My wife's birthday is next week. She currently shoots with a D200 and has a wedding assignment in June.

She will shoot in RAW+JPEG, the goal being to reduce PP time if the JPEGS are fine, and to fiddle with RAW if more work is needed.

Question - With the in-camera active D-Lighting on the D300 along with the new processing engine and other settings, would the increased quality and possible ability to produce better results right out of the camera be worth an upgrade?

If yes, her birthday present will be a new D300. If not, the same old card and roses.

Same old card and roses, and get you a D3 :-0

I have never been big on D-Lighting, but, the improved high-ISO performance, AF system, and Picture Control Setting (including the ability to add D2X modes) make this a good upgrade.

Get her the camera. Worse thing that can happen is she hates it and you then have a new camera with which to play.

For wedding photography I don't think she's going to notice much of a difference between the two. An SB-800 (or two) on the other hand, could make a substantial difference to the number of keepers she gets. If she's already got one, then perhaps some nice fast glass.

James R wrote:
I have never been big on D-Lighting, but, the improved high-ISO performance, AF system, and Picture Control Setting (including the ability to add D2X modes) make this a good upgrade.

Get her the camera. Worse thing that can happen is she hates it and you then have a new camera with which to play.


I'd agree with this but add that the D-lighting on the D300 is well implemented and is very useful.

We've been through this before recently. You might want to check the archives. Longish thread.

My bottom line, still owning both: I would be sorry if I'd sold my D200 and taken a loss to get the D300. Mind you, I love the D300, but I don't consider it enough of an "upgrade" to take a $900 bath on it (that's about what it'd be).

Gerald

BenV - I'm with you but the wife won't buy it. She knows I'm waiting to see how the expected D3X announcement shakes out as an upgrade from my current D2X.

James R - I think it will be the D300 as you suggest. I presume she can "throttle back" the D-Lighting if not happy, yes? The goal is to reduce PP work on a 1000+ shot wedding wherever possible.

Mark, Andre, chemprof - Thanks for the input. She'll be using one or more SB-800s and between us we have fast glass as well.

Mark Kenfield wrote:
For wedding photography I don't think she's going to notice much of a difference between the two. An SB-800 (or two) on the other hand, could make a substantial difference to the number of keepers she gets. If she's already got one, then perhaps some nice fast glass.

i disagree. i just shot a wedding with both bodies, a d200 and d300. there is a major difference. the d200 files look like hell in comparison to the d300's.

RONIN2 wrote:
i disagree. i just shot a wedding with both bodies, a d200 and d300. there is a major difference. the d200 files look like hell in comparison to the d300's.


Really? In what way

Chaz wrote:
BenV - I'm with you but the wife won't buy it. She knows I'm waiting to see how the expected D3X announcement shakes out as an upgrade from my current D2X.

James R - I think it will be the D300 as you suggest. I presume she can "throttle back" the D-Lighting if not happy, yes? The goal is to reduce PP work on a 1000+ shot wedding wherever possible.


The D-lighting has 4 settings: high, medium, low, OFF

for the extra control for jpegs i should think so. but you may find a custom curve in the d200 might help too.

I never shoot jpg. No reason to give up ultimate quality with the latest cameras. Plenty of speed in RAW.

D200 images process very well.

Gerald

Edited by chemprof on May 09, 2008 at 10:38 PM GMT

chemprof wrote:
I never shoot jpg. No reason to give up ultimate quality with the latest cameras. Plenty of seed in RAW.

D200 images process very well.

Gerald

I'll go along with that.

You can add D lighting with NX so I see no point in it.

Thanks to all for the replies. The new unit is now in the car awaiting gift wrapping.

louis fusco - Yes, I've used a custom curve in my D2X with pleasing results.

chemprof - I, too, generally shoot RAW only but in this case I don't want to be helping my wife edit 1000+ pix if we can avoid it by tweaking the on-board settings right out of the chute.

Soupdragon - I'll be curious to examine the in-camera D-Lighting results because I have never been fully happy with the tool in NX, often preferring H/S in PhotoShop.

You can still tweak on-board settings for raws can't you? And then develop them in some program like Aperture or Adobe Lightroom, it doesn't require any fiddling with the images, except exporting them. It will save some space if you just shoot RAW

Mark Kenfield wrote:
RONIN2 wrote:
i disagree. i just shot a wedding with both bodies, a d200 and d300. there is a major difference. the d200 files look like hell in comparison to the d300's.


Really? In what way

People always have the need to justify the gear they are using. Their mindset change when they upgrade. Anyone using the D3 that want to change back to the D300? Perhaps, if they can't justify the cost and say "I don't see enough of a difference to keep it" which is fine. The truth is out there

BTW, I am now able to get shots I could not before at weddings using live view. But some may argue that a D200 can do the same trick using a ladder (if you understand what I am trying to say).

Mark Kenfield wrote:
RONIN2 wrote:
i disagree. i just shot a wedding with both bodies, a d200 and d300. there is a major difference. the d200 files look like hell in comparison to the d300's.


Really? In what way

less noise (anyone can appreciate this shooting a wedding in a dark church), colors (especially flesh tones), tonality...

there is more 'magic' in the D300 file.

i have 30K on my D200 in the last year. i've about 3000 on the D300 in a month. i see a major difference and i'm very happy.

I am curious to know how this thread concludes. I currently shoot weddings with a pair of D200's and I will be the first to admit that the noise at just about every ISO setting is a nuisance. Skin tones, however, are very accurate. Same thing applies to my old D1X's I used to use. The only two major reasons I decided to shoot with D200's instead of D1X's were because of better flash and bigger files to crop better with the D200's. I have heard that the D300 is much better than the D200 in terms of noise, but I heard the same song and dance about the D200 when it was first released and how the files were supposed to be almost noise free compared to older cameras like the D1X and D70s. I see the same amount of noise in all the old cameras I mentioned, (including the D200) and I would get a D300 immediately if I knew that there was a very significant improvement in the noise department.

snegron wrote:
I am curious to know how this thread concludes. I currently shoot weddings with a pair of D200's and I will be the first to admit that the noise at just about every ISO setting is a nuisance. Skin tones, however, are very accurate. Same thing applies to my old D1X's I used to use. The only two major reasons I decided to shoot with D200's instead of D1X's were because of better flash and bigger files to crop better with the D200's. I have heard that the D300 is much better than the D200 in terms of noise, but I heard the same song and dance about the D200 when it was first released and how the files were supposed to be almost noise free compared to older cameras like the D1X and D70s. I see the same amount of noise in all the old cameras I mentioned, (including the D200) and I would get a D300 immediately if I knew that there was a very significant improvement in the noise department.

Not much difference in day light images except higher resolution of D300, more noticable in bird/ wild life shots. But night time available light images with D 300 are something else!. I am very happy with the switch.