d200 vs d300 image quality

[slathem]

d200 vs d300 image quality,
Im looking to upgrade and all the forums seem to say how much better the d300 is than the d200.
My problem is that in searching many gallerys is looking at the fine detail and color the on the best taken photos i can find , the d200 ccd
looks much better .the d300 photos dont look to have the detail on things like hair skin and feathers.The green tintalso looks more spot on w d200.
I understand my color may be off ,but detail?
Not sure what it is i dont see.
Steve

[prinothcat]

I seem to remember the consensus of many reviewers at the release of the D300 was that it wasn't a big enough step forward from the D200 to really justify the upgrade. I don't know if that's still the case, but it seems that you might as well go all the way to the D700 if you're going to go up....

[glen_morgan]

The D300 is an awesome camera and a big step up from the D200.I have both.
From the large 3" screen to the faster shutter response and the clearest through the camera view I've ever seen.
Image quality is better in the shadow detail and low light images are able to be taken without grain up to 3200+.
Go to a shop and try the camera for yourself and you will see what I mean.

[adz929]

I was in the same position a year of so back, in the end, I purchased a second D200 as no one could convince me that the D300 was worth the upgrade. Now that we have the D700, with the potential of a D700x, I'd be more inclined to head down that path.

[tuckeruk]

As with most newish digital cameras, I would think many users might still be working out their optimum sharpening workflow. I would imagine the D300 would be a fair bit better than the D200 (which I have), especially at high ISO values.

However, with FF now a reality, the D200 will be remain with me until a FF body is down to the £500 new I bought mine for. So that's D1100 probably