Nikon d200 or d300

Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 65 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Hi everyone, it's been some time, since I last uttered a word in this forum, but finaly I decided to buy an dSLR, and my choice is Nikon. After 3 years of using Pana FZ20, I managed to save some money, and here's the problem.
I'd like to buy d300 plus 18-200VR plus 50 1.8, lets say I can afford that. My other option is d200 plus battery pack plus 18-200VR plus 50 1.4 <- and it's still cheaper that d300 set.
My question is, if it's worth paying more for d300, and buy other lenses/b packs later on.
Regarding bpack, I have no idea what to do, if it's realy useful? As for d300 I've read has an awsome power management, so it takes up to three times more pics comapred to d200.
I really hope for users who switched from d200 to d300, and also for those, who can advice me not to buy some of my choices. For all the past years, I've been living in Canon world.
Inside I feel I want d300, for sake of the obvious advantages, such as big nice display, battery life, light measuring, af, but on the other hand I'm looking at d200, d80 photo galleries and I cannot tell, those photos are worse quality.
I'm totaly lost and confused so do please, help me to make my first Nikon buy the proper one.

Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 111

I would go with the d300 just for the better high iso noise management, as i shoot a lot of low-light gigs, i feel the high iso capabilities of the d300 would outweight the advantages of having the f/1.4 over the f/1.8.

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:42 pm

Get the D300, you will never regret it.

Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:25 pm

D300 and match that with AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
and if you have the extra caash get the AF-S 70-300 VR too

Joined: 19 May 2005 Posts: 487 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

I had sony's, caseo's, nikon's. I've liked them all at the time I had them.
Settled on nikon with the 5700 etc. Went to D70, D70s, D200, and now D300.

My son-in-law still has the D70. I plan to pass the D200 to him. I use the D300 - nikon 18-200vr - sigma 28-90 macro - and sigma 10-20. If/when it breaks I'll be ready for the nursing home. The kids are grown and gone. But I have a D300.

I know I could have bought a second D200 and had money left for a nice lens. But I'm glad I didnt do that. I would not have known the difference. But now I do. I rarely use the D200 unless I need one of the sigma lens's and have both cameras with me at the time. Most anything I do the D200 would do fine, but why, when it seems so much more fun and easier with the 300.

I've had the D300 about 6 months now. Still glad to have it. It satisfies me to the extent that I can now think about the next lens. I got the 18-200vr with the D200 and now it's on the D300 for general use. The D200 usually has a second lens on it.

Everyone said put the money into better len's. I didnt. I'm glad I didnt. Now that I feel ok about the camera I can think lens's.

The iso capability of the D300 was enough reason to have it. The bigger screen, flexable settings, external controls, etc, etc, etc, are just bonus reasons.

gene