Will D700 Retire D200?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by jeffrey_prokopowicz, Mar 15, 2009.

  1. Hello, I'm just about ready to pull the trigger on a D700. I currently have a D200 and a D80. The D80 is serving me well as a casual snapshot/ web/ email tool, but I wonder the fate of my D200. I wonder if after acquiring my D700 I won't want to use it anymore? I'm thinking right now that I can use it for some events, maybe photojouralist types of shots, parades, etc. The D700 I'm looking at as mostly a landscape/ tripod camera, and low-light/ night shots.
    I have a Nikon 12-24/4 DX and 17-55/2.8 DX along with my 80-200/2.8 AF-D, so I'd hate to sell my D200 since I'd get practically nothing for it, and I have those two outstanding DX lenses. The lenses I plan on using with my D700 are a Tamron 17/3.5 Adaptall, Nikon 24/2.8 AF-D, Nikon 28/3.5 PC AIS, Nikon 35/2 AF-D, Nikon 35/1.4 AIS, Nikon 50/1.8 AF-D, Nikon 85/1.8 AF-D, Nikon 85/1.4 AIS, and my Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-D.
    So in a round-about-way, do you guys think I'll completely lose interest in my D200 after using my D700, or do you think it's possible the two cameras could co-exist? Thanks.
  2. NO you will still used the D200 with the D 700 i have D300 and the D700 and i used both
  3. NO you will still used the D200 with the D 700 i have D300 and the D700 and i used both
  4. Glad to hear Dave, but the D200 is not exactly the same as a D300. I hope what you say applies to my D200 as well.
    I forget to add in my original post whether you guys thought I will be okay with the lenses I have for using with a D700? I also have a Nikon 55/2.8 M AIS that I omitted from my list. The Tamron 17/3.5 might be problematic, although it's surprisingly good with film.
  5. I planned to use my D300(10-20 + 17-55) with a new D700, but after three weeks I deceided to sell the D300 + DX lenses and bought a compatible set for the D700(Sigma 15-30 and a Tamron 28-75 2.8) and I'm very happy with it, special the Tamron.
  6. Interesting Hans, so you decided to go 100% FX after getting your D700. I imagine the answers I get will have a lot to do with the types of photography one does too. Thanks.
  7. Jeffrey i keep the D200 it will be okay with the D700 my son has a D200 and he used my D700 with, PS he took my D200 that how come i got the D300 have fun with you will fine it will work okay with the D700
  8. "...do you guys think I'll completely lose interest in my D200 after using my D700" Absolutey!
  9. no keep it if not i will buy it from you
  10. jeffrey, you have a nice set of lenses for the D700. while no one's going to be able to know how you'll feel, in my case the D700 practically zapped all my interest in the D300 -- just like the D300 overwhelmed my D80. just last weekend i carried around the D300 for a couple of days, and it was a nice reunion. there are some practical advantages to the cropped sensor -- you know what they are. for everyday photography, however, i believe you'll be so taken by the D700's images that the D200 will become very neglected. still, it's a good thing to have around...
  11. Dave, all I'd consider selling is my 17-55/2.8DX since I have the 12-24/4DX and plenty of prime lenses that could replace the 17-55. Truth is I love my D200 and it's worth a lot more to me than what I could get for it. Thanks anyway.
    Elliot and William, thanks! It will be interesting to see how it turns out for me. I do really love my D200 though.
  12. jfz


    If you are interested in infrared photography, you may consider to have your D200 modified. Then, you will have the incentive to continue to use your D200.
  13. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Jeffrey, this quesiton can only be answered by each individual, in this case you.
    In my case, my D200 was always the backup camera. The D300 retired the D2X, but the D700 never retires the D300. Today, I use the D700 and D300 for different applications.
  14. jf, never tried IR. IR images I've seen have never appealed to me.
    So far it doesn't sound promising for my D200, except for Dave. I still think that for well lit events or photojournalism types of shots the D700 would be overkill.
  15. Always the voice of reason, thanks Shun. And always glad to get your input!
  16. Jeffrey, If you do not need the money to acquirer more lenses keep the D200 as your professional backup camera. Put your favorite lens you liked on the D200 and keep it ready to go along with the D80 or D700 when you are out and about. If you see no need for it, sell it so someone else can enjoy it.
  17. Hi Tim, I'm all set with lenses I think for DX and FX. I like your thinking about having it as a backup just in case. That sounds good to me, and I don't really want to part with it anyway. Thanks!
  18. Jeffrey, I used to shoot with a D200 and sold it to buy the D700. I don't have any DX lenses so that's not a concern (I use Nikon 17-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 200-400 f4) I love the D700 but missed the reach for wildlife (mostly what I shoot) so I picked up a D300 (very similar to the D200 but better higher ISO quality and better autofocus). Now I carry both the D700 and D300 whenever I go shooting. I find that I actually use the D300 more because reach is usually a primary concern (my 400 becomes a 600). If the light is low, I'll put the longer lens on the D700 because it handles low light better. I'll go to ISO 1600 on the D700 without much concern and to ISO 800 on the D300. With the D200 I didn't like to shoot above ISO 400. The noise seems different, as well, with the newer cameras. With the D200 there was more color in the noise, with the D300 and D700 there's less color and it more resembles film grain (at least to me). The autofocus also, seems much crisper in the D300 and D700 and it's easier for me to track birds in flight, etc. Of course, I absolutely love that my 17-35 is a true 17-35 again on the D700 (I originally had this lens with an f100 film camera). Anyway, to answer your question, yes, I'd hold onto the D200 and use it when you need more reach. Use the D700 for everything else.
  19. I added the D700 a few months ago. To my eye, the D200 images are as good as the D700 when there is enough light. I use the D200 and D700 at a 50/50 ratio. The D200 is nice in the studio with strobes (I have an L-bracket and diopter for the D200), and outdoors with the telephoto lenses. I also prefer the D200 with my 16-85VR as the casual day-outing kit with the family. And, I suppose, the D200 is the "knock-around" camera that I am less concerned about banging about or getting stolen. And, it's value in selling is far less than it's value for shooting.
  20. There are two aspects here that sound kind of backwards to me. First, your lenses for DX are easily superior to those you have for Fx, even though the Fx is your primary camera. Second, you state you have a clear use for the D80 but not the D200. Most here are saying hang on to the D200, but don't seem to be taking into account you also have the very capable D80. So, if it were me, here's what I would do. I'd dump the old single focal lenses and replace with modern f2.8 zooms, such as a 24-70mm or maybe a 28-80mm f2.8. My thinking is my best camera needs my best lenses. Second, I'd sell off the 12-24mm and 17-55mm f2.8 and replace with Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 16-85mm VR. My thinking here is the money tied up in Nikon's best DX lenses would be better placed in Nikon's best Fx zooms, and since the D80 is being kept as a family/vacation camera, having those smaller & lighter lenses for them would make more sense for its mission. For me, the D200 would clearly be odd man out.
    Kent in SD
  21. Remember that you won't get a lot for your D200 - even new D200s are fairly cheap now. So selling it may not give you enough money for a decent FX lens.
    On the other hand you have 2 high end DX lenses. So perhaps you can sell the 200 + those 2 lenses and get more FX lenses with that money.
  22. Well for general photography you probably would be fine with anyone of these camera's alone but you want the D700. To bad it dropped off the ISO 100 which is very nice for landscape. But to slow the shutter speeds you can always resort to a ND filter..The D200 is selling for $599.00 brand new at Best Buy.com currently so I would say the D200 would be worth a maximum of $400.00 in dead mint condition. I do not know what you should sell off if anything at all..If you have kids maybe you could just give away the D200 to one of them. That is what I usually do but I have six kids and somebody always needs a camera.
  23. Keep the D200. DX lens quality will be better, a backup body is always nice to have, and you will use the D200 if you ever need the telephoto reach. At the 200 end you get an extra 100mm for free that you don't get with the full frame D700.
  24. But, does he need BOTH a D80 and a D200? Obviously not. Dump one of them, upgrade the Fx lenses. That is your biggest weakness.
    Kent in SD
  25. So many great replies, I really appreciate it!
    The reply that stands out to me is Kent because I have had concern as to whether my "FX" lenses can stand up to the task. I'm pretty confident in the 35/2 AF-D, 50/1.8 AF-D, 85/1.8 AF-D and 80-200/2.8 AF-D. The 24/2.8 AF-D seems okay not great, and I've never used a manual AIS lens with my D200 or D80 or the Tamron SP. The lens I plan on being my workhorse lens with the D700 is the 28/3.5 PC on a tripod. I enjoy urban and natural landscapes as well as buildings and architecture-type shots. If that one lens works out for me with the D700 then I'll be very happy and believe that I can use my D200 and D80 for everthing else that isn't so technically crucial. Dave Petley has emailed interest to me in purchasing my 17-55/2.8DX, but I might have to think about that a little more (especially considering Dan Brown's message). Thanks Kent.
    Thanks Sean, Dan Brown, Nish, Ross and Daniel Dexter. All very helpful. Thankyou!
  26. Kent, the D80 is perfect for what I use it for, and the D200 to me is a great camera, plus I paid 1400+ for it new. I can't see the necessity of using the D700 for photos that are, to me, subject dependent like events and photojournalism-type of shots, and not so crucial on technical quality. Plus I probably wouldn't want to print them larger than 8 x 10". I'm planning on larger prints using the D700 and 28/3.5 PC lens. In fact, if the PC lens works well with a D700 I might not even use another lens with it. Thanks.
  27. Precisely events and PJ type work is where the D700 shines; its autofocus is much more secure than that of the D200 so taking a shot is a lot easier. Also, because of the larger viewfinder image, you don't have to shoot guess the subjects' expressions.
    The 28mm PC works "ok" on FX but the 24mm PC-E would be better image quality wise.
  28. You write you have the D80, D200 & the D700.
    I have the D200, D300 & the D700 - - since I got the D700 I've not touched the D200. Mine has about 15,000 actuations on it.
    I'm at a crossroad..... I either convert the D200 to an IR camera & have fun shooting some IR with it - or I sell it.
    The D200 is just a camera for me now - I have no use for it. It's on the shelf as much as my N90s which I don't use either. Along with my 18-200VR. All equipment I find myself not using these days.....
    I'd sell either the D80 or the D200 if it was me. I'd probably keep the D200 though - - it uses the same cards as the D700.
    Lil :)
  29. Thanks Ilkka, I know what you're saying is true, but I think I can make my strategy work as well as continuing to enjoy my D200, but I won't know how things will ultimately turn out until I get my D700. I'm not the pixel-peeper type and I've always put more emphasis on compelling subject rather than ultimate image quality, but I'm not disparaging image quality at all, it's important. The point you made about the D700 making shots easier isn't something I considered or even knew, something else to consider though. If the 28 PC works "ok" I think I'll be happy and I don't think I'll be longing for the 24 PC-E. We'll see. Thanks again!
  30. Funny you wrote Lil because I remember you saying that exact thing in other threads, and it always stuck with me, and actually I was looking for counter arguments to your view when I started this thread. All I can think is that the D700 must be one heck of a camera. Thankyou!
  31. I have a D200 and purchased a d700 last fall. I use the D200 as a backup and have not touched it since I got the D700. But my business is moving to more environment portrait work where flexibility in ISO is very important to me. The D200 was quite constrained from my point of view in that regard. Steven
  32. Jeffrey,
    The D200 is a wonderful camera. I absolutely love mine. However, I haven't used it once since getting the D700 five weeks ago. In my opinion, the D700 offers significantly superior "direct-to-print" results.
  33. It's good to have a backup camera, like on a week-long car trip it could stay in the car, just in case....
    Not that I had a camera die on me in 7 years with F100 or 1.5 years with D200 or 1 year with D300... at least for a few days you can take a picture of one camera with the other. Or it can be borrowed to a friend accompanying you on a trip, to give them something to do.
  34. My D700 retired my D3 effectively - unless you need the extra telephoto reach of a DX body your D200 will likely become a seldom/never used backup.
  35. Thanks for the replies, but I'm getting a little depressed, and angry too. Specifically if what the overwhelming majority here says is true for me as well not having much use for my DX stuff after getting a D700, then how could Nikon do that to their more serious customers. When the D200 came out there no word from Nikon about FF cameras being in the works, and they seemed to be committed to the DX format which prompted someone like myself to purchase a couple very expensive DX lenses and two DX camera bodies. Now I find myself in a situation where I'm doing all this rationalization for keeping my DX equipment when I know in my heart I should sell that equipment and reconfigure my selection of lenses. There wasn't a peep out of Nikon about FF because, bluntly, they just didn't care about their customers and they only cared about the company's bottom line and their own bloated salaries.
    Okay, I feel better now, rant over, but the conundrum still remains.
  36. I wonder why you would keep the D80 over the D200 - doesn't make sense to me. The D200 could at least meter with all your AIS glass, has the faster frame rate and a deeper buffer, amonga few other things.
  37. My situation is just a bit different from most, in that I am frequently shooting in harsher environments, where I don't want to take the D700 (think whitewater rafting, tropical environments, heavy smoke, etc.). For many of those situations I don't want to take a D700, so I'll use a D200. It's also a bit lighter.
  38. Good point Dieter! Truth is I don't know what I'm going to do now. I just liked the smaller lighter package of the D80, but aside from that, there is no sane reason to choose it over the D200. Thanks!
  39. LOL, just when I started thinking one way I came upon your post Jerry. I appreciate your input though! It seems that since, as Shun mentioned earlier, no one can truly answer this question except me, I think I'll just get the D700 and see how things shake out as I go along.
    You guys have been terrific, and I truly sincerely appreciate your input and support. It feels like a brotherhood. Thanks so much all!
  40. I just got a D700 2 weeks ago, upgrading from a D100. The D700 has a DX setting, so you will be able to use those DX lenses without vignetting issues. Remember that the "crop factor" of DX effectively increases the focal length of the telephotos; on my D100 my 70-300 when maxed was effectively a 450 telephoto lens. The 12-24 wide angle is so wide that you may not experience much, if any, vignetting on the "normal" FX setting. That is my only DX lens, purchased especially for underwater photography. Additionally, if your D700 goes back for annual cleaning and maintenance, you will be glad to have a familiar back-up. I have no intention of getting rid of my D100, one reason being that it is my underwater camera (can't afford another Light & Motion housing to the tune of $5K+ for the newer Nikon bodies). The second is that in good lighting conditions, my D100, like your D200, will provide excellent photos if needed. You'll be glad to have it. Also, I would highly recommend that you get the "Jumpstart Guide to the Nikon D700." It's a 2 DVD video instructional set that does an excellent job of walking you through the features and settings. It saved me days of familiarization and got me out shooting confidently within a day. It only costs about $39.9, The D700 manual is about one inch thick; my D100 manual is about 1/4" thick..... there's a whole lot to the D700. It's a "monster" : D love it!
  41. Thankyou Sandra, tons of useful information. I don't think I'd want to use the DX setting with a D700, but the fact that vignetting is not that crucial at wider angles with the 12-24DX is not something I considered but it makes a lot of sense now that you mention it. Maybe afterall it will work out for me without having to take a big loss selling my DX gear for pennies on the dollar. Thanks again, I'm grateful. Happy shooting!
  42. I tend to take a more "holistic" approach when it comes to camera gear. I view it all together as a SYSTEM. I judge each individual piece on how well it contributes to the SYSTEM. Each piece must provide me with something I need and use, within the sytem. Keeping this in mind, I'll analyze your "pieces." First, I too have the Nikon 28mm PC lens and like it. I too photo architecture. I very well may buy a 24mm PCE lens though before I buy a D700. I want the tilt capability. I think you might actually get more use out of the 24mm PCE than you will a D700. Something to think about. So, back to your system analysis. If you have a D700, that becomes your primary camera. The D80 is more compact and lighter to take than the D200. The D80 also does better at higher ISO than the D200. The D80 thus becomes a very capable backup to the D700, AND is a better choice for family outings. That leaves the D200 without a job, and out it goes. It might bring $500 on eBay, and five hundred bucks actualy IS a fair amount of cash if you think about it. Next come lenses. Your best lenses are DX, your primary camera is FX. System mismatch! Sure, you can shoot D700 in crop mode, but why pay $2,500 for that? Why not just buy a D300 for about a thousand, and a 24mm PCE with the difference? So, I say sell the DX lenses, replace with a 24-70mm f2.8. You then have a nicely matched lens/camera. That leaves the older single focal lenses. What's their job? Family snapshot service on the D80? Wouldn't a mid-level zoom be a better choice for that, to cut down bulk? Yup. Sell them, replace with used Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 16-85mm VR. Or Nikon 18-105mm VR. What you end up with is a nice SYSTEM. You have your primary camera with a first class pro level zoom as you had before. You also have a backup camera which does double duty as a compact family camera, and a couple of lightweight but capable lenses for it. Each piece of your system now has a job, there are no loafers. Your system will do what you want it to do, and very well. You also have reallocated your dollars tied up in a much more efficient way. Think SYSTEM. As for not taking a loss on the D200, what's going to happen is you will stick it in the closet and forget about it, and when you remember it's in there it will be worth fifty bucks. I kept my F100 for the same reason you are thinking of keeping D200. It was a BIG mistake on my part. Dump the D200 while you can still even get bids on it. It is a loafer and doesn't fit your system.
    Kent in SD
  43. The D80 also does better at higher ISO than the D200.​
    Given that it is the same sensor, I doubt that. Can you present any proof to back up this statement? And a from the layout alone, the D200 is certainly a better backup for a D700 than a D80. Not to mention that the D80 won't even meter with the MF lenses - some backup.
  44. Kent, thankyou for the thought and effort you put forth to try to staighten me out. I'm not sure at the moment what I'm going to do but I think it will become apparent with some more assimilation.
    Kent and Dieter, I've held onto the manual focus lenses because I still shoot b&w film with an F2 and FM3a. I still have a fully functioning darkroom too as well as a great digital lightroom. At the moment I'm leaning towards holding onto everything and just working with what I have, as well as adding the D700.
    Thankyou kindly again. And everyone, thankyou.
  45. Come to think of it - if you really want only one DX camera around - then sell both the D80 and the D200 and get a D300 instead - you won't be sorry you did.
  46. lol, thanks Dieter, I'm sure you're 100% correct, but my head hurts even more now lol.
  47. jfz


    I can feel your pain, Jeffrey. We, myself included, all try to come up with excuses/justifications to buy/keep the gears. ;))
  48. Maybe keep the D200 and the 80-200 for long work? Sell the 12-24 and 17-55 and pick up a 17-35 and a 85 1.4 or 1.8 for the D700.
  49. Dieter--
    I tested a D80 and a D200 one weekend, and found the D80 did have noticeable improvement at higher ISO. The D80 came out after the D200. Don't know if Nikon tweaked the software or the sensor or what, but the difference was real. I bought the D80 partly because of that and partly because I liked the more compact size.
    Kent in SD
  50. Since I have bought the D700 (end of august) I have put 47.827 actuations on it. I still have the D200 I've used before and will keep her as as backup and second body and have put exactly 407 shutter-actuations on it since the moment I put batterie and CF-card into the D700.
    This might illustrate how much I prefer the D700.
    The D700 is the first DSLR that feels right to me - after D1, D100, D2H and D200 I don't have to fondle a F5 from time to time to get the feeling of holding a real camera with superb ergonomics and a big, bright finder.
    I will keep the D200 just because I need a backup-body and the resale-value should be low because she has already 149.293 actuations on her shutter. If I had the money I would eventually buy a D300 as second body - sometimes (well lit soccergames...) I would benefit from the DX-format.
    I'm in the process to sell most of my DX-lenses because I've discovered my faible for all those great Nikkor-primes from the past.
    Hope this helps and please excuse my english, georg.
  51. Kent has a good point about systems, provided you can afford to make a wholesale change-out all at once. I would have to piece meal the change-out, even with trade-in/eBay/resale of the used DX lenses. As for getting a D300 - why do that when, assuming the average rice for a D300 is ~$1,600, you can get a brand new D700 body (incl. battery, charge and strap) for $2398 from a legit Nikon dealer on-line (free shipping)? I would weigh very heavily the choice of a camera that can do so much more against a system of lenses and/or an older model camera. I have seen some interesting graphic depictions on line comparing crop factor among film 35mm, various brands of early digital cameras and the D700.
  52. Kent has a good point about systems, provided you can afford to make a wholesale change-out all at once. I would have to piece meal the change-out, even with trade-in/eBay/resale of the used DX lenses. As for getting a D300 - why do that when, assuming the average rice for a D300 is ~$1,600, you can get a brand new D700 body (incl. battery, charge and strap) for $2398 from a legit Nikon dealer on-line (free shipping)? I would weigh very heavily the choice of a camera that can do so much more against a system of lenses and/or an older model camera. I have seen some interesting graphic depictions on line comparing crop factor among film 35mm, various brands of early digital cameras and the D700.
  53. I went from the D80 to the D300, and never missed the D80 once. The D300 just completely obliterated the D80 in terms of overall image quality and overall usability. Going from a D200 to a D700 isn't quite as big a jump, the D200 has many of the same qualities in terms of usability as the D700. But your images will look much better even at ISO 200. I noticed noise in the shadows on my D300 at ISO 200, there is none with the D700 at that ISO that I can see. I don't miss the DX format at all, as most of my photography is wide to normal, very little telephoto.
  54. Save your D200 as a backup body and get rid of the two lenses and the D80, and buy some other toy with the cash you make, or, apply it to your D700.
    The D700 will be a big improvement over both the D80 and D200 in terms of IQ, but there may be times when you need to have two focal lengths at the ready or you may want to keep your zoom on the D200 for a little extra reach. You probably wont reach for the D200 first anymore, but co-exist they certainly will.
  55. This is just a silly silly question. Usually you will find if you buy kids new toys they tend to get bored of or dont need the old one's unless the old one is a collector or worth keeping. The answer is if you think you need a spare body or the cash towards a new lense and only you can answer this! ;o)
  56. Michael and Galen have struck an assonant chord: keep the D200 for telephoto shots and the D700 for everything else. Instead of thinking of focal lengths as a way of utilizing the two formats, I've been thinking in terms of assignment. I'm sure I want to hang onto my D80 because it stays next to my computer always ready for action with the 35/2 AF-D mounted; and keep the D200 for Long shots with the 80-200/2.8 AF-D. So the question becomes can I get by with the prime lenses I have with the D700, namely the Tamron 17/3.5, the Nikon 24/2.8 AF-D, 28/3.5 PC, 35/2 AF-D, 50/1.8 AF-D, and 85/1.8 AF-D, or get the 17-35/2.8 as Michael suggested? It seems pretty certain that I'll sell the two DX zooms.
    So the plan at the moment, thanks to Michael and Galen, seems to be to sell the two DX zooms and purchase the D700 and 17-35, or just sell the two zooms and buy the D700. This seems like the simplest solution, and it makes perfect sense to me. Thanks guys!
    jf, yup, I hate to sell something even if I'll never use it; I just like having it. :)
    Thanks Georg, Sandra, and Dave! All great input!
  57. Hey Michael, I admit to being a toy collector, and a little kid in a grown-up body when it comes to photography. I've been busted lol.
  58. Seems pretty easy now - but of course is still a very personal affair. In addition to selling the 12-24 DX and 17-55 DX, I'd get rid of the 17 and the 24 and get a 17-35/2.8 instead. Keep the 28 PC, 35/2, 50, 85/1.8 - and the manual focus ones for sure.
  59. Dieter, yup it does seem simple now with all the help I got here. The only reason I'd keep the Tamron 17/3.5 SP is to use with my film cameras, and the 24/2.8 works with the D80 for a little wider perspective.
    The 17-35/2.8 AF-S is an expensive bugger though, but this seems like a good plan:
    D700 with 17-35/2.8 AF-S; 50/1.8 AF-D; 85/1.8 AF-D. And maybe the 28/3.5 PC or save for the 24 PC-E.
    D200 with 80-200 AF-D
    D80 with 24/2.8 AF-D; 35/2 AF-D (for web shots and other casual photography)
    F2 with handheld meter/ tripod mostly with 28/3.5 PC and 17/3.5 SP.
    FM3a with 35/1.4 AIS; 55/2.8 M; and 85/1.4 AIS
  60. With its greater pixel density, I would think your D200 could still resolve fine detail better then the D700, although with higher noise at higher iso's. For certain things you may still find the D200 to be better, lke macro perhaps.
  61. Bruce, you guys think of everything. Thanks.
  62. So in a round-about-way, do you guys think I'll completely lose interest in my D200 after using my D700, or do you think it's possible the two cameras could co-exist?​
    There's really only one way to find out.
  63. <There's really only one way to find out.>
    Yup, the expensive way, lol.
  64. Jeffrey - Don't worry about losing lots of money selling your DX lenses. I sold my 18-200VR and a 50mm lens recently on Ebay. The 18-200 went for 75-80% of what I paid. I broke even (or maybe made a few pennies) on the latter. With the recent price increases from Nikon, used gear, especially good quality/newer lenses are retaining value.
  65. My apology for not being clear on the 50mm. This of course is not a DX lens but I sold it to help raise $ for purchase of the 24-70/2.8.
  66. <<
    So in a round-about-way, do you guys think I'll completely lose interest in my D200 after using my D700, or do you think it's possible the two cameras could co-exist? >>
    I'm having a bit of dejavue here ... : not to long ago I parted ( finaly) with my film-gear ( also nikon, , camera's flashes etc. ) kept some of the outstanding lenses :) , and bought a D300 ... to find that still no digital camerasensor can replace the high resolution of Velvia ....
    But I try to put that behind me , and will not switch back to film ( can not swithc back... no film available around here anymore...) .
    and :
    <<then how could Nikon do that to their more serious customers. When the D200 came out there no word from Nikon about FF cameras being in the works, and they seemed to be committed to the DX format which prompted someone like myself to purchase a couple very expensive DX lenses and two DX camera bodies>>
    I here nobody else complain about what happened to ou old valueble film camera's although they were pretty expensive too ...
  67. C.P.M., regarding the complaint, I think it's a little different with film since people are still shooting film, myself included, and digital will never completely replace film; they're simply different mediums. A positive offshoot of digital for film users is the absolute bargains that are available in film gear, so if you wish to still shoot film there doesn't seem to be too much to complain about, and a Nikon F6 will never make an FM2 obsolete.
  68. Glad to hear Dave, but the D200 is not exactly the same as a D300​
    The D200 isn't all that different from the D300. Also, the D200 is a MUCH better companion to a D700 than a D80 is. The D200 and D700 share; batteries, CF cards, ergonomics/controls, and the menus are pretty similar too.

    If I were you (trust me, I wish I could afford a D700) I would keep my D200 and ditch my D80.
  69. Keith, you are me because I can't afford a D700 either, but that's not going to stop me from buying one ;).
    I am keeping the D200, and the D80.
  70. Your D200 is gone. Kiss that puppy goodbye. (Or keep it, don't see you using it much.)
    Seriously, if the 80-200 is your longest lens and you are heavily weighted to the wide to shorts now, there's little the D200 will do for you. Keep it for the 80-200 if the D800 doesn't do as well for the times you want some distance. You may still feel motivated to move for something longer.
  71. Hey Craig, even if I don't use the D200 I can still play with it. ;) Boys and their toys and all that. ;)
  72. Jeffrey:
    I hope it's not too late to jump into this thread. To be honest, the thread is long enough that I haven't read everything contained therein. I kept my D200 after I bought my D3 thinking that I would use it as a backup camera. In the year since I bought my D3 the D200 has not left the house. We all have our reasons for why we buy the gear that we buy. In my case, I bought the D3 to shoot night time and indoor sports. In that respect, the D200 is not a suitable backup for the D3. I need my backup body to be able to truly back up my primary body. The D200 comes nowhere near being able to fill in for the D3 in a crunch. SO.... I'll be selling my D200 and putting the money towards the D700 as a backup. I won't feel any impact with regards to my lenses because I do not own any DX glass. Fortunately, lenses hold their value so you could recoup a large chunk of your investment in those should you decide to part with your D200.
  73. Thanks Wes for thoughtful reply, it seems that your message illustrates how individual a matter like this is. Certainly A D200 is no equal to a D700 or D3 when it comes to action and low-light photography. In my case, I can see myself carrying a D200 with the 80-200/2.8 telephoto lens mounted and ready for action. The extra reach seems to be about the only advantage that DX has over FX, and I feel that I might be able to take advantage of that, in decent light of course. Thanks again.
  74. The 17-35 is expensive, so here is what I would do:
    Buy the D700, you obviously want it! Sell the two DX lenses (and in my oppinion the D80 since it take different evrything and do your really need three cameras?).
    Play around with your D700 and the 17 and the 24 primes and decide if it would be worth trading them later. I think that by shooting with the D700 you will find out how you want the lens situation to go and you will go there.
    Good luck and have fun with FX.
  75. Hi Galen, it wouldn't be very smart of me to buy a D700 and a 17-35 in the current climate even if I did manage to sell the two DX zooms, so I'm thinking exactly like you. Actually I'm anxious to give the 28 PC a whirl with the D700. If that works out for me I'll be all set because I don't need the tilt function of the new 24 PC-E. I haven't used my 24 very much but I've been happy with the 35/2 AF-D and 50/1.8 AF-D. The 17 SP I've only used with film and I've always classified it as a sleeper, but then again I've never owned or used a Nikon prime at that focal length. As much as the 17-35 would offer a lot of convenience, it might not offer much more in terms of image quality over the primes I have, but maybe I'm kidding myself, I don't know. We'll see.
    Thanks for writing and for the well wishes. You have fun too!
  76. Isn't this more of a comparison of Apples and Oranges. I would think the better question is will the D300 retire the D300, or will the FX sensor retire the DX sensor. D700 is a different beast in terms of being full frame. It will not retire the Dx sensor if you believe what Nikon has to say. It does, put us cost concious consumers under pressure in terms of buying DX only lenses, especically in the wider ranges. However the 17-35, the fixed lengths and the 70-200 and other longer lenses work on both and are quality lenses. So the answer is, no the D700 won't, but the D300 might, or whatever comes after it. Unless you think Dx will kill Fx. Don't think it will, because in many applications on the long end of the focal world, the Dx gives you an advantage in reach, though an argument can be made that Fx will have a higher quality image. But for PJ work, the quality is quite good with these Dx cameras.
  77. DOH, meant will 300 replace 200..
  78. Barry, I think we safely say that the D300 HAS replaced the D200.
    My question, though, was really specific to my situation. The advantages that DX has, mainly longer reach, macro, and lower cost, will always keep it in the game, I believe.
    Generically speaking though, you're right. Thanks.
  79. "The D200 isn't all that different from the D300. Also, the D200 is a MUCH better companion to a D700 than a D80 is. The D200 and D700 share; batteries, CF cards, ergonomics/controls, and the menus are pretty similar too.

    If I were you (trust me, I wish I could afford a D700) I would keep my D200 and ditch my D80."
    Geez, that was almost exactly what i was going to type. I agree. The D200 is the one to keep, if the decision is that or the D80. I might add, the D200 has the lense compatability with the D700, a similar ais input into the menu, and it is commonly held that the metering on the D200 is very consistent (compared to the D80).
  80. Hi Jay, no argument from me. Thanks.
  81. Keep the D200 and get it modified for shooting infrared, thats what I am going to do with my old D200 when taxes come back.
  82. Yes, most certainly. And D300's are getting cheap on eBay too. I just got one for US$1k.

Share This Page