Is size relative ?

I've been reading quite a bit about the various Nikon DSLRs and I keep reading

one thing. Many folks feel the D200 is big and heavy. Given I haven't found a

store near me that carries Nikon DSLR stuff, I can't say how it feels, or the

D80 or D50 or the D40, for that matter. But, I looked up the specs.

 

 

D40

Weight: Approximately 1lb. 1oz. (472g) without battery, memory card or body cap

 

FG

Weight: Approx. 490g (body only)

 

D80

Weight: Approximately 1 lb. 5 oz. (585g) without battery, memory card, body cap,

or monitor cover.

 

D200

Weight: Approx. 830g without battery, memory card, body cap, or monitor cover

 

D2Xs

Weight (without battery): Approx. 2.4 lbs (1,070g)

 

F4s

Weight With MB-21 approx 1280 g

 

I have an F4s, and while it does feel heavy, when you first pick it up, it

quickly feels nice and stable to me , from then on. I also noticed that the FG,

which some people felt was some low quality light weight camera fits nicely

between the D40, and the D80. The D200 is about 75% of the weight of my F4

without batteries. When you add the 6 AA batteries, in my F4, it probably

becomes even less than 75%.

 

From these figures, I'm not so sure I'd think the D200 was too heavy. The D80 is

only a few oz more than my FG is. Do some think that the D80 is a big camera ?

Personally, I don't consider the D200 a heavy camera, even with the 70-200/2.8 on the end I often carry it around with one hand. The grip makes it a little large for my tastes, but I got rid of that; ironically, the D2x is actually slightly smaller and lighter than the D200 with MB-D200 attached.

I too have an F4s, followed by an F5 and D2X. Those three are roughly the same size. So to me, the D200 is a small camera.

 

As Anthony points out, if you add the MB-D200 grip, you are back to the D2X, F5 and F4s level. The D200 by itself is roughly the same size as the F100.

 

If that is still unclear to you, the only way to figure it out is to find a D200 and hold it in your hands. If your local camera store doesn't carry it, I would try to find some local camera club or local photo hot spot and see whether someone is willing to let you hold one for a little while.

John, to me, size and weight is absolutely relative to what kind of photography you are doing. I frequently carry a small film slr (FM3a) or a rangefinder with the strap over my shoulder and under a sport coat, or in a slender briefcase that requires one dimension of the body with lens be 3" or less, or in a large overcoat pocket. The D200 and D80 are not large compared to an F4 or even an F100, but you can't comfortably do what I described with an F4 or an F100 either. For many types of professional photography, the camera does not need to be discreet, but for some types it does. For other types of work, it's not so much a question of the size and weight of the equipment at the moment you are using it as much as wanting small size and weight to ensure that it is convenient enough to carry the equipment all the time so you can get top quality results on the rare moments when you need it.

 

I can only assume that Nikon believes that the types of applications I describe can be met with their better point and shoots and that serious pro users are not compromised by size and weight, but I disagree. Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Leica and others all offered the ability to make fine undistorted wide angle images and low light shooting in smaller film packages than is yet available in high quality digital cameras today.

For me, I find the D80 to be about perfect, size-wise. I own and use some bigger cameras because I need some of the features that they have, but I would never choose to take them on a vacation, for example.

 

Back in film days, I could never warm up to the F or F2 for the same reason, and I didn't buy into the system at the time. I really was never a fan of Nikon's film cameras until the FE and FM. In autofocus, I bought and then quickly dumped the F-100 because I could not stand the size and weight - I FAR preferred the N90s and N80. The F-100 is not too different from the D-200 size-wise.

I think Shun is on the right track. If the choice is between several bodies that meet your needs its like figuring out which bed is just right. The D200 is perfect for me. I like a little weight, which I think helps some. If a camera and lens are too light I can't keep the darn thing still. You'll never know for sure till you actually try them.

Does the "Find your local dealer" search function, at NikonUSA work ? I tried expanding the search all the way out , and I got ZERO results with my zip code.

Just use the phone book and call around. The dealer I use is fantastic, but, for some reason doesn't pull up at Nikon's website.

I'm a big guy but I prefer smaller cameras. They are just easier to lug around. I feel the D200 is big. My D70 is nearly the ideal size. I really like the D40 and might have bought one for a backup if it had and AF motor in the body.

I love the D200's size and heft. Perfect for me personally. Can carry it around in one hand with no fatigue.

Well, considering all the high quality small light weight prime lenses D200 can use with full functionality, it is not heavy. I really like the size, coming from an F4 (and F2), as I liked the F4 with the small grip. Yes, size/weight is relative, until you go on a backpacking mountain trip...

The d40, d40x, d80 and d200 all give pretty much the same image quality. The d80 has more features than the d40 and the d200 has more features than the d80.

 

Get the camera that is most comfortable in your hands.

 

I have d200's and d80's and like the size of the d80 better. I find the d40 comfortable to hold but not with a heavy lens. There is no grip available on the d40 but I guess a flash bracket could be used with it.

John, are you anywhere near Los Angeles? If so, it shouldn't be that hard to find a dealer that carries the D200. As far as I know, plenty of Circuit City store have them, or at least had them before.

 

I just tried Nikon's store locater, and it missed the biggest dealer that is 6 miles from where I live.

 

Otherwise, you may be able to find people using the D200 at your local park or whatever. Sometimes you just have to hold one in your hands and look through the viewfinder to determine whether it is the camera for you.

I think it has more to do with lenses. I have owned and used all the cameras you mentioned. If I use a 28-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 for a wedding, it is a nice break to go to lighter primes at the reception, like the 35 f2 and the 85 1.8. I really notice the difference then. D200 seems just fine. DOesn't feel "heavy" to me, doesn't feel so light it seems cheap, like the old N80 film cameras.

My feeling is that there should be a balance between the camera and the lens. I need some "grip" to comfortably handle the 28-70 2.8 or the 80-200 2.8. I'm happy with my F5, which I agree is a bit bulky, but just about right to handhold heavy lenses.

So I agree with Greg Jansen.

In general, weight starts to become an issue. My Nikon FM + 28mm 2.8 combination weights half as much as the F5 28-70 combination. But when concentrated on pictures, the weight is easily forgotten.

Especially now that I shoot mostly with longer and heavier lenses (80-400 VR and 300/4 AF-S mostly with TC-14E attached) I prefer the larger and heavier size cameras (and hence vastly the D200/MB-D200 combo over the D70) because they do provide better balance. With teles of any kind attached, I preferred the F4s over the F4. The F5 is a bit bulky but nevertheless comfortable for me to hold and very stable, as was the F3/MD4 combo. An FM/FM2 only became manageable with the MD11/MD12 attached. And no, I don't actually have big hands, the circumferences of the grips on the F4 or the D200 are just a tad oversized for me. I do convert, however, my F4s to an F4 whenever I just use smaller lenses (like the 20/4 or 28/2.8).

Size matters! I only carry my D70 when my primary mission is photography. My "take anywhere and everywhere" camera is my Canon A620. Since this is a Nikon forum, I should mention that I had very high hopes for the Nikon P5000. The specs are great but the reviews have been tepid at best. If anyone has used it and has an opposing view, I would love to hear it. The primary criticism is slow focus and not so great image quality. Back to the main subject: I am a big guy, but I think nearly all SLRs are too big for casual carry. I own the FE2, FM2n, Canon FTb, and Pentax spotmatics. The Spotmatic comes closest to being OK for carrying just in case. I have never owned an Olympus. When my primary purpose is photography, I don't mind the bulk of an F2, D70, F5, or a Canon T90.

Per the original question: how many of you carry around a digital camera without a battery or memory card, or a non-digital camera without film? It seems to me the weight that counts is the operational weight. I will say that the bulk of the camera counts more than the weight. A leica screwmount with a collapsable lens is quite heavy for its size, but fits nicely into a jacket or vest pocket.

In point of fact, a Nikon FE2 or FM2n is very slightly smaller and noticeably lighter than a Pentax Spotmatic.

OK then, the spotmatic just feels better. Actually, I like a camera to have some weight, within reason, to damp out my shakiness.

As I said earlier, you have to hold the camera in your hand and look through the viewfinder to determine whether it is for you or not, but maybe this image helps a bit.

 

It is the D200 on the left and F100 on the right. Essentially those two as well as the N8008/F801 and N90/F90 are all about the same size.<div></div>

Shun,

 

"John, are you anywhere near Los Angeles? If so, it shouldn't be that hard to find a dealer that carries the D200. As far as I know, plenty of Circuit City store have them, or at least had them before."

 

I'm about 100 miles east and a bit north. My local Circuit City never had the D200. A local Staples used to carry a Nikon DSLR, but they don't carry a one, now. I think my local Best Buy had a D80 once, but they never put a battery in it, so it was hard to test at all. I was hoping to NOT have to go all the way down to Samys just to get a feel for these, but...

100 miles east of LA? I hope that you don't need to go all the way into LA to find a D200 to look at.

 

I went to college in Claremont (near Pomona); when I went back for reunion in 2001, Claremont Camera was doing really well, but last year I found the store to be half the size as it was 5 years earlier. They might still be large enough to have one in stock. Otherwise, you should be able to find a D200 in camera stores in San Bernardino or Palm Springs.

 

I would imagine that you can easily find photographers using a D200 in the desert and parks (e.g. Joshua Tree) in that area.

 

It is like hiring an employee; you want to have a face-to-face interview first.

Well, I don't know where the original poster is, exactly, but there is a Calumet Photo in Santa Ana. That probably only saves them 25-30 miles or so compared to driving into L.A., but it's the WORST 25-30 miles in terms of traffic. I had the chance to handle both the D80 and the D200 side by side at my own local Calumet in Escondido. For me personally, the difference in size and weight was quite noticeable.

How well stocked are Ritz Camera stores, in the mall ? There is one in Ontario, which is about 45 miles away.