Jump to content

D200: How good is it on its own merits?


joshloeser

Recommended Posts

In researching the D200 and D300, it's been a bit difficult to determine just how good the D200 is on its own merits. I know that the D300 is a

big step up from it, but is the D200 still worth $750-800 (used via Adorama)? I'm dying to get a camera that will autofocus my 50 1.8 AF (I

have a D40, and I'm moving forward a bit in photography). I feel like there's a lot of stuff closed off to me because of the D40's inability to

autofocus older but still high quality lenses. I know it's not the camera body that makes the image, but the lens has a lot to do with it, of

course, and the D40 sort of gets in the way at times in that respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As a person also considering the same upgrade, I have the same questions as well. Still, you have to ask

yourself what you are using the camera for. If high ISO performance is your thing, then maybe the D200 isn't the

greatest option today. If you aren't looking for high ISO performance, then maybe the D200 is good enough. A

weather-sealed body with solid construction and full support for manual focus lenses clearly isn't something to

sneeze at.</p><p>The D200 is the camera that I wanted to buy in 2005. For my purposes

(I don't

need the high ISO performance so much), the D200 fits the bill; it's a D2X-lite, and it's clearly head and

shoulders above Nikon's previous generation low- and mid-range DSLRs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D200 is a much more advanced camera than the D40. I paid $825 for my D200 in February or March, and retired my D50. I have been very happy with the D200 and feel it was worth it (and it's kept it's value).

 

Get the D300 if you can. The CMOS sensor is better than the older CCD's for low-light. But if you can't afford the D300 yet, there's nothing wrong with the D200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D300 focus engine is a lot better than the D200... the high ISO noise is a bit better too. They are very similar otherwise. If you are really serious about shooting sports, though, I betcha the D300 will produce many more in focus images than the D200...

 

That being said, I read a rumor that nikon was coming out with a 50 1.4 afs perhaps this month at photokina. Just a rumor, but if I had a D40 I would go nuts for that lens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D200 is a heck of a machine and will come at a much better price than a D300. It's built like a tank and has a nice set of features to boot. Ergonomically speaking it doesn't get much better. That said, high iso (and I mean from 400 on) performance is pretty dreadful, so if you are into high speed, low light shooting, this might not be the right tool for you...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had my D200 since Aug 2006, and the only shortcoming I've found with it is the very well documented focus issues.

Over time, I have learned to deal with that and rarely have a problem today. I love to photography the interiors of churches,

missions, and public building, and the high ISO capabilities of the D300 would be valuable, but other than that, the D200

performs very, very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was out all morning today, in terrible cloudy light from just after sunrise until mid-morning, shooting highly active, difficult subjects (if you've ever wandered by my portfolio here, you'll know I'm talking about working bird dogs out in the field, doing their thing).

 

I spent most of the time using a 70-200/2.8 on a D200. You do have to know the camera's focus system, and know its sweet spots. The D300 should be an improvement there, and I would certainly enjoy going a stop or two faster (in terms of ISO, as the D300 will allow) so that I can get myself stopped down a bit more in the lens, to make up for focusing troubles. But: I through out only about 20 images out of over 200 this morning. Spent most of the time shooting at ISO 500, so that I could get a tolerable shutter speed.

 

The end results - especially when printed, are still amazingly good. I'm quite certain that the D300 would make me happier, given my living-on-the-edge poor light and difficult shooting style. But would I get $1600 worth of better results, over the next 12 months or so? That's very debateable. I may just skip the D300 generation entirely, and concentrate on lenses - since I know that's the most important thing.<div>00Qqlm-70971584.jpg.134e214eaceb2324b190609b70039a90.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How well does the D200 focus? In good light, it works really well. In low light, it is fair to good. I very low light, it is poor.

 

In my opinion, if you are shooting moving subjects on a regular basis or do a lot of low light work, the better focusing makes the d300 well, well worth it.

 

The better image quality at higher ISO's could be viewed as a bonus. All-in-all, I consider the D300 a vast improvement over the D200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary: Honestly... I think that if I had $800 in my pocket, and needed a body right away, and had no other similar body, I'd think about a lightly used D200. But my real inclination would be to make some serious effort to come up with the extra $750 that would get you into a new, warranteed D300. Much newer technology on several fronts, somewhat higher resolution, and so on.

<br><br>

It reallly does just come down to the money. If there's any chance of scraping together the extra, it would be worth it. You're also going to find some lightly used D300's, now that people are jumping at the D700. It's a tough call, and it's all about your financial landscape and priorities. The D300 is a better camera, no question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting points. The trouble for scraping up the money for a D300 is that you can end up having nothing left to

actually, you know, get your images with (i.e. glass).

 

I'm fine with used bodies, provided they haven't been too used, and likewise for the glass. I'd like to think there will be more of

them soon, thanks to the D700 (as mentioned).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had one of the first D200 cameras available in Slovenia and replaced it with D300 as soon it was available. I am photographing nature and landscapes and I rarely shoot above 400 ISO. At low ISO the image quality of D200 and D300 is similar but the noise level of the D300 at ISO 400 is comparable with D200 at ISO 200. So from the point of pure image quality there is not much reason to buy D300.

 

But my D200 had problems with precise auto focus even with stationary subjects. The pictures were generally in focus but often there was a little focus blurr which was inconsistent. I bought an expensive 17-55 f2,8 lens and I was not happy with the level of detail on landscape pictures. The same story with 85 f1,8 AFD. With 50 f1.8 AIs at infinity the detail was there. Also the auto WB of D200 left much to be desired. And D200 was eating batteries very rapidly. With D300 I can shoot the whole day on one battery.

 

I am very happy with D300 and it's auto focus system and unlike with D200 I have the feeling I am in control of the process of taking pictures. It's the same feeling I had with F-100 film camera after I retired my venerable F4.

 

Regards, Marko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D200 was and is a great camera. If you need weatherproofing and a fast autofocus screw to move a large AF lens

(like a 300-AF) then it or the D300 are your choices. But, my experience with older lenses has been that the microfocus

adjustment first introduced in the D3 and D300 is an absolute lifesaver. The D90 has this adjustment and improved high

ISO performance. Best of all, you can

probably find one for a little over $850. I doubt you will notice a difference in autofocus speed with the 50mm lens between

a D90 and a D200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gary raises an interesting question. What is the real value of last generation's semi-pro and pro DSLRs (i.e.

D2X, D2H, D200, etc.)? The introduction of the D3, D300 and D90 in rapid succession has clearly put a lot of

downward pressure on the value of these older models. And for that matter, the current lower end models (i.e.

D40, D60) seem overpriced relative to the bargains on these older models. Or at least that's what I think.

Personally, I never imagined that the D2H (now as low as $550 on KEH) or D200 (down to $750) would fall in price

so rapidly.</p><p>Personally, I'm waiting for the D200 to fall to an average price of $600. Of course, prices

will continue to fall; if you wait until 2013, you can probably snag a D200 for $150. The real question is, how

much do you need, and how much are you willing to spend right now.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I got my Nikon FE2, I used to use a few Russian mde cameras as they werer all I could afford at the time. Got the FE2 in 1984 and enjoyed it for more than 25 years. Never thinking of replacing it. The camera is currently sitting in my Wall Unit as it was replaced by a D200 in 2006.

The digital age seems to have chnaged all that. Nothing seems to be good enough anymore. Are we doing any good to the art of photography by spending our most precious time thinking about extreme technicalities rather than taking pictures? Is photography today all about taking extremely sharp pictures of whatever? Should we remind oursleves of Ansel Adams who once said something to this effect: Nothing is worse that a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D200 is $999.00 new at BHphoto. I would buy new instead of used since the difference is not that much. You get a new camera with warranty. A mint condition D200 can be sold to KEH.com for about $425.00. So that would help you see what the resale value is. A D300 is a better camera but in a couple years it will also lose most of it's value.. Anyway I own a D200 that I bought new. I like it a lot and have no issues with it. I also have no problem using a tripod. At ISO 1600 the pictures are junk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if it is cheaper and quicker for Nikon to make better , more sensitive sensors, than fast lenses at a good price ? If the D300 and above can shoot quality at iso 800 or 1600, then those f4.5-5.6 lenses are just fine for most people. No need to get an f2.8 or better.

 

It is a tough place to be. We all have learned that the digital camera will not hold it's value, so should we buy at the end of the life cycle and save that money for glass instead ? If you don't lose money by not having the newest, whiz bang body, that might be the better plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The D200 is an excellent camera. The D300 is even better, but that does not make the D200 worse. Piece of advice... A

camera will never lose it's value until the owner decides it's not good enough anymore. That's when people upgrade,

because something shinier and with this new feature comes out. Me? I am going to save up and get a D700 and I will not

replace it until it is broken beyond repair. That's a camera that will produce fantastic results for the as long as it exists.

Sure, new cameras will come and go. More megapixels, better LCDs, but I would rather buy 1 $3000 body now and use it

for the next 20 years, than buy 1 $1700 body every other year. I don't know where all this came from, and it doesn't really

help your situation much, I just felt a sudden urge to rant. Anyway, Both D200 and D300 are excellent cameras and

produce fantastic results, but I think you might like the D300 better mainly because of it's better color output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh -

 

For me and my shooting it was a simple choice - the D300 did things that the D200 could not. Not that the D200 isn't a great body, because it is, but for what I shoot, the upgrade was a no brainer.

 

I shoot sports - 90% of which is indoor, cruddy lighting and no flash allowed. The D200 would produce somewhat usable images at ISO 2400 but the D300 produces usable images at up to 6400. That allows me to stop the action with a higher shutter speed.

 

I also shoot weddings - For the dynamic range, black tux, light vest, white dress, the D300 rocks. D200 - sorry - Yes, I can get it close, but I have to do a lot more fiddling to get it there.

 

On it's own, the D200 is a very good camera. I still have mine and pull it out every so often, plus, it's a great / cheap backup (since I know it's limits). For it's time, it was the 1st or 2nd most advanced DSLR out there. A lot of that comparison depends on where / how one values the Canon 5d. If you love full frame and higher dynamic range then the 5d ruled. If you like tough, get-r-done mentality cameras and faster AF and frame rate, then the D200 was the choice.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...