D200 close to D2X spec - how & Why?

I've read many posts (written by people excited about the D200) that the D200 is very close to a D2X (80% there etc)

Other than MP, why do you think that is the case? I am interested in hearing

Here's my take
B= better than D2X; S=same as D2X; W= worse than D2X

Image Quality

• Auto White Balance (W)
• High ISO (B)
• Resolution (W)
• improved matrix metering (S)

Speed - ability to do sports/fast moving kids

• AF performance (W)
• Shutter lag (W)
• Mirror response (W)

Ease of Handling

• LCD (S)
• Viewfinder (S)
• USB 2.0 (S)
• WiFi (S)
• Custom settings (S)

Features (W)

• B&W
• Multiple exposure
• etc.

Pro Build (W)

• sealing
• battery

How close to D2X do you think it is?

--
http://www.pbase.com/sakhnini

Interesting approach. The real answer is, of course we will have to wait and see, but as far as advertised features, the D200 is not really a mini-D2x it is an inbetween camera. Granted it is closere to the D2x than to the D70s, but that is progress. I think, Nikon had to make some tough decisions as to what to include in the D200 and they chose those features that will help it sell the most. I don't think it is an accident that the D200 didn't come out until after the D2x had a chance to appear as the main competition to the high end Canons.

I think the biggest advantage of the D200 is that it offers high end Amateurs a chance to use Pro features at a price they can justify. I suspect that some will opt to upgrade from the D200 to the D3 and then there will be a D300 about a year or so later that will do the same. I think Nikon is brilliant as far as thier strategy to introduce camera models. There is a very large instant gratification and must have attitude to new technology in the digital photo industry. Thanks to easy credit and "the one with the most toys at the end wins" mentality, I think the industry will remain healthy for many years to come.

I also suspect that as the technology matures as it has the high end price of bodies will come down. Remember that for every DSLR body, there are thousands of dollars in accessories and lenses sold, so it will be in Nikons interest to make future bodies as affordable as they can to sustain this level of commerce.

I really think also that the future technology wars will be in lens design and noise reduction for sensors. I can't imagine MP's going up since 1.5 sensors are about peaked out for this format of camera. I think downsizing with the same feature sets will also come into play for the future. I like having the option of the vertical grip with more power options instead of having it built in.

I think it is all good. I love my D2x and will skip the D200. I can't wait to see what the D3 has in about 2-3years when it comes out. I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't look a lot like a D200 with better noise control, 8 FPS with 1.5 crop, optional vertical grip, better view finder, probably improved white balance, 1.5 crop will remain, don't think Nikon is going to FF just yet. Maybe in the D4 or D5.

Just my humble opinions.
--
Scott Sherman
http://www.interactivephotos.com

Time will tell just how good the D200 REALLY is. I might get my head bitten off by the D200 hopefuls but my guess would be closer to 60%. Construction-wise the D2X is a tank. We've yet to see how well built the D200 is. My guess would be how the F100 compared to the F5.

Auto focus and white balance are critical, and the D2X has it in spades. The D200 has not just one, but two generation autofocus modules below the D2X (CAM1000- CAM1300- CAM2000). In low light or tricky light situations the D2X should prevail convincingly.

We still don't know how well the AWB of the D200 will function, but the D2X is in most cases, dead nuts on. If you shoot RAW it shouldn't matter though.

Time will tell.

That last point about pro build should be same (D200 has sealed metal body and great battery life).

Danamc said:

Auto focus and white balance are critical, and the D2X has it in
spades. The D200 has not just one, but two generation autofocus
modules below the D2X (CAM1000- CAM1300- CAM2000). In low light or
tricky light situations the D2X should prevail convincingly.

Click to expand...

Actually in terms of generations, the CAM1000 is one generation newer than the CAM2000. And I'm not sure if CAM1000 or CAM1300 is better. After all, there are many ways the D70 is better than a D100, yet it has a lower model number.

I suspect the CAM1000 will be better than the CAM1300 in a lot of ways. I think the major lack of the CAM1000 might be a slower autofocus motor.

--
-----Bear

Hello,

I agree mostly with your summary, except fot the fact that it has a better viewfinder. It might be bigger, but the D2x has a 100% view and I think it will be brighter than the D200.

Nevertheless I think there will be some major differences between the two camera's.

• Body Quality and controls.

The body of the D2x and the controls on the body itself are fantastic. One of the reasons I bought one. The D200 is not a pro-body.

• High ISO

ISO performance of the D200 will be better. CCD, and less pixel count means less noise at high ISO. D2x is intented for quality an resolution, not low light performance. Nevertheless at low ISO sensitivity, the D2x is very very clean! But this is personal preference, I think... What do you need?

• CAM1000 vs. CAM2000

I think the AF system of the D2x outperforms the one of a D200.

• A lot of extra options.

These do not really bother me... since basic fucntionalities are present on both bodys.

I just hope peple will not be dissapointed with the D200, with assuming it is a D2x++ in a smaller body. Referencing to the huge price gap, you can not expect this in my opinion! Of course the price of the D200 has become lower by simply porting D2x functionality which had not to be developed anymore. This has not cost any expensive development, it was allready there. This should also result in a price drop of the D2x in a couple of months, I guess... That is what marketing is about...

Yes, OK, I own a D2x and I would also like if it would have less noise. I rarely use ISO values above 400 but still... I have not touched a D200 yet, and there are simply no test results to compare them yet besides plain specifications. The only issue in which the D200 specs are better is ISO performance.

And all those speculations on dynamic range and blown highlights etc. Noone really knows... Just wait until it is there. I just know that my D2x is good at this point IF you use the correct exposure. This goes for ANY camera. This is exactly what I am going to do, wait and see. And if it is really good, I will also get one as backup and low light situations. And if better than a D2x (which in my opinion is not possible assuming the price difference), then I sell my D2x!!

Regards,
Nick

When you say worse for the various features/specs... how much worse is it.

You could have a camera with everything worse than the d2x, but if they are all just a little bit worse, then you can say its close.

Basically arguing this and that is pointless. Its up to you if you want to be positive or negative about a camera. You can always find fault or something lacking with anything. The point is, can you use your creativity to get around it and still take good pictures or are you relying too much on technology. Put the same camera in the hands of two people and you will get different shots.

Just wait till it comes out ppl.

(mind you I am gear-head and hypocrite)

PRICE: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Also, feature-wise a 300 HP car would be a "W" compared to a 305 HP car -- yet I doubt most could tell the difference. When it comes to ISO noise and dynamic range the D200 HANDILY beats the D2x.

The D2x is an incredible all-around camera -- but it comes with a compromised sensor that diminishes its overall value. Within its "performance envelope" (ie: low ISOs and low contrast) there isn't much that can compete with it. Unfortunately, due exclusively to its compromised sensor, that envelope is considerably more narrow then most.

Brendan
--

If you shoot Nikon don't argue with Canon measurbators, they have much longer rulers.

"for" in the title should, of course, be "forgot".

Brendan
--

If you shoot Nikon don't argue with Canon measurbators, they have much longer rulers.

Compromised sensor? Reducing its value? You've got to be kidding!

I always see folks nit picking these cameras and making clear cut statements about the D200. Guess what until the D200 is in the public's hands it is merely a figment of your imagination. PLEASE I beg you stop saying the D200 is better than the D2X or any other camera in the market now. You simply do not know that. Spec sheets and a few reviews of pre production cameras doesn't really mean a lot.

Additionally if you look around the web you will see INCREDIBLE STUNNING FABULOUS photographs taken with an Elph or a D50 or a 10D or various P&S even some disposable cameras. So it baffles me when people sit here and claim that this camera or that camera is so much better when in reality these marginal improvements are not the end all be all. If it is in fact true (and it is) that people are getting incredible shots with cameras far less high speed low drag than a D200, D2X, or a D1s MkII. Either we are fools for buying top of the line or there really is more to a good photograh than tech specs.

I suspect 2 MPs here or FF there or whatever the latest marginal improvement is when the rubber meets the road it is the photographer and their ability to compose, expose, and work within the cameras limitations and capabilities that makes the difference. Not the 2 MPs. I think at the end of the day a top of the line camera offers more adaptability via accessories and can probably handle a larger variety of circumstances. If you know what your gear can and cannot do and you work within those limits you are further ahead than the guy or gal that buys a top of the line camera JUST because it has a few more mega pixels or better FPS rate etc.

I got the D2X because I tend to buy top of the line and then use it till it is dead.

Some chase the latest and greatest gear some take photographs. Spend less time researching the tiny differences in cameras and go practice your art. I gotta tell you I am terribly envious of some of these folks who can take a P&S and produce a photograph that kicks my shots in the butt. Maybe I need to get out and practice more and posting less. What a concept.

Because the D200 has all the important features for a typical amateur needs - and that are useful for making photographs. The D2X adds weight, ruggedness, and a better AF module. The D200 has possibly better image quality at high ISO, it is lighter, smaller, cheaper, and because it has a larger viewfinder (larger than the D2X's) it's not a crippled model like the D70 or D100. It also has metering support for manual focus lenses which is a huge benefit along with the improved viewfinder.

I've been using d2x for a while and I've tested 5D too. Yes in terms of the build quality and shooting speed D2x wins hands down, but in terms of output 5D excells D2x in many aspects. (Swallow DOF and extremely little noise, wide DR, accurate WB, etc. 5D's ISO 3200 looks like D2x's ISO 800 and its AWB is always quite usable)

So actually nikon was FORCED to include every pro-gear feaures 20D/5D does not have. (Weatherproof body, MF support, Fast response and other d2 series features)

You are exactly right. That's why even if you are a professional, in many situations you will encounter that the D200 will outperform the D2x. Plus the D200 it has a newer generation sensor. In addition, about the 'extraordinary features' of a D2x, most photographers using a D2x use only 25% of all the features and controls packed in that camera. Many of them, plain useless to tell you the truth.

There is no doubt that Nikon sometime next year will drop the price of the D2x significantly.

GagBagger said:

PRICE: BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Click to expand...

GagBagger said:

The D2x is an incredible all-around camera -- but it comes with a
compromised sensor that diminishes its overall value. Within its
"performance envelope" (ie: low ISOs and low contrast) there isn't
much that can compete with it. Unfortunately, due exclusively to
its compromised sensor, that envelope is considerably more narrow
then most.

Brendan
--
If you shoot Nikon don't argue with Canon measurbators, they have
much longer rulers.

Click to expand...

I remember when the D2x was lintroduced. Everyone was so excited that Nikon moved from the CCD to the CMOS. less dust problems, faster shudder speed, better power useage, increased MP's, cleaner image, etc.

Now that the D200 has been announced but not released, there is a new hysteria that the CMOS is not good enough. We are so fickle, especially in light of the fact that not one single poster has had a production D200 in his hand.

I say, let's wait and see if the grass is indeed greener on the other side or are we just convincing ourselves that it must be greener since we heard from the grass salesman that is will be greener.
--
Scott Sherman
http://www.interactivephotos.com

I see more an anlogy of F5/F100 with D2X/D200 here, history has proven that a majority of professional photog decided for the F100, I especulate for two reasons: Smaller size and price.

If you use National Gerographic as a measuring stick, I'd say a good 60% are shooting Nikon and from them a good 80% are F100 users. At the end of the day, people will have to decide if the areas where the D2x outperfom the D200 (areas still to be determined once we have a chance to test the real thing), if is it worth to pay the extra 3K for the D2X????

My guess is that the D200 will surpass the D70 as the best selling DSLR in Nikon's arsenal and will take away from D2X sales in a substantial way. LEt us remember that Nikon has had an stellar year from the revenue and profit point of view, they have a savy set of marketing people, they may not have the big pockets that Canon has but they certainly are doing the best they can do to improve their profit margins.

All in all, your summary of pros and cons between the two cameras may be right on the money, but this is just one item in the overall balance assessment among the two cameras, how much better is really the D2X over the D200???, this will depend of each one own needs.

If I were a pro, I most certainly would wait for the D200 before commiting to the D2X, unless I am making lots of money and do not care about the 3K
Esteban

well said, Esteban !!

You are on the money !!!

Esteban Dido said:

I see more an anlogy of F5/F100 with D2X/D200 here, history has
proven that a majority of professional photog decided for the F100,
I especulate for two reasons: Smaller size and price.
If you use National Gerographic as a measuring stick, I'd say a
good 60% are shooting Nikon and from them a good 80% are F100
users. At the end of the day, people will have to decide if the
areas where the D2x outperfom the D200 (areas still to be
determined once we have a chance to test the real thing), if is it
worth to pay the extra 3K for the D2X????
My guess is that the D200 will surpass the D70 as the best selling
DSLR in Nikon's arsenal and will take away from D2X sales in a
substantial way. LEt us remember that Nikon has had an stellar
year from the revenue and profit point of view, they have a savy
set of marketing people, they may not have the big pockets that
Canon has but they certainly are doing the best they can do to
improve their profit margins.

All in all, your summary of pros and cons between the two cameras
may be right on the money, but this is just one item in the overall
balance assessment among the two cameras, how much better is really
the D2X over the D200???, this will depend of each one own needs.

If I were a pro, I most certainly would wait for the D200 before
commiting to the D2X, unless I am making lots of money and do not
care about the 3K
Esteban

Click to expand...

While the D200 is not a D2x it is sure a worthy camera and will be used alot by this D2X user.

--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida