Advantages to the D80:
Size, weight, JPEG output at high ISO, price

Advantages to the D200:
50 ms shutter lag (vs 80 ms), more AF options, 1/250" flash sync, 1/8000" top shutter speed (hey, you never know...) mirror up, 1,005-pixel matrix meter, construction, hard buttons and switches for pretty much every setting you need to change while shooting.

For reference, your D70/S has a 106 ms shutter lag. Moving to a D80 you lose the 1,005-pixel matrix meter, 1/8000" top shutter speed, and 1/500" flash sync, though by trading the 1/500" flash sync you get rid of the blooming problem the D70 was prone to.

[Loa]

Hello Michael,

Thanks again for replying to one of my questions!

Going from the biggest Coolpix (in its day) to my current D70 2 years ago, I fully understand the menu -> button difference. And now you're saying that stepping up from a Dxx to a Dxxx would be similar? That's interesting.

I'm not interested in buying a D80 or D200, but I'm expecting (I could be wrong) the relationship between the D90 and D300 to be similar. The AF options and hard buttons are 2 tempting features that I now "guess" that the D300 will have over the D90.

I don't want to start a debate on speculation, but I'm trying to see things as clearly as possible. Do I get a D300 now, or wait for 2+ months just to see what the D90 looks like?

I was planning on waiting for the D90, but buttons and possible AF options (which I love on the D300) are making me think again. Then again, if the price difference is enough so that I can get a D90 + Tamron 28-75 for the price of the D300... Argh! :-D

Thanks

Loa

[cyclohexane]

And now you're saying that stepping up from a Dxx to a Dxxx would be similar?

Yep. =)

I'm expecting (I could be wrong) the relationship between the D90 and D300 to be similar. The AF options and hard buttons are 2 tempting features that I now "guess" that the D300 will have over the D90.

Probably. It's getting closer and closer each time though.

Do I get a D300 now, or wait for 2+ months just to see what the D90 looks like?

Can your D70 not take the pictures you want to take right this second? If it can't, then get a D300 now. If you can continue, then keep waiting if you feel like it.

Of course, if you were trying to make money off your photos my advice would change to "Your question should be 'how many D300's should I buy now?'" =)

[Loa]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Of course, if you were trying to make money off your photos my advice would change to "Your question should be 'how many D300's should I buy now?'" =)

:-D I'm not earning any money with photography right now, but more and more people are seeing my photographs, so who knows?


Thanks, I'll keep thinking about it some more!

Loa

[Songman45]

For what it's worth: The D200 at B&H is $999.95 I figure they are on the edge of discontinuing it. I bought one instead of a used D2Xs because of the new warranty (also got an extended service plan). I'm happy with the decision. I'll be happier when the battery base gets here (It'll fell and act just that much more like the big brother). The price is right for a camera with the ease of use. It was about $1,700 a year ago.

[Loa]

Hello Songman,

I'm surprised that you chose a D200 and grip instead of paying a bit more and getting a D300 (which I'm planning to do). Would you mind explaining why?

Thanks

Loa

[Songman45]

Originally Posted by Loa

Hello Songman,

I'm surprised that you chose a D200 and grip instead of paying a bit more and getting a D300 (which I'm planning to do). Would you mind explaining why?

Thanks

Loa

I don't mind explaining at all. It is a case of economics and time-to-market. The D200 is for all intents and purposes a mini-D2X with the addition of a couple of added features from the consumer end of the spectrum. With the MB D200 bast it is that much more similar.

I took a hard look at my requirements and my budget. Remember in the beginning I was not looking at a FX sensor camera; I was saving for a used D2Xs at @ $2,500. Here's a mini-D2X for $1000 and the battery base for another $135 and an additional 2 years of warranty with three annual cleanings included for another $145. I'm off to the races with new gear and new warranties at just about half the expense of the used camera.

Is the D200 capible of producing the kind of images I need? Yes. Will the D300 make an equivelent photo noticibly better? No. Are the added features at the additional price valuable to my bottom line? No. The D3 and the D300 both are without question remarkable performers at high ISO. I don't have a need for extreme ISO shooting.

Its about spending money to make money. How little can I spend to generate an income? This is the question I'm asking, rather than How much longer must I wait and how much more must I spend to generate the same level of income?

Oh that $500 difference in the price of the D300 v.s. D200 is about 50% of the price of the lens I want to buy.

I hope that explains it.

Regards,

Steve

[Loa]

Hello Steve,

Thanks for your take on the D200 and D300 debate.

The high ISO is indeed a defining difference between the 2 bodies. But from what I've read the EXPEED processor (especially the improved and more integrated meter), improved AF, and much better LCD are also significant differences (and a host of smaller details: self-cleaning, 100% viewfinder, improved battery life, improved fps, bigger buffer, 14bits, etc...).

I'm not earning any money with photography (yet), but for me that 500$ difference is worth it. I decided to go for the D300 and Tamron 28-75 instead of a D200 or D90 with Nikon's 24-70.

In the end, the improved quality of Nikon's 24-70 didn't justify it's price tag.

But, then again, to each his own!

Loa

[Songman45]

Originally Posted by Loa

Hello Steve,

Thanks for your take on the D200 and D300 debate.

The high ISO is indeed a defining difference between the 2 bodies. But from what I've read the EXPEED processor (especially the improved and more integrated meter), improved AF, and much better LCD are also significant differences (and a host of smaller details: self-cleaning, 100% viewfinder, improved battery life, improved fps, bigger buffer, 14bits, etc...).

I'm not earning any money with photography (yet), but for me that 500$ difference is worth it. I decided to go for the D300 and Tamron 28-75 instead of a D200 or D90 with Nikon's 24-70.

In the end, the improved quality of Nikon's 24-70 didn't justify it's price tag.

But, then again, to each his own!

Loa

I think you see exactly why the D300 did not appeal to me for my particular use. You chose the Tamron lens rather than the Nikkor because the value did not exceed the price. For you the breaking price was in the glass, for me it was in the body. A hobbiest does not have the same considerations in purchases that somone going into business does.

You are right: To each, his own.

Regards
Steve

[cyclohexane]

But from what I've read the EXPEED processor (especially the improved and more integrated meter), improved AF, and much better LCD are also significant differences (and a host of smaller details: self-cleaning, 100% viewfinder, improved battery life, improved fps, bigger buffer, 14bits, etc...)

Ironically, I shoot my D300 using a modified version of the Picture Style "D2XMODEII", which mimics the pre-EXPEED output rendered by the ASIC found in the D2X.

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Ironically, I shoot my D300 using a modified version of the Picture Style "D2XMODEII", which mimics the pre-EXPEED output rendered by the ASIC found in the D2X.

I have the D2X modes programmed as well and use them once in awhile. I do however use Ken Rockwell's vivid profile more with outdoor shots.

[Loa]

Originally Posted by Songman45

For you the breaking price was in the glass, for me it was in the body. A hobbiest does not have the same considerations in purchases that somone going into business does.

Indeed. Lucky for me because I'd be ruined! For me, paying more than 3 times as much for the Nikon lens without even VR as a bonus... Didn't make sense. With VR, I may have been tempted, looking at it from the angle of long term investment. But in a sense I get to keep about 1200$ in my pocket and get a lens that should be close enough.

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Ironically, I shoot my D300 using a modified version of the Picture Style "D2XMODEII", which mimics the pre-EXPEED output rendered by the ASIC found in the D2X.

I've heard a lot about those modes and I'm anxious to try them. But these are just color modes. For me, the strength of the EXPEED procesor is the integration of focusing (speed, tracking, scene recognition), white balance, metering and flash. All these things are controlled from the same processor instead of being 4 seperate entities (chips) in pre-EXPEEED models.

(Or, at the very least, that's what a Nikon rep showed at a conference last year. He showed side by side photographies of the same scene with a D200 and D300. The differences in color accuracy, exposure and TTL flash performance were amazing! Of course if you're going at it all manual, a D200 will be just as good. Then again, so would a D80 or D90!)

Anyway. I'm waiting for a very good deal on a D300 (if only I lived in the US I'd buy Julio's!), or a confirmation that some sort of D300s won't show up at Photokina, witchever comes first!

Thanks for the input!

Loa

[cyclohexane]

Picture Controls aren't just color modes. They control every aspect of your JPEGs, which is also affected by the EXPEED engine. The D2X modes offer different starting points that mimic the pre-EXPEED output, which cannot be reached by tweaking the included Picture Styles.

He showed side by side photographies of the same scene with a D200 and D300. The differences in color accuracy, exposure and TTL flash performance were amazing!

Actually, overall, the D200, IMHO, had better color accuracy. Auto WB worked better too. The D300 keeps too much yellow under a lot of artificial lights, and color is oversaturated.

Exposure accuracy comes with a caveat; overall I'd give the advantage to the D300, but some of the differences in images can be attributed to the different default response curve applied to D300, not better exposure. Midtones are, by default, set to a punchier value than on previous cameras, which results in a brighter image at the expensive of dynamic range. Turn down the "brightness/gamma" setting and the D300 images will pretty much match the look of older cameras. Overall, the D300 handles tough scenes better with the matrix meter, but the D200 was pretty consistent in its underexposure too, which made it easily correctable.

Focusing speed and accuracy goes to the D300 in a landslide. TTL flash is better with the D300, but I've found the difference negligible.