Would it be upgrading if I switch from Nikon D200 to D3100? - 1

I currently have the Nikon D200, and since I've started becoming "more pro" than I was, I'm noticing little things about the older DSLR models. Like ISO performance at only 400… With the D200 you start to visibly notice noise.

I'm thinking about upgrading bodies. I bought my D200 off of Ebay about 2 years ago, with 12, 000 shutter clicks for $510.

I don't want to spend much more than that, so I was looking at the D3100 for $700.

My question is… Although it's a more "beginner" DSLR, with no top viewing panel, or QUAL, WB, ISO ring on top, is it a better camera than the D200? Sensor wise?

I understand that the D200 is more robust, but if i'm planning on upgrading in 2-3 years (which I will, do to rapid improvement on technology), then getting a few dings on the body should be fine, right?

What should I do?

Added (1). Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I do notice that the D3100 does NOT have an in-camera focus motor, but I'm comfortable with manual focus on some lens.

Yes, in a sense that you're getting a newer camera (with more feature, including video), but it is still an entry level Nikon. If you want to use it professionally, your budget has to be higher.

How about getting a good lens with that money instead?

About the only upgrade there's is in the sensor. With the rest it's a step backward.

The immediate successor is the D300, followed by the D300s, the best APS-C. Getting a D3100 is kind of a disservice to your skills, but since you want a new camera body, the best I could suggest is the D7000.

The D3100 is just a beginner camera, but the D200 is more professional when it came out. With a LCD on top of the camera like the D90 and D7000, the D200 is intended to be a midrange pro cam. With so many features lost for an extra 4 megapixels, the D3100 is not worth the trouble.

Your budget can't accommodate my suggestion, so a better idea would be to get some large-aperture lens to match the ISO performance of your D200.