$1800 to spend - D300 or D200

I'd go for the D200 unless one stop better ISO performance and a really great autofocus computer are worth $700 to you. The D200 is just as solidly built and is an AMAZING camera for $1000 new. Seems like your money would be better spent on a D200, and maybe an SB-800 since you didn't mention any, instead of a D300.

I shoot a D300 and a D40, with a D200 before, and a D70 before that, if you need a point of reference for my comments.

The D300 is no longer $1700. This is a link to B&H: (link) and there are even lower prices.

Having owned the D70s in the past as well as currently owning a D200, D300, and a D3 - I would highly recommend the D300 over the D200.

Anyone who shoots weddings can really use the better low light performance of the D300 as well as the better metering, focusing, and auto white balance.

i wouldn't even go there with a d200 if you have enough loot for a d300. sounds like you already have all the glass you need, and with all respect to joe a, one stop of ISO and better mettering and AF are totally worth $700 (especially for paid gigs) IMO. not to mention more fps, bigger LCD, live view, etc.

for instance, with a d80/d200 you pretty much have to use the 30mm at 1.4 in low-light conditions to keep the ISO under 1600. with a d300 you can stop down two whole clicks to 2.8 for sharpness while keeping your shutter speed pretty high in most lighting conditions. i actually use the 30mm less than when the d80 was my main camera as i'm not as challenged by poor lighting with a d300.

the thing is that the d300 really corrected the flaws of the d200 while adding some cool bells and whistles. and if you get the d200, you will always wonder 'what if...' i dont think the same would be true were the situation reversed.

Looks like the D300, a much better choice over the D200, is well within your budget. Go for it. There's a down-to-earth review by Ken Rockwell here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm

I am primarily a landscaper, and I disagree with those who said, in various other posts, there were little or no differences between a D200 and D300 for this kind of photography. The D200 in no way competes with the D300, in my experience, capturing fine tonal variation and detail with a corresponding reduction in post processing.

So, I give the D300 a big thumbs up.

PS. The 17-55 f2.8 is the perfect lens for the D300; a good second is the 35-70 f2.8.

Larry, I talked to a local photographer at an air show/race this weekend. He has had his D300 for a short while. I asked him if is as good as everyone says it is, he just smiled and said light is what everyone wants.

D300 is the best DX camera made right now. Hard to go wrong with that. To me it would be better to decide between the D80 and D300. At least with the D80 you could use both camera's at the same time and have the exact controls/functions to work with. How about computer software. Would the D300 require another software purchase such as CS3.

Price of D300 has dropped some and it beats the D200 hand down at higher ISOs. I would get the D300.

Nolan... Any digital camera requires software, CS, Capture, LR, Aperture. unless you shoot jpg and just download the jpg's into your computer and never do anything to them.

Larry... I would say D300! especially if you are doing paid gigs. It would be an investment!

Rene'Villela:

. Actually in my post I said "would the camera require the purchase of new software". I am sorry you misread my post but a new camera can certainly lead to the purchase of new software. For instance, . If he is using a program such as CS2 currently then he will not be able to open RAW files from a D300, there is no plug-in avaiable to do that. Now you have a small problem in that you might have to use the software included with the packgage or purchase another program such as CS3 or Lightroom. My point was to consider the costs involved if any were this the case. If CS3 or Lightroom did become something he would need to purchase then that must be added to the overall cost of the equipment purchase.

I have a D200 and like it. I would like to get a D300 for the extra ISO, AF and viewfinder but I don't have the budget this year. IMHO go with the newer D300.

I am with you Carl. I am also a D200 user and would add the D300 if it were in the budget. After I get the kids through college I plan on some new gear. The rule is patience.

IMO, you need the camera more than that lens. YOu can cover the same focal lengths with equal or greater speed. I know, i know, the 24-70 is great, but I think that you have plenty of glass and should get the D300 and use the D80 as back up. A d200 is outdated the moment you buy it (so is any digital camera) but by getting the D300 you shouldnt have to upgrade for the next couple of years. With the 200, you might want a new camera in march.

D300. Why spend money one three-year old technology when you're liable to regret it?

I haven't used a D200, but the D300 is an amazing camera. If you shoot in low light often, you will love the capabilities of the D300. I just took the camera to Europe and got some great shots in poorly lit churches. I highly recommend the D300, don't know how I lived without it.

I have both the D300 & the D200.

If you decide to buy a camera body - - go for the D300. I barely shoot with the D200 since I got the D300.

Mine is so solid I just love it.

JMHO

Lil :)

Get the D300, you'll have no regrets.

I don't think going from D80 to a D200 will be that much of a true upgrade anyway. (although the body and controls are better)

Good to know the D300 isn't $1700 any more ! Why it's $1625. That's a savings of 4% !

Somehow, I don't think that changes anything in anyones budget.

The d200 has the same sensor as the D80 from what I understand, so I would either buy another d80, or step up with the big boys and get a d300 for reason mentioned above. The d300 looks cleaner at 3200 ISO than the d200 does at 1600. The colors are more vibrant, the AWB is much more accurate, allowing that function to get out of the way of you taking more pictures. Metering is also superior.... all of these things make it easier for you to apply your creativity. What it wont do is give you better photos unless you want to exploit its improvements. For what its worth, there are many many many photogs still using d200's daily and still paying the mortgage =)

There can be no doubt about this. I own both the D200 and the D300. Though I love my D200 and have used it extensively for weddings the D300 is just better and WELL worth the extra money.

I still shoot my FE2 quite a bit but not lately as it's in for a CLA. I won't be seeing it for a few weeks..I used to scan the film myself but I pay the lab to do it now..Sometimes it's nice to leave the cumbersome digital at home and go light. It's suprising how the college kids always make friendly comments about a film rig..

I've almost at my saving goal for another DSLR body. I have a D70s and a D200. The D70s is used only for spherical panoramas at the moment.

The announcement of the D700 threw me for a loop. My plan is still for a D300, but it'll probably be my last DX format body. I may still change my mind and order a D700.

From now on, any new lenses I get will be suitable for the larger sensor.

If you have enough money D300 all the way don't even look at the d200.

Buying digital camera is like buying a computer, if you have the money, buy the most advanced model you can afford so it does not become out-of-date too soon.

Do some shopping and get both, I paid 845.00 from Cameta for the 200 and now just bought the 300. There are some good deals out there. D300 has CMOS technology and has a fast read out due to pixel architecture (amps for each pixel v/s interline transfer slower readout to register) for fast action much faster than CCD on the 200. D200 has CCD technology but slower but cheaper and a great secnd body. Resolution is not significant enough to make a headache decission for one or the other. Love both of them like a new car. The 300 does have a larger screen and real time viewing. By the way, I also have the 84mm lens and 10.5 that work extreamly well on both bodies. The light is a little more homoginous? spelling on the 300 CMOS. I do not have to correct for exposures on the 300. The 200 with the 10.5 needs a little tweaking. I made a great choice and I am sure yo will too.

It's all there, depends on what you like to shoot.

Check the classified sections here and on fredmiranda.com. You'll find many folks selling their D300s so they can buy a D700. I'm sure you could get a lightly used D300 and save even more cash.

The D80 is one of the best, perhaps the best of, compact models ever made. Its in camera processing is outstanding. JPEG images are better than the D200. Lower noise at higher ISO, while retaining sharpness. Control layout is outstanding for a compact DSLR. It will remain outstanding as a backup model.

Get the D300, a very significant upgrade from the D200, and successfully has addressed its shortcomings.

Marry to your cameras and lenses, they will give birth to wonderful pictures! No camera matters, it is the eye behind the camera!

Simply D300...

you have good glass already. the d300 is the better choice.

if you had crappy glass it would still be the better choice in many cases because its high iso performance will let you make up for slow glass.

only thing i don't like about the d300 and d3 (and i guess the d700 now too) is the autofocus. i like the d2/d200 style AF points better.

I would go for the D200 and save for better glass like the 17-55mm f/2.8. I love my D200 and IMO, an extra step of ISO handling and the more FPS isn't so significant.

"I would go for the D200 and save for better glass like the 17-55mm f/2.8....

Unless you are pixel peeping or printing extremely large - you will be hard pressed to see any visual difference in the output from the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lens and the original poster's Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens. Build quality is much better and you could probably hammer a nail with the Nikkor lens, but the images from the Sigma (and Tamron lens) in that focal range are extremely close to the Nikkor.

.....I love my D200 and IMO, an extra step of ISO handling and the more FPS isn't so significant.

What truly IS significant is the image quality coming out of the D300 compared to the D200. As I mentioned earlier - we own both of these bodies and the images from the D300 require a great deal less of post processing compared to the D200 images. The auto white balance is much better - perhaps it should be called much more "intelligent" than in the D200. Mixed lighting situations are captured much more accurately with the D300.

Really there are two decisions to be made, full frame, or DX. If its DX, go with the most latest body, the D300; If its full frame, wait for the D700. If price is the deciding factor, D300, too much improved not to.

I'll add to the mess of replies and say that, as a guy who's used both, the D300 is significantly better. The indoor shots that you have on your website will benefit greatly from the better noise performance. In general, the image quality is a big step up. I like the smarter focusing on the 300 also.

You have a good set of lenses, so no point being conservative in your spending unless you want to move up to a D3. The extra $ for the 300 will be well spent and if you're making money doing this, the 300 will pay for itself in increased customer satisfaction.

D300...easy choice...great camera...you will be very happy for all of the reasons given above!

D300 ... the Live View and ability to magnify that Live View for fine focusing is invaluable.

If you are doing events and weddings as your main staple, the D700 will fit into this usage like a glove --- it is designed for this purpose.

The D300 is below $1600 now ... http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=NKD300

And, this is a reasonable dealer in NJ.

Get the D300. I own the D300 (recently purchased),D200 and D70... You will want the enhanced dynamic range, larger LCD,autocleaning CMOS sensor etc ....especially for the work you're doing and the glass you already own. The 24-70mm does seem like the next logical glass purchase tho' I suspect it should give you better bokeh in that 50-70mm range than the 18-200VR