A slightly improved D200.

[capanikon]

That is all.

 

[photonut2008]

That is all.

It's more of an improvement than the D810 was over the D800E.

• The rear LCD is larger.
• Viewfinder coverage goes from 95% to 100%.
• Resolution goes up more than you would think going from 10 MP to 12 MP due to the weaker AA filter.
• DR in daylight is about half a stop at base DR using ETTR and over a stop under artificial lighting at any ISO above 200.
• Frames per second goes from five to seven (with the MB-D10, though I measured my D300 at 6.5 fps without the accessory grip).
• The AF system was vastly improved, to the point that it is fundamentally the same (minus performance tweaks/upgrades) as Nikon's pro AF systems used until the D5, D850, and D500.

For me, the cumulative value of all the above make the D300 more than a "slight" improvement over the D200.

 

[Dweeble]

Surely, given it moved to CMOS over CCD, it's really like comparing apples and pears?

 

[photonut2008]

Surely, given it moved to CMOS over CCD,

I thought the basic image quality of the D200 was okay, though I bit behind Canon's contemporary APS-C cameras. The D300 moving to CMOS certainly improved the DR and eliminated the banding I saw in two different copies of the D200 that I owned.

it's really like comparing apples and pears?

In what way? Larger viewfinder? Better AF? Better resolution?

Perhaps you are alluding to the change from Image Settings to Picture Controls, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying sensor technology. Perhaps you are referring to the different CFAs, which was another slight D300 improvement over the D200.

 

[Dweeble]

No, my point was that if one agrees with the view (gaining traction here recently) that CCD and CMOS deliver very different outputs, they are simply different creatures.

 

[photonut2008]

No, my point was that if one agrees with the view (gaining traction here recently) that CCD and CMOS deliver very different outputs, they are simply different creatures.

I don't agree with that, at all. It's a canard, and the "traction" it has is no different now, and even quite a bit less, than when the D300 first came out . The same crowd (the same whiners who have been bashing the D300 and every other camera Nikon has made since the D200 for over a decade now) has a hard time explaining why they love the D2x and 5D so much when those are also CMOS cameras -- and that's because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the sensor technology.

 

[Dweeble]

Hey, I'm not knocking the D300. I use it all the time, I love it.

 

[photonut2008]

Hey, I'm not knocking the D300. I use it all the time, I love it.

Sorry, I wasn't saying you were part of that crowd, I was just venting my frustration from past encounters with them. I didn't mean to become so churlish about it.

 

[Robert Cohen]

I've got to disagree. I found the D300 to be a vast improvement over the D200. Considering how long it took Nikon to come out with the D500, I'm glad I was able to use a D300 during that time instead of my D200.

 

[PerL]

That is all.

Battery life and high ISO above 800 was greatly improved.

 

[BasilG]

That is all.

I disagree with almost everything in your review. When it was released, the D300 was not a "slightly improved D200". It was a D2x at a third of the price. It was amazing, better than anyone had imagined possible just a few months before its release.

That said, in today's world, the ratings given are (surprisingly, given the lacklustre conclusion) too high. It is no longer "excellent" for landscape photography, for example. Not enough pixels, not enough dynamic range. Is it still useful? Sure. Is it "excellent"? No.

 

[VanA]

Good one. I had my laugh for today.

It's like saying that the F-15 Eagle is a slight improvement over the F-4 Phantom.

 

[Dweeble]

I assume you have experience flying both aircraft?

 

[BasilG]

I assume you have experience flying both aircraft?

That's a funny way to approach facts.

 

[photonut2008]

I assume you have experience flying both aircraft?

That's a funny way to approach facts.

It's a funny way to approach an analogy. If I said something was like comparing a pro athlete against a highly competent amateur and and I was challenged about whether I had actually played against both of them I would call that a non-sequitur response .

 

[Dweeble]

It was me getting slightly bored with people getting FUSSED over whether an x year old camera is better than an (x+y) year old camera.

 

[photonut2008]

It was me getting slightly bored with people getting FUSSED over whether an x year old camera is better than an (x+y) year old camera.

Take it out on the OP, they're the one who started this discussion.

 

[BasilG]

I assume you have experience flying both aircraft?

That's a funny way to approach facts.

It's a funny way to approach an analogy. If I said something was like comparing a pro athlete against a highly competent amateur and and I was challenged about whether I had actually played against both of them I would call that a non-sequitur response .

I agree.

 

[lightandaprayer]

That is all.

Battery life and high ISO above 800 was greatly improved.

Battery life aside, I think that high ISO and DR are closer to "slightly improved" than greatly improved. The D500 is a DX Nikon that deserves a greatly improved status.

To obtain this level of improved performance, the user gives up the CCD rendering qualities that the D200 offers.

I appreciate using the newer cameras with improved specs but I hang onto my D200 for other reasons.

Nikon D200 vs Nikon D300 vs Nikon D500

 

[photonut2008]

That is all.

Battery life and high ISO above 800 was greatly improved.

Battery life aside,

As well as the viewfinder, fps, AF system, etcetera.

I think that high ISO and DR are closer to "slightly improved" than greatly improved.

If you think a one stop improvement isn't that much.

The D500 is a DX Nikon that deserves a greatly improved status.

Heck, the D500's image quality is greatly improved over the D700 and D3.

To obtain this level of improved performance, the user gives up the CCD rendering qualities that the D200 offers.

That myth, again. It wasn't the sensors that changed the "rendering," it was the move to Picture Controls.

I appreciate using the newer cameras with improved specs but I hang onto my D200 for other reasons.

Nikon D200 vs Nikon D300 vs Nikon D500

My experience with the D200 and D300 doesn't correlate very closely to DxO Mark's measurements of the two cameras as regards noise and DR. Bill Claff's comparison of the two is closer to what I saw:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon D200,Nikon D300

--
DPR, where gear is king and photography merely a jester