Maybe I'm nuts but I want a D200

I posted a few weeks ago about my next camera. I think I have decided I want a D200 to add to my D5000. Here's why for me.. it will be used mostly for a birding camera and possible macro because of my lenses. I need the focus motor and the ability to meter with my old Tamron 90mm. I reviewed my bird shots and the vast majority are under 400 iso. Most of my macro shots are with a flash so I should be ok under 400? From everything I've read the d200 is still very good under 400 so I should be good to go? I've lined up 1 locally for mid 400's (USD) with about 4k clicks original owner, all manuals, etc... I would keep my d5000 for low light and general use. I've read the debates about skin tones, but I actually hate people and really have no reason to take pictures of them... I would also love all the features of the pro body.. I took this picture yesterday, but started freaking out because of the rain. I know the d200 isn't waterproof but I would have felt a little better knowing it is at least weather sealed.. And having a d200 meter this lens would have made things much easier, I know it was at iso 800, but I was also using an old vivatar 550 flash(for canon(yes I checked voltage)) and didn't have much control of the flash with my coffee filter diffuser... Yes I'm broke and can't afford anything else. Thoughts?

I think that would be a great choice, I shoot with a D200 and love it, I tried the 300 and gave it back to the Nikon rep at one of the tracks I was at, They loaned it to me to try it out.
--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

-'I've read the debates about skin tones, but I actually hate people and really have no reason to take pictures of them... I'

Lol. Candid, but honest.

Just wondering, I was looking at a D200 also, but one thing that bothers me is the ISO 'SEEMS' to be limited at about 800, above that is reported quite noisy.

However, someone else posted a link to a photographer on flckr (I think) who takes amazing photos using D200 9and no doubt others continue to do so).

At the time it was released it was pro, so that should say something.

DPreview's review and others also praised it highly, despite the ISO issue, comparing it to a baby D2 or D3.

But, I am still torn, because I also like Canon lenses (seem to have what I am after) but the D200 / D300 series is the equivalent to the 7D and a D200 would suit me for fast sports shooting.

Thing is , seems like Canon's telephoto equipment is more varied or at least lower pricing (whereas Nikon's short range standard prime range seems more varied) , albeit Nikon 80-200 or the 70-300VR is all I could see myself as eventually affording after saving, so Canon has a few more comparisons (like f4 zooms).

But, I agree D200 is seriously tempting as available used at good prices. Speed, metering, toughness etc also I am after.

Hence, I have to make the 'system' decision before my first purchase.

Good luck though.

.....Just from an amateur......

I met up with someone on craigslist today that has a d200. My first thoughts is just wow!!! I understand all the color debates as this camera just seems to render amazing colors. It was very dark and overcast and I didn't have a ton of time to set the camera the way I would of wanted. Threw on my cheap 400mm and fired off a few shots. The only thing I noticed was single AF seemed to hunt but my lens is only a 5.6 even though it was a static object I was trying to lock on to.. switched it to dynamic and it locked instantly. I love the build and the layout of controls vs my d5000. I simulated print quality at 200 dpi to see how a 13 x 19 would look and I have no issues with only 10 mp. I think 500 might be a little steep but shutter count is only 6000 which is pretty young for this camera.. Picture is nothing too special but almost SOOC jpeg with minor pp in windows 7.

Just curious if anyone actually looks at this picture? When I clicked to make it really big it appears as if it might have 5 or 6 stuck pixels? I noticed white dots where there shouldn't be.. Is that possible?

I own a D-200. It was my first DSLR and I have no intention of selling it. It does have it's limits, I never shoot over 800 ISO while I go 3200 all the time on my D-700 and sometimes higher.

But there is something special about the D 200 and I still use is as a backup and often just as a 2nd camera with different lens.

There have been several "intense" discussions on the forum (on-going) about IQ and color rendition of the D-200 vas a new Nikon (D-7000) but i really like what the D-200 can produce.

Go for it, it's a great camera still!

Caveat: because of the limits of the ISO , not sure I would consider it a great birding lens except fog stationary birds perhaps.
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/67660656@N03/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22388579@N08/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67660656@N03/sets/72157627576100801/

Thanks for your helpful input... I think for my needs it would be good for my birding efforts. I shoot alot in bright light with sea birds. Here's one I missed because of my MF efforts on the d5000, I'm thinking the AF on the d200 would have saved me. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the d200 would have fared well here? ISO 200... At this point it is the best camera I can afford and I would still have my d5000 for darker days.

Oscarroos said:

Caveat: because of the limits of the ISO , not sure I would consider it a great birding lens except fog stationary birds perhaps.

Click to expand...

Bought a D200 two days ago for €320 with 14k clicks. Was a bit overwhelmed at first i guess, but now that i'm getting the hang of it i'm pretty excited with this decision. Don't shoot much motion so can't really judge the AF tracking, but the performance at 'normal' ISOs like 100 to 800 is superb. Can't say i like the JPG output much, but then i'm very picky and never use anything less than RAW ~ because a JPG can only be as good as the in-camera processor, which in 2005 wasn't that great, compared to RAWs which are as good and current as the latest used raw converter.

I bought it for my BDay in fact which was yesterday. Two of the visitors were D300/D300s users and they seemed impressed with what i got for so little. The price may be down because there are new models but the professional performance, built and control is definitely still there.

ISO1600 OOC JPG vs customized RAW conversion (note the faulty pixels):









ISO100 Adobe RAW -standard- raw conversion with practically no editing:

Kris in CT said:

Just curious if anyone actually looks at this picture? When I clicked to make it really big it appears as if it might have 5 or 6 stuck pixels? I noticed white dots where there shouldn't be.. Is that possible?

Click to expand...

I was just about going to tell you the same and that the camera needs to be sent to service... Sorry, I hope you have not paid for the camera yet.

Have you considered the D7000?

olyflyer said:

Kris in CT said:

Just curious if anyone actually looks at this picture? When I clicked to make it really big it appears as if it might have 5 or 6 stuck pixels? I noticed white dots where there shouldn't be.. Is that possible?

Click to expand...

I was just about going to tell you the same and that the camera needs to be sent to service... Sorry, I hope you have not paid for the camera yet.

Click to expand...

Or. You could just clone the problem pixel out.... I would not be too worried just get out and use the camera and enjoy it - it's great

If you've never seen the superb photography of the late Ronnie Gaubert then you should take the time to do so; I think it's all the evidence you would ever need to assure yourself of the capabilities of the D200 for the type of photography you're interested in. Granted, Ronnie was a master photographer both behind the camera and computer, but his photos nevertheless show the potential of the D200 when skillfully used. And he often talked about his continued preference for the D200, its CCD sensor, and its image quality over any of the much newer Nikon DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/galleries_by_year

I believe all the images in his galleries from around 2007 through 2010 are taken with the D200; 2006 and earlier Ronnie used a D100. By late 2010 he could no longer continue photography because of his struggle with ALS, a battle which he tragically lost in May of this year. Here are some of his last photos posted here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=35871092

At any rate, I think the D200 would be a great choice.

Kris in CT said:

I posted a few weeks ago about my next camera. I think I have decided I want a D200 to add to my D5000. Here's why for me.. it will be used mostly for a birding camera and possible macro because of my lenses. I need the focus motor and the ability to meter with my old Tamron 90mm. I reviewed my bird shots and the vast majority are under 400 iso. Most of my macro shots are with a flash so I should be ok under 400? From everything I've read the d200 is still very good under 400 so I should be good to go?

Click to expand...

marcus300 said:

marcus300 said:

Kris in CT said:

Just curious if anyone actually looks at this picture? When I clicked to make it really big it appears as if it might have 5 or 6 stuck pixels? I noticed white dots where there shouldn't be.. Is that possible?

Click to expand...

I was just about going to tell you the same and that the camera needs to be sent to service... Sorry, I hope you have not paid for the camera yet.

Click to expand...

Or. You could just clone the problem pixel out.... I would not be too worried just get out and use the camera and enjoy it - it's great

Click to expand...

I would on the other hand worry if my newly bought camera had stuck pixels. Of course, there is always a work around, but there is just one real way of fixing, and that's called pixel mapping. Nikon does not allow us, users to do that in our camera so the only good solution is to send it in for service or not to buy such camera. If I'd needed to clone in every image I'd be very disappointed.

Another, but better than cloning, method would be to use PixelFixer, which is a freeware and is automatically fixing the pixels as a batch process.

Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply. Luckily I got to try this camera before buying it and noticed these pixels. It's a shame because camera only has 6000 clicks on it. I see d200's around 400 all the time. As far as the d7000 it is way to much for me. I will wait a year or so and maybe buy one when the price is cut in half. I have my heart set on the d200 now, I just have to find one for the right price. Here is a crop of the flower pot picture it shows 5 stuck pixels on the bottom right alone...

Moofner said:

If you've never seen the superb photography of the late Ronnie Gaubert then you should take the time to do so; I think it's all the evidence you would ever need to assure yourself of the capabilities of the D200 for the type of photography you're interested in. Granted, Ronnie was a master photographer both behind the camera and computer, but his photos nevertheless show the potential of the D200 when skillfully used. And he often talked about his continued preference for the D200, its CCD sensor, and its image quality over any of the much newer Nikon DSLRs.

http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187/galleries_by_year

I believe all the images in his galleries from around 2007 through 2010 are taken with the D200; 2006 and earlier Ronnie used a D100. By late 2010 he could no longer continue photography because of his struggle with ALS, a battle which he tragically lost in May of this year. Here are some of his last photos posted here.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=35871092

At any rate, I think the D200 would be a great choice.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing these links. Very touching images. My father passed away 3 years ago, he was an avid photographer and passed a pretty young age due to health reasons. It was what inspired me in the first place to pick up a camera...

worry you so much. I have a D200 and it has about 4 dead pixels which show up at higher ISO settings. Use PP or some software to map them out and you should be fine.
--
Nick P

Moofner said:

Granted, Ronnie was a master photographer both behind the camera and computer, but his photos nevertheless show the potential of the D200 when skillfully used. And he often talked about his continued preference for the D200, its CCD sensor, and its image quality over any of the much newer Nikon DSLRs.

Click to expand...

I have seen quite a few of Ronnie's photos, and yes they are great. I don't recall ever reading him comment on CCD sensors (presumably as compared to CMOS sensors), and I don't know of any photos he ever took with a newer DSLR. Anyway, even if he had, I wouldn't put any more stock in that than I do in any of the other comments on this overdone topic. Ronnie was a great photographer and he used a D200, that doesn't mean he couldn't have done just as well with a D2x, D300, or any other camera.

That said, the D200 is great bargain these days, as is the D2x and D300. For the budget conscious, the D200 is hard to beat, and if higher ISO and/or better AF are not paramount, then I would say go for it. I'm not sure what to say about the particular model the OP was looking at with its hot or stuck pixels; those often go away, are only a problem at higher ISOs (the shots he showed were at ISO 640, which is relatively high for the D200), and if you convert the Raw files with ACR hot pixels are eliminated.

Kris in CT said:

Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply. Luckily I got to try this camera before buying it and noticed these pixels. It's a shame because camera only has 6000 clicks on it. I see d200's around 400 all the time. As far as the d7000 it is way to much for me. I will wait a year or so and maybe buy one when the price is cut in half. I have my heart set on the d200 now, I just have to find one for the right price. Here is a crop of the flower pot picture it shows 5 stuck pixels on the bottom right alone...

Click to expand...

You made the right decision. No point keeping the camera with stuck pixels. While some call it nitpicking, I call it "no way I'd pay for a faulty camera". It is possible that Nikon can fix it, but it is also possible that they cannot. In any case, let the seller pay for it, not you. I am glad you could return it and wish you good luck in the hunt for another one.

NPPhoto said:

worry you so much. I have a D200 and it has about 4 dead pixels which show up at higher ISO settings. Use PP or some software to map them out and you should be fine.

Click to expand...

The question is not so much what to do if they turn up after some use, of course there is no reason for panic in that case, but in this case he is buying a "new" camera which is defect. Of course it is wrong to accept that you need to PP each and every image already from the start. It kills part of the joy of a new camera...

I was smart in a sense, it was offered locally so I got to take some shots, no money exchanged!! I've wanted a d200 for a while now, but wanted hands on before I actually purchased it. It is still an amazing camera and fits my needs perfectly for now. I don't think it is nitpicking, but it would drive me nuts if I had to fix pixels every time I printed a picture. when I printed it at 200 dpi to see what a 13x19 would look like the dots were noticeable.. i don't now maybe at a lower iso they would not be noticeable, maybe raw to jpeg would hide them.