| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2012 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 525 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
richw wrote:I thought the D200 was 98% of the camera that the D2x was, and possible a better model than the D2h but I think there has always been clear water between the D3 series and the D300. I have no doubt that the D300 (particularly the 's') was a big step forward over the D200.
Perhaps it's because I own a D200 and have a real soft spot for it, most of my photos where taken with it, but I never felt that the D300 was quite as good a value proposition.
I am with Tom on this one.
Yes the D200 is a nice camera and (as you say) 98% of the D2X. But I didnt think much of the D2X in the first place...it was a stop gap till Nikon got the FX sensor working....and sorted out noise!
Yes there is clear water between D3 and D300 ...but it is still a better performer than the D200 in several ways.
Its this fact that has delayed the arrival of its successor for so long.
Well I never had a D300 so that may explain some of my feeling!
No doubt the D300 is a better camera, but compared to it's peer group at the time (not just Nikon, but Canon et al) I still believe the D200 stood apart in a way the D300 didn't.
I'm not for one second saying it was a better camera but give that it was a whole generation earlier, at the time it came out I think it stood out from the crowd as a great buy in a way the 300 never managed.
But however you rate the two models I think this niche is an important one for Nikon and I hope they bring out a D400 that really knocks our socks off.