Going Digital

<p>After much debate I have decided to buy a digital SLR. While I`m not giviing up film,it seems a logical choice to buy one. After researching , the D200 seems to be the model to buy. This is based on price & the ability to use a fair number of my mf lenses. I think I have a grasp on the crop factor issue,but any other observations,advice or tips would be most welcome. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Dave-go you realize that this camera came out in 2005? If you are going to get into digital, I would suggest that you get something newer. cb</p>

<p>I owned the D100 and currently own the D300, having skipped the D200. If you can swing it, I think the D300 is a better body, and of course can use many of your mf lenses. Since you haven't owned digital before, make sure you get a good editing program, preferably something like Elements, or even Nikon's Capture, and a good book or tutorial on post processing. Read and reread your user manual...things are definitely different from film. You may choose to initially shoot JPEGs, but most experienced users choose to shoot RAW (Nikon calls it NEF)...this is the image with all data, allowing you much more flexibility in your eventual editing than JPEG. ALL SHOTS TAKEN IN RAW WILL REQUIRE POST PROCESSING...so if that is an issue...get over it, that's just the way it is. In the past we sent our film to the drugstore for developing & printing and somebody else applied all the tools which go along with that...now camera manufacturers pass that along to you, the consumer. JPEG uses somebody else's idea of how corrections & how things should look, RAW/NEW leaves all choices to you. When I first began working with digital, I was disappointed as the images weren't as sharp as with my film bodies (same lenses on both) and then I learned about the sharpening function in post processing. There's a learning curve for sure, but don't get discouraged...keep at it and you will probably come to love digital for a whole variety of reasons. I still use film (I have a freezer full of bulk B&W rolls), but these days 90% of my work is digital..and much of that is older MF lenses on my D300. Enjoy and as you become increasingly proficient use the resources of PN to help you get over the humps.</p>

<p>The D200 is now several generations old, having been surpassed in quality by the D300, D300s, and D7100. My first suggestion would be to buy a more recently engineered body. It's not like film, where old cameras can make photos that are just as good as newer cameras. Digital technology advances rapidly.</p>

<p>My second suggestion is to consider the peripheral equipment that you'll need:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Computer and monitor</li>

<li>External hard drive (at least one) for backing up your photos</li>

<li>Photo browsing/editing software</li>

<li>Monitor calibration device (inexpensive and critically important)</li>

<li>Memory card reader (very cheap, and much faster and more reliable than connecting your camera to the computer directly)</li>

</ul>

<p>My third suggestion is knowledge and study - get a good book that explains digital photography clearly - and my fourth is not to expect stellar quality from those old MF lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>You might consider something like a refurbished D7000 in the Nikon store. Nice camera and not ungodly expensive. It has a DX (cropped) sensor. </p>

<p>Since I don't know your budget, I can't say what the best deal for YOU would be, but I would look hard at the refurbished D7000 deals that Adorama keeps throwing out. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Maybe you wanna try the Adobe Lightroom trial .... so much easier to organise pix, I use it for my film scans too and how one can even adjust white balance and other edits.</p>

<p>D200 is not bad if you want a cheap camera, a pro who is a member of our club he was a club president before, mainly known for wedding work, he and his now deceased father has been commissioned to photograph the Queen when they do visits. They also provide work-scholarships if that is a thing to potential young photographers. Been judging for quite some time .. rubbed shouldes with Charlie Waite and who know who else when they have visited and gave seminars. He's probably on full frame now but when he gave seminars he had with him a D200 and a 18-200vr prob for his own walk about stuff ... It is 10MP.</p>

<p>If you want something newer I think the D7000 new can be had for $650US on eBay HK. It can meter MF lenses too I think. Prob a better lower light and more versatile but if you just want something to play with the D200 and not sure if you do sell out later ... you may even stand a chance to break even or gain from it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dave:</p>

<p>My background is similar to yours and I agree that it would be a mistake for you to buy in to older technology. I was part of the generation that assumed that if you bought the latest Nikon F series camera it would not be replaced for ten years. Now it is ten months. I shot film only for 50 years and now working with a Nikon d7100 I know I will not go back. It is sad to say but unless you are working with medium or large format film is near dead. The other last option to digital is older techniques such as platinum and wet plate. <br>

Step into the new technology with a good camera and have fun. Trust me, it can be a lot of fun. Let us know what you decide.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>Strongly agree the D200 would not be your best choice. It is a decent camera at ISO 100, but above that quality quickly deteriorates. Perhaps you can look at the D7000 or D7100 instead? They are much more up to date and offer superb image quality at a decent price.</p>

<p>The D200 can still take good pictures if you can keep it at 400 ISO or below, but really its pretty dated as others have said. But then you could probably pick one up for a song if you want to get into digital. Its a robust body though the sensor and electronics are dated.</p>

<p>I am back to shooting some film (with cameras made before 1950) and still shoot digital too. The D300 would be a better choice than a D200, but the big question is what do you shoot? Match the gear to the use. I don't know your use.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I shot with the F2 for about 30 years, until I borrowed my cousins digital camera while visiting Chicago in 2006. When I got back to Los Angeles, I immediately traded in my two F2 bodies, Nikkor 35mm f/2, 105mm f/2.5 and Vivitar Series One 70-210 f/3.5 for two D70s bodies and a couple of mid-level zoom lenses, and have never looked back. In 2011 I traded all that for two D300s bodies, that are head and shoulders above the D70s, plus all f/2.8 lenses. I had a lot of experience with computers, so I had little problem shifting to digital photo processing, I have no need to use film again.</p>

<p>Dave: I'd also suggest a D7000 if you can possibly afford it - the D200 would be like using 1950s film stock. Failing that, as people have said, it depends what you're into shooting. If you typically manual focus (rather than just having <i>some</i> manual focus lenses), and if you're really budget-constrained, I'd not rule out the D5100. The camera meter won't work with manual focus lenses (unlike the D7000), but you may be able to make do by checking the exposure after you've shot; I suggest this camera because it has the same sensor as the D7000, and the dynamic range and resolution give you a better "film" to work with than the D200/D300. It won't autofocus AF-D lenses, though - again, the D7000 will - so it's very much a budget compromise.<br />

<br />

Not that there's anything wrong with a D200 other than the sensor being a bit old, and it <i>does</i> give you the same level of compatibility as the D7000, but there's a lot to be said for being able to "dodge and burn" a raw file with a lot of dynamic range - my D800 just saved me while editing a lot of wedding candids shot in direct sunlight. Bear in mind that you may have to budget for some replacement batteries for a camera of the D200 vintage.<br />

<br />

All this assumes that you're happy with the DX crop. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're looking at a D700 or D600 (or, less wisely, a Kodak DCS-14n); I assume you already considered that. Good luck with your move to digital!</p>

<p>"After researching , the D200 seems to be the model to buy." - Gee Dave, which museum did you do your research in? ;-)</p>

<p>Like most of the preceding responders, I'd suggest you think again about the D200. IME any digital camera above 12 megapixels will more than equal film for sheer resolution, but the dynamic range of older cameras lets them down a little. Good high ISO performance can be a real joy after film's frankly very limited light-gathering abilities too.</p>

<p>Exactly what you'll find advantageous in moving to digital will obviously depend on your application(s). Therefore it'll help us to advise you Dave, if you tell us where your photographic interests lie.</p>

I can't help wondering if Dave meant to write D300. ;)

<p>I still shoot a D200 on vacations and other situations where I would prefer not to take my newer camera. There is nothing wrong at all with a D200. It will get you into digital with a very robust body for a very good price. Of course you can spend more money, but so far none of the above suggestions have stayed with the same budget, everyone has suggested that Dave spend more money. For the price of a D200 I don't think you could do better.</p>

<p>I switched from decades of using film bodies to the D200 about five years ago, and it is still my only dSLR. As many have pointed out, there are newer and far better bodies today. But the D200 produces images meeting my needs. OP should tell us what kind of images/prints he expect, and how he shoot with his film bodies. At the current price, the D200 can be an extremely good value for those switching to digital.</p>

<p>OP may find my "painful" going digital experience of interest.</p>

<p>- I manual focus on the film bodies. I can't manual focus accurately with the D200's viewfinder, and has to switch to AF instead. IOW, say good bye to my MF lenses and buy AF lenses. The AF system on the D200 (and dSLRs in general) is extremely complex, and needs some getting used to.</p>

<p>- I focus and recompose on the film bodies with ease. It took some digging in the D200's manual to figure out how to use "Back Button focus".</p>

<p>- On occasions I use multiple exposure on the film bodies. The D200's multiple exposure works very differently and is far less flexible.</p>

<p>- After getting a first dSLR, setting up a digital darkroom can be expensive and the learning curve will be steep. For me, it was less of a problem. By the time I got my D200, I had already learned how to film scan my slides, how to use PS and how to print digitally. So it was just a matter of learning how to use the D200.</p>

<p>What I like about going digital:</p>

<p>- No more film and processing expenses. No more scanning.</p>

<p>- Instant gratification.</p>

<p>- Love the histogram.</p>

<p>In an old thread, I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>After reading tons of books on digital photography, I came across this book in 2007 and wished that it was available when I first transitioned from film to digital. Its merit is not the "how to", many other books are far superior. But it is a godsend for those transitioning from film to digital. Amazon's comments eloquently explained why.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/dp/158115433X/?tag=nmphotonet-20</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope people realize that film and processing has gotten quite expensive in the last few years. Ten years ago when I was still shooting slide film, a roll of 36 exposure plus processing was about $10. Today it is over $30. Whoever is still shooing film has to have some money because it is now a luxury.</p>

<p>So perhaps the OP can afford a very decent, modern DSLR.</p>

<p>Price is always a concern, but for my money, I'd certainly go with a more modern body like the D7000. Even the modest and "ancient" D3000 can be used with MF lenses (including non-AI ones) and while exposure is manual because the camera can't meter with older lenses, you do get a nice focus confirmation light in the viewfinder. Often much more reliable than using your eyes, especially in low light.<br /> <br /> Wow, Shun, you're getting ripped off. Take a look at <strong><a href="http://www.thedarkroom.com">thedarkroom.com</a></strong> for $10 developing and scanning. Even here in "nowhere" Iowa I dropped a roll off at my pro lab yesterday, a 36exp roll of Fuji Pro 160 S, and developing and prints was only ten bucks. I'm not saying developing (outsourcing) is cheap, but it's nowhere near $30 here. Most of the time I develop and scan my own film and it costs pennies per roll.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I see lots of criticism and cautionary advice (well intended, and Rodeo Joe's was quite funny) about Dave's choice of of D200, but he has already made that choice "<em>based on <strong>price</strong> & the ability to use a fair number of my mf lenses</em>". I didn't see a question in the OP asking for recommendations on "which camera should I buy". Sure there are definitely more modern and more technologically advanced Nikon bodies available that deliver images superior to D200 files, but none that will also function as well with manual focus lenses at the price of a D200.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with making the initial jump to digital from film with an older technology body if funds are limited. As Phil Evans and Robert K noted, it is a robust body at a very affordable price, and it can take good images within the limits of its dated technology. For some people, that's "good enough".</p>

<p>If the budget will only allow a D200 it makes little sense, no matter how well intended, to recommend a $700+ refurb D7000. Nor should anyone assume what the OP can afford. Photography is a <strong>discretionary expense</strong> for most people, and for some there may well be more important places to spend their disposable income.</p>

<p>It's so easy to make recommendations to spend another person's money. ;-) :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...any other observations,advice or tips would be most welcome."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As someone with older eyes that don't work nearly as well as they did when I was 24, manually focusing accurately using the smaller viewfinder of a DX format camera is more challenging.</p>

<p>"I didn't see a question asking "which camera to buy<em>"</em><br>

<em>"...any other observations,advice or tips would be most welcome."</em><br>

<em>Michael-do you see the contradiction in your posts?</em></p>

<p>Yes Charles, I see the contradiction. I was well aware of it and quite certain that someone would point out that "<em>observations, advice or tips</em>" could encompass just about anything when I composed my post. Henceforth I retract my endorsement of the D200 choice and since money is no object under the "<em>observations, advice or tips</em>" umbrella I suggest that nothing less than a D3X or D4 should find a place in Dave's camera bag. :D</p>

<p>Does everyone else see the contradiction to <em>"This is based on price..."</em> in their responses? ;-) :-)</p>

<p>Michael: Well, there's the AF confirmation light, some bodies have a full digital rangefinder, and anything recent can do live view (sort of, for the D800). It's true that trying to focus on a DX camera, especially one with a pentamirror, using the viewfinder is a bit painful - I've tried using a tilt-shift lens on an Eos 300D, and remember it well - but there are usually alternatives.<br />

<br />

It's true that the D200 is probably the cheapest option that can support metering and autofocus on AI and AF-D lenses. Nonetheless, the sensor is a long way behind current. I suggested a D5100 (which would be very annoying to use because it can't meter or autofocus AF-D) as an alternative if trading image quality for convenience is valid; the price of replacement batteries and cards really might mean that a D7000 isn't so far out of reach. If Dave was buying solely on price, the D200 is, I'm sure, quite capable (Veronica Mars had one); however, if price/performance was being considered, I don't think those mentioning the D7000 are off-topic for pointing out that it's a big step-up from the D200. Though I do think that those who are entirely dismissive of the D200 might be missing AF-D/AI lens requirements and assuming that Dave was willing to spend more.<br />

<br />

Dave: If you'd like to tell us what kind of thing you shoot and what lenses you have/use, we might be able to help more. If you spend all your time making small prints in good lighting conditions, the D200 is perfectly capable. If you do street photography at dusk, we might push the merits of the D7000 (and others). If you spend your time shooting sports, we might suggest that you consider some more modern lenses rather than putting money into a camera. If you have a particular film body that you're used to, we might suggest a body that behaves more like it. Etc. Good luck with your choice (and, believe it or not, it's unusual for denizens of this forum to suggest spending more money.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Though I do think that those who are entirely dismissive of the D200 might be ... assuming that Dave was willing to spend more."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was my point. :-)</p>