I miss my D200

Started Oct 27, 2011 | Discussions thread
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 10,370
Re: I can't help but chuckle...

marcio_napoli wrote:

It's like watching a movie you already know the ending: start a D200 thread, say something good about it, and you bet, Tony will appear sooner or later.

You mean like not liking the MB-D200 and buying extra batteries instead? Like having "banding" in both my D200 cameras, but having more problems with the blooming on my D70 cameras?

I don't want to stir the pot more than it already is, but oh!, if people love the D200, let them be.

I often recommend the D200. When people praise the D200 as a classic camera, or as a great value, I concur. However, when people start spreading unsubstantiated opinions about why the D200 is better than the D300, and start arguing that the D200 is in some way better than the D300, well that's when the arguments begin.

IMHO, if a large (I mean LARGE) number of people truly start believing on something, give it a try, and try to understand what exactly they're talking about.

I remember when the proposition was exactly the opposite, when many people panned the D200 for its "banding" and relatively poor high ISO performance; Canon users were constantly praising the 5D and 20D, and they would say how much better the image quality was from CMOS sensors. Back then I argued that at base ISO CCD was no worse than CMOS, and that's exactly the same argument I make today.

I also remember the criticisms of the D200 AF performance; Nikon users would say how much better the D2x, D2h, and even the F100 AF performance was compared to the D200. Well, that's just a fact, but that was addressed well by the D300.

Then there was the constant whining about DX. There was even a few users who would say Nikon would never make a "full frame" DSLR because the F mount was too small for it.

The number of people praising the D200 at base ISO (me included, I'm guilty as well) is so considerable that there must be something almost intangible going on.

Yes, "intangible" is the best term for it. Since people do see a difference in the colors, they reach for the CCD explanation. The problem with that is that the colors come from the CFA and not from the underlying sensor -- strip away the low pass filter on a D200 and a D300, then get back to me about how they record light differently.

But edit that: it's not intangible. It's just you don't see it in that particular case.

What I see a lot of is people comparing different exposure levels on the D200 and D300. The argument often made is that the D200 has ISO 100 and the D300 only goes to ISO 200, those users need to read and understand this:


I even did a thread on this issue here:


Frankly, I find it amazing how little interest there was in that thread, while uninformed argument about base ISO continues to come up in this forum.

The fact you don't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Well, if we can establish that this has nothing to do with the CCD, and if we can establish that 1/3 of a stop is not a big deal at base ISO, then we can move towards a more relevant discussion of what the differences are between the D200 and D300. It could be marginal differences in the CFA, but both cameras are very good at recording colors, so that leaves color profiles. As far as that goes, I'm in the camp that says both cameras do just fine, both are classics.

IMHO, the D300 is a jack of all trades. It tries to be good at base ISO and tries to be acceptable at High ISOs, but at both ends, it does not exactly shine.

Right, and that's where I get angry and call that a bunch of crap. Nikon came out with an excellent upgrade to the D200, but since Nikon announced the D3 on the same day, a lot of the praise the D300 might have otherwise received was diluted to the D3. At the same time, much of the negativity the D200 received got transferred to the D300 (it's not "full frame," the AF isn't as good, even the sensor arguments were turned on their head).

As I little angry and overly defensive about this? You bet. When I was using the D200 for all my photography for a couple of years I would come to DPR and constantly get berated for using it, and it must have been because I couldn't grasp how much better Canon or film was; then practically the exact same thing happened when I started doing all my photography with the D300, only now it was mostly how much better the D200 and then the D700 were than that "mediocre" D300. Your post and others like yours demonstrate something I've known for a couple of years now, the D300 is destined to arguably be Nikon's most wrongfully maligned and under-appreciated cameras.

You won't see any D1, D2, D100, D90, D300 (etc) praising thread.

I think that has a lot to do with the users, but we did have a D300 appreciation thread a while back, and it got a lot of posts:


...the D200 is praised by a large number of shooters. Why is that?

hmm... there must be a reason, don't you agree?

Different color profiles, as Nikon changed those when they introduced the D3 and D300. Different exposures, as Nikon changed the default metering with the D3 and D300. Lots of users never mastered the D300 or felt comfortable with it, mostly based on the new Picture Controls and default ISO, so they grasp for explanations having to do with the camera to explain why it must be a fault in the D300.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow