Well, my real issue here is with noise. The D200 really struggles with this. I feel like the second I go above iso 400, noise is going to be an issue, to the point that noise reduction is necessary and may barely make the photo useable. So my question is, what is an upgrade to this? The quick answer is the D300, but would a D90 do??? I'm just frustrated by the noise in many of my recent shots and I guess I'm wondering if a D90 is actually an upgrade? Budget is obviously an issue for me so I'm just curious what you guys think... Thanks in advance.
I have the D90 and have been happy with it. I really can't give you an opinion on the differences between the D90 and D200 but will be selling my D90 on Ebay later this week when my D700 comes in.
D90 has about 7500 clicks. Let me know if you're interested.
Kenny
Originally posted by Sirashley:
Well, my real issue here is with noise. The D200 really struggles with this. I feel like the second I go above iso 400, noise is going to be an issue, to the point that noise reduction is necessary and may barely make the photo useable. So my question is, what is an upgrade to this? The quick answer is the D300, but would a D90 do??? I'm just frustrated by the noise in many of my recent shots and I guess I'm wondering if a D90 is actually an upgrade? Budget is obviously an issue for me so I'm just curious what you guys think... Thanks in advance.
Regarding the D90 vs D300...
They are a very similar chip, so your noise should be pretty similar on either body. Beyond that, are they the same? Yes and no. Handling, they are very different, as they are designed for different applications. The D300 will handle more like your D200, while the D90 will be a bit more amateurish (not meant in a derogatory manner). What I mean by that is that the D90 has the various modes (like sport and landscape and whatnot), while the D300 like your D200 has PSAM only. The 300 also has more and finer customization. The D300 will also be significantly more durable, having a similar magnesium body to the D200 (D90 is polycarbonate) as well as weather sealing. AF should be more accurate and faster on the D300 too.
If you felt like the D200 was "too much camera" or too bulky/heavy, I'd push towards the D90. If you loved having all the options in the D200 and the performance, go for the D300.
There are a few differences between the D300 and the 300s, but they aren't huge IMO, so that's a good way to save a bit. You should really decide if video is important. If it is, then that rules out the D300 and you're choosing between the 300s and the 90.
Here's a rundown between the two that I find to be pretty balanced and accurate. D90 Thom Hogan review
Regarding the D90 vs D300...
They are a very similar chip, so your noise should be pretty similar on either body.
According to the referenced Ken Rockwell comparo, the D90 has a significantly better high-ISO noise profile. His sample images bear that out. Whether he had a "good" D300 or a "bad" one I don't know. I was a little surprised to his conclusions there...
Regarding the D90 vs D300...
They are a very similar chip, so your noise should be pretty similar on either body.
According to the referenced Ken Rockwell comparo, the D90 has a significantly better high-ISO noise profile. His sample images bear that out. Whether he had a "good" D300 or a "bad" one I don't know. I was a little surprised to his conclusions there...
R.
I saw that;
But he's shooting jpeg, so you can't even tell what's causing it- the firmware or the actual chip. It's a crapshoot. Hogan's experience bears out more even performance, as is the case with what I've seen elsewhere.
DPReview, for instance, has this to say on high iso. Also, check out page 33 discussing raw output.
If you are comfortable with a smaller body, I would second the thumbs-up to the D7000. It has tons of software features as well as improved sensor, at 16.1 Mp.
Hey thanks for the info guys... I really like the D7000, I've had some time today to play with one at my job and I REALLY like it. I'm thinking I may just hold off and save my pennies for one. Might take awhile, but seems like it will be worth it in the long run
The d7000 is an upgrade from the d300 and the d90. So if you can swing it, the d7000 will be a dramatic improvement over the d200.
Umm....not really. The D300 is much more of a robust workhorse. The D300 is the upgrade for the D200. The D7000 is one of those manufacturing flukes that hits one out of the park and eclipses the supposedly better cameras. I agonized over the decision when I upgraded from my D200, and the main reason was chassis familiarity and known quantity from people I knew who had upgraded to the D300. The D7000 is a relative unknown.
Know this.....I am *REALLY* glad that I got the D7000 rather than the D300. It's freakin' awesome!!!!
I shot this jewel at 1000 ISO and hadn't even had it a month!
I shoot extremely high ISO a lot, and the D7000's performance is truly amazing.
One of the downsides to the 7000 if your into HDR is the auto bracketing is only 3 steps, versus the 9 of some of the others like the D300s and your D200. Also you get slightly faster FPS on the 300s, but both are a slight upgrade from the D200, for wildlife I like the higher FPS.
I am in the same boat, have a D80, realllly want to upgrade, keeping my fingers crossed that there is a new model of the D300s or D700. I would like to go FX but replacing the glass sucks, have to see what comes out and what the features are.
I had a D200 a few years back and loved it, I also loved the fact there was no Automatic mode - so you really had to learn how to shoot. That being said, you do get frustrated with the noise - as it is a 10-11 year old camera. The camera I had after the D200 was indeed a D7000, and the difference in low light performance is very much noticeable. If you can though, If you want to see a many-times-over improvement, think about a D600, D610, or D750. I think D600's are really cheap right now because they are a few years old, and the sensor-oil issue (that Nikon fixes for free).
As for replacing the DX glass... I put my DX glass on craigslist after I bought my D600, met a few people for sales - then turned around and started slowly saving and buying professional quality glass. Moving to full frame was a huge deal, people can show you ok web-sized images shot at high ISO by a crop sensor camera all day, but seeing the full sized image right off the camera shot at 6400 or higher iso there is no comparison for full frame in low light (when specifically comparing DX/FX).
All that being said, the D200 still takes fantastic shots in light-rich environments, sometimes I wish I kept mine as a solid daytime activities camera.
And don't even get me started on the abysmal low light performance of the D200.
ROFL!
I feel the same way about the Canon 5D "Classic," which was introduced only two months before the D200. At the time of its introduction, it was Thee King of Low Light.
And don't even get me started on the abysmal low light performance of the D200.
ROFL!
I feel the same way about the Canon 5D "Classic," which was introduced only two months before the D200. At the time of its introduction, it was Thee King of Low Light.
On that scale I think my camera is the Deuce of Low Light ... :-(
And don't even get me started on the abysmal low light performance of the D200.
ROFL!
I feel the same way about the Canon 5D "Classic," which was introduced only two months before the D200. At the time of its introduction, it was Thee King of Low Light.
On that scale I think my camera is the Deuce of Low Light ... :-(
Factoid: your camera is newer than either the D200 or the 5D "Classic." I would still support your conclusion, however ;-)
Now all we need to do is determine where my Nikon 995 falls... I'm certain it is worse than your S3 IS. Perhaps it's the Joker?
