All in all, whats the difference?

[Douglas]

Vague title, but it was going to be too long otherwise.

But with cameras being pumped out and upgraded as fast as computers are, I was wondering what are the differences in the models of the cameras.

I mean, lets say someone knocked on your door and offered you (for free) your choice of a D200, D300, D80 or even a D90 (since people seem to think it will be a scaled down D300).

Now most would say the D300 because its the newest technology and so forth. But what makes it the better camera? (also ignoring the megalpixels)

What is the difference between a D80 and a D200 and the 200 from the 300?

Reason I ask is because in the spring, I get a bonus from work as part of my pay raise. So I will be in the market for a new DSLR. And depending on its cost, I am thinking of getting the D90 if its out. But since we dont know the specs yet, we cant compare a D80 to a D90. But since both are suppose to be the little brothers of the D200 and D300 respectivly(Like the N90s was to the F5 in film), I was wondering what the real difference is between the 2.

[awm123]

I have worked my way through D70, D200 and D300. The largest single deciding factor for me was low light performance. ISO of 2000-3200 is usable with surprisingly little grain. The D lighting feature opens up a whole new world of low light opportunity. While not a big factor for me, the live view on the LCD is useful on some occasions. The intro lines (D40,60,80,90) are great intro cameras, but ergonomics, build quality and feature sets keep me from buying them. That said, if I had a few hundred with nothing to do with, I would put a D60 in my kit as a walk around, small size camera.

[Douglas]

Really the only difference I see is the iso rating. Newer ones go to 3200 with the D700 pushing to 6400 (all starting at 200 where you can play with the EV to get a form of 100 speed).

Nikon | Imaging Products | Nikon D300

So is that really the difference besides the MP? I see the D80 is also a 10.2mp and also a 100-1600 iso rating as the D200. But the D80 has the preprogramed settings as well (sports, portrait, landscape, etc).

It just seems really confusing to me and im sure those like me who know the basics, but not the numbers. I guess I should just wait and see what the D90 brings. (both price and feature wise) I dont need the 6400 iso like the 700, and would really prefer a 100 speed in all honesty since I do a lot of landscapes. So when I see its $3k for this camera, its a bit shocking.

Heck, I really dont even know what the difference is between FX/DX yet(I have an idea, I just need to know the answer in my terms). Recent film convert, so its akin to switching from Nikon to Canon. Gotta relearn most of the terms.

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by Douglas

I mean, lets say someone knocked on your door and offered you (for free) your choice of a D200, D300, D80 or even a D90 (since people seem to think it will be a scaled down D300).

D300 for sure. D90 is vapor ware until it actually shows up.

DX is smaller image sensor 1/2 the size of Film aka 1.5 factor

FX is the same size as film about 24x36mm

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Eero Makela

D300 for sure. D90 is vapor ware until it actually shows up.

Why? What do you think makes it a better choice? Serious question. If all 3 (ill ignore the 90 for now) were on a table. None of them labled, and you had to choose based on the features. What key features would make one the winner?

DX is smaller image sensor 1/2 the size of Film aka 1.5 factor

FX is the same size as film about 24x36mm

Thats really all I know. That the sensor is smaller. Some of the responses made when I researched this didnt make much sense. So on my D70, is my 18-70 DX really an 18-70 or is it a 27-105? Or is it still 18-70, just a cropped version. (this is where I get confused. )

[Bonner]

Scott Kelby admitted he got the D300 just for the 3" LCD! He later fell in love with the performance. (I think he could afford any camera in the world he wanted). -Jim

[jwm6780]

I have had a D70, D200 and D300 and the 300 is by far the best camera. Not only is the ISO better, but with a totally different sensor than the D200 it will take a sharper picture with better color and saturation. The 51 autofocus points just gives it two legs up on autofocus. 3Dmatrix focus is amazing.

I had originally thought I would not want the D300, that there was not that much difference. The bottom line is I was wrong. The D300 gives me more options and choices to take the photos I want.

I do think each camera fills a need in the marketplace for interest level and pocketbook of different people. My business partner has a D40 and loves it. It fills her needs. The more I use my D300, the more needs it fills for me.

Would I love a D700, probably, but I am happy for now.

[physicsguy]

Douglas,
So much depends on what you want to photograph and what features make a big difference to you. But that's hard to tell until you have used the camera, isn't it?

In some respects, the comparison of the D80 and D200 is made easier because the detector (and probably most of the electronics) are pretty much the same. The interface is what makes the bigger difference. I have not shot with a D80, I moved up from a D50. The basic reasons for my move were not concerned with megapixel differences but with features that were missing on the D50 that I thought were effecting the pictures I like to take (the most important being macro photos of wild flowers). That included the facility to lock up the mirror and to be able to look at separate histograms for each color channel because the difficulty I had with flower colors blowing single channels. I don't know if those two features are found on the D80.

I almost never used the scene presets (portrait, sports, etc.) on the D50 and I valued the easy access to other adjustments (ISO, quality, white balance) that took their place. DOF preview was also a very important feature missing on the D50.

But these features are important to me. They may not be important to you.

I like the extra "heft" of the D200. Others don't like the extra weight.

Is the D300 a better camera than the D200. Almost certainly. But I decided the price differential was more important to me than the features that make the D300 better.

If you are familiar with film, maybe the way to explain the effect of the difference between the DX and FX detectors is something like the difference between 35mm and medium format film. I loved shooting medium format because I felt the image quality difference was so significant. I suppose that means I would be more attracted to the D700 than the D300. I have never considered it though, based entirely on finances.

So where does that leave you? If I was sitting accross the table from you, I would ask if you would like to use the scene presets. If so, stay with the D80 or D90. If you want to control more of the photographic conditions, or if you think the camera will be exposed to ungentle conditions in the field, perhaps the D200 or D300 would suit you better. If your interenst lie in low light photographs, go for the D300 or D90. Would the addition of an extra lens be more important than the special features of the D300?

Well. probably haven't brought you any closer to your goal, but maybe it is another series of thoughts about the things to consider.

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Thats really all I know. That the sensor is smaller. Some of the responses made when I researched this didnt make much sense. So on my D70, is my 18-70 DX really an 18-70 or is it a 27-105? Or is it still 18-70, just a cropped version. (this is where I get confused. )

I am not good at writing these down. Here is the explanation DX vs FX

Why is DX lens longer on FX camera - Photo.net Nikon Forum

The 2nd answer by Lenny Purdie , Jul 27, 2008; 10:51 a.m.

There is also a diagram farther down that shows the diff.

Long time ago a friend of mine was using a 4x6 camera to take picture of a large group of people (about 100). If I recall he was using a 80mm lens and was able to get everyone into the shot. I had a 35mm film camera and had a 24mm (or 28 I forget) lens and I was not able to get the whole group into the shot from the same distance that he had his camera at.

This one is taken at 18mm on a DX kit lens (18x1.5=27mm)
DSC_6129.jpg

This one is taken with my old 35mm 28-80 zoom set at 28mm
DSC_6131.jpg

This one is taken with the DX lens set to 28mm you will notice it has about the same angle of view hence 28mm is the same be it a FX or DX lens.
DSC_6134.jpg

NOTE : ALL pictures above taken with D300 aka DX sensor

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by jwm6780

I have had a D70, D200 and D300 and the 300 is by far the best camera. Not only is the ISO better, but with a totally different sensor than the D200 it will take a sharper picture with better color and saturation. The 51 autofocus points just gives it two legs up on autofocus. 3Dmatrix focus is amazing.

I had originally thought I would not want the D300, that there was not that much difference. The bottom line is I was wrong. The D300 gives me more options and choices to take the photos I want.

I do think each camera fills a need in the marketplace for interest level and pocketbook of different people. My business partner has a D40 and loves it. It fills her needs. The more I use my D300, the more needs it fills for me.

Would I love a D700, probably, but I am happy for now.

Thats kind of the answer I was looking for. Sure, each new model is a technological upgrade, but how much so. But like in computers, how much better is a 3gb processor vs a 2.8. Not much at all.

So thats what I was looking for. How is it better. Are you going to see results or are you going to wonder why you spent extra money? I like your answer on how its an upgrade from an image point of view. Thank you

Originally Posted by physicsguy

Douglas,
So much depends on what you want to photograph and what features make a big difference to you. But that's hard to tell until you have used the camera, isn't it?

In some respects, the comparison of the D80 and D200 is made easier because the detector (and probably most of the electronics) are pretty much the same. The interface is what makes the bigger difference. I have not shot with a D80, I moved up from a D50. The basic reasons for my move were not concerned with megapixel differences but with features that were missing on the D50 that I thought were effecting the pictures I like to take (the most important being macro photos of wild flowers). That included the facility to lock up the mirror and to be able to look at separate histograms for each color channel because the difficulty I had with flower colors blowing single channels. I don't know if those two features are found on the D80.

I almost never used the scene presets (portrait, sports, etc.) on the D50 and I valued the easy access to other adjustments (ISO, quality, white balance) that took their place. DOF preview was also a very important feature missing on the D50.

But these features are important to me. They may not be important to you.

I like the extra "heft" of the D200. Others don't like the extra weight.

Is the D300 a better camera than the D200. Almost certainly. But I decided the price differential was more important to me than the features that make the D300 better.

If you are familiar with film, maybe the way to explain the effect of the difference between the DX and FX detectors is something like the difference between 35mm and medium format film. I loved shooting medium format because I felt the image quality difference was so significant. I suppose that means I would be more attracted to the D700 than the D300. I have never considered it though, based entirely on finances.

So where does that leave you? If I was sitting accross the table from you, I would ask if you would like to use the scene presets. If so, stay with the D80 or D90. If you want to control more of the photographic conditions, or if you think the camera will be exposed to ungentle conditions in the field, perhaps the D200 or D300 would suit you better. If your interenst lie in low light photographs, go for the D300 or D90. Would the addition of an extra lens be more important than the special features of the D300?

Well. probably haven't brought you any closer to your goal, but maybe it is another series of thoughts about the things to consider.

And I really like your answer on the body upgrades. I baby my cameras, so the ruggedness isnt an issue. And I dont use the presets either.

I guess if the D90 is a smaller version of the D300, I will see what one has that the other doesnt. And im not too concerned with the shell or really the menus (as long as not too crazy). But I will admit, if the removal of the preset buttons makes it so I can do more adjustments by button instead of menus, I wouldnt hate that

Once it does come out, Ill see if theres a reason one is better then the other image wise. (I really wish they would work on the low end of the ISOs as well as the high. Id love to see a 50 (or dare I hope 25?)-3200 range since I do 99% outdoor stuff.

And thanks, Eero. I actually was reading that thread yesterday. So many different people saying it in their own words. It was a bit overwhelming. The photos help a bit. But I guess, if I understand it correctly, that we arent getting the actual lens size in digital that we did in film due to the sensor. And if we put the DX lens on the FX camera, the image will have a big ring around it

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by Douglas

And thanks, Eero. I actually was reading that thread yesterday. So many different people saying it in their own words. It was a bit overwhelming. The photos help a bit. But I guess, if I understand it correctly, that we arent getting the actual lens size in digital that we did in film due to the sensor. And if we put the DX lens on the FX camera, the image will have a big ring around it

The DX lens put on a D3 or D700 would still look normal as the camera will auto switch to the DX format and only use the center part of the sensor. My guess is that the 18mm DX lens would look like the 28 does in my D300.

Basically the D3 12mb camera turns into a 5mb DX camera (this according to what I read on Ken Rockwell's site if I recall)

The Future of Nikon FX and DX

As I do not have a Full frame digital I can't show this any way.

[Douglas]

Thanks for that link. It does kind of confirm what I thought. Lenses really arent what they are rated at due to the smaller sensors. If you have 2 cameras, 1 film and 1 a dx camera, and both have an 18mm lens (for example) the image on the negative will have more of the scene then the dx camera will.Maybe in another 10 years, the FX cameras wont cost as much as an older used car.(and as much as people rag on Ken, he and I agree about the abomination called ASP film cameras)

[Loa]

Hello Douglas,

Here's an answer in pragmatic terms: the more you use your camera manually (speed, aperture, focus, ISO, metering, etc...), the less the upgrades will matter to you. (And conversely, of course.)

Not that they won't matter at all, but in my opinion, a lot less so.

Loa