nicholas_westberg

1. Very little- Leica makes better lenses than anyone, but the only real-life difference is the disgusting amount of money that separates the two.

 

2. It never does. True, if you take the same photos with the same settings in the same light with both Nikon and Leica setups, you'll discover some differences in sharpness especially in wide apertures. The difference ends there, it doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's also worth mentioning that there are definite advantages to Nikon over Leica.

 

3. If I were you I would seriously consider the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8. It outperforms every prime in it's neighborhood and it's built like, well, a Leica.

It depends on what kind of photography you are interested in. The most notable difference is weight, instead of plastic (which actually sometimes protects more effectively), the front of the D200 is metal. The only major spec difference you will find besides the shooting-rate is the White Balance sensor: the D200 is over 1,000 units while the D80 is, I believe, something like 460. I'm sure this makes no difference, especially if you adjust your white balance manually. Having owned an N80 and an F100 together (practically the original film versions of each of these cameras), I would say go light. 9 times out of 10 I got better shots with my N80 because I wasn't reluctant to grab it on my way out because of its weight...I can name dozens of times I missed excellent shots because I didn't want to haul around my beastly heavy F100. So if you do any sort of street photography or shooting that involves walking, remember that the D2000 is a bitch to carry, especially with a lens as heavy as the 17-55 that I've used. But if you're one of those people (like myself) who wants to buy the "professional" model even though you have no use for Swiss-Army durability or 5 frames a second, you won't be happy until the D200 (or worse, the D2x), is weighing down your tired hands.