D200....worth buying

Started May 30, 2011 | Discussions
puttin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,945Gear list
Like?
D200....worth buying
May 30, 2011

$799 refurbished. I like the solid body of my D7000 so I want the solidness of the D200. The D300 is more than I want to spend for a second body. So my question is do you who own the D200 still feel it is still worth having with all the newer models out ?

 puttin's gear list:puttin's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 +30 more
Jogger
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,407Gear list
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to puttin, May 30, 2011

unless you need a back-up body, i would rather put that $800 towards a lens

puttin wrote:

$799 refurbished. I like the solid body of my D7000 so I want the solidness of the D200. The D300 is more than I want to spend for a second body. So my question is do you who own the D200 still feel it is still worth having with all the newer models out ?

 Jogger's gear list:Jogger's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
SUPERHOKIE
Contributing MemberPosts: 961
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to Jogger, May 30, 2011

There is no reason to buy a refurb d200 for $800. You can buy a used D300 for that amount on ebay. Used D200s go for around 450-550 on ebay.

And yes, it's still a good buy and a good camera for around $500.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Some D200 snaps
In reply to puttin, May 30, 2011

Since you have a D700 already for high ISO and you want a solid body then I would say a D200 would be perfect for you. I don't shoot Jpeg except as reference, as RAW is very good on this camera, some D300 and D200 owners prefer the D200 at base ISO 100, D300 base ISO is 200.

A few quick snaps no tripod hand held in windy conditions, PP in old version of Nikon capture, so new versions will be much better so less than ideal conditions.

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
puttin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,945Gear list
Like?
Re: Some D200 snaps
In reply to Cytokine, May 30, 2011

Thanks, the pic look good. I think I will order one, I really dont trust buying used cameras unless in person.

 puttin's gear list:puttin's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Re: Some D200 snaps
In reply to puttin, May 30, 2011

The respected internet dealers are a good place to buy you pay slightly more but they usually give some guarantee varying from 3 months to one year. In the UK MPB photographic are very good.

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
puttin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,945Gear list
Like?
Re: Some D200 snaps
In reply to Cytokine, May 30, 2011

Cytokine wrote:

The respected internet dealers are a good place to buy you pay slightly more but they usually give some guarantee varying from 3 months to one year. In the UK MPB photographic are very good.

John

That is why I will order from B&H, a trusted seller witha 3 mos warranty. Someone suggested D300 from ebay but the cheapest used is $900 with some on bid even higher and no guarentee

 puttin's gear list:puttin's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
winparkman
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,618
Like?
Agreed (NT)
In reply to SUPERHOKIE, May 30, 2011

SUPERHOKIE wrote:

There is no reason to buy a refurb d200 for $800. You can buy a used D300 for that amount on ebay. Used D200s go for around 450-550 on ebay.

And yes, it's still a good buy and a good camera for around $500.

-- hide signature --

OK, not so purely a hobby.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
perroneford
Forum MemberPosts: 68
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to puttin, May 30, 2011

I don't know what you're shooting, but for that price, why not look into an older pro body? I recommended a D200 for a good friend as it was right for her, but I bought a D2X and D2H for my needs. I wouldn't trade either of them for two D200s.

Of course, everyone's needs are different.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
puttin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,945Gear list
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to perroneford, May 30, 2011

perroneford wrote:

I don't know what you're shooting, but for that price, why not look into an older pro body? I recommended a D200 for a good friend as it was right for her, but I bought a D2X and D2H for my needs. I wouldn't trade either of them for two D200s.

Of course, everyone's needs are different.

Great cameras but I only want a sturdy reliable camera as a backup and to use once-in-awhile

 puttin's gear list:puttin's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
perroneford
Forum MemberPosts: 68
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to puttin, May 30, 2011

Fair enough. Just thought I'd toss it out there.

In that case, the D200 might just work great for you. Built well, works well. Same reason I recommended it to a friend over the cheap, plastic entry level cameras she was considering. She LOVES it.

puttin wrote:

perroneford wrote:

I don't know what you're shooting, but for that price, why not look into an older pro body? I recommended a D200 for a good friend as it was right for her, but I bought a D2X and D2H for my needs. I wouldn't trade either of them for two D200s.

Of course, everyone's needs are different.

Great cameras but I only want a sturdy reliable camera as a backup and to use once-in-awhile

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to perroneford, May 30, 2011

perroneford wrote:

I don't know what you're shooting, but for that price, why not look into an older pro body? I recommended a D200 for a good friend as it was right for her, but I bought a D2X and D2H for my needs. I wouldn't trade either of them for two D200s.

Of course, everyone's needs are different.

In the UK the D2x price is still very high! I dont know what the US price is. Also while D2X has slightly better mechanical features it is much bigger and heavier, ISO is I think slightly worse and The Nikon designer of D200 said it had better colour hardware.

The metering focussing and speed of the D200, is I think in the good enough category and this being the only CCD camera that had the dual channel chip for speed but also see the following from the D200 brochure:

An added benefit of the image sensor’s 4-channel output is that it allows the D200 to adopt the advanced image-processing engine of the D2x.

Combining color independent pre-conditioning prior to A/D conversion with advanced digital image processing algorithms, it raises the level of precision achieved by a high-performance system LSI processor. As a result, it provides fine color gradations with consistent and smooth transitions, all rendered exceptionally well throughout the selection of available color modes.

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HenryL
Contributing MemberPosts: 606
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to Cytokine, May 30, 2011

Why not try Adorama then? Then have a used D300 for $950-$1000. Their used products come with a 90 day warranty.

I would just go ahead and buy something used off craigslist. I think if you bring a few lenses and a flash and try it out a little bit, if it works, it should be fine. They are pretty durable in general so unless it's been dropped or fell in water, they should last a long while. I've seen used D200's sell for around $400 so paying $800 for one seems to be quite up there. On the other hand, used D300 go for around $700-$800 so paying $950 for one isn't that bad.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
puttin
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,945Gear list
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to HenryL, May 30, 2011

HenryL wrote:

Why not try Adorama then? Then have a used D300 for $950-$1000. Their used products come with a 90 day warranty.

I would just go ahead and buy something used off craigslist. I think if you bring a few lenses and a flash and try it out a little bit, if it works, it should be fine. They are pretty durable in general so unless it's been dropped or fell in water, they should last a long while. I've seen used D200's sell for around $400 so paying $800 for one seems to be quite up there. On the other hand, used D300 go for around $700-$800 so paying $950 for one isn't that bad.

$800.00 is for a refurb and my experience with refurbs has been positive. Pretty much like buying a new camera.

 puttin's gear list:puttin's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X100S Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D800 +30 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
n057
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,111Gear list
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to puttin, May 30, 2011

puttin wrote:

$799 refurbished. I like the solid body of my D7000 so I want the solidness of the D200. The D300 is more than I want to spend for a second body. So my question is do you who own the D200 still feel it is still worth having with all the newer models out ?

I own the D200 and still feel it is worth having. But $799 is a bit high. Henry's in Toronto recently had them used for around $400.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HenryL
Contributing MemberPosts: 606
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to puttin, May 31, 2011

The D200 has been out of production for so long, enough though it's a refurb, it makes you wonder how long it's been sitting on the shelf and how much previous use it had. Previous threads about refurbs have generally been pretty good from very low useage (I got a D60 once with 3 shots on it) up to about 2-3k shots on it.

However spec wise if you're going to spend that kind of money, I think a D90 would be better. You can get one brand new for $800 also from B&H although Amazon right now has some deals on camera bodies with lenses that just started. Better ISO performance, 3" vs 2.5" screen of 920k pixels vs 230k. Things did get better from a 2005 camera to a 2008 camera. Seems like a waste to blow that kind of money on something that old compared to later models.

puttin wrote:

HenryL wrote:

Why not try Adorama then? Then have a used D300 for $950-$1000. Their used products come with a 90 day warranty.

I would just go ahead and buy something used off craigslist. I think if you bring a few lenses and a flash and try it out a little bit, if it works, it should be fine. They are pretty durable in general so unless it's been dropped or fell in water, they should last a long while. I've seen used D200's sell for around $400 so paying $800 for one seems to be quite up there. On the other hand, used D300 go for around $700-$800 so paying $950 for one isn't that bad.

$800.00 is for a refurb and my experience with refurbs has been positive. Pretty much like buying a new camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlvinLeyva
Forum MemberPosts: 86
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to HenryL, May 31, 2011

I recommend a D200 any day! The body is built like a tank and the Matrix Metering actually works. The only downside is that the images above ISO 800 are too noisy for my taste and the battery life is poor. You can usually find them in your local craigslist for around $400-500.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
narddogg81
Contributing MemberPosts: 976
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to puttin, May 31, 2011

Im kinda in the same boat. I need a second body as backup and have kind of zeroed in on this body as still being relevant IQ wise but reasonable priced used. I can find them for between $400 and $500 used in good shape. I read about them being very good at low iso

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
larrytusaz
Senior MemberPosts: 2,200Gear list
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to AlvinLeyva, May 31, 2011

It's a common scenario isn't it. For $400 or so you can get a D200 which once would've set you back $1500. Ah, that wonderful body, those tons of features, for only 1/3 or even 1/4th of what you would've paid before.

But meanwhile, newer sensor technology has been created--not that the D200 is awful by any means, but improvements have occurred--and for the same money or close to it you could get that instead. What to do?

I tend to be one that does think that newer technology would be the way to go, although the prior poster's comments about the D200's matrix metering do have some merit. (I got the D200 in March 2009 as an upgrade from the D80, and the D200's meter was FAR superior--but then, the D80 is somewhat notorious for having a schizophrenic meter.)

I had a D200 in March 2009, and was loving it--but alas financial concerns hit & I was compelled to downgrade to the D60--after all, it had the same sensor. Later, funds allowed me to upgrade and I could've returned to the D200. However, the D5000 had since been introduced, giving me access to the newer sensor from the D300 & D90, and it still had more features than the D60. That's the route I went and was really liking it that way.

But features are attractive aren't they? After a year with the D5000, last September year I pondered upgrading to the D90, and meanwhile sold the D5000 for a D80 because I thought I "needed" the features (I figured I'd add a D90 and the D80 would be the "beater" model). But I missed the high ISO excellence more than the features, meanwhile the D7000 had arrived which had even MORE improvements, making all of this "body shuffle" seem silly. I found a mint D5000 kit (18-55mm VR lens included) for only $430, and went back--and have stayed there since (only adding a D3000 kit for my wife to beat up all she wants, she doesn't know what ISO and white balance are anyway, heck a D40 would be plenty for her). I'm settled in my mind--yes, for $400 I could have a D200, but I prefer having the newer technology, and besides, the D5000 is a bit above "entry level" anyway.

My point? Me personally, I go with newer sensor technology over features, but then I'm a mere hobbyist so others may have different views on the matter.

I think it goes much the same with the D200 here. Yes the D200 has a great "like a tank" body and tons of features, but I'd have a hard time not realizing that for the same money I could get a D5000--which has fewer features but enough to not be absolute "entry level" either--and have newer sensor technology with it. Or, as one person said, for not much more vs a D200 you could get a D90, which gives up far less features-wise to the D200 and in fact gains a few things (like the 3" 920k LCD).

Decisions, decisions.

 larrytusaz's gear list:larrytusaz's gear list
Nikon 1 J1 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Re: D200....worth buying
In reply to HenryL, May 31, 2011

HenryL wrote:

The D200 has been out of production for so long,

2007? is not so long ago!

Seems like a waste to blow that kind of money on something that old compared to later models.

When was the last time you saw a post asking how to replicate D90 colours or D300 colours but many people search for how to replicate D2x or D200 colours. Interesting that one was CMOS and one was CCD, but they both had dual channel colour pre condition prior to analogue digital conversion. After that, the CMOS sensors had A/D conversion done at the pixel level on the chip. And that seems to be the point where people found colour management more difficult.

My guess is that mixing and matching colours in digital requires much more processing power and more complex software, this is possible in the more expensive models D3 D3x where the cost can be justified. The cost performance ratio of new chips and better software and sensor technology has made it possible for the new generation D7000 etc to inherit the D3 D3x technology, but complex digital manipulation is still plagued with metamerism problems (A certain colour can be produced by many different mixes of primary colour, but using the same scale another colour might not be produced accurately.

This is not to say that they cant produce good colours and many of the colour problems we see here are down to user error.

When I see a beautiful flower or sunset etc., I want to know that my camera will capture that image without me having to post process the colours to the extent that I have to remember what I saw. With the D200 I very really have to change colour settings at all, just unsharp mask, and brightness/ darkness. Occasionally I adjust for colour balance/exposure and it is very simple to do so.

If I had to submit a picture for publication in a specialist magazine then I would be quite comfortable that my colours are accurate. Also I don't need a hard drive full of the latest software. John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads