D300 Vs D100

[NYRANGERS]

Hey all, I am new to this forum and just had a few quick questions or maybe its just an opinion i want lol. I have a d100 and I was thinking about getting the d300--first off how big a difference will i notice with the two cameras? I am also thinkng about getting the sgma 70-200 f2.8 with HSM, anyone have this lens? How is it?
thanks for the help

[jorgemonkey]

I can't comment on the cameras, since I don't have them, but I do have the Sigma lens.

Its a great lens, mine is really sharp and I enjoy using it for portraits. The HSM is pretty quick, but it doesn't compare to my Nikon version of the lens. I've heard some people say though that it focuses as fast as the Nikon, but mine doesn't.

BTW, I like your handle

[NYRANGERS]

LOL thanks for the help on the lens-I have been reading quite a bit about it--hearing alot of good things on it--just dont wanna go for the money for the nikon lens--its almost double the price of the sigma.

[dhyravy]

All I can say is that the difference between the D100 and D300 would be the equivalent of trading your 57 chevy for a 08 corvette. The new technology is superior in pretty much every area and function you can think of.

[jorgemonkey]

I do all this professionally, and while the Sigma is a good lens, it wasn't quite giving me the keeper rate that I wanted. Even though I bought the Nikon, I'm still gonna hang onto my Sigma and use it as a backup, or when I don't feel like hauling around the Nikon, since its a little bit heavier.

[NYRANGERS]

I kind of figured that as far as the d100 and d300-I know i am not gonna get much if i try to sell the d100 so I may as well keep it. Just wondering if its worth the 1800 for the d300 or should i wait to see if the price comes down anytime soon. I mostly do this for fun--like doing fire photography and sports photography and thinking of doing some other stuff on the side-but it is definitely a big investment as far as equipment goes. I have never had a f2.8 lens yet and I hear the difference is amazing once you shoot with one. I have the sigma 170-500 and like it but it doesnt have HSM so focusing is slow and the zoom on it isnt internal so this lens can be a pain to carry around lol. It isnt too bad outdoors, but once you go indoors or try to do a baseball game at night-it sucks lol.

[deckcadet]

The D300 is, in my opinion, worth every penny... even if you were coming from the D200 or D80, I'd say it. Coming from the D100, it's just a world of difference.

I'm wrapping up shooting and so on, and am drafting the D300 Pro Review for this site right now, and hopefully we'll get it up very soon. You should take a look at it when it's up.

[another view]

I just bought a D200 from a friend who got a D300, and I'm coming to this from a Fuji S2 which was a lot like the D100 (sort of, anyway). Even the D200 is a huge step up, and a good used one is worth about half the price of a D300.

If it were me, I'd probably go with a used D200 and a 70-200 Nikon VR lens - the total amount of money is probably about the same as a D300 with the Sigma. I'm sure the D300 is a great camera, but doing this mainly just as a hobby it's hard to justify for me. It will probably be a while before the D300 comes down in price.

[NYRANGERS]

Thanks for the input everyone--I thought about going with a d200 also, but from what I have read the d300 is even a big difference from the d200--I like the idea of going with a d200 and a 70-200 nikor lens--thats a great idea--maybe if I could get the right deal I will-if its only a few hundred difference I may as well go with the d300--I have to see what happens--I am sure just stepping up to a steady f2.8 lens will make a difference lol.

[deckcadet]

What other lenses do you have? if your glass at the short end isn't great, a D200 would be a better idea still.

You can get great deals on D200s now. I'm not expecting to get over 900 for my last one, and I have barely used it.

[NYRANGERS]

I only have 2 lenses at this time-one is a nikkor 28-80 3.5-5.6 and the other is the Sigma 170-500 5-6.3 both are slow lenses. The thing I am looking at is I dont want to be sorry I didnt go for the d300. Is there that much of a difference between the d200 and d300? I mean everyone seems to be going with that CMOS sensor now and the d200 is still the CCD, Nikon changed the d300 to CMOS so is that gonna be there standard now? Is it worth going for the 1800 on a d300 or is the d200 still a huge step from the d100? also what lenses would you recommend to step up to for both low light stuff and sports? Unfortunately the Nikkor lenses are really out of my budget right now so I was leaning towards the Sigmas or something like that if you think they are good. Thanks for all the help

[deckcadet]

There is a lot going for the D300, but really with those lenses you shouldn't be considering it. You really need to replace your wide end as well, that quality is just not going to cut it on the D300.

CCD vs. CMOS is a long story, and really I don't think you need to worry about it much. Yes, the new sensor is great, but it's not like CCD is dead. Nikon has used CMOS before... the D2x, renowned for its detail but cursed for its higher noise, was a CMOS camera, and Nikon's LBCAST sensor in the D2H/D2Hs is a technology based on CMOS. The majority of the Nikon DSLR line, however, remains CCD based, and they are very good sensors.

Just because something newer and better has come out doesn't mean the previous best just stopped working.

Alternatively, you may choose to wait a while and see what happens in the next few months in regards to a replacement for the D80, which would probably use a slower variant of the D300's 12mp sensor, and will have a pretty good feature set. If you don't really need 6/8fps anyways.

The D200 would be plenty, and even then a lens upgrade to something more suitable would be a good idea. the D200 and D2x were the cameras that really started showing off flaws in lower quality lenses. Using those lenses on the D300, or even the D200, would really prevent you from getting the most out of either camera, so upgrading to a higher level body like the D300 wouldn't really matter anyways.

I say you should get the D200 (or d80 replacement), the 70-200/2.8, and replace your 28-80 with a better lens. Sigma has the 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC, and Tamron has the 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II, both for under $500. Sigma also has a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro which has gotten some pretty good consumer feedback on other forums. I think if you sell your 28-80 (you won't get much, but it's better than nothing) and get a good deal on the 17/18-50 or 17-70, you could get it, the D200, and 70-200/2.8 and maybe even still have enough left over to make the 70-200 the Nikon instead of the Sigma (if you buy used)

[NYRANGERS]

Thanks deckcadet for all the help--definitely making my decision here a little easier--starting to lean towards the d200 and the lenses--its funny I was just gonna come on here and ask about the sigma18-50 f2.8 lens or the tamron--just wondering if anyone had any experience with any of them-they seem to be getting really good reviews for the most past--I keep hearing a little about the sigma being a little unsharp on the left side but I am sure with the lenses I have it will be much better anyway lol. I have taken some pretty decent pics with the 170-500 all of course during the day--got some real nice shots at the Yankee games but all were taken when the sun was right on the field--once the sun went down--it was all over lol. what do you think is a fair price for the d200 and for a nikkor 70-200 f2.8 used?

[deckcadet]

the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR in good shape used really depends on how the stock situation is at most of the big stores. If it's been sold out for a while, then the prices tend to climb a bit... expect to pay in the $1300-1400 range I think, though I picked up my latest copy for under $1300.

The D200 prices have gotten a bit volatile lately, you could get it for $1000 or less in very good shape.

[Dylan8i]

ive only seen (just recently) the 70-200 2.8 vr for about 1700-1900....

id pick it up insteada of the 80-400 im saving for for 1300-1400. :-(

[deckcadet]

I don't know where you've been seeing those prices, Dylan, but the street price is $1625 at the moment for a brand new USA version.

[Dylan8i]

ok i guess that was more what i ment, B&h has it for 1625, and it has been the cheepest place ive seen, and i usually add the shipping etc in to the prices (just like i would tax at a store) for the total price i have to pay.

still can't decide if it wwould be better to get 80-400 or 70-200 + tc20

it would be great to have a 2.8 lense, but the price and more versitility of 80-400... i can't decide.

[deckcadet]

The 80-400's VR is noticeably less advanced and less effective, and the autofocus is much slower. It also isn't as good wide open, so you'd be shooting at f/5.6-8.0 if you really want to get your money's worth, even f/11 at times near the long end.

I think the 70-200 is overall the better lens by far, and though there are rumors of an updated 80-400 with AFS and VR II, these rumors have been flying for years.

Just to be safe don't do anything till after PMA later this month.

[Dylan8i]

oh yeah, i was going to ask when the next show was... i won't have the money by then anyhows.