Great suggestion adamz - I'm so used to seeing the picture after the shot, that I forgot I could actually just turn it off and view as needed. . . .all my lens lack VR (17-55 f/2.8, 35 1.8, 50 1.4), so I hope to squeeze out as much juice as I can. . . .it's all just cheap insurance to have a spare, $40 El3e battery on hand. . ..

The D200 takes mastery though, I'm still taking crappy shots compared to my D40x, both in Aperture priority. . .one has to let go of the Auto ISO and Auto WB. . . .

Hard decision...I wanted this camera for over a year. When I went to purchase it the rumors started about the D300s and D400. I realized I wanted the new and improved model, but I did not want to wait or pay $2000 or more. I needed a camera. Also getting a decent drop on the price made sense. Now I will be looking forward to the purchase the new glass that I hope they will also announce soon. It is a wonderful camera and I am just getting to know it.

shivaswrath - "... Poo-like battery life, but I got another En3le..." just turn off image review and You should be able to get around 900 shot on one battery, at least that's what I get using a VR lens

I went through a similar debate in my head when I was upgrading from a D40x, and decided with the D200 and not the D90/D300 given how the new technology is right around the corner.

I HATE using a flash, so the D200 has been a struggle, BUT the pro's are that I
1. Got it for $599
2. Got the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 for $1100 (ie, for $1700, I could've only purchased the D300!!)
3. Learning how to use the infinite adjustments on the semi-pro body
5. 5FPS!!!!!

Negatives:
1. Hot pixels in the first month, so had to send it back to Nikon and got it serviced/cleaned/bathed for free ($17 in shipping to facility).
2. Noise sucks above 640-800.
3. Need to learn how to use a flash well.
4. Poo-like battery life, but I got another En3le (whatever) battery, so I can swap 'em out and equal the life of D300 on a usual run. . .
5. 95% viewfinder coverage (vs. D300 100%, which is breath-takingly awesome!!)

BUT, already, the price of the D300 has dropped to ~$1500, the D700 to ~$2300 (these are all at BH too), so I think I made the smart choice, and when the D400 comes out, hopefully the D700 will drop more and I can get a camera that will REALLY excel in low light shots.

The D200, IMO, has better ISO 100 performance than the D300 CMOS sensor. Additionally, the 3-D focusing on the D300 has a bit of a lag (it'll flash what the computer thinks are the right focus points, and then shoot). . .for me, the D200 has a simple and instant AF. . . .

I think (and i don't know if anyone care what I think) is that we are now getting
close to where computers already have been for a couple of years.

This means that as an amateur or semi pro you it is not longer necessary to get the newest gear
buy gear that are one gen back all the time and you will get the following advantages vs buying
the latest gear.

1. Half price or less.
2. Bug tested and firmware tweaked.
3. Software compatibility (ACR and other raw converters and viewers).
4. 3rd part accessories like batteries.
5. Buy 2nd hand and you don't have to make the first marks and nicks :0)

My opinions at your service :0)

/Stefan @
http://www.stockholmviews.com

I agree that there's no ideal time to buy a camera, but sometimes you have to buy one. I'm in the same boat after destroying my D200 on a road trip. D90 vs D200 vs D300 vs waiting for rumored D400? Depends on your cash supply, patience and specific feature needs. I liked my D200 a lot. After breaking the lens mount on a D70, the D200 was a very welcome upgrade in ruggedness. (OK it couldn't handle getting run over by an 18 wheeler though). Low light performance and AF matrix could have been better, as everyone always says. Kinda heavy but I used to carry a Mamiya 645 rig, so no real complaint there.

So...if low $ wins, D200. You can resell it with comparatively little loss if the D400 somehow appears soon.

If low light etc matters a lot, D300. D90 if you gotta have video but will give up beefiness.

If you don't actually need a camera, you can wait for the D400. Trouble is, it hasn't been announced, and no one who's talking knows when (or if!!) it will be.

Nope, now I shoot RAW and there is still a difference. Active D-Lighting, for example, can only be adjusted in RAW and that requires that it was turned on in the 1st place before it can be changed. The D200 while cheaper, is a dead technology and if one cannot afford a D300 (which I understand) then the D90 is overall a better choice.

guys - I've never said that d200 is better than d300, I would sound ridiculous if I will do that; although comparing the price of d200 and d300 I think that it's wiser right now to get the d200 and a good lens instead of d300.
gentoo - if You shoot jpg's than yes, there's a huge benefit of using d90 and d300, but if You shoot NEF, than the gap between the old generation and the new one becomes smaller, and certainly (at least for me) doesn't justifies the $1k price difference.
anyway, all of the cameras are great and with good technique can produce really stunning images

Gentoo is right on with his summary of the benefits of the new generation of cameras. Comparing my D90 to my D80 (which share the processor with their respective triple digit older siblings), The 90 produces better colors. I don't get to use the 90 all that much as the real photographer in my household always has it. When I do, I like to crank up the saturation in the picture controls. Sure I could do this in Aperture after my shooting, but I shoot JPEG, which means the photos get cranky if you mess with them very much.

The D90 also corrects the purple lines (lateral chromatic aberration) in camera. It's got 2 more mega pixels, which means about 5% more vertical lines of resolution (I'm cheating but the square root of 12 is about 5% greater than the square root of 10 the image processor isn't square its rectangular, so the calc may come out slightly different).

Dynamic range also seems to be better on the D90 than it is on the D80. I suspect that you will get substantially better image quality on the D300 than the D200. Of course a better lens would probably do more to improve the quality of your photo than an upgrade from the D200 to the D300.

adamz

Maybe, I guess it depends on which features one tends to use. For me personally, I like the better AF which allows me to chose my AF points. I use 21. The D90 and D200 AF system I believe both have 11 focal points (D90 maybe 9) and is nearly the same. Picture controls is more advance IMO than optimize image. There is far more control over how you want your colors; this is sometimes critical when you're shooting outside and a cloud moves over and it becomes very gray and dull. Sure WB sets the colors right but cannot bring them out the way the D300 can. Here's an example:

http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/106892422

The day I shot that was very gray and dull. You could only see a hint of it's iridescence but after messing with the vivid modes along with other settings, it looks almost as if the sun were out. Can't do this in the older Nikons, at least not nearly to this level. The D90 has the same settings as the menus are almost identical.

Then there's Active D-Lighting which also helped me get the above shot. This is shared on the D90 (and even has an auto setting) but is absent from the D200. When you're in shade or shadows, you will see the difference trust me.

gentoo, in what way d200 is an old technology, up to iso 400 you will don't see any differences between d300 or d90, and unless You have unlimited debit on Your CC, than it's simply the only option if You don't want to overpay for d300 with a possible d400 right around the corner. if You consider d200 as an old technology, I will say that d300 is also in the same league - just instead of spending 650USD you add 1 at the beginning - for lifeview and higher iso (1 stop, 2 at most) as there are no other major differences between this two cameras, the important features are almost the same - weather sealing (never had a problem with my d200, even in the most humid conditions or/and have rainfall), AF almost as fast as in d300 (it's lacking the AF numbers, but sometimes less is better). So once again, if You planning to upgrade Your camera or move from DXX to DXXX either wait for d400 or get d200 and a decent lens.

As far as buying a D200 or wait for a D400, I don't think that's much of a choice at all. The D200 is old technology in the first generation of Nikon firmware, settings and features (ok my god I sound like KR but he has a point here). If the D400 is too much then I personally would get the D300. The D90 would be my next to last choice with the D200 being dead last.

I'm sort of in a similar situation, that is, waiting for Nikon to announce what they're doing. I want a second body. As a wildlife shooter, it's often helpful to have a second body with a different lens attached for those unexpected opportunities. Even if it's not wildlife a 2nd body can be useful. I just did a long photo shoot this weekend and found myself wishing I had a second body.

So, I am waiting to see what price the D400 will be and if it's reasonable, I'll get it. Otherwise I will be getting a second D300. The D90 has marginally better IQ than the D300 because it's newer. It's sensor is very similar but newer so therefore has later technology in it. Why get a D200 from what...2005??? I can't see the logic in that because if you do, you will find yourself wanting to upgrade sooner than if you got a D300 or even a D90.

If you need to shoot right now, just get a D300 but if it's not imperative, I'd wait.

Willis -

Seems like most of those problems would be solved with a D200 which is currently like 600 bucks at bestbuy right now. I think i'm going to go for the D200 and pick up the D300 later when the prices drops.

Not sure if I can AF fine tune on the 200 but i dont think that would bug me much. I'll put the extra money into some strobes or something.

Follow up to adamz:

I recently bought the D90, but if I had it to do over again, I definitely would have gone with the D300 for the following reasons:
1. Ergonomics - I find myself fiddling with ISO & WB much more than I used to. I'd rather have the D300's dedicated buttons at the top rather than the D90's shared buttons on the rear. I'm a big proponent of the 1-button 1-function design philosophy. Lets hope apple never makes a camera. It will have a shutter button and thats it LOL.
2. Build Quality - I don't abuse the cameras very much, but the better weather sealing would be a huge plus, especially now that its started to rain again here in Texas.
3. Viewfinder - Full coverage is a good thing. I don't notice it much on the D90, which I think gives you 96% coverage, but it gives me fits on my D40 (90% coverage).
4. AF Fine tune - I never thought I needed this until I bought the 24-70 f2.8. This lens is razor sharp, but has a tendancy to miss the focus ever so slightly. I'd like to have the option of adjusting the AF on my camera to optimize it for each lens.

Unless the D400 is full frame, I'm not sure how they are going to make substantial improvement over the D300. Unless the kick the MP count up into the 20's, you won't notice a substantial difference in quality, and then your going to get noise on DX. I'd rather have the ISO's myself. Video... meh, I don't use it on the D90 much at all. I wouldn't turn my nose up at it, but I'd be disappointed if I waited and all I got was a video option.

It is never a good time to buy a camera.
There will always be a better one after awhile and you will loose your money the minute you bring it out of the shop. It is the same as with a car.
On the other hand D300 is a great semipro camera, better then anything else in Nikon DX range.
So if you need something like this, and have enough money, I would say go for it. Otherwise you will wait for D400 for a year or so and it will not be good time to buy it again because it will be overpriced, and so on.

As I wrote some time ago, I think that the option for today is either buy a d200 or wait for d400. With the first, You can get a decent lens for the price difference between d200 and d300, and if You don't use high iso and live view You'll don't see much difference. OTOH when You wait for d400 You'll get the newest nikon body, probably with even better noise performance (hopefully same or nearly same as in d700) - You will pay more, but for sure will be less pissed than buying now d300 and being able to get it for half it's price in nearer or longer future.
As for d90 and d200 comparison, this two cameras are on two different levels. One is amateur and second one is semi-pro. I agree that according to DXO charts d90 is even better in IQ than d300, but it doesn't mean that it's a better camera, as the AF is worst than in d200, not to mention the body construction and sealing.
So concluding, if I was going to get a new body in April/May I'll either buy the old and great d200 or wait for d400.

the D300 is $1449 at Adorama when I was at the actual store off of 18th and 6th yesterday. . .had so much fun playing with it!!

the viewfinder is something to behold!

i've got my D300 the day it was launch. Never looked back since then. It's a great camera that'll last me ages.

I am in the same boat and debating on waiting or to just buy and forget about it.

To me, once the announcement is done by Nikon, there will usually
be a lag time of about a month before they hit the stores. If the D400 is
way more than what I want to pay, then I will get the D300

either way the d300 wont be more expensive and you wont
have to wonder what if?

Soo NIKON if you are reading our posts announce it already!

Well, beside all the things aforementioned, consider this thought also: With te maximum of 15 Mp, there are reasons to believe that D400 will offer the best performance that could be squeezed out of DX format sensor, so I think anyway. So if you're willing to stick with your DX lenses, if you have any, like I do, wait for the best DX format camera. It won't be long until it arrives, surely.

I hope they release a new flash alongside that new body. I would love to get an update to the SB-600.

If I had to guess, this announcement will be the D40 replacement, with the D400 coming later this summer. That is of course, assumeing that there will be a D40 replacement. If there isn't, it will be the D400 for sure.

I've noticed more aggressive price decreases on kakaku in the last couple of weeks. One camera store in Osaka dropped their price by 1 yen each time a competitor outbid them, to try to keep on top of the ranking. They did that consistently until the weekend until they stopped.

http://kakaku.com/item/00490711094/pricehistory/

check out: 大阪ボンバー

Were they trying to move their D300 stock ahead of an announcement? They only show the D300 18-70 kit available on their site now, and kakaku shows them aggressively trying to get rid of those also

http://kakaku.com/item/00490711095/pricehistory/

Question for me as a prospective D300/D400 buyer, is should I get a D300 at the reduced price since the D400 will debut at at least 200,000 yen probably (current best price is ¥123,800 or $1,269.57) or bet that the D400's features will be worth the step up, and then more? I think it's probably the former. I think the D300 is a steal at the moment and Nikon are encouraging retailers to sell out so that they can reposition the brand as more high-class than Canon (and thus charge more). I also don't care about video and nobody seems to have an idea about improvements on the D300 other than MP and video. D700 after all was 'only' an FX sensor IIRC, plus the ability to recognise gels on flash (plus a lot of other tweaks of course, but basically it's just FX, correct?) Opinions?

>>Do you think they'll halt production on the D300? Do you think it will go the way of the SB-800 and you'll only be able to get it for a crazy price on ebay?

The reality is that Nikon have more than likely already stopped production of the D300. One thing Nikon are very good at is managing their inventory levels so that when new products arrive on the shelves they have exhausted the supply of old model stock. In the past rebates have been available to assist overstocked resellers in moving their excess old stock. Many of those resellers are no longer in business and the rest have considerably reduced stock holdings so I would not be holding my breath for any rebates on D300.
The D400 on the other hand will be priced to reflect the weaker US dollar and the lower expected sales volume. Nikon will be upping the price to ensure that they get more income per camera sold as they know sales volumes will drop off during 2009.

I don't see how the predicted announcement of a D5000 would affect the D300's price.

Regarding the price. I think it will definitly stay under 2000$ Nikon has decided to make their annoncement earlier to rain on canon's parade for the new 500D due may 11th (as per best buy web site) the posted price is 1,099$ CAD. I was about to go out and get the D300 this weekend, but upon reading the info on the press release April 14th, i'll wait a bit....hopefully for a price drop.