Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Would there be a huge advantage upgrading to a D300, it may be just me but i find the D200 images a bit soft.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Simple answer is "No". Why not wait for the D400!
There is no doubt the D300 has some technical advantages over the D200, But as Chris has said camera settings/Lens & processing technique are a major factor in image sharpness.....!
I have never had any problems with obtaining razor sharp images from my D200, And I'm fairly sure that goes for a lot of D200 owners on EPZ...Just take a look through the gallery.......!
However if it's an open question regarding an upgrade to the D300, You'll have to ask yourself if the improved areas are important to your use of the camera.......Some might be, Some might not.
Quote: I have never had any problems with obtaining razor sharp images from my D200,
Ditto... Personally, I have no need to change to the D300 as the D200 'delivers' for what I shoot - the D3..?? then 'Yes'. But not the D300.
Would I get rid of my D200 short answer NO. Do I regret buying my D300 short answer NO. Is there a situation where I would rather use one camera over the other answer - haven't come across it yet. (The extra frame rate I get with the D300 is the only advantage I can say that has proved really useful.)
Critical sharpness - Both cameras are excellent esp. when coupled to the right lenses. This is where I would look if I was not getting the sharpness I require. The Nikon 50mm f1.4 for example produces in certain circumstances soft images, the Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 is razor sharp at all settings in all circumstances I have used so far. The 80-400 VR f4.5-5.6 can produce softer images in some circumstances and is more prone to chromatic abberation than the 70-200. I could go on and review all lenses but the point I am trying to make is that the camera is less important than the lens. Bit like having the best hi fi but with crap speakers.
Quote: I have never had any problems with obtaining razor sharp images from my D200
Pin sharp with the Nikon 17-55mm
Thanks everyone, am currently using sigma50-500 with tripod, guess its just a learning curve with the lens.
No probs with my 200 use with Sigma 18-50 2.8 and Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8. Try changing some of your camera settings and experiment a bit.
Quote: i find the D200 images a bit soft.
This usually is down to improving technique, and working within the limitations of the Camera and Lens. One aspect I have noticed is that in good lighting conditions the Camera and Lens more easily "does the work" making up for any shortfalls in technique, whereas in poor light, any failings in technique are much more evident. For example reading the D200 manual (p59, getting good results with autofocus), clearly shows the importance of good technique.
Now you have mentioned the lens you are using I can confirm that I had exactly the same issues. I stopped using this lens about 2 years ago when I purchased the Nikon 80-400 VR lens and it has sat in the cupboard ever since.
There was a firmware issue with the lens and the D200 but this from memory purely related to the fact it would not respond to the separate autofocus button. A free firmware update was available from Sigma. Yet the lens worked fine on my Nikon F100. Never really understood or investigated why.
BTW Anyone interested in buying a Sigma 50-500 lens.
I have a D300 and have just started using a Sigma 50-500mm and i have the same problem of soft images especially at the 500mm end. I dont see the soft images with my other lenses (nikon 105mm, 55-200 4-5.6vr) so i assume that it is a problem with lens (which is mentioned in some reviews at the 500mm end). I am trying different things to try and solve it.
Dave, did you really expect a 10x zoom to be as sharp as a prime macro lens?
Super zooms do tend to be somewhat soft at the longer end, and the fact that it is a 500mm means you have to take care, even mounted on a tripod any small movement will cause blurring and softening of the final image.
No i didnt expect the sigma to be as sharp as the prime macro lens. I was trying to point out that the softness is down to the lens not the camera and buying the D300 wouldnt solve it, so it might be a better idea to keep the D200 and buy a nice lens with the money. sorry i didnt make it clearer in my original reply.
I loved my D200, but the Sigma 50-500mm IMO is a bit soft at the fat end, and under certain conditions it can look a little soft at most ends, all depends how critical you are, and if like me I can find fault with almost anything (not a good trait to have). I would have a good think about upgrading the camera if you have had a lot of use out of your D200, as at the moment you will still get a few £££ for the D200 body, but im sure its worth a bit of a wait as the D300 will come down in price soon (well, I hope anyway).
I upgrade a little bit like I would with a car otherwise the value is all lost, but at the end of the day its a personal choice. I would recomend the 70-200mm 2.8 glass though, it works very well even with a Telecon on it.
Quote: Would there be a huge advantage upgrading to a D300
Having looked at the type of photography you do I would have to say NO.
I made the upgrade and the D300 does perform better than the D200 in low light conditions.
If I were you I'd spend that money on the lens of your dreams
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar