Comparing Nikon D200 to D300 DSLR Cameras

April 10, 2020
#378

Gentle reader,


I have been into photography since I was a kid in the 1960's when my parents gave me a green plastic Sears roll film camera.
Economics prevented me from having another camera until my first child was born, all we could swing was a JCPenney 110 camera. 
And no, I did not use the green one in the interim. I could not afford a "real" i.e., 35mm SLR, camera until April, 1995. Which was an Olympus OM10 I found at my first trip into a pawn shop. Camera, lens and flash was $100.
I used to collect film cameras, eventually having over 500, but not all at once. I never came across a JCPenney 110 in all those years, but this Minolta gives you an idea what it looked like.
My film camera collection some years ago, mounted on my invention I named: CameraLock.

Previously, in 2017, I wrote about upgrading from my first Nikon DSLR, a D70S to the D200:


I am not going to go into the specifics of the D200 verses D300, I will put links to two professional articles written when the D300 came out at the end of 2008 at the end of the article.
Both cameras have the optional battery pack that doubles batteries and adds controls so that when the camera is flipped vertically, one still has the same controls under your fingers.
The only sign of wear the D300 shows is the "300" has been worn off. 
The left side door is now one piece on the D300. The battery pack on the D300 has a drawer that slides out.
The viewing screen is much larger on the D300, I have ordered the genuine Nikon screen protector for it. 
Rear controls are almost identical, with the wider screen, the grip on the right of the D300 is a little narrower, but still effective. 
Right sides are nearly identical. The battery pack's shutter button and on/off switch is seen here.
Aside from the stylized shape of the flip-up flash and round verses not-round buttons behind the shutter/on-off switch on the D300 (right) and different uses for the rotating switch on the left, they function and look almost the same.
The battery packs are shaped differently, and the D200 one has a stuck on label while the D300's is molded in.

The D200 specs from one of the articles:
  • Announcement Date: 2006-02-23
  • 10MP - APS-C CCD Sensor
  • ISO 100 - 1600 ( expands to 3200)
  • Nikon F Mount
  • 2.5" Fixed Type Screen
  • Optical (pentaprism) viewfinder
  • 5 fps continuous shooting
  • No Video Mode
  • 920g. 147 x 113 x 74 mm
  • Weather Sealed Body
  • Replaced Nikon D100
The D300 specs from the same article:
  • Announcement Date: 2008-03-12
  • 12MP - APS-C CMOS Sensor
  • ISO 200 - 3200 ( expands to 100-6400)
  • Nikon F Mount
  • 3" Fixed Type Screen
  • Optical (pentaprism) viewfinder
  • 6 fps continuous shooting
  • No Video Mode
  • 925g. 147 x 114 x 74 mm
  • Weather Sealed Body
  • Replaced Nikon D200
Note that the lowest ISO for the D300 is 200 verses 100 in the D200. This speaks to the fact that most consumer lenses are zoom models which do not have fast (low number) apertures. Thus, will need a higher ISO in order the capture images. 

Also note the D300's higher pixel count and CMOS verses CCD sensor.

The best part to me about this particular D300 is that I got it for $87.50 WITH the battery pack and two Nikon batteries, which is MUCH cheaper than most D300s on eBay.

I had sold my beloved Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 camera with the intent of upgrading to the LX7 which has a faster Leica lens. But others are willing to pay more than I am.
I realized that my FZ200 camera (below) has SO many more features than the LX5 and I have not even made 1000 photos with it yet, so decided it made more sense to invest in a better Nikon.
Why am I upgrading and why an eleven year old camera? The D200 has problems focusing. It works fine otherwise. So far, every shot I have made with the D300 has been tack sharp. And, being retired and on a fixed income (and my Scottish ancestor's genes) force me to live and spend economically.

Oddly, since neither Nikon can record video, the D300 has live view on the screen. One cannot shoot that way, so I am not sure why they offer that. 

The manual is 452 pages long! Granted, they are small pages, but still. My cameras have way more features than I will ever use.

Now, since the main differences I have encountered and that I have not already related is with their battery packs.
On the D200, one removes the battery door, it comes off easily, and the pack's shaft slides into the battery compartment. Well, what would you call it?
Spring loaded pins on the shaft press against terminals inside the body of the camera. These link all the controls on the battery pack to the camera.

Nikon uses a PAC-Man icon to indicate opening doors. Odd that there is a symbol for a multi-function switch, but no switch or control.
Open the door and there are the batteries. Both cameras use the same type.

Genuine Nikon batteries, like all of their items are more expensive, so I bought a generic second one.
And there "are the quirks and features" of the Nikon D200 battery pack. Doug DeMuro fans will get that quote.

And now, for the very different D300 battery pack.
To start off, it has no massive shaft nor the need to removed the battery door. The battery stays in place, the pack adds a second battery.
See the "L" shaped rubber piece on the pack (left)? That is storage for the seal over the camera's terminals. Clever.
Since cameras and so many more products are sold in countless countries, symbols play an important role. PAC-Man, arrow and battery symbols explain on the left end of the pack.
Drawer disengaged and partly slid out. The stuck-on label and serial number are on top of the battery pack.

Remember that I pointed out the multi-function label on the D200 battery pack? 
Well, below, you can see that the D300 pack does have the control so that one can go through the menus with the camera vertically. Clever. 
 
Again, a symbol shows which way to slide the battery in. The PUSH is on the lever that locks the battery in place.
Both bodies with all of the lenses I have. Only one is digital-specific: a Sigma 18-125mm zoom on the left. Nikon 50mm f1.8 "normal" lens in the center, and a Sigma-made, Quantaray branded, (once a Ritz Camera store brand) 28-300mm zoom on the right and the beast in back is a Tamron 200-400mm zoom.

 Impressive zooms.
The two Sigma lenses fully engorged, I mean zoomed out.
And at their widest ends. The 28-300 on the left, 18-125mm on the right.
The new face of Nikon for me. One cool factor about Nikon and Pentax SLR film and digital cameras, is that in both cases and ONLY in their cases, film lenses from the 1950's onward can mount on digital bodies and be used, albeit without automatic factors beyond aperture closing and opening.

Thus, any Nikon (and Pentax) autofocus lens can be mounted and used on (their respective) digital bodies and be completely compatible and usable. 

I understand some of the less expensive late model Nikon DSLR cameras require lenses which have a focus motor built-into the lens. These two cameras have focus motors in the camera that mechanically couple to the lens's focus equipment.

As I stated, only one of my lenses is digital-only. Due to the digital "crop-factor" 35mm or full-frame lenses are cropped by the APS-C (film) sized sensor. 

Thus, this 50mm lens has a focal length of 75mm. Which is why wide angle lenses for digital bodies are so expensive, being that sensors require the light to hit them straight on, unlike film which doesn't care what direction the light hits it.
As a result with the lenses I have, their cropped focal lengths are: (18-125mm): 37-187.5mm, (28-300mm): 42-450mm and (200-400mm): 300-600mm in 35mm or full frame digital sensor. 
A selection of some of the Nikon mount lenses I have owned in the past.
I am showing that every single one of these lenses would mount on and be usable on my D300. 

And now the links to those two articles I told you about. Interesting to me is that both bodies retailed for over $1,000 in their day.

Nikon D200 vs Nikon D300 Detailed Comparison  

Nikon D200 vs Nikon D300: What is the difference?

Thank you for taking the time to read my humble blog, your kind words and comments, here or on Facebook are what keep me writing and shooting.

Scott
April 10, 2020
#378

at No comments:

Building Classic Trans Am Simulation Racers in Forza 4 Javelin, Firebird, Camaro, Challenger, Barracuda, Mustang

April 9, 2020
#377

Gentle reader,
After spending many days compiling my 370+ articles into a series of Indexes, I am now ready to write again. Below is a link to all articles in this subject:

 
Below is a link to the Index "to rule them all", a little LOTR humor.


Trans Am racing was formed by the SCCA in 1966 with the first race at Sebring in March of that year. There were two classes that raced together: Under five liters and Five liters (305 cubic inches) engine capacity. The former largely Porsches and Alfa Romeos. The latter American "Pony" cars.

The term "Pony Cars" was coined on the mistaken belief that the Ford Mustang was the first sports coupe made. Actually the Plymouth Barracuda came out first. As the Mustang was based upon the humble Falcon, the Barracuda was based upon the Valiant. 

As we all know, the Mustang set the car world on fire when it was debuted at the 1964 World's Fair and the other car makers scrambled to catch up. 

I would preferred a BOSS 302 (five liter) engine rather than the BOSS 429. The 429 engine had hemispherical combustion changers in answer to Chrysler's NASCAR dominating 426 Hemi engine. Rather than put one in their Galaxie models, they shoehorned them into a Mustang body. The engine was considerably larger and heavier than the Mustang was made to house.

NOTE: During my first job as a young Chevy car dealer mechanic, a young woman who worked there (mid-late 1970's) had a BOSS 429 and she let me drive it. WOW! What a powerful car!
Ford came out with the luxury Mustang called a Mercury Cougar in 1967. Livery above, is based upon Bud Moore's two-car team.
Livery above is based upon Dan Gurney's Cougar race car, I believe. At any rate it is accurate as most shown are.

General Motors came out with the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird in 1966 for the 1967 model year. 

Livery on the 1969 Camaro below is based upon Roger Penske's incredible series of Camaros driven by the legendary Mark Donohue.
Dodge followed in 1969 with the Challenger which was as close to the Plymouth Barracuda as the Firebird was to the Camaro in construction and style.
American Motors Corporation came out with the Javelin in 1968 and their shortened two-seater AMX later. 

Livery on the 1971 AMX below is based upon Roger Penske's incredible series of Javelins driven by the legendary Mark Donohue.
All of the photos above are from a series of articles I wrote in 2015 when I completed every race in Microsoft's XBox 360 racing simulation called Forza 4.
At the time, I was using what was our very first HDTV, a 32 inch Samsung model which is also a monitor suitable for PC use (above). 
As a result, it can be viewed much closer than most HDTVs, having much smaller pixels. The photos made of it's screen images are fairly sharp compared to the ones below.
My son-in-law gave me this plasma 42 inch HDTV, which being so much larger, the in-cockpit view closely matches what I see while actually driving a real car than the smaller 32 inch TV did. 

For a quick history of the Trans Am series, watch this video from Trans Am:
I had seen a couple vintage Trans Am races recently on YouTube, the best here:

I set out to recreate as many of the early cars as I could. I no longer belong to XBox Gold so I can not access the multitude of paint schemes, called "livery" in the racing world that I used to buy. If I did not already have a paint scheme stored, I could not decorate my new Trans Am racers.

While Shelby American did field three 1966 Mustang GT-350 cars initially, I did not include either of the later Shelby cars in Forza since they had too large of engine capacity and were not raced in Trans Am series in real life.

I used the exact same wheels, tires, brakes, spoilers (front and rear), and suspension mods, plus, I lowered them from one to one and one half inches and replaced stock air intake and exhaust with racing intake and exhaust mods on all cars. I did not modify the engines. I did remove all excess weight and equipped the cars with full roll cages and chassis stiffeners.

Since many of the cars have larger than 305 cubic inch engine capacity limit, I needed to equalize the playing field somehow. 

So, once I completed their individual modifications I used the "quick upgrade" and chose A600. This equalized their performance. Making many a little more powerful than the real cars. Zero-to-60mph times and top speeds vary greatly due to engine capacity. 

You will see, that since Forza is principally made for circuit racing, that the equalization process worked to provide parity,

I then raced each car around the circuit in California called Infineon, in their day it was called Sears Point. It is the circuit featured in the 2019 race video on YouTube linked above.

Individual specs will follow with photos of my newly created racers.
The oldest pony car I have in Forza 4 (1966 or later) is this 1968 Barracuda Formula-S. The Formula-S was a sportier Barracuda made to handle better. Forza rates this as an A592.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 500, Torque: 487 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 4.0 seconds, top speed: 166 mph. Lap time: 1:49. 
While the car qualified body wise, it has a 383 cubic big-block engine, it would not have been able to race.
In Forza 4, only the 1969 Camaro Z28 model qualifies with a five liter engine. Forza rates this as an A598.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 419, Torque: 419 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 4.0 seconds, top speed: 145 mph. Lap time: 1:49. 

Forza does not give engine sizes, so I am assumed it was only five liters. Based upon the engine specs, I suspect it is much larger, such as their 400 cubic inch engine. Forza rates this as an A600.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 493, Torque: 528 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 3.0 seconds, top speed: 183 mph. Lap time: 1:51.  Yeah, not a 305!
Due to a strike in the GM plants, the 1970 Camaro and Firebird models did not come out until 1970 (instead of September, 1969) and were called 1970 1/2. Their body styles were completely different than the original 1967-1969 bodies.
When I originally bought this pain scheme, it was for a bumper-less body. I suspect that this model has the 350 cubic inch engine. Forza rates this as an A599.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 475, Torque: 468 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 3.4 seconds, top speed: 175 mph. Lap time: 1:52.  Much more likely that it is a 350.
If you look closely, you can see a black tip on the factory rear spoiler. Forza's idea of "adjustable".
This livery is based upon Sam Posey's 1970 Dodge Challenger.
This image clearly shows Forza's adjustable rear spoiler. This car has the big block 440 6-Pack engine. Forza rates this as an A598.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 513, Torque: 552  pound-feet, 0-60mph: 3.7 seconds, top speed: 171 mph. Lap time: 1:52.  
As I stated above, I would prefer the Boss 302 which is closely matched to the Camaro Z28. Both engines were made for Trans Am racing and thus were slower off the line with all of their power and torque available much higher in the RPM band. Forza rates this as an A591.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 496, Torque: 552 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 4.3 seconds, top speed: 170 mph. Lap time: 1:49. 
The Forza adjustable rear spoiler replaces the stock Mustang BOSS spoiler seen in my 2015 racer.
The Mercury Cougar cars are longer and heavier than their Mustang siblings. More luxurious as well as Mercury cars always were compared to Ford versions (Crown Victoria verses Grand Marquis, for example). Forza rates this as an A600.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 411, Torque: 518 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 3.5 seconds, top speed: 127 mph. Lap time: 1:51. 

American Motors Corporation never had the sales and thus the money as "the big three" car makers. But they made some competitive muscle and performance cars which were more unique than the competition. This car has their 401 cubic inch big block engine. Forza rates this as an A600.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 437, Torque: 524 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 4.1 seconds, top speed: 135 mph. Lap time: 1:50.

The 426 Hemi Chrysler engine was the ultimate iteration of their top engine they created in the 1950's. This car was clearly made to dominate in 1/4 mile (and stoplight) drag racing rather than circuit racing. Forza rates this as an A600.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 495, Torque: 671(!) pound-feet, 0-60mph: 3.7 seconds, top speed: 164 mph. Lap time: 1:53.

Lastly and most recently made, is this 1973 Firebird Trans Am in American racing colors of white and blue.

1973 was the swan song year for muscle cars with the new emission rules strangling engine performance. This car has the Super Duty 455 cubic inch big block engine. Forza rates this as an A592.

Fully modified specifications: Horsepower: 541, Torque: 648 pound-feet, 0-60mph: 3.5 seconds, top speed: 162 mph. Lap time: 1:49.
So, despite all of the engine sizes ranging from 302 to 455 cubic inches with widely varying power output, they are all within 3 seconds per lap. 

I tend to corner easier when not in an actual race, especially in this case. So in competition, each might be closer in lap times and a second or two quicker as well.

I want to thank you for taking the time to read my humble blog, the research took much more effort that usual but I enjoyed it. Now, time to go racing!

Scott
April 9, 2020
#377
 
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

The 500th Article Of The Robb Collections! Thanks To All Of You! Indexes To All Categories!

  October 24, 2024 #500 Gentle reader, First of all, THANK YOU for taking the time to read my writing and viewing my images! This article, s...