D90 vs D200

<p>I agreed to help with an event. I know the pitfalls of such an act, but I want to have a backup to my D7100. So, looking around, I can pick up a mint D200 or for $100 more a pretty good D90. I'm thinking the D90 would be more familiar since it's 2 versions back from the D7100, but the D200 is/was a good camera. A little D2X they used to call it and I don't think the 2 megapixel difference between cameras is going to be that much of a difference and I'll be using flash, so I don't think low light would be an issue as well. And my glass is 1.8 - 2.8 anyway. Before you ask, a D7000 would be about twice as much and if I don't have to push for it, I won't.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>The main difference is the sensor - CCD in the D200 and CMOS in the D90; definitely better "high" ISO performance with the D90. D200 is more power hungry. AF module is the same - so no difference there. D90 is the newer model - and would be my choice in the scenario you describe. </p>

<p>http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D200-vs-Nikon_D90#differences<br>

I'd argue via battery life -will 170 shots (<- 50% considering age & pessimism) cut your cake? / weight / IQ ("file similarity").<br>

Also: "how kind of usable is the backup on its own / as a 2nd body?"</p>

<p>You may still be better off paying twice as much for a D7000, though. Either the D200 or the D90 means a different battery, EN-EL3e, and of course a different charger as well as CF memory cards in the case of the D200. Getting an extra battery or two and some memory cards will quickly close that price gap.</p>

<p>The convenience and savings from using compatible batteries and memory cards is hard to put in dollar terms.</p>

<p>If I had to choose, it would be the D90, easy. Good up to 800, usable to 1600 and in certain circumstances beyond that. I wouldn't shoot anything serious past 400 or 800 on the D200. Plus, that camera would be about 10 years old at this point, wouldn't want to rely on something that old for an event.<br /><br />Either camera may come to you with an old battery or two that don't hold a full charge. There's that, too...<br /><br />But... if I could swing it, I'd do the 7000 as Shun recommends.</p>

<p>I've never used a D90 but I do have a D200 and have a D7000. D200 is a great camera. Does get some digital noise at 1600 and above but otherwise no problems at all. Maybe because I've had it long and I'm more famliar with it but sometmie I prefer it over the 7000. Having the same batteries and cards would be nice but and might make a difference in the financial equation but has not been a deal breaker for me.</p>

<p>Didn't even consider the CF card issue. Don't even think I've got any laying around anymore either. Using the same batteries in the 7000/7100 makes sense to me, but batteries are relatively cheap so getting a couple for the D90 is probably possible. I have a bit of time. A D300 would still be a CF issue, so that's probably moot too. I've handled the D90, it's not a bad camera, but I've had a D5100 which has the same sensor as the D7000, so I know the IQ will be good. <br>

Thanks for the advice. I think I might have to squeeze out for the 7000 and fall back on the D90 if need be.</p>

<p>Rich, why not a D5X00? There's another option. The only tangible thing the D90 buys you over that is CLS control. Do you need that? If not, it's a good option.</p>

<p>The problem with the D5X00 series is that it's mostly menu driven and for me, it got frustrating after awhile, which is how I ended up going to the D7100. With the battery grip, the D5100 wasn't bad to hold, but compared to the 7100 with a grip, it pales in comparison. But even using the quick menu on the 5100, it just got on my nerves when I wanted to change something. </p>

<p>Another issue with D5x00 is that once again you will be dealing with a different battery: EN-EL14/EN-EL14a. Unless your other camera is a Df, it is not compatible.</p>

<p>Last December, people were buying brand new D7000 for less than $500, and that was before the D7200 was officially announced. I can't imagine that a used one would be all that expensive nowadays: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00d0AO<br>

The D7000 obviously has a newer sensor than either the D200 and D90 and the AF system has improved from the single-cross-type Multi-CAM 1000 on the D200 and D90.</p>

<p>A bit weird - adorama had refurbished Nikon D7000 bodies for $449 earlier this year (IIRC) - now their price is up to $650 - which was the prior price for a refurbished D7100 (which is now $1000!).</p>

<p>If you can swing it, I agree with Shun's suggestion on getting the D7000 - no use to spend money on a now obsolete battery (and charger - unless one comes with the camera).</p>

<p>Another issue with D5xxx and D3xxx are the lack of two command dials.</p>

<p>If you're shooting in manual you get aperture on one wheel and shutter speed on the other.</p>

<p>If you're using automatic exposure modes like aperture priority, you get aperture on one wheel and exposure compensation* on the other.</p>

<p>One command dial is only good if you have plenty of time or if you shoot in program mode. But even in program mode you'll get program shift on one wheel and exposure compensation* on the other.</p>

<p>* you need to change a setting in the menus to get exposure compensation set up that way. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A bit weird - adorama had refurbished Nikon D7000 bodies for $449 earlier this year (IIRC) - now their price is up to $650 - which was the prior price for a refurbished D7100 (which is now $1000!).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just checked Adorama's web page. They are selling new D7100 bundled with some accessories for $896.95, but somehow refurbished D7100 is $103 more at $999.95. Yes, refurbished is $103 more than new.<br>

http://www.adorama.com/l/Cameras/Nikon~Digital-SLR-Cameras?sel=Model_Nikon-D7100&sf=Price&term=nikon-d7100</p>

<p>Since a new D7200 is $1200 and a new D7100 is just below $900. Nobody in the right mind is going to pay $1000 for a refurbished D7100. That is simply not a realistic price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since a new D7200 is $1200 and a new D7100 is just below $900. Nobody with the mind is going to pay $1000 for a refurbished D7100. That is simply not a realistic price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Refurbished D7100 is $700 @ B&H.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/995421-REF/nikon_1513b_d7100_dslr_camera_body.html</p>

<p>Refurbished D7000 is $500 @ B&H.<br /> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/757708-REF/Nikon_25468B_Refurbished_D7000_DSLR_Camera.html</p>

<p>Used D7000 is $400 @ B&H.<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801233632-USE/nikon_25468_d7000_slr_digital_camera.html</p>

 

<p>Thanks Pete. The used one has an 8+ rating too. I like B&H, never had a problem with them. </p>

<p>Either buy a used D7000 or rent a D7100 for $38 + $25 shipping:<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/cameras/nikon-d7100</p>

For about $12 you can get an adapter for CF to SD cards, my wife has one in her D200 and uses 16gb SD cards.

<p>I'm using a pair of D200's now for most of my digital work and am pleased with them, not much I can't do with them. I'd pick it over the D90. As for battery life I can get 500-600 images to a battery with out any problem and that is sufficient for me. One of mine has the grip and I've never ever come close to running out of power. That said I think you would be better served with the 7000, that's likely what I will buy next. The good news is that no matter what, there is not a wrong choice here.<br /><br />Rick H.</p>

The D200 is an excellent camera to convert to infrared. According to Thom Hogan, a reviewer I respect, the D90 is pretty

close in performance to a D7000, but maybe not in movie mode or live view, two features I rarely use.

<p>I had and enjoyed a D200 - great in daylight, not so much at above ISO 800ish or in artificial light, but I think the image quality was better with the D90 I had later. Also, the control layout would be more similar using both a D90 and D7100 at an event.</p>

<p>Having said that, I would recommend renting a camera the same as yours for shooting an important event, as mentioned above, so you don't have to think when switching from one to another.</p>

<p>At today's used prices, a D300 is a bargain for a 2nd body at about the same price as a D90, .</p>

<p>I owned both the D200 and D90. IME the D90 would be the better camera for what you will be doing (I am a working photographer, I shoot many events). Unless you really need another body right now, renting a 7100 makes sense to me. If you are going to buy, a refurb 7100 would be a good option. I see that refurb 610s are now around $1000. You may not be interested in going to FX at this time but there are many advantages long term, especially with lens options.</p>