Nikon D200 vs D300 vs D90

I've decided to upgrade from the Nikon D70 I have now, and these are the three cameras I'm considering. I'm on a very tight budget, and so I'm trying to figure out which is the best bang for the buck. The D200 is about 500 on ebay, the D90 is 650, and the D300 is about 800 dollars.

I shoot nature, micro, and some portraits, and I've become quite serious about my work; I really want to upgrade for ISO capabilities along with resolution, as I wish for something higher than the 6 megapixels of the D70.

My questions are: Is the D300 really worth the extra 300-400 dollars over the D200? Aside from the general camera capabilities, is the extra couple of megapixels going to make a large difference there, also? I'm assuming that 12 megapixels is easily enough for 12 x 18 prints; is 10?

Those are the two main cameras I'm focusing on, but the D90 is there, too...but it's 150-250 dollars more, is it better than the D200? How is the image quality for these three cameras?

Thanks so much in advance!
Jaymes

The D200 is a fabulous camera and its high ISO capabilities are actually better than most people think. However, I also like my D300 (I have both) and the difference on the used market can be more like $200 if you are patient.

I was trying to buy another D200 for a backup body, but the two sellers I was in contact with would not come off their $600+ prices (the bodies were both in EX+ condition, low actuations). I found a D300 for $825 that was nearly flawless and had about 6000 shutter clicks on it when I got it. I might have found an even better deal, but I'm only patient to a point.

The thing I like best about the D300 is the improved focusing module, but it won't be a big advantage for portraits and nature work. Megapixels aren't enough different to matter. I have printed up to 24x36 from my D200 files, taking special pains with the file prep. 16x20s are a piece of cake.

If your budget demands it, there are D200s going for $4-500 that still have plenty of life left in them. You won't be disappointed. It has about the best low ISO image quality of any camera currently available.

I was in exactly the same situation as you six months ago, coming from the D70, trying to decide what to upgrade to, and having to watch the $$$. I decided to get a D300.

I think the key line in your post is that you want better high-iso capability. To me, this rules out the D200. The D200 will give you a one-stop improvement, while the D300 will give you two stops. The D300 and D90 both use basically the same sensor, so their high-iso performance is nearly the same. If you like the D70 ergonomics, go with the D90. If you want a step up in features (build quality, autofocus, manual lenses), go with the D300.

In my particular case, I shoot youth sports, so the better autofocus on the D300 was a big improvement.

Paul Wossidlo
http://www.PaulRichardWossidlo.com

If your goal is superior high iso and resolution performance at the lowest possible cost, the best solution IMO is a Canon T2i. Try using the comparison widget in the T3i review. The D300s really isn't close and by 3200 isn't all that usable even with Noise Ninja.

If you want to stay with Nikon, the D300 still has the world's best focus system and its environmental sealing is top notch. IMO for the small extra cost, these subsystems are world class. It remains a pro-level crop system.

BTW I use both of the above systems.

I own a D200 and am very happy with it. The only major gripes with the camera are the low battery life and slight softness in the images.

Aside from that, it produces VERY good pictures.

D200 has excellent skin tones and landscape color as well as exceptional metering. The downsides are that that the D90/D300 have less noise above ISO 640. If you shoot less than ISO 400, the D200 is fantastic. Battery life is also problematic. For studio portraiture and controlled lighting conditions the D200 is very hard to beat.

D90 is a compromise camera. Better high ISO shooting (similar to the D200 from ISO 400-640, but at 640 the D90 starts to pull away and by ISO 1600 the differences are a very clear 2/3 stop). The D90 AF is not as good as the D200 although they look the same spec wise - I think the D200 has a faster processor in there somewhere. The D90 does have better battery life. The D90 does not drive screw drive lenses quite as fast as the D200 (or your old D70) since it has a weaker motor. The D90 is not weather sealed like the D200 or D300.

The D300/D300s has about the same high ISO characteristics as the D90 (D300 slightly less and D300s slightly better). The benefit of the D300 is the faster focusing module than either the D200 or D90. The screw drive is also as powerful as the D200, so older lenses still focus fast. The D300/D300s is a nature/sports camera and the better AF helps it immensely in this regard.

--
Catallaxy

This question gets asked quite a bit. Instead of ranting "This question has been asked before & can't ever be asked again", I post my pro/con list I've made up as I'm shopping for a 2nd body to compliment my D300 after having owned a D80 and D200:

D300, $750 to $1,050 used ($900 to $1,200 if D300s)
a) Longer battery life

b) Minimal noise at ISO 800; noise becomes a problem at 1,600. At 3,200- forget it.
c) D300 AF is faster, but also more acurate and has more focus points
d) D300 frame rate is faster
e) D300 buffer is bigger
f) D300 has 14 bit Raw processing
g) D300 has lossless compressed RAW
h) Self-cleaning sensor
i) Lens alignment
j) Brighter 3” LCD vs 2.5” LCD on D200
k) Dual SD and CF card slots if D300s
l) Video (if D300s, and if this matters)
m) Vertical grip comes on/off in 10 seconds

D90, $500 to $650 used
a) Video (plus for some)
b) SD cards

c) Smaller size is a sword that cuts both ways. The weight difference is minimal. The larger D300 is easier to hold stable, but more girth to pack)
d) Stupid “mode” selector easily changed by accident.
e) Not weather-sealed
f) ISO performance similar to D300 (so I’m told)

g) Poss not as good WB- I once used a D80 alongside a D200, and the D80 came out w/ a blu-ish tint to night pix.

h) Max flash-sync speed is only 1/200- worthless when you want to use a large aperture on a bright, sunny day.

i) Vertical grip takes 3-4 minutes to take on/off; easy to lose small battery door.

D200, $400 to $600
-5

a) Noisier- my experienced “guess” (never did a direct comparison w/ same lens, same subject, same time of day, etc.) is that ISO 500 on the D200 is equivalent to ISO 800 on the D300

b) Poor battery life- 250(?) shots per charge- but EN-EL3e batteries, made by Nikon, can be had for relatively cheap. Do NOT go w/ a 3rd-party battery, there are better ways of saving money like not eating food.
c) No dust-reduction
d) No video (not a problem for some)
e) Uses CF cards (plus for some, minus for others)

f) Vertical grip takes 3-4 minutes to take on/off; easy to lose small battery door.

I went from a D70 to a D200 and now have a D300s. My wife has a D90 I've used occasionally.

I felt the D200 was a disappointment from an image quality standpoint. Mainly noise and banding in certain lighting conditions. Also battery life was poor.

I'd skip it and go with the D90 or D300. Basically the same sensor. Base decision on body size and features. Both have been very immune to dust even though the D300 has more sealing -- the self-cleaning sensors do help.

The D90 forces the change from CF to SD cards.

All three choices have a superior viewfinder to the D70 and better LCD displays, especially the D90 and D300.

--
Equipment in my User Profile.
Personal gallery at http://almy.us/gallery

Agree with the above. A note on the memory cards though. When I had a D70 I thought a 2 gig card was huge. Now all I use are 4 and 8 gig cards. The 2 gig cards are for emergencies, and the 1 gig card that I so loved is lost some where and I can't be bothered to find it.

My daughter has a D90 (new to both of us). It may take less time to get to know the camera but the D300 allows you more options as a photographer - even if you don't use them (makes for a longer period to get to know the camera).

I moved from the D70 to 300 mostly for sports (out doors in the rain often). I considered a D90 but wanted the extra protection and better auto focus. It took me a little while to enjoy my non sports shots.

From what the OP asked, I would go with either the 90 or 300 for battery life, higher ISO and better AF (D300).

Not mentioned but worth thinking about, if getting a D200 will let you improve your lens kit, it may be worth considering. The three cameras are that close. Not a looser in the group.

I, like many others here, went from D70s to D200 to D300, and now to D700. I sold the D70s when I realized I'd been shooting the D200 for about a year and not touched the D70s. I still have the other three cameras, and I use them all.

The D200 was a much better camera than the D70s. The viewfinder alone made it a lot easier to work with compared the the D70s. I thought both the D70s and the D200 had good metering and gave nice out-of-camera results. (So does the D700). The D300 has always seemed kind of 'bright' to me, and I often dial in some negative exposure when shooting in bright sun. Never needed to do that with the D200, but then perhaps the D300 exposes correctly and I just like some underexposure.

The D300 is better in just about every way than the D200 and the whole seems more than the sum of the parts. Autofocus and high ISO in particular are better.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net

If you like pro build and ergonomics, then the D90 is out.

If higher ISO/low noise, then the D300 has the advantage.

One point about the D200: It has a base ISO of 100, and at base ISO it has wonderful skin tone and color. Most of the port folio on my site was shot with a D200.

I thought long an hard about upgrading to a D300, but saw it as an incremental improvement. (I am looking forward to the D400)

--
http://www.nathanparkerphotography.com

no mention of the D7000 yet ... there must be some used ones on the market by now

not sure what the used value of the D7000 is but I'm guessing it's less than a used D300s?

(let's not start a fight, and just leave is as: some people consider the D7000 to be an improvement over the D300s, there are probably lots of threads in the D7000 and D300 forums discussing the pros/cons of both)
--
I shoot only with prime lenses (for the moment) ... I list my tools in my plan
http://twitter.com/LensLineup

Better than I could have. I would just add that the shutter is higher spec on the D300 than the other two cameras, an important consideration buying a used camera.

And the "you get what you pay for" statement is an adage because it is usually true. Looking at the new prices one is looking at an older $1900 camera, a later generation technology $1000 camera and $1900 camera.

I was in the same boat and went with the d200 and never have regretted it. In fact, I liked it so much I bought another d200 body as a back up. It is a wonderful camera. Everyone complains about the battery life but that has not been a problem for me. "how hard is it to slip an extra battery in your bag anyway". It does get noisy at high iso but at lower iso it is so great. I shoot lots of nature photography and it has been a great companion. I am waiting for the d700 to come down in price(probably waiting for a long time) and then I am going to add the fx d700. Will always keep my d200 bodies.

If I were you, I would get either a d200 or d300. Personally, I would get a d200 But I would rule out the d90. The d90 does not meter old ai and ais manual lens and the d200 and d300 does. I don't know what I would do without my classic manual focus lens. The d200 and d300 bodies are the same and they are awesome for changing settings easily. They feel 'so right' in your hands and are designed extremely well.

I got both of my d200 bodies on ebay. One had only 980 shutter actuations and the other had 1,900. The 980 d200 body came with a batter grip(which I love) and it cost $650(in nearly new condition). My other d200 was $500 in perfect, like new condition. I would go with a camera body that has very low shutter actuations. Avoid some wedding photographer who has put 80,000 shots on the camera. You should be able to get a good camera for $450-$550 if you go the d200 route. Less if you get a beater. Get a d200 now and later you could add a second body when the d300 or d300s crashes in price after the release of the long awaited new d400 or d800 or whatever it is going to be called. At that time, there will be a sh#tload of used d300 and d300's on the used market for much cheaper than todays prices. Right now, the d200 is the best value for your dollar
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emeraldsprings/

I too am about to move on from my D70.
I've pretty much decided that a D200 is the way to go for me.

Price is a big consideration; the D300 is 'a bridge too far' and the D90 won't meter manual lenses ( I saw a Kiron f2 24mm go for $25NZ (about $18US) the other day!) and will be the same price only if it's a bit beat-up.
I really like the feel of the D200 ( I've held one) and the nice finder too.

The high iso issue can in part be answered with faster glass, which I'll be more able to afford; and anyway I was a film shooter and can hardly believe that the criteria for a great DSLR camera is 1600 iso!

I got a d200 for less than $400 a little over a month ago, I think that's undervalued, but still, you should be able to find one for less than $500.

Compared to the d300, the biggest change is the AF. There's nothing wrong with the d200, but the d300 is a definite improvement.

Other differences: the d300 is better at higher isos, though many like the d200 at lower isos. 10 mp vs 12 mp isn't much of a big deal. There are some other points of course, but nothing terribly significant.

The d200 is very much a bargain these days and I'd say it's the best bang for the buck here or nearly anywhere. That said, I think the extra cash is worth it for the d300, though on a tight budget I'd still take the d200 and a better lens. And if you're not shooting sports or not thinking you really needig high-iso, then the d200 probably makes more sense anyway.

The d90 is only priced like it is because it has video. Unless you really want that, the d300 is deifinitely a better buy.

I have both the D200 and D300 and I must say that the D300 is a big jump up in quality and high ISO. While the D200 gave me great pictures, since upgrading to the D300 I truly appreciate the change from a CCD to CMOS sensor. The CMOS is much cleaner with less noise in the high iso ranges.

Also, the focusing feels more accurate on the D300. I would strongly urge you to try out both and see which you prefer.

I have never used the D90 so I can't compare it to the others.

SJP

GHeyward said:

My questions are: Is the D300 really worth the extra 300-400 dollars over the D200? Aside from the general camera capabilities, is the extra couple of megapixels going to make a large difference there, also? I'm assuming that 12 megapixels is easily enough for 12 x 18 prints; is 10?

Click to expand...

Truth is, 6 megapixels is enough for very good 12 x 18 prints. I have a D70 and have many 12 x 18 prints that are terrific. A little secret, in case you don't know, the D70 has a weak antialias filter, which enables it to shoot sharper images than later model DSLRs. The only downside is occassional moire problems.

I also own a D200 (and a D700). When I put high quality 12 x 18 prints side by side from the D70 and D200 I am hard pressed to tell which camera took which photos. Of course, the D200 beats out the D70 on many features, but the final image quality is not very different.

--
Steve

The D200 was better than the D100 in a number of ways but it is nowhere close to being as good as the D300 in many aspects of its performance. The difference between 10MP and 12MP is about 10% when you compare pixels along the vertical axis so forget about that aspect.

Where the D300 shines is in its autofocus system which is truly pro level with 15 cross type autofocus sensors compared to only 1 with the D200.

One drawback to the D300 or D200 is that both use full size CF cards. The D5100 will use SD and SDHC cards and is an excellent 12MP camera that also adds video.

calson said:

The D200 was better than the D100 in a number of ways but it is nowhere close to being as good as the D300 in many aspects of its performance. The difference between 10MP and 12MP is about 10% when you compare pixels along the vertical axis so forget about that aspect.

Where the D300 shines is in its autofocus system which is truly pro level with 15 cross type autofocus sensors compared to only 1 with the D200.

One drawback to the D300 or D200 is that both use full size CF cards. The D5100 will use SD and SDHC cards and is an excellent 12MP camera that also adds video.

Click to expand...

Ok; the autofocus is better on the D300 but I'm not a pro sport or racing photographer.

I guess I'll find out how good it is when I buy my D200, it seems many D200 users are happy campers and it'll be better than the D70 I'm sure. I'll also be using manual focus lenses.

I LIKE Compact Flash cards; SD cards are TOO small and CF is tough and reliable if you buy the good 'uns.

I don't give an f about video and why would I buy a cramped plastic 5100 when I can buy a comfortable metal and rubber D200 with a shutter life that has been proven to have very good odds of exceeding 100K?

Furthermore at the prices D200 are at I needn't be paranoid about loss, theft and damage. So I'll probably (like with my D70) take it with me and USE it more.