why does the D200 seem to be the Rodney Dangerfield of DSLRs?

<p>When the D200 was introduced in December, 2005, it was extremely popular and there was shortage thru the early part of 2006. It was the first "affordable" Nikon DSLR (initially $1700) that can meter with no-CPU AI/AI-S type lenses.</p>

<p>The main issue now is that Nikon put so many features onto the D300 such that the D300 not only far surpassed the D200 but also surpassed the D2X. I still own all three cameras; I haven't used the D2X and D200 much since I picked up the D300. And used values for the first two dropped like a rock in the used market.</p>

<p>Now that the D300 is almost 3 years old, and the D300S is merely a incremental upgrade, adding video and dual memory cards. Nikon will have their own tough act to follow to improve the D300/D300S within that sub-$2000 price range.</p>

<p> Well, even if my D200 is not worthy anymore I will keep it around. I am not that big on digital snapshot photography anyway but it does have it's usefullness. Especially for travel as you do not have to deal with film at the airports. I was going to take it with me to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk today but it's kind of heavy to lug around all day so I will take my N80. Besides I will take a few shots of some of my daughters and I want the positives for archival purposes.</p>

<p>Gets respect here, I really like my D200 family. ISO 125, my old lenses and PS Elements 6.0 and I'm there... For anything the size of a ship I use the Hasselblad.</p>

<p>I never noticed the D200 wasn't well respected, actually. Plenty threads where owners praise its ISO 100 and 200 performance over the D300. In its days, the D200 sure was to me the most desirable camera out there (but I couldn't afford it back then, so I had its tame brother the D80).<br />That same D80 always seemed to get a lot of comments for its temperamental metering, though I never had much problems with it. It worked well.<br>

<br /> So maybe the internet buzz tends to hype things a bit, and that's just that ;-)</p>

<p>The D200 isn't a bad camera, it was just eclipsed by the D80 and then by its successor, the D300. The D300 was so much better than the D200 in every area, it was dramatic. I had a D80 and for the most part I liked it very much. I went from there to the D300, which blew the D80 away. I had a D200 for a short time, and wasn't impressed with the short battery life and the poor high ISO performance. I feel the D80 had a slight edge over the D200 in terms of overall image quality. Now, I wouldn't buy a D200, but for those people who use them, keep shooting!</p>

<p>D200 is a very good camera I was happy as long as not using High ISO as there was noise. D300 is better in that respect. D300 has better meetering. Controls are same on both cameras. I upgraded from D200 and still have it as a back up camera, Regards, ifti</p>

<p>James,<br>

I started with a D100. 1st Nikon SLR; but very slow. I still have it. It was a while between the 100 & the debut of the 200. Not so much a time lapse from the 200 to the 300 & 700. I think folks opted out for the new equipment quickly. I still use the 200 regularly. It requires a lot of battery charging if not using the Nikon battery. It's a fantastic camera. The D100 was converted to IR use. Between the 200 & 300, I'm al happy camper</p>

<p>I do not use my oldest digital cameras so much because of the battery problems. Cameras have changed, but batteries have changed even more, I think.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>As a happy F5 owner who gets 9 months on a set of batteries, it certainly seems like we went backwards for a while there with battery life on cameras</p>

<p>I am happy with my D200 & D300 cameras, very much so. Have battery grip for both of them and love that way to get more shots from both, never had problem with D200 & battery grip to run out of juice, also have extra/spare battery's to replace when I shot wedding and such, so it's not a big issue for me.<br>

Love both cameras and will keep them for long time.</p>

<p>My only digital camera is a D200 in the guise of a Fuji S5 Pro; it cost $550 brand-new 1½ years ago. As long as you understand its limitations it is terrific, very well-built and easy to use. The ergonomics are excellent and battery life is good too. The Fuji S5 uses different batteries so maybe that's the difference. Overall I'm very pleased and have no need to upgrade to a more modern body. Lots of respect here! :-)</p>

<p>I'm very happy with my D200. I use it in bright daylight situations, and have never felt that I lacked for anything versus the D300-D700 bodies.</p>

<p>I noticed that as soon as the D300 came out, people ran towards it, a lot of them not thinking that for their particular photography they didn't need the D300, as the D200 was more than adequate. This is the mentality whenever new gear shows up, and which is how I have bought many nice lenses. For example, the 17-35 f2.8 and the 28-70 f2.8 were practically given away when newer replacements showed up. Today's magic bullet suddenly becomes a dog. The item itself has experienced zero change, it's all relative.</p>

<p>I have a friend who always buys the latest and greatest coffee machine. I asked him what was wrong with the previous machine, his response was: "<strong>What's wrong with the old machine is that there's a new machine that just came out!</strong>"</p>