So I already have a D200 and am thinking about going to something with better noise control, etc...

I have toyed between the D90 and the D300...from what I can read, the D90 would actually be pretty similar to the D200 in terms of capabilities....From all samples I have seen the noise control is better in the D90 at high iso's as well...

I realize the build quality of the D200/D300 is similar and the D90 is not built as strong or rated for as high of a shutter count, etc.

I have also debated a used D300 vs the new D300s...or just keeping my my D200 and waiting until Nikon decides to challenge Canon on the 7D....

Any recommendations here?

Nikon won't challenge Canon on the 7D. So you should either get a new D300s or switch to a 7D.

Do you think there is enough of a bump from the D200 to the D300 to justify it though? I know the noise is a lot cleaner, but at this point, that is all I am upgrading for....

And is there enough between the D300 and the D300s..I can get a used/refurb for 600 less than a new D300s..

I don't know what you shoot so;
buy a used 300 and wait for the 400, then sale it for a couple 100 less
or maybe keep the 200 and buy a nice used 700 if you got some fx lens, that way you'd have DX & FX covered

Wait until the D700's replacement arrives and buy a used D700 for the cost of a new D300s?

A few months ago, I was in the same spot you're in right now, and ended up with a D90.

The D90 will not give you the same feel as a D200. The build quality, weight, even the sound of the shutter will not be the same. however, the images I get from the D90 are much better than the D200, and very similar to the D300. The D300 will have a slightly better handle on high ISO stuff, but the D90 is no slouch. I've been shooting a few weddings lately, and the D90 serves as backup/teleconverter for my D3. Nobody has ever told me the images from the D90 is sub-par to the D3's (as long as you know how to use it correctly). Keep in mind, I don't shoot much with flash. A lot of the stuff I did was with high ISO. I personally can tell a difference, but at the end, when it gets on print, people can't usually tell much of a difference.

On the other hand, there will be a bit of a difference if you do sports (or other higher speed stuff). The af and shutter is just not as snappy crisp as the Dx or Dxxx series cameras. The images are still good tho.

And between D300 vs D300s, if you will use the video, do 300s... but if you don't, why bother? The extra $600 you will save will go a long way next time you're saving up for a new body or lens!

just my 2cents

hold your breath now, the D90 does better ISO 3200 than D300, yes. It can even do about 5 fps. But the D300 shutter has the more wicked sound.

Here is a D90 shot at ISO6400, yes it has some heavy PP

Almost always you get more improvement in image quality from an improvement in lenses than you ever will in cameras. If you think you could use the higher ISO capability in your own photography, such as taking the rodeo photos above, then yes a D90 or D300 --could-- be worth the upgrade IF you have the f2.8 lenses now to take advantage of it. Cameras are usually the worst place to put money because they lose value so quickly, and camera upgrades from one model to the next generally don't give you all that much extra. A used D300 would make much more sense than a new one in any event. If you buy a used D700 (now below $2,000 on eBay) don't forget you'll likely have to also upgrade most if not all your lenses. That's what's hanging me up. I don't want to spend $2,000 on a camera and then have to immediately spend $4,000 more to get the lenses to support it. I don't gain that much for that kind of money. I'll buy the lenses first, and the cameras continue to drop in price. Lenses might actually go up in price in the meantime. Spend as LITTLE on a camera as you possibly can.


Kent in SD

As a comparison... ISO6400 on the D700... IF high ISO capability is what you are REALLY after:

Ditto

If you possibly can get the D700 and end worrying about ISO 6400 or more

That is quite the clown pic!

Best camera for the money: Nikon D90
I have not dared shooting at 6400 ISO but my D90 is set for auto 3200 and the pictures are more like the D700 at 6400. We won't have to wait long to see what a D3s can do at 12800.
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php?cat=11507

The D300 multi-selector is mush, the D90 has a much better dedicated OK button in the center of its multi-selector. This was fixed on the D300s.

In the D300(s) favor over the D90 you get

Weather sealing
Higher frame rate
Better AF
Metering with AI / AI-S lenses

Those four things weren't worth twice as much to me. I'm not jealous of D300 users. Heck, I could pick up a used D2H to go alongside my D90 and still be money ahead of a D300.

3200 is really pushing it on the D90, but it's miles better than the D200. At least a stop, and more likely closer to two. The D90 is also pretty snappy in use, both the menu operation and shooting speed (much better than its predecessor the D80 in that regard).

Here's the D90, with an 85/1.4 wide open at ISO 3200:

I use the D90. I upgraded from a D80 because of the superior high ISO performance and there is no comparison. I suspect the D90 is much better than the D200 also. If I was a pro and expected heavy use I would want the D300s for sure. The main reason I would like a D300s is the 51 point autofocus versus 11 with the D90. I like to shoot birds and think it would be helpful.

If it's about the file then the D90, the D300 is the better body.

We all know that the D90 and D300 use the same sensor. They D90 and D300s being slightly newer have a few tweaks to the micro lenses allowing for slightly and I mean slightly better high ISO performance over the older D300. The newer D5000 also uses this same sensor.

The older D80 and D200 use the same sensor as the D40x, D60 and D3000. This is a CCD sensor and not that good at high ISO. It also has a considerably smaller dynamic range and color depth.

The new D300S is a wonderful APS-C camera, maybe the best there is, but as others have mentioned, it's not that much cheaper than a D700 where you get a real serious increase in high ISO performance, if that is your major upgrade reason.

I think the D90 is absolutely the best bang for the buck if you're looking an all around features in a good high ISO performer and a crop sensor body. Though I own a D300, I admit no reason other than I like the higher build quality and the fact that it's easier to use my older AI and AI converted glass. The same is true about my D700.

If you step down from the D90 to the D5000, I think you give up no IQ at all. You do lose the ability to autofocus older glass, but no big deal if you don't have much of that. You do gain the ability to use pre-AI glass without a conversion which is kinda nice if you, like me, have some. But, I'm not sure if I care to mount my old 43-86 zoom anyway. I hated and still hate that lense. With the D5000, you also lose that top-mounted LCD, something I would not wish to do without. The D5000 also has a penta-mirror arrangement instead of a real optical glass pentaprism like your D200 and the D90 or better. It all comes down the the sensor and features you need.

With that D5000, D90 and D300(S) sensor, just pick the other features you want. The images and dim light performance should pretty much be similar.

I am not a big fan of the D90. I recommended it to my friend a few months ago, he bought it, was happy, started getting really into photography, then accidentally pulled it off a shelf about 2 feet high at most with the Sigma 10-20 lens on it.

The D90 cracked at the lens mount and the AE/EF button and auto focus never worked again unless it was using the phase detect in live view/.

To me, I just don't think that a $800-900 dollar camera should break falling 2 feet onto carpet, and it more than broke, those cracks were really long and wide enough to allow particulates inside the body.

Now he wished Nikon would let him pay for the fix and the difference to get the magnesium alloy skeleton that comes with the D300. He can only pay for the repair of the D90 though.

Now I recommend starting with the D3000/D5000 or used D40/60 for people with no experience, and starting at least with a D300 if they already know they like photography.

Two feet to a carpet?

I've dropped a D40 four feet to cement with no damage luckily. I think two feet to a carpet is a bit freakish. Did you see it happen? Just curious.

I didn't, but I gave him a gestapo interrogation. I thought that he had to have caught the strap with his feet as he was walking by to forcefully yank it off. He said he was grabbing some books and the strap happened to be caught on a book. The camera teetered on the edge before it fell and he wasn't fast enough to grab it on time.

It makes me think that his body had some kind of defects when they were pouring the mold, maybe the resin wasn't mixed properly, who knows. I have had a D40 and D80 survive a lot more!

I had two D200's for a couple of years, then sold them to get the D300. I was disappointed in the D300. It wasn't much of an improvement to warrant the expense. I just did not like the D300. I sold it and got a D700. The D700 is much better than the D300 or D200. It is noticeable enough to justify the cost plus full frame.

I purchased a Nikon D90 to replace a D50. I really like the D90. It has very good IQ. I believe it is better than the IQ of the D300, in a smaller, lighter package. The controls are very similar to the D200, with many new improvements in capabilities. The D90 will also take all of Nikon's AF lenses as it has the built in focusing motor that allows the use of all of Nikon's AF lenses, not just the AF-S.

In my opinion, the D90 is a great buy and very capable body. As mentioned, it does not have the heavy build, nor weather proofing of the D700, but at substantial cost savings,size and weight. I pack the D90 with ease. I strongly recommend the D90 over the D300 or D300s.

bhorst wrote:
Do you think there is enough of a bump from the D200 to the D300 to justify it though? I know the noise is a lot cleaner, but at this point, that is all I am upgrading for....

Yes, noise wise its going to be superior to the D200 at high ISO and the camera as a system is wholly different. Check out thom hogan's review and compare it to everyone elses review. The D300s from teh D300 is more like an evolution (and not worthwhile if you dont want the added FEATURES) but everyone I have seen has said that the D300 was more like a revolution.

I would say if you were used to a D200 and wanted to stay DX go with the D300 unless you wanted video or the quiet shutter mode and a couple more buttons. Else you could jump to the D700 and be full frame and gain more low light ability.

Well, after considering that I make less than 5,000 a year off photo stuff, have a stay at home wife and a 2 year old, and having 10 classes left on a masters degree....

I just ordered a D90....

On that note I may now have a D50 or a D200 for sale.....

I'd hang on to that D200 for a while until you have some time under your belt with the D90. Be a shame to sell it too quickly and then regret doing so.