D90 or D200?

<p>So I find new D200s and refurb D90s at about the same price. I never thought I'd ask a question like this, but I'm curious to see what people say.</p>

<p>The D90 has better low-light performance, an excellent screen and ~2 more meggy-pixels. The D200 is more solidly built, with weather sealing and more rugged parts. (And possibly better accutance.) I sometimes shoot in low light, occasionally hand held. I also travel and carry cameras in my saddle bags on rare occasions. So I'm a little torn. Any advice? (A D300 is too expensive. For the price of the 90/200 and a good ultrawide zoom, I could get a 300 body only.)</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>There are a number of recent threads on similar topics. E.g. <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00TF00">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TF00</a><br>

<br />However, people are getting new D200 bodies for about $600 from Best Buy. Can you get a refurb D90 for that cheap?</p>

<p>Additional factors to consider: the D200 can meter with CPU-less AI/AI-S lenses while the D90 has the video mode. Do those capabilities matter? Only you can decide.</p>

<p>Shun: Thanks for the link. I have to get better with the search engine. :)</p>

<p>Refurb D90s are USD 699.00 at J&R currently, and were similarly priced at Roberts very recently. Both are reputable dealers, not Chinese scammers. :))</p>

<p>Didn't know that about the unchipped lenses. Thanks very much--something to really consider.</p>

<p>For me the metering with AIS is about the most important D200 feature. One of the reasons I chose it over the D80 two years ago. Still one needs to figure out which features mean the most to them. High ISO can be very handy also.</p>

<p>Unless weatherproofing is important, I would choose the D90 for its superior sensor and processing power.</p>

<p>The D80 was very close to the D200 in terms of overall image quality, however, the D90 isn't as close to the D300. Though the high ISO performance of the D90 is pretty impressive.</p>

<p>I was considering the D90. I have a D80 at work and a D40 at home. We recently bought two D90s at work, so I was able to familiarize myself with them. However, I couldn't resist that $599 deal on the D200 at Best Buy, and that's what I went with. No regrets -- wouldn't trade it for a D90. So I'm retiring at the end of this month with a D40 and D200 at home. Sweet.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p><em>"D90 isn't as close to the D300"</em> Can you elaborate? According to the results I have seen from hundreds of actual D90 pictures and test sites like DXOMark, the two cameras give pretty much identical results.</p>

<p>Ditto on the questioning the veracity of that claim. The D90 has the same sensor, plus upgraded processing algorithms. Multicam is a "less than" but metering deficiencies can always be overcome...</p>

<p>You might get a used D300 for the price of a new D90. Pricings about the same here on ebay.</p>

<p>Elliot, take a look at the dpreview D90 review. They have a side to side comparison between the RAW files from both cameras. The D300 is noticeably better.</p>

<p>"The D300 is noticeably better."</p>

<p>that's because they have slightly different internal guts--dpreview suspects the low-pass filter is different. for jpeg shooters, though, the differences in IQ are minimal, and overall, nikon did an excellent job of putting a high-performance engine in an enthusiast compact with the d90. the D300's advantages are in its other features, such as better AF system and mag-alloy chassis.</p>

<p>for the OP: that's tough call. for me it would hinge on how much i shot at high ISO vs. how much the additional ruggedness of the d200 would hold up over time. i'd probably lean toward the d90 unless i felt that shooting at iso 800 max was suitable. still, a new d200 for $600 is a very good deal.</p>

<p><strong>Stephen:</strong></p>

<p>Checked eBay. D300s selling used, no warranty (some w/o batteries, etc) for about USD 1000 incl shipping.</p>

<p>The D90 has a real advantage in high ISO performance over the D200, a better rear LCD, video (for those who are impressed by that sort of feature on a dSLR, I'm not), and better zoom controls for playback on the LCD. Not to mention the D90 is lighter weight and slightly smaller. As long as the D200 is available brand new for $599 at BB, it's got that advantage. But until supplies dry out, and it could be any day now, $699 for a refurbished D90 is a pretty good deal too. If I were starting from scratch and didn't care at all about using manual (non-CPU) lenses on my camera, I'd go for the D90.</p>

<p>J&R is sold out on refurb D90s. My guess is that there will be more available at similar prices soon. If two dealers do that price, others will have to follow. I'm sort'a leaning that way right now...</p>

<p>A brand new D200 versus a refurb D90. There is no choice, the D200 and save an extra 100.00. Weather resistent body, metal, versus refurbed plastic. Not to mention more fully functional lenses. The button setup on the D200 is excellent as well. Many of the features that are commonly used have their own button, instead of having to fumble through menus looking for these options.</p>

<p>"There is no choice"</p>

<p>i love the absolute certainty of this comment. no one can argue that the d200 isn't worth that price on build quality/ergonomics/button layout/metering/lens compatibility alone. however, it's old tech, which is kind of like having the best 8-track player in the world--in 1999.</p>

<p>if one plans to shoot at anything above ISO 800, you get a full stop+ of better noise control with a d90. for many, that alone would be enough reason for a choice. there's a huge difference between usable ISO 800 and usable ISO 1600 in available-light shooting.</p>

<p>also, i don't think the plastic is what gets "refurbed." technically a referb means restored to factory spec, which implies internal parts replacement.</p>

<p>Eric, you're comparing a D200 in 2009 to having an 8-track player in 1999? I'm sorry but I just don't get that comparison at all. Less than a year ago you were stating the D200 was a pro camera, how did you suddenly go from that to lumping it in with an 8-track player? It just doesn't wash.</p>

<p>I think I would want to know what the warranty on the D90 is. The camera has already been refurbished which does not sound like it has lived it's short life very well so far. It does not seem like a very good investment to me. I would purchase a new D5000 over a used D90. The D90/D5000 has a compressed NEF file which I would want to investigate before purchasing also. </p>

<p>At least in my opinion, one of the most obvious no-brainers is to get the D300 over a used D2X. Yet a few individuals prefer the D2X for some reason. It is certainly not so clear cut between the D200 and D90. There are several trade offs, which have been pointed out over and over. Which features are more important will have to be up to each individual to decide.</p>

<p>Les, I used the D200 and own a D90. <strong>Love </strong> the feeling of the D200 (D90 feels too light in my hands... a little unpleasant).<br>

The pros of D200 to me are: a) body, which I loved (although, carrying a full day <strong>is</strong> more fatiguing, and around your neck, it's like coleridge's albatros! :-) b) Iso 100, clean, and impressive, c) loads of buttons (but D90 makes it easy too, click and spin the control wheel)<br>

D90: a) impressive high iso performance. While I hate to go over 400 (where even pixel peeping the image looks gorgeous...) I have used iso3200 often and ended up with nice photos! Incredible! Iso6400 is a joke, but noise-wise, there is more than a stop in difference between the two cams, probably 1-1/2 or 2. b) LCD quality: I know, some don't find it useful but... it's still impressively nice. c) it fires 4.5 shots per second (up to 9). Less than a D200 by a hair, but still enough for many uses. d) it's Af seemed to me as good as the D200 one. e) Raw latitude: from *my* experience, quite a bit more highlights to be recovered, and ability to open the shadows with great freedom before noise becomes obtrusive.<br>

As to old AIS lenses, I'm sure lots would love them. Had I a full frame camera, with a large, bright viewfinder, I'd be shooting manual focus lenses all the time! But on the small dx viewfinder of the D90 (and D200), it'd be too much of a pain for me. If I need to manual focus, I turn on live view, magnify, and get focus spot on. For macro or macroish, it's really a bonus...<br>

Anyway... good luck with yours! :)<br /> Lory</p>

<p>Hi<br>

The AF system on the D90 is a big advancement on the D200,on that score alone I would go D90. (I have one and owned a D200)<br>

BTW, the files out of the D90 are equally as good as those out of the D300, if there is a difference it must be minute.<br>

If you have old Nikon lenses, they are a no go with the D90.</p>

<p>Nikon puts their Multi-CAM 1000 AF module on four cameras (so far): D200, D80, D90, and now D5000. Since the Fuji S5 is merely a D200 transplant, it also has the Multi-CAM 1000. I understand that Nikon has made some minor improvements on the D90, but it would be very surprising that those cameras have drastically different AF performance.</p>

<p>The Multi-CAM 1000 has 11 AF points but only 1 cross type in the center. AF performance indoors is somewhat limiting.</p>

<p>I own them both the d200 & d300. The d200 has a great fell to it but at times the images lack some of the pop of the D300's. The d300 consistly produces better contrast, exposure and saturation. The d200 seems underexposed at time. Since the D90 is the little brother of the d300 I would go that route.</p>

<p>If build quality and the ablity to meter with old Nikkors is important get the D200. For cutting edge techs and improved high ISO abilities get the D90.</p>