Used D200 still a good purchace?

[Ian Rance]

OK, VERY quick question.

 

I have been offered a D200 in used but absolute mint condition (all box and

papers) for just under 600 pounds. I had never considered digital before, but

after holding the camera I am starting to waver (oh dear!). It felt and

operated really well - better than I thought it would.

 

Now-

 

With the D300 just coming out, is it a good idea to wait more and get the

D300, or is the D200 still regarded as a good buy? Guess what I am asking is

your advice here - get a good value D200 or stump up (loads) more for the

D300. Is the D300 that much (2x) better?

 

I value your guidance here - want to get this right if poss.

 

Ian, UK

[vivek iyer]

D300. Wait until all the hoopla has died and the camera has been proven to be without any factory flaws.

 

D200s suffer(ed) from banding under certain conditions. Unless you want to modify it for UV or IR use it is not worth the bother.

 

Don't be swayed by its looks and feel or compatibility with older lenses and the like.

 

Ask yourself this question: Would you buy an F6 that puts stripes on some of the frames when you use it?

[vivek iyer]

Also see the posts by Daniel Bayer, a professional coveted by Nikon, here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NNE9

[joseph_passante]

The D200 is a good camera. You just have to weigh the added features of the D300 and

cost. Buying cameras after they have been discontinued can save you a lot of money. How

does 600 pounds compare to the the normal selling price? I have not seen much of a price

drop for used D200s in the states

[james_symington1]

The banding issue was with early D200s. Most of them were absolutely fine as was mine. Given its condition it is likely to be a recently made one. As a first DSLR you've got a steal here. Sure the image quality will be better on the D300 - it would be a sham if it wasn't - but the D200's was very good already.

 

If you want to try out digital I think it's a good move.

 

All the best,

 

James

[ShunCheung]

Ian, IMO, overall, the D200 would be a major upgrade from 35mm film quality, especially at higher ISOs, regardless how expensive a film body you put around film technology. Personally, I have pretty much stopped shooting medium-format film ever since I bought the D2X, let alone 35mm film.

 

I would imagine that if you do the so called "light bulb" test (a drastic bright-to-dark transition) or something similar on the D200, you'll see some short banding. That is inherent to its sensor. I have had my D200 for 7 months now and have yet to notice any banding even once, but I don't deliberately shoot into a light bulb to look for flaws. (See Thom Hogan's review for an example of the light bulb test, towards the bottom of the page:

http://www.bythom.com/d200review.htm)

 

The D300 should give you even better high ISO results, much better AF and a higher frame rate over the D200. Can you take advantage of those features?

[tony_correa1]

At current rates that's about $1,200 US for a mint body with all paperwork, etc. That's about the same price as a similar used body at KEH.com. So I'd say it's a fair price if you are buying from a store/dealer with good return and warranty policy and not so great if buying from an individual. The D200 was and still is a great camera. The 'banding' issue has never detracted from the camera performing great under various assignments. If you shoot sports or available light, the D300 would be a better camera for that.

[Ian Rance]

Superb answers - thank you all.

 

Firstly, the D200 is at a store - 6 month warranty is given on used goods.

 

D300 better AF - well better is always nice isn't it, but I get on OK with even the F401 so not such a problem. Higher frame rate for D300 - not really needed for my style. High ISO better in the D300 - HMMM, I do like available light photography, so I will look around to see if I can see what the D200 looks like at 400-800. I have a Fuji F30 - how does the D200 compare? If it matches the F30 that would be good enough.

 

Thanks for the answers - they are helping alot.

 

Ian,

 

PS. Concerning the banding, I will ask how old the camera is (however I think it was bought this year).

[elliot1]

If money is a big consideration, get the D200. Otherwise get the D300. Just about everything, especially low light performance (which is an important issue to you) has been improved.

[tim_schultz1]

I just bought another D200. I have used them rigously at weddings, international travel, hiking around our National Parks. The banding issue was resolved in the beginning. I would buy another D200 if I needed it. The feel is like my old F100 and the images are great (not comparing them to film!). I am sure the D300 is better in a few ways but I can take a great photo with a disposable ;) (its not always about the camera!)

[tholte]

Vivek, "Ask yourself this question: Would you buy an F6 that puts stripes on some of the frames when you use." "D200s suffer(ed) from banding under certain conditions. Unless you want to modify it for UV or IR use it is not worth the bother." You get out of the wrong side of the bed today?

[tony_correa1]

If you are happy with the low light performance of the F30, the D200 will more than meet your needs in that regards.

[bill_keane2]

The D200 is a great camera. The D300 is likely to be even greater, but not as great as the model released two years later.

 

BUT the D200, in my view, unless one likes grain (I don't), the D200 absolutely beats the hell out of the Velvia, K25 images I shot with my OM-4T. I was a long hold-out before going to digital -- via the D80, then D200. I would never go back. I miss film not at all, and the D200 is every bit as good as the superb OM-4T, which was truly a gem.

 

I regularly print images larger than I have wall space for from my D200. A most recent one is being used by a corporation as a gift for major donors to a 85 million Euro meeting center.

 

Is the D300 "better"? Sure. But the threshold has been passed where the question of digital/35mm film matters. I would imagine you could be happy with this camera for many years.

[carl_becker2]

My D200 works so well I will not upgrade to the D300. I would like better high ISO performance but using noise reduction software when needed allows for usable photos, the current AF meets my needs. If I could get the proported ISO performance of the D3 in a Dx00 package I might be tempted. I bought my D200 used about 8 months ago and its a very fine tool.

[michael s.]

Ian, I believe I read that in the UK, where prices are higher, the D300's initial price will be L.1299 (sorry about wrong symbol). Not sure whether that's correct.<p>

 

You know your budget, but in addition to either the D200 or D300, you'll need a lens, or perhaps lenses. If it were me, that barely used D200 w/ warranty (from a reputable store, I gather ?) for less than half the D300 price would be awfully tempting.<p>

 

As to the question about the Fuji, I'd say the D200 will outdo the little F30 in every way -- much more responsive, better imaging generally, better autofocus, better at iso 400/800/1600, raw capability, control over image parameters (sharpening, etc. which the Fuji doesn't offer), and on and on. Make that <i>every way except one</i>: the D200 will not fit in your pocket.<p>

 

My answers above depend upon your doing some post-processing with the D200 images -- but that is post-processing I'd say you'll need to do with virtually all of the dslr's to get the best out of them.

[pge]

The only problem with owning a d200 is how hard it is to put it down once you own it. Regardless of whether there is a better camera at any price, the d200 is a very fine machine. You will not be disappointed.

[ShunCheung]

As a matter of curiosity, I just took the following test image with my D200 (purchased new in April 2007).<div></div>

[markp]

I have owned the D2x since Jan'06, and like Shun, I found that it basically ended my use of medium format film (Rollie 6000 series in my case). I already had barely touched my 35mm stuff (F5, FM2) since getting a D70 in '04.

 

I picked up a mint used D200 this past July or so to replace my D70, and I've been really impressed with the camera. I hadn't even handled a D200 before that. Images are very impressive - I find them to be pretty close in quality to that of the D2x.

 

I had already heard the substantiated rumors of the D300 by the time I bought my D200, but went ahead with the purchase anyway. Given my now-several months with the D200, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase another one.

 

As others have said, sure there will be improvements in the D300, there always are with new camera models. But the D200 offers a very high image quality, and I expect 600 pounds is what, half the anticipated UK price or less of a D300? That's a big difference! Unless you feel you must have 50+ AF points and noise-free ISO 800 or so, and from your comments it doesn't sound as if you do, I don't think you'd regret the D200.

 

Good luck!

[Ian Rance]

Thanks again to all who posted. Sounds a very postive response to the camera all told.

 

OK, I will go for it and report back my findings (first go of ANY digital SLR).

 

Ian, UK

[tonybeach]

Thanks for the test shot Shun. I have two copies of the D200 and the older one has banding and the newer one performs just like yours. I never worry about which one I'm shooting with -- it's that insignificant an issue.

 

I don't think any DSLR has inspired so much passion for and against. All the controversy will probably make D200 cameras collector's items 10 years from now.

[tonybeach]

Missed your last post Ian, good luck and happy shooting. Don't be afraid to ask questions, the camera can be complicated and has some esoteric settings.

[simon_hickie1]

New price at the moment is c?800 body only, so a lightly used (how many actuations?) D200 at ?600 seems like a sound deal & certainly much better than a D80 at c?490 new.

[eric_arnold]

a new d300 is about $1300 USD right now. IMO saving $100 isnt worth it, although 6-month warranty is better than most used goods. witht he d300 arriving this week, the more you wait, the better deals you'll find. i would offer your camera store $1100 USD for a used d200 right now, or tell them to throw in some accessories. i'll wager the new price will be below $1200 by march 2008. your store is in all likelihood well aware of this, but time is on your side, yes it is.

 

if you just cant wait, have the shop check the actuations before you buy so you cqan see how "absolute mint" it really is.

 

btw, i hear the fuji f30 is the best low-light digicam ever made. i wouldnt be surprised if it outperforms the d200 at ISO 1600.

[tonybeach]

"a new d300 is about $1300 USD right now."

 

Only from scammers. Try $1800, that's what I expect to pay.

[ulrich_ploedereder]

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Period.

 

Uli