D200 best buy deal vs buying a d40.

[benjamin_johnson2]

<p>So I had my d40 stolen last month, and my renters insurance money is just now coming in. Was planning on just buying another d40 for around 400 from amazon, but now i see that I can get a d200 body for 600. I still have my 55-200 VR DX lens that I bought for my d40, I lost the camera and the kit lens. So I have a few questions, any answers/suggestions are appreciated!<br>

First, does the lens from the d40 work with the d200? if so, I could get a cheap normal lens similar to the kit one i lost, and have a major upgrade for like 300 on top of the cost of the d40. <br>

Second, is the d200 really a major upgrade from the d40. I have looked at some test shots and have a hard time deciding. I know that there's more features to the d200, but is the image quality/saturation really that much better? Like worth the extra 200 for the body and an additional 150 or so for a lens? <br>

If anyone can give me some advice I will be so so grateful.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Ben</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Ben -</p>

<p>First question- do the lenses from the D40 work on the D200 - yes. The D200 is even more compatible with Nikon lenses since it has the AF motor in the camera body vs relying on the lens motor.</p>

<p>Second question - In terms of control and performance - yes. The D200 is a Major Upgrade from the D40. In terms of image quality they are similar - the D40 is about 6 months "Newer" then the D200. Both are based on the same sensor, but that's where the similarities end. The D200 was designed to be a work horse - semi-pro or prosumer - camera. The D40 was designed to be a step up from a point and shoot.</p>

<p>D200 has a metal body, some sealing, lots of menus, options, etc... and allows a lot of creative control.<br>

D40 is a plastic body, no / limited sealing, few menus, choices, etc...</p>

<p>So - It really comes down to use - Are you a serious photographer that is going to push creative limits? Did you find yourself saying - If only my D40 did this or that? or are you a weekend / vacation / family photographer that never pushed the D40?</p>

<p>By the way - I own both. D40 is family / vacation camera and D200 is one of my workhorses.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Benjamin,</p>

<p>The remaining kit lens (55-200mm) will work 100% fine on a D200.</p>

<p>The D200 represents a step up from the D40 both in resolution and features avail. The noise control is arguably better on the 6 Mp D40 but the D200 is good to ISO 800 from my experience.</p>

<p>I'd go for the D200 - you can use Nikon all the following AF-S, AF-I, AF, AF-D and Ai Ais lenses on the D200 where as you are limited to AF-S and AF-I lenses on the D40. Just on lens compatibility alone I'd chose the D200 over the D40 for $200 extra. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D200 is a tank, by comparison. Tougher, more solid, better weather sealing, and able to use a vast array of lenses that the D40 can't. Just the ability to use the trust 50/1.8 (the $100 wonder) is a huge improvemennt. The fact that many of the most important controls are externalized on the camera body, rather than buried in menus, can make the difference between fumbling around and getting the shot.<br /><br />But note that the camera is physically larger and heavier than the D40. Noticeably so. For me, that's a big plus. I LIKE it that way. But you might want to physically handle one, just to be sure. For a camera that wasn't very long ago an $1,700 treasure, the D200 at a net cost to you of $200 or so is terrific. <br /><br />Here's some more frosting for that cake: the D200's pop-up flash, unlike the simpler system on the D40, is capable of serving as a controlling master in Nikon's CLS system. So, when you eventually get an SB-600, or 800, or 900 speedlight, you can immediately start using flash OFF-camera. That's a huge advantage, and can make for much more polished-looking work, immediately. Have fun!</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Take a look at the D90 (if you can afford it, it is a much better upgrade choice).</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have had a D70, D200 and now a D700. The D200 is a very different camera than the D40. I much prefer the D200 for many reasons. The three most important for me are the ability to use most Nikkors and meter with older manual focus lenses. The viewfinder is much better and the AF is better. The D200 is much bigger and heavier but I can live with than for the better features. They do not share sensors.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Benjamin.... Dave, Matt and Carl offer some good advice. Matthew and Elliot's comments are more along the line of blanket statements that newer is always better (and that's complete hogwash).</p>

<p>I think you will find the biggest difference between the two has nothing to do with features or resolution. It has to do with the significant difference in size and weight between the D40 and the D200. Don't underestimate the considerable extra weight of the D200. As Matt said, for some this is a good thing. For casual photographers, this can be a handicap. ONLY YOU can decide.</p>

<p>Don't be afraid of sticking with the D40. I shoot a D300 and a D40, and I like them both for what they are. I would suggest a D40 and an 18-55 to replace what was stolen, then add the $200 35mm f/1.8 AF-S DX lens in a couple of months when it hits the market. I make this statement based on the fact that you don't seem to know what the D200 will offer YOUR photography.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>This thing is a slippery slope because a bit more money gets you a better model. <br>

If you are happy with the build quality for a D40 and the pics it makes, then get that model. The D200 is more capable and much better built, but the D40 is a decent camera and the small size and light weight make it nice to carry. A d200 is double the weight and 50% bigger ( best guess).</p>

<p>If you print to 8x10, D40 is fine. To go bigger, more MP are an advantage. Look at a D40X or D60, or D200. <br>

A D200 or better allows use of the older screw drive AF lenses and meters with Ai or new lenses. These are quality lenses and can be had cheaply.</p>

<p>The big hang up with a D40/60 is they require AFS lenses to auto focus & they require a chipped lens to meter. But you can mount almost any Nikkor reflex lens ever made over 50 years and manually focus and use a hand meter.</p>

[john_dumble]

<p>As an owner of a D300 and D80 I think that Joe A has got it right. The D200 will be much heavier than a D40. The larger/heavier camera may be nicer to hold and to handle and possibly able to handle (with the right additional kit perhaps) some shots that the smaller/lighter camera would be struggling with . However if you have to walk miles to get to the photo site you may be asking yourself is the extra weight something I really want.</p>

<p> </p>

[dbcooper]

<p>"First, does the lens from the d40 work with the d200?" Yes. Additionally, the D200 can use many more lenses and keep more functionality than the D40 can. </p>

<p>"Second, is the d200 really a major upgrade from the d40." IMO, absolutely, but then, I use the advanced features regularly. You may not care.</p>

<p>"I know that there's more features to the d200, but is the image quality/saturation really that much better?" Strictly speaking, not really. The increase in MP can be useful when cropping images. I shoot RAW, and have little concern for what a camera-generated jpg looks like, remembering the in-camera settings are only applied to jpgs. The D200 has a wider range of control over in-camera image adjustments/settings, but for straight-from-the-camera non-cropped jpgs printed 8 1/2"x11" and viewed side-by-side, there is no <em>significant</em> difference. For me, it's all about the features that allow me greater creative control than I could get from a D40. </p>

<p>If you found no limitation to your photography with your D40, it's unlikely a D200 will be to your advantage. If you need (or will need) more creative control than your D40 provided, then the D200 would be the way to go, especially at the current price point.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The choice between the D200 and the D40 has absolutely nothing to do with "creative control" as some stated above - but is all about convenience.<br>

I am not going to repeat all the features the D200 has over the D40 - they may or may not matter to you. The one feature the D40 has over the D200 is the shorter flash sync speed - which can come in handy for outdoor fill-flash shooting scenarios. But as Matt pointed out, the on-board flash of the D40 can't be used as a master in Nikon's CLS system.<br>

Shoot RAW and any color/saturation differences don't matter.<br>

So, whether this is a major upgrade TO YOU depends on whether or not you will be using the additional features the D200 provides. To me, the D200 was a worthy upgrade over the D70 - the same may or may not apply to you.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>yes and yes. the d200 is an upgrade not so much in terms of IQ (mainly you'll have more room for crops) and noise control, but much more as far as subtle details, ergonomics, and hands-on (as opposed to menu-based) controls. you also get the mag-alloy body and 5 fps. you will also be able to use a much wider array of glass on it. for essentially $200, the d200 is worth it. it will do everything the d40 could do and a whole lot more.</p>

[g._v.]

<p>Since your only previous experience is using a D40 I think that size/weight is something to consider... If possible you should handle the DSLR models that appeal to you so you can see which one feels the best to you.</p>

<p>In my experience how a camera handles is the most important part of the equation, as long as its features/price meet your needs/budget.</p>

<p>Sizes in inches; weights without battery.</p>

<p>D40 3.7/5.0/2.5 17 oz.</p>

<p>D80 4.1/5.2/3.0 21 oz.</p>

<p>D90 5.2/4.1/3.0 20.9<br>

D200 4.5/5.8/2.9 29.3 oz.</p>

<p>D300 5.8/4.5/2.9 29.4 oz. (1.82 lb.)</p>

<p>D700 5.8/4.8/3.0 35.5 oz. (2.2 ib.)</p>

<p>D3 6.3/6.2/3.4 44.28 oz. (2.7 lb.)</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the feel of the camera in ones hands (plastic or metal) matter a lot, if not the first thing to consider in purchasing one. i have both the d200 and the d40. i like them both for different situations and purposes. the d200 balances well in my hands whatever lens i have mounted. i cradle the lens with my left hand and the four fingers of my right wraps just right on the grip......on the d40 the three fingers wrap the grip and the pinky tucks at the base of the camera. both perfect for me. sometimes i take them both complementing each other even on a serious shoot where i get paid. that's how i trust the d40.</p>

<p>image quality difference? hardly any; high ISO performance? d40 wins; high flash sync (if that matters to you)? d40 again;............ but for the price at best buy, if you can still get it, go for the d200.</p>

<p>if you decide to get the d40 again, may i suggest not getting the 18-55mm kit lens, unless you were happy with it. get a faster and better-built one like the 18-70mm af-s kit lens. i will also recommend this lens if you decide to get the d200. <strong>note that a lot of people don't like</strong> <strong>this lens. so good luck in your decision.</strong></p>

[rajnishduara]

<p>Whatever you say D200 is the first of the classy ones the world has seen. Just go through the images with this camera and you will know. D200 is altogether a different class. I have seen images by all the Nikon DSLRs and D200 is simply fantastic, no matter how much upgrades you do it can improve only very very negligibly for us to perceive.<br>

Nothings like it although Nikon has discontinued as they are promoting D300 and D700 now.</p>

 

[rossb]

<p>I am with you Rajnish. The D200 is amazing...</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "the D40 is about 6 months "Newer" then the D200. Both are based on the same sensor, but that's where the similarities end. The D200 was designed to be a work horse - semi-pro or prosumer - camera. The D40 was designed to be a step up from a point and shoot."</p>

<p>They actually don't have the same sensor. The D200 has a 10.2 MP DX sized CCD chip with a full mechanical shutter; while the D40 has 6.1 MP DX sized CCD chip with a hybrid mechanical/electronic shutter (with 1/500s flash synch speed). The D200 was introduced during late summer, 2005; the D40 came out right before the holiday season in 2006: It's over a year newer. </p>

<p>I consider the D200 to be rather tough, fast, and full featured. The D40 is not by definition, inferior. It's just different. It's minimalist, compact, light-weight, and well-made. It's more or less made for a different kind of photographer. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>"...that newer is always better... hogwash" </p>

<p>Well, newer is prettly much better all of the time, isn't it? The question really is how much better and is there value in the additional cost. There is no doubt that the D60 is a bit better than the D40. And the D90 is a bit better than the D80 (well, really a lot better). Comparing a D90 to a D200 is a little more diffuct because there are many differences between the two. I have used and evaluated many pictures from the D90. The pictures from it are noticeably improved over the D40/D40x/D80/D200 cameras (I have never used the D60 so I didn't include it). It is not so much in sharpness but in overall exposure (getting it consistently right) and correct white balance. and well balanced lighting . I love my D40 but the D90 is a much better camera and represents an exceptional value (IMHO) compared to other cameras. I owned and used D200s for almost two years and got exceptional results with them but there is no doubt in my mind that the D90 is a superior camera when it comes to overall image quality. Its high ISO capabilities are also well ahead of the D200 and D40. And there are numerous other features that make it an exceptional value.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p><em>Me: "...comments are more along the line of blanket statements that newer is always better... hogwash" </em><br>

<em>Elliot: "Well, newer is prettly much better all of the time, isn't it?" </em></p>

<p>No, not at all, Elliot. The D60 is not better than the D40. It simply has more pixels. The D40 has cleaner images and much better ISO 800-1600 performance, making the D40 better in that comparison. The sensor in the D40 is also a full stop more sensitive than the D60, making the D40 better in that comparison, too. The spec-heads can confirm this, but I believe the D3/D700 are the only Nikons with larger pixel sites than the D40.</p>

<p>Newer is NOT always better, and newer is certainly NEVER the only choice.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Joe, I agreed with most of your premise prior to researching a couple of sites including the DXO Mark site which, if you believe their information, show the D60 is slightly superior to the D40.</p>

<p>A comparison appears here:</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/229|0/(appareil2)/196|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon</p>

<p>The D60 also several enhancements over the D40, including but not limited to D-Lighting (which I find to be a useful feature and a major enhancement). While the differences between the D40 and D60 are subtle, there is none the less a difference (for the better). The 10mp does give you a bit more cropping ability with the D60. The D60 shoots at 3fps Vs 2.5 for the D40. The D60 also has a base ISO of 100 vs 200 for the D40. </p>

<p>As a D40 user and as one to have claimed numerous times that MP don't matter (they do sometimes), I find the D40 produces excellent 8" x10" prints if you don't crop them. More resolution is required if you plan to crop making the D60 a better choice for resolution as well.</p>

<p>I still maintain the D90 is the OP's best path - it is simply, IMO, Nikon's best consumer camera and best value cost wise with improved features and IQ (not related to sharpness) over all other Nikon bodies that preceedit (other than the D300 which is a prosumer body anyway).</p>

[benjamin_johnson2]

<p>you guys are incredible with your followup! Thanks. After much research, and looking at the limitations i had with my d40, and the greater lens compatibility, I have decided to splurge for a d200. Any suggestions on a cheap lens in the 18 to 70 mm range. Matt suggested the 100 dollar 50/1.8, which I might do. Any other suggestions would be great. Thanks again for the great advice!<br>

BEN</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Consider the 18-70mm Ramon mentioned above for your "everyday" lens. Should be able to find a nice used one for about $150. Balances nicely on the bigger D200. Much better build quality than the 18-55, too.</p>

<p>The 50mm 1.8 "belongs in every bag", but if you think 50mm is a little long <em>for what you shoot</em>, spend a little more on the new 35mm f/1.8 AF-S that's coming out at the end of the month. A new 50mm 1.8 D is about $130 these days, and the 35mm AF-S will be $200.</p>

<p>Your 55-200 will do a respectable job until you need something faster, so you have the longer end covered. If you want a little more reach, check out a used 70-300mm f/4-5.6D AF ED lens (no longer available new). Not the cheapest non-ED G lens. And not the VR G lens. A 70-300mm "D" will cost you about $150-175, and you can sell the 55-200 to cover most of that.</p>

<p>Consider budgeting a little for a GOOD tripod, too. Something like the Bogen 3221 can be found all over eBay in the $100 range. Not the lightest thing ever, but solid and unbeatable for the price.</p>

[jay_moynihan]

<p>I use the 18-70mm on a D200, mostly for landscape.<br>

Test: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/235-nikkor-af-s-18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/235-nikkor-af-s-18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report</a> <br>

The site has tests of many nikon lenses.</p>