next good deal after the d200?

<p>The d200 is available new for $639 (it was $599 until yesterday).<br>

question: when is a deal like this going to repeat? In other words, how long will it take for the d300 or d700 to go down to half their current prices? I'm afraid a long time, and even then, not as low as $600.<br>

So may be, this time, waiting may not be the best strategy?<br>

I realize this choice is very personal (budget, photographic needs/style etc) but I was trying to see if there is an absolute value to this deal.<br>

I currently shoot with a d50, my first and only dslr which I bought used for $299 in October.<br>

I used to shoot with a n90s, which I liked tremendously compared to the d50. But there is no turning back to film, at least for the moment.<br>

$600-700 is about as much as I can afford (I recently bought a r2880 printer).<br>

You may say that if I can only spend $6-700 than I have no other choice but the d200.<br>

What if I keep my saved $700 for one more year: will I be able to buy a good used d300? how long for a d700?<br>

I read about the d200 poor high iso performance and battery guzzler. These may not be major issues, and again, my only choices are: keep working with the d50, or upgrade to the d200.<br>

I do not want this to be a d200 vs d300 thread (there is a big one going on already), so please try to focus on my original question.<br>

If you feel like sharing your opinion...<br>

Max</p>

<p>The D200 was announced Nov 2005 and the D300 Aug 2007. That's less than two years between them. So in less than two years the D300 will be where the D200 is now - outdated and for sale while stock last.</p>

<p>Given the current state of the economy, who knows. </p>

<p>I think the reason the D200 is selling , STILL, and at this price is that it was a popular body, so they made a LOT of them, and the D300 was enough better to force the price down. If there were not a whole bunch of D200s in some warehouse, that Best Buy could sell, ( Maybe Circuit City sell off ? ) , they would have dissapeared long ago and we wouldn't have seen this price. </p>

<p>For this lightning to strick again, what ever replaces the D300 will have to make IT, the camera to buy at the $1500 price point, and Nikon will need to still have lots of D300s in distribution.</p>

<p>I'm with you. I really hope to see the D300 at this kind of price, but I just don't think it will get that low.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The D200 is a good value for sure right now. But the price is probably a combination of many things. They probably had to many of them made. They needed the D300 to jump into the market to stay in pace with the other manufacturers and wound up with a warehouse of D200 bodies. Also people just do not want yesterday's news in digital camera's even if it's a wonderful camera such as the D200. Maybe when the D300 is replaced by another model there will be very few of them left and the prices will not go down that much at all. However the D200 is about at 50% of it's new cost right now. The D300 would then be $900.00 if the same situation occurred again at some future date..</p>

<p>Don't count on this sort of thing happening routinely with Nikon. They've done it with the D2H and D200, but not many other models. Given the current economy I'd be very surprised if Nikon got caught with overstock in the D300 or D700 that would be blown out at such a drastic markdown. They'll probably pay closer attention to purchasing trends to avoid this mistake again.</p>

<p>In the case of the D2H it was too little, too late. The technology was dated by the time it hit the shelves and by 2005 when it was being blown out at less than $2,000 it had been surpassed by Canon's comparable dSLRs for the PJ market. Nobody wanted a 4 mp dSLR anymore (except for me, I bought one and still use the heck out of it).</p>

<p>The D200 was Nikon's only true middle tier dSLR, between the entry level consumer grade models and the D2X (comparable to the F100/F5 pairing years earlier). It sold like crazy. But I'm not sure why Nikon continued to overproduce this model when they had the D300 coming up.</p>

<p>As tempting as the D200 is at the current price, if I was in the market I'd probably save up for the D90 for the superior high ISO performance. But that's because I do a lot of available light photography. If that's not a high priority the D200 is probably as good a bargain as any right now.</p>

<p>There is a difference between want and need. I struggle with it from time to time. If there is something you can not do with the D50 that you can with the D200 then get one. I like to use manual focus lenses and some other great features of the D200 justified my (used) upgrade from a D70 a friend still uses my old D70. Last year I wanted better ISO performance so I purchased a D700 after the price went down a bit. I suspect there are many forces that play a part in the drop of price of the D200, supply and demand probably the biggest. I don't think any one can tell how low a D300 will get and at what time. I am afraid that these bodies are just computers that lose value very quickly. My film purchase and processing just go to another body down the road. I have been pretty successful at not upgrading my computer every two years and for me these newer bodies from the D200 up offer great abilities. I miss the lower ISO of the D200 but not as much as I enjoy the high ISO of the D700. You may be better off spending money in great glass and try to wearout the D50 before you consider a body upgrade.</p>

<p>For me, it's landscapes, race cars, and a desire to do low light scenics, like city lights on the water, and that sort of thing. I don't know that I would need the high ISO, with stationary objects, where a tripod and long shutter would do the trick.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think Nikon made a mistake and produced way too many D200's. Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but they should have stopped production perhaps a couple of months earlier so that there wouldn't be so many of them left behind.</p>

<p>The D300 is a significantly better camera than the D200 and in fact superior to that D2X which was far more expensive (at least in my opinion, and I own all three). Nikon was caught with way too many new D200's in stock and now the D300 has been out for a year and half, Nikon still hasn't been able to sell all the remaining D200's and have to discount it deeply to move them.</p>

<p>I would imagine Nikon will do a better job controling inventory so that they won't be stuck in this type of situation again. Sure it is good for those who get to buy a bargain D200, but it is not good for Nikon's profits. In other words, I wouldn't count on having this type of deals again with the D300 and D700, although if future DSLRs are much better than the D700, you may find used D700's in deep discount.</p>

<p>Thank you all. Yes, I too think that this is a one time deal in terms of absolute value for that money.<br>

Now one more question: will I see a difference in overall image quality compared to my d50? Assuming all parameters equal (same lens, same exposure etc..).<br>

If there is a difference, will it be more "visible" when enlarging (like on a 13x19 print)?<br>

I know I'm asking you to simplify a bit too much, but may be you can spare a quick "yes for sure" "possibly" or "not really" type reply.<br>

(I still want to get the camera for its handling capabilities/features, but hopefully there is an advantage in the image quality as well)</p>

<p>I would say up to 8x10 inches, no, there won't be much of a difference between the D50 and D200 image quality. But 13x19 inches you should be able to see a difference. I made 12x18 prints from my D80 and they looked gorgeous to me. But the 8x10 inch prints from my D70s also looked fantastic. Pixel peeping will show you the true advantages though. The D200 body itself is such a leap forward from the D50 in almost every way, it is a worthy upgrade from the D50 for the price. However, I agree completely with Lex on this one, it would be very worth it to save up a bit more money for the D90 if you're pondering an upgrade from the D50. The D200 was introduced in 2005, which is a long time ago in terms of digital.</p>

<p>It looks like the d90 doesn't meter on manual nikon lenses. This is actally not a big deal since I only have the 85mm f2 left as the only manual focus lens. I use df preview often, and the d90 has it, if I'm correct.<br>

also, one of my problems is that I get a lot of blurred images, so the d90 would help with that, too, given the good high iso performance.<br>

I believe the d200 is more of a workhorse/durable, but I am usually very careful with my cameras and don't do a lot of bad-weather shooting.<br>

in which other ways is the d90 less than the d200? I can only compare with my current d50 and/or my old n90s.<br>

thank you.</p>

<p>Max, you're right, the D90 does not have an AI ring for use with non-CPU lenses, and the D200 is very well sealed from dust and dirt and moisture. The body is very strong and the camera uses durable CF cards, not the somewhat fragile SD cards. I had a D80 for a year and shot 7,000 photos with no issues, I'm sure if you take care of your gear the D90 would be a fine choice.</p>