Has anyone moved from D200 to D300?
Discussion
If so, can you answer the following questions? My work needs fast, accurate AF in all situations. If the AF hunts or misses focus, I lose a shot.
1) AF target acquisition. Is it faster than the D200? Does it work better/faster/more accurately in low light? For example, I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and whilst it works perfecly in good light, it can backfocus in low light. Close but not close enough!
2) Also on AF, I select the relevant AF point for my subject using the multi-selector switch. With 51 AF points, is this harder/slower to do?
3) Do the 51 AF points go to the same outlying points as the D200's 11? Looking at reviews they all seem pretty much in the middle, which seems rather wasteful.
4) D-Lighting to 'increase' DR. This seems wonderful but seems only to apply to JPGs, or if shooting RAW, is only picked up by NX. Is this true? If so, this benefit is wiped out as I don't shoot JPG and have no intention of using NX!
5) Noise. It seems that the max usable ISO goes from 800 (D200) to 1600 (D300). This isn't pixel-peeping; cranking up dark shadow detail is important to me.
What other advantages did you notice/do you use? Live View seems interesting but it's probably one of those things you can't judge until you try it.
Thanks folks
1) AF target acquisition. Is it faster than the D200? Does it work better/faster/more accurately in low light? For example, I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and whilst it works perfecly in good light, it can backfocus in low light. Close but not close enough!
2) Also on AF, I select the relevant AF point for my subject using the multi-selector switch. With 51 AF points, is this harder/slower to do?
3) Do the 51 AF points go to the same outlying points as the D200's 11? Looking at reviews they all seem pretty much in the middle, which seems rather wasteful.
4) D-Lighting to 'increase' DR. This seems wonderful but seems only to apply to JPGs, or if shooting RAW, is only picked up by NX. Is this true? If so, this benefit is wiped out as I don't shoot JPG and have no intention of using NX!
5) Noise. It seems that the max usable ISO goes from 800 (D200) to 1600 (D300). This isn't pixel-peeping; cranking up dark shadow detail is important to me.
What other advantages did you notice/do you use? Live View seems interesting but it's probably one of those things you can't judge until you try it.
Thanks folks
Simpo Two said:
If so, can you answer the following questions? My work needs fast, accurate AF in all situations. If the AF hunts or misses focus, I lose a shot.
1) AF target acquisition. Is it faster than the D200? Does it work better/faster/more accurately in low light? For example, I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and whilst it works perfecly in good light, it can backfocus in low light. Close but not close enough!
2) Also on AF, I select the relevant AF point for my subject using the multi-selector switch. With 51 AF points, is this harder/slower to do?
3) Do the 51 AF points go to the same outlying points as the D200's 11? Looking at reviews they all seem pretty much in the middle, which seems rather wasteful.
4) D-Lighting to 'increase' DR. This seems wonderful but seems only to apply to JPGs, or if shooting RAW, is only picked up by NX. Is this true? If so, this benefit is wiped out as I don't shoot JPG and have no intention of using NX!
5) Noise. It seems that the max usable ISO goes from 800 (D200) to 1600 (D300). This isn't pixel-peeping; cranking up dark shadow detail is important to me.
What other advantages did you notice/do you use? Live View seems interesting but it's probably one of those things you can't judge until you try it.
Thanks folks
1) dunno, no d200.1) AF target acquisition. Is it faster than the D200? Does it work better/faster/more accurately in low light? For example, I use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and whilst it works perfecly in good light, it can backfocus in low light. Close but not close enough!
2) Also on AF, I select the relevant AF point for my subject using the multi-selector switch. With 51 AF points, is this harder/slower to do?
3) Do the 51 AF points go to the same outlying points as the D200's 11? Looking at reviews they all seem pretty much in the middle, which seems rather wasteful.
4) D-Lighting to 'increase' DR. This seems wonderful but seems only to apply to JPGs, or if shooting RAW, is only picked up by NX. Is this true? If so, this benefit is wiped out as I don't shoot JPG and have no intention of using NX!
5) Noise. It seems that the max usable ISO goes from 800 (D200) to 1600 (D300). This isn't pixel-peeping; cranking up dark shadow detail is important to me.
What other advantages did you notice/do you use? Live View seems interesting but it's probably one of those things you can't judge until you try it.
Thanks folks
2) with more points it takes more clicks. You can turn down the number of points though and that helps. Also you can make the cursor wrap around the edges.
3) can't remember, but its more spread out than on the d3 due to smaller sensor. The reviews normally paint this as a negative vs the d3!
4) if active d-lighting is on, then you really want to post process in capture NX if using RAW as the exposure is modified to maximise detail and lightroom etc won't do it properly.
5) I've had mixed results so can't really usefully comment as I don't have a D200. Most of the review state this though so probably a grain of truth in it.
I'm coming round to shooting raw + jpeg as most of the times the jpeg results are more visually pleasing to me than the RAW processing in lightroom. Sure I could use NX but it's not exactly my favourite!
I had a D80 (same chip as the D200) and moved to a D300 so may be able to give some feedback:
1) Can't comment on D200 but compared to the D80 the focus is vastly more accurate. I was about to return my Sigma 20mm f1.8 because of it's terrible failure to focus in low light (the conditions I bought it for) but with the D300 it's easily twice as good.
2) DanH is on the money here. The controller on the back however works in diagonals which the D80 never did and this speeds selection up lots.
3) They go much further out than the D80 - I can spot focus on stuff much nearer the corners of the frame than ever before.
4) Never used it - try to get it right in the cam or fix it in PS
5) If an image is correctly exposed then the ISO3200 is genuinely usable. In the most part 1600 looks better than 800 on the D80. With a fast lens it's genuinely opened up new opportunities for tripod free photography for me.
Because of these points plus the fact that the colours seem far richer without being overly vivid, my usual corrective RAW workflow in Lightroom and PS has become far shorter. I have absolutely no regrets about trading up.
dumbfunk
1) Can't comment on D200 but compared to the D80 the focus is vastly more accurate. I was about to return my Sigma 20mm f1.8 because of it's terrible failure to focus in low light (the conditions I bought it for) but with the D300 it's easily twice as good.
2) DanH is on the money here. The controller on the back however works in diagonals which the D80 never did and this speeds selection up lots.
3) They go much further out than the D80 - I can spot focus on stuff much nearer the corners of the frame than ever before.
4) Never used it - try to get it right in the cam or fix it in PS
5) If an image is correctly exposed then the ISO3200 is genuinely usable. In the most part 1600 looks better than 800 on the D80. With a fast lens it's genuinely opened up new opportunities for tripod free photography for me.
Because of these points plus the fact that the colours seem far richer without being overly vivid, my usual corrective RAW workflow in Lightroom and PS has become far shorter. I have absolutely no regrets about trading up.
dumbfunk
Simpo, yep I'm in Suffolk - Debenham way with a D300 - and an old D70. Off to Hong Kong again next week but back end of April, happy for you to have a play. Not sure what the differences between the 300 and 200 are really, all I can say is that it's massively better than my D70.
I'm still learning about mine, not used the 51 point autofocus yet, mines permanently on 21 which is a huge improvement of the 5 I had before. Doesn't seem to hunt at all - I too have the Sigma 70-200 and I've not had any issues with that. As for live view - as you say interesting - but I've not used that yet either, still got lots of the manual to read I'm afraid.
Giles
I'm still learning about mine, not used the 51 point autofocus yet, mines permanently on 21 which is a huge improvement of the 5 I had before. Doesn't seem to hunt at all - I too have the Sigma 70-200 and I've not had any issues with that. As for live view - as you say interesting - but I've not used that yet either, still got lots of the manual to read I'm afraid.
Giles
Theres a bit of discussion about it on the DPreview forums, including one thread primarily about why some folk are keeping their D200s instead. Different people have their different reasons but its worth a browse anyway. Given that second-hand D200s are less than half the cost of a new D300 I'm tempted to go that way myself.
Simpo Two said:
CivicMan said:
Why not see if you can rent a D300 and see how it handles?
Better still, any suitably-equipped PHers within striking distance (Essex/Suffolk) fancy a jolly?
Chris
GravelBen said:
Theres a bit of discussion about it on the DPreview forums, including one thread primarily about why some folk are keeping their D200s instead. Different people have their different reasons but its worth a browse anyway.
To save me a few days, can you remember what they were?Simpo Two said:
To save me a few days, can you remember what they were?
From memory (which may be slightly faulty on a monday morning)...Some dislike the colours (esp skin tones) of the D300 and prefer to stick with D200 rather than increase their PP work (iirc one wedding photographer said he can't put D2x(iirc) and D300 shots on the same page of an album as the colours are so different CCD vs CMOS). More common was the view that the in-use advantages of the D300 (primarily more fps, better high-ISO performance) weren't worth what it was going to cost them to upgrade. Plenty of people just like their D200 and recognise that it does everything they need and that the weak link in the system is probably them, so there isn't much point upgrading and learning a new camera.
No idea if those reasons apply to you but that what I recall off the top of my head.
Edited by GravelBen on Sunday 13th April 22:52
GravelBen said:
More common was the view that the in-use advantages of the D300 (primarily more fps, better high-ISO performance) weren't worth what it was going to cost them to upgrade.
I certainly don't need fps, all my work is single shot. ISO would be nice but as you say, is it worth £1,000? On the occasional shot where I need to crank up curves/levels and it gets a bit noisy, reducing the sharpening gets rid of most of it.Thanks for the summary Ben.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff