The D200 is Now Obsolete?

<p>Because, I can't seem to give it away. Just looking at the on-line sales and such, there is apparently almost zero demand. One guy was basically posting: somebody make me an offer, please.</p>

<p>Wow, I miss the film camera days, when you old FM2 had some value 15 years down the road.</p>

<p>sigh...</p>

<p>Well, I think it is selling for 400€/$ more or less. I think that is a nice deal for what you get.</p>

<p>You should consider that we are after Christmas and market slows down this month.</p>

<p>I unloaded my D2x "just in time", though the true "just in time" moment would've been before the D3 & D300 were announced.</p>

<p>I was watching eBay auctions over 1 year ago and D2x bodies were fetching about US $1,300 on the high end, and KEH offered me $1,200 so I accepted. I had gone back to using mostly film and had a D40 plus a couple DX lenses if I needed digital. </p>

<p>If you still like working with your D200, and are pleased with what it delivers you, then it's certainly not obsolete. Sure, resale value has gone down and will continue to do so. But that does not make it obsolete or useless.</p>

<p>Depends on what you do with it. I often use big flashes and studio lights and shoot at 125 ISO, so for me it works similar to using my Hasselblads with 160 film. I don't need ISO 16,000 so for some it's not obsolete.</p>

<p>All slightly crazy Leica people aside, cameras aren't investments. They're costs. You buy 'em for what they can do for you, not for what you can sell them for, later. And I'll bet that D200 is still taking exactly the same quality images today that it was the day you bought it.<br /><br />How many frames have you shot with it? 30,000? If so, each of those cost you a couple of pennies at most. After a certain number of actuations, think of them as basically free. The camera having long since earned its keep, the rest is gravy. If you can get a few dollars for it, that's even more gravy. Personally, I feel no need to sell my older D200. It long since paid for itself, and I like having an ISO100 body around for some studio stuff. I wouldn't <em>buy</em> one at this point, but it's still a very, very usable camera for certain tasks.</p>

<p>Well,<br>

first, lots of <strong>Nikon FM2</strong>s have gone unsold on eBay recently (search for completed listings).<br>

Second, exceptional bodies, often with several lenses, sometimes go for over US$200. Most have sold recently for somewhere between $200 and $100, depending on the tides, mean temperature for that day and other variables.</p>

<p>Recent <strong>D200</strong> sales on eBay are for as much as $2000, but with a full suite of lenses. A number of "body only" sales have been between $600 to 400; but, as always, many go unsold, usually because of a overly high starting price.<br>

It's my impression that fewer D200s go unsold than is the case with FM2s, but I didn't try to quantify it.</p>

<p>I'm with Matt on this one - I have 2 D200's in my arsenol and they get enough use that they've paid for themselves. </p>

<p>I've seen them going on CL locally for $500-$600 - National Camera Exchange has 2 or 3 at any given time in their used inventory - online - for $699 or so.... How often they turn over - I'm not sure.</p>

<p>D200 is a great camera - with the same pro's and con's that it had when it was first rolled out. I personally like it for 2 reasons - ISO 100 and if I'm in a part of town that I should not be in and I get rolled - I'm not out the cost of a D700.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If so, each of those cost you a couple of pennies at most. After a certain number of actuations, think of them as basically free. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny you mention this. I was checking the actuations on my K20D and it has over 68000. My first thought was. ''How cool, a free camera'' and my second thought was. ''I will bet it will go twice that!''</p>

<p>I agree that the camera is a the camera is a tool that you purchase when you need it to do what you need to do (assuming you are a pro). As far as resale value of the D200 goes, I must say that the D200 is getting a bit long in the tooth. Additionally, Best Buy sold what I would assume to be thousands of these cameras @ $599 new getting rid of "old" inventory when the D300 was first announced. Or put another way, there were more cameras than demand. There is nothing about the D200 that would make demand <em>increase</em> over time, so I can't imagine paying $600 for a used D200. But that's just me!</p>

<p>It may not be worth much dollar wise but it is certainly not obsolete, not quite yet, anyway.</p>

<p>Up until last November I always used 2 D200s in the field. I thought they were pretty good until I bought a D7000. While I can get excellent results from the D200s, the D7000 is significantly better to warrant the upgrade. In fact, I just bought a second D7000. One of the D200s will be converted to infrared and the other will be given to my daughter. I spent too much money on those D200s to give them away for $200. Their picture taking capability is worth way more than $200. I even thought of using one of them for under-water photography. In short, I'm trying to find other worthwhile uses for the D200s than just selling them. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if I'm in a part of town that I should not be in and I get rolled - I'm not out the cost of a D700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My version of this is vacations. My d200 has become my sand and sea camera, and if it gets stolen in the caribbean I will be upset but not as upset as I would be if it were my d700.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because, I can't seem to give it away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes you can - I'll be happy to take it off your hands. I own two - though one has been meterless for about a year now after the in-camera flash popped and took the metering system with it. Still use it and the second one though - they certainly aren't "state-of-the-art" anymore but they still serve their purpose.</p>

<p>I sold my D80 last year and "upgraded" to a D200 on my way to the camera i actually wanted: the D700. I actually felt bad about buying the D200, it felt worse than my D80 in some respects. I sold it eventually, after some 3000 shots with it.<br />It is a very good camera for the price you pay for it, but that's kinda it. The autofocus system felt sloppy, the interface is annoying and the image quality is not better than the D80, although the NEF's are 50% bigger.<br />After getting the D700, the only regret i have is that i don't have a native ISO100, the ISO100 on the D200 was very clean, detailed and with dynamic range to spare, unlike the D700.<br />I would not get a D200 again, instead I will be getting a D80 for backup/risky shooting and ISO100 studio/landscape work, waiting for the 24 megapixel D800 to come around.<br>

Yes, i think it was obsolete the moment the D300 was introduced.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The autofocus system felt sloppy...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's the same module in the D80 and D200.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...the interface is annoying...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's what I would say about the one of the D80 - I like not having to dig through menus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...the image quality is not better than the D80...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not surprising since they both use the same sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...although the NEF's are 50% bigger...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>only if you want them to be - unlike the D80, the D200 offers the option to shoot RAW uncompressed. Select lossless compressed RAW and files are the same size as those from the D80.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The more the price drops on the D200 the more attractive it becomes as a replacement for my D3000 as my travel and casual use camera. The D200 isn't as compact and light as the D3000, but it has excellent image quality and supports mechanical autofocus, plus metering for AI lenses.</p>

<p>Modern DSLRs are like computers.</p>

<p>If you bought a computer in 2005 for 2000 dollars, how much could you sell it for today? Realistically...</p>

<p>If you can buy a D90 for 700 or 800 used right now, why would you buy a D200 for anything over about 400 or 500?</p>

<p>It's progress...</p>

<p>Dieter:<br />- the autofocus on my D80 seemed more consistent. i can't explain it, but i could trust it better than the one on the D200. i know the AF cip is the same but i think the implementation is different.<br />- same for the sensor. altough they share the same sensor, i ran some tests at ISO1600, with overexposure and the D80 held the details better during exposure compensation, without the NEF compression activated on the D200.<br />- i don't like the interface in the D200, namely the playback-zoom flow.<br />other than that and except for the peeling rubber, it was a good camera.</p>

<p>Digital cameras will NEVER hold resale value like older, mechanical ones because let's face, it, like computers, as soon as you get it out of the box, someone has made something better. In the hay day of Nikon and Canon's 35mm SLR's, they did not introduce new cameras every single year, so they held their value. Nikon and Canon, and other manufacturers, are BETTING you will get new cameras, with more bells and whistles and gimmics, every few years. Therefore their resale value is going to be shit. Who wants a good solid camera, which takes good quality photos like the D2, when you can ditch it for a new one that has a few more MP of sensor size and takes nifty video? If you as me, it's just plain <em><strong>stupid </strong></em>but your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>I just sold a FM2n for $230.00. I bought it two months ago for $200.00. I liked the camera but felt I did not want to buy a bunch of AIS lenses. I am going to get a F100 instead and I already have a nice lens selection for that. I also have a D200 and it's a good camera. I have no problems with it. I do think it's outdated but I am not a big spender and will not play the upgrade game. I am just going to have an ever increasingly outdated D200. My hobby is B/W film anyway. I just have the D200 for those occasions when I need color or the crop sensor tele reach. I have about 7000 clicks on it. A lot of them is of my lampshade just snapping it off like an idiot.</p>

<p>Awesome body, fair sensor. I paid 1400 for mine and sold it cause I really don't like the color cast of a CCD sensor and the noise above 800 iso was horrible. Got 600 for it on ebay and used the proceeds to pick up a 5D mark I right after the mark II was announced. Would have got a D700 but didn't have 3 grand lying around.</p>

I still use the Leica M2 that I bought new in 1970 for $200.00 and a 50mm elmar that was made in 1959. Nothing

obsolete about that rig.

<p>Got my D200 2 years ago for $600. If I could sell it this year for $400 or next year for $300 that would be a cool $100/year. Considering a lot of point and shooters will buy a new $300 camera every three years, I'd say the D200 is a pretty darn good deal for a near professional SLR.</p>

<p>D200 still takes fine photos. Why try to sell it? I am sure many feel the D300 is also obsolete, it doesn't even shoot video or have dual card slots!</p>