D70s to D200 worthwhile upgrade?

[l_roth]

I have really enjoyed my D70s for the past (almost) three years, and have admired the D200 for a while.

With the end of production and reduced cost, would a D200 be a worthwhile upgrade?

 

 

"D200 - Last Shipment Clear Out! $992.63 (CAD)

We are expecting our last D200 shipment next week. We will only receive 25 units and we will be clearing them at

$992.63. "

 

 

I shoot landscapes/seascapes, some sports, some macro, some family, etc.

I do not believe I need a weather sealed camera, but where might it become important performing general

photography.

 

Thanks in advance.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

Well, I had bought the D70 but returned it the minute I heard of the D200. Didn't do my research well enough. For me, shooting action of wildlife & horses in action (sports) the 5 fps is a great upgrade from the 3 fps of the D70. That was one of my main reasons for getting the D200. That & the fact that the minute I held the camera I knew there was no turning back - - it was coming home with me that day. And so it did.

 

I love the color etc that I get out of the D200 & I have to say I feel you're looking at a great deal.

 

In the long run only you can make this decision.

 

Lil :)

[carl_becker2]

A year and a half ago I upgraded to a used D200 and it works very well. My reasons where metering for AIS lenses and control layout. The view finder is also much larger. If you require these items then its a great upgrade. If size and weight are a concern then you might want to wait until the D80 replacement comes out. I can not quite justify upgrading to a D300 but could use the extra ISO and focus ability of it sometimes.

[bwcombs]

The D200 is a great camera, and a very smart move from the D70s. The price is right. Get one.

 

I shoot with the D200, MB200 battery and have never looked back. The weatherproofing and ruggedness is a plus,

whether or not you think you need it. I found that out in Ireland recently, during some very wet, cold situations.

 

And again, the price is right. It's a great camera at a great price.

[ShunCheung]

In these days, the best deals for the D200 are used. In the US you can get a "like new" one for about $800 or so. If you want something new and better, I would get a D300, especially if you shoot sufficient sports.

[drfuzz3899]

Go for it, I love my D200.

[frank_skomial]

You shoot sports with D70 and managed to be happy with it, so you can dismiss sports shooting argument as the

major reason for upgrade to D200.

 

Picture quality? - it is up to you how you make it and how post process. You can make the same picture qualities

with both cameras.

 

I would recommend wait for much greater incremental quality in a camera that would really justify the upgrade, and

make you happy. I think the D700 has such a potential, when the price is brought down a litle.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Shun, it's quite a difference in price between a new D200 and a new D300.

[photo5]

Jeffrey, there is a $500 difference, it's well worth it however when you look at what the D300 improves upon from the D200. The D200 is still a very fine camera, but the D300, to me at least, is in another league in terms of image quality.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Hi Dave, it seems to be about $625.00 more for the D300 at B&H.

 

I just mentioned to Shun because it seems that the OP was interested in the D200 because it was around the thousand dollar mark.

 

I think the D200 would be a good upgrade, but the D300 even better for reasons you and Shun mentioned.

[walterh]

L - one major advantage is the better viewfinder, especially if you are lucky and get a used D200 with a Katz eye

screen (third party screen- search here on PN)).If you manual focus a lot this alone is worth the upgrade. I

find MF with wide angle lenses nearly impossible with the D70.

 

Another reason is the use of older MF lenses. This is possible with the D70 but see number 1 reason and in

addition you get convenient light metering.

 

The sensor of the D70 is quite nice and unless you need more pixels (and have

excellent lenses to fill them with detail) for large prints the more pixels are a minor reason for the upgrade.

[jordan_w.]

The OP will probably want to avoid new cameras from B&H, as getting a Nikon USA camera repaired under warranty by

Nikon Canada is pretty much impossible.

 

That said -- I'm interested in knowing what L Roth decides. I have a D70s as well and have been thinking about

making the jump to a D200.

[photo5]

I made the jump to a D80 from a D70s, and with hindsight I would have gone for the D200. That being said, the D200 had very similar image quality to the D80 (some said the D80 was slightly better) although the D200 has better metering for sure, more like the D70. However, overall, I preferred the images from the D70 straight out of the camera vs. the D80, which produced soft JPG files. The D200 does too. The D300 does not produce soft JPG files, and I often shoot just JPG so this is significant.

 

So if you always shoot NEF RAW files, get the D200. If you need good clean JPGs straight out of the camera, if you need a rear LCD that can show you information up to the pixel level so you can check focus, if you need a 100% viewfinder, if you want the best camera for your money, get the D300.

[nolan_ross]

The D200 would last a long time. Sturdy camera with a lot of nice features. I have been very happy with mine. It's been working for two years without a glitch. The weather sealing certainly does not hurt but probably for a hobbyist like me it's not necessary. I don't think my lenses are weather sealed and I don't want moisture or dust in them so I am very careful.

[michaelchristensen]

It's getting difficult to keep up with the changes .. I have a D200 and shopped the D70 and D70S side by side .. I went home with the D200 and am satisfied with it .. used it for weddings, events, and all around shooting. No glitches, works as advertised and plenty fast for me. Of course with each successive camera release it is getting expensive .. and when you buy a new camera when first released you of course are at the top of the game for about 6 months ,, now the D700 is eclipsing the new D300 .. and the Canon 5D is coming down in price which will continue as Canon is now motivated to do something spectacular.

 

I like the battery grip added to the D200 and have 4 batteries; but I easily get through things with two .. The D200 is a good camera and I do like the weather sealing .. if you do indoor sports a lot, perhaps high ISO noise is more of a concern, but other than that this camera performs well. I bump up the sharpness for JPEGs ... in camera and that works well for most of my shooting. I sometimes feel a little silly shooting digital .. I try to make each shot count like I'm paying for printing .. I sometimes forget that high price was my built in film processing costs .. but I'm content shooting 30-50 pictures some days, and a hundred or more on other days .. occassional weddings/events are the deal breaker where I know I'm working when I have to change batteries/cards .. the D200 shoots and handles well; not too heavy even with the added battery grip.

 

I've seen the D200 coming/going at my camera shop for about $850-899. They don't stay on the shelf more than a few days at that price. But there is stiff competition from newer models .. always promising better ISO performance, dynamic range (sorry but digital really shouldn't try to compete with film here), etc. I think you will be very happy with a D200 for anything you might like to shoot.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Good post Michael, the voice of reason.

 

What few people seem to consider before buying the latest and greatest is "what is the end use of the photograph"? There seems to be a lot of unnecessary upgrading considering that the final product, regular-sized print, publication in a newspaper or magazine and so forth, don't require better and better cameras. Certainly there are exceptions, but mostly it holds true. Plus, a camera's limitations can be largely overcome with the judicial use of software editing.

 

The camera makers understand human nature, and it is natural for a human being to want the newest, greatest, and best-performing cameras even if they don't need it. Camera companies are profiting beyond their wildest dreams since the coming of digital, and it's in their best interest to keep us consumers dissatisfied with what we got. It's pretty ruthless, but that's business I guess.

[georges_pelpel]

I have used both and found the difference between the two to be stunning. For landscape or static work the D70 is fine but once you hit low light

action photography it becomes close to impossible. First high ISO on the D70 is quite weak and then its slow AF make getting the shot very lucky. At

the time I was using the D70 my kids were playing indoor basketball and I was taking shots for the team, my results were very spotty. I then switched

to the D200 and got the job done with great consistency.

Aside from AF speed, the D200 has better construction and better ergonomics, accepts remote cords, has better resolution and better high ISO

capabilities, has multiple exposures mode... If you remember its release the D200 was often named the digital F100, that says it all as the F100 was a

fantastic and well loved film body.

I now have the D300 which is fantastic but honestly there's less improvements between the D200 and D300 than there is between the D70 and D200.

[chris hughes]

The D200 is a great camera, but it has a lot of little, subtle niggles about it. The D300 is practically perfect in every way. I

went from the D70s to the D200 to the D300. Of the three, I was the least satisfied with the D200. If I were you, I'd jump

directly to the D300 rather than waste money finding out that there are things about the D200 that don't cut the mustard.

[dbcooper]

It's a great upgrade, but like others have mentioned, the D300 would be a better upgrade if you can swing it. If it that's not possible, you'll like the D200 much better than the D70 anyway.

 

I like my D200, but will be getting a D300 soon. The D200 will become my backup. I kept my D70s, and will be sending it out to get it converted to IR shortly.

[russ_konrad]

You really should avoid picking up and trying a D300 - unless you can afford one. The LCD screen on the D300 is to almost die for compared to the D200.

 

The LCD screen on your D70s is one of it's weakest features and is the main reason we sold ours.

[davemckillop]

I gave mine to my ex wife!!!

Pay back time......:)

 

Bought the 200 & 300 and love my old D100

[pete_appleby]

I upgraded from a D70s to a used but nearly new D200 with the MB-200 battery and have never looked back. If you can get a good deal is a great upgrade. Personally I'd go for it.

[j_nikon]

Get the D200 or D300 depending on budget . The optional battery grip for the D200 is bettery than the D300 with

respect to changing bateries. The D300 grip has AF sensor selection capability. It's more of a pain to change all of

the batteries on the D300 with the grip tho'

 

Either one (D200/D300) drives heavier pro glass (e.g. 80-200mm f/2.8) better.

 

For $1k, the D200 is a good deal . To maximize the camera lifecycle, the D300 would be the better purchase if the

funds are there and not commited to lenses , food, or shelter

[paul_tobin1]

How much better is the D200 focus tracking for motion and sports? My d70s has been great for nature and general photography. Now that my kids are older I'm shooting them as moving targets and struggling with focus tracking. It's a mix of outdoor and indoor events. White balance and exposure have been okay, but many of my shots are focused on the wrong spot. Generally I've used aperture priority to get blurred backgrounds, and using the center focus point. However if the player moves out of that spot at the last minute, it refocuses elsewhere. If the D200 is significantly better in this regard I'd consider an upgrade. D300 is out of my budget range, I'm hoping to pick up another lens instead. Thanks.