I seem to be able to take 400 or more shots on a charge. Don't frequently shoot that many, so I think battery concerns are somewhat overrated. I bought a pair of batteries and a car charger from amazon for $30, but haven't really needed them. YMMV.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
D200 today? How is it?
- Thread starter gdourado
- Start date
I just got a used d200 with 5000 on the shutter for $325. I like it a lot better than the d3100.
It's a good camera and it performs as well today as it did when it was new and everyone was raving about it. Probably the last camera I buy until the d600 is under $400 (in constant dollars -- someday it will be).
If one camera records two different colors, while another camera rounds them off to the same color, you can't get that back in post.
It's interesting that the d200 scores so much better on this measurement. I had been noticing the colors looked nice, but I was thinking maybe that was the new lens. I keep wanting to take the two cameras out together to compare (d200, d3100). Just a question of time!
john Clinch
Veteran Member
Intresting thread. I'm mulling over a new budget purchase and the D200 is cheap at the moment
This is really interesting data. Do you have a link to the DxO page with this info? I'm curious how full frame sensors compare.
I always thought that D7000 was something of a letdown in terms of colors after using D300, but it seems there is a significant difference between D300 and D300s too. I've never used D300s, but heard that there was a change in color rendering... Also interesting that D200 and D300 scored the same even though one is CCD and the other CMOS.
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
My short answer is yes, the IQ differences are too much. That's my opinion based on my needs.
I have a pair of d200's that gave me many thousands of images, many hundreds of which I am quite proud of having produced.
I haven't used a d200 since the day my first d300 arrived, back in 2007, IIRC.
I've read both of your posts in this thread and I don't quite understand what it is you are wanting to know. If you want an excellent camera with a body and features like the d200, the d300 would be my recommendation.
If you want an inexpensive camera that will take excellent photos in a myriad of conditions, then I'd recommend the d5100, which can be had refurbished for about $380, IIRC. The only real problem with the d5100 is that it needs AF-S lenses for autofocus.
If you want to AF with screwdriver lenses, the next best, inexpensive camera, would be a d7000.
In any case, if I only had my d200's and my d5100 or my d7000 to use, the d200's would still not be used. The d200 was a great camera in its day, but for my needs, its day has long since passed.
Kerry
SiPat
Leading Member
I have a Nikon D40 (and have just purchased another D40 body), a D5000 and D700. I sold a D90 because I couldn't get-on with it and will be parting with the D5000 soon.
I purchased a D200 with 1500 clicks on it, added a MB-D200 battery holder and a EH-6 power supply when I am near a power socket, to preserve the batteries.
The D40 (6MP) & D200 (10MP) use CCD sensors, whereas the others use CMOS. For well lit scenes, the D200 out-of-camera images are excellent and rarely need post-processing. I couldn't honestly say the same for the CMOS sensor'd cameras, even the D700 which is a brilliant camera in its own right.
My go-to cameras are the D40 & D200. YMMV
I purchased a D200 with 1500 clicks on it, added a MB-D200 battery holder and a EH-6 power supply when I am near a power socket, to preserve the batteries.
The D40 (6MP) & D200 (10MP) use CCD sensors, whereas the others use CMOS. For well lit scenes, the D200 out-of-camera images are excellent and rarely need post-processing. I couldn't honestly say the same for the CMOS sensor'd cameras, even the D700 which is a brilliant camera in its own right.
My go-to cameras are the D40 & D200. YMMV
It does not exist as a table - you have to look at the test page for each camera. Page for D200 is below as an example. You have to then go to the 'measurements' tab, and then look at 'color response'.
www.dxomark.com
This exists for FX cameras as well. It took me 15 minutes to compile the previous DX list
did not want to spend the time on FX.
The following link has their explanation / description for the measurement.
www.dxomark.com
DXOMARK
www.dxomark.com
This exists for FX cameras as well. It took me 15 minutes to compile the previous DX list
did not want to spend the time on FX.The following link has their explanation / description for the measurement.
About Us
DXOMARK is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens image quality measurements and ratings. For years we’ve been recognized for providing ...
www.dxomark.com
Tidewater
Leading Member
The short answer is yes its very good and no the IQ difference is not too much.
I like the command dials and the very extensive but easily accessed settings. I use it almost exclusively for birds in flight which requires quick response and focus lock on. Settings can be changed with the command dials while shooting. The body is very robust to say the least.
Yes the D300 does it all even faster and maybe has another stop or more usable ISO. They both put out very pleasing photos.
After using a D50 for a few years, I rented a D300s for comparison. In good light the D50 images looked better to my eyes, with little need for post-processing. Mirrors your D40/D200 vs. D700 observations.
(Ignoring the better build and AF, external controls, flash commander mode, and slightly better high ISO on the D300s in this comparison)
(Ignoring the better build and AF, external controls, flash commander mode, and slightly better high ISO on the D300s in this comparison)
mistermejia
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 3,180
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 650
Look man! A camera is a camera, and most cameras take really good pictures and a D200 is a D200, which has a CCD sensor which i personally really like. It is easy to use and has a great metering sytem and great AF with no BS. I wouldn't spend more than $300 dollars for one. Between a D200 and a D90 i would probably go for a D90, although i have never own or used a D90 but i hear really good things about it. But i can tell you that the D200 probably gave me more pleasing photos than my D7000, except in the ISO department of course. If when i had my D200 i knew what i know now about photography i would probably have taken way better photos than the samples bellow, when i took these shots i BARELY knew anything about how to operate a camera. Here are some examples from the D200:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50912166
Last edited:
Thanks. It seems the trend with the older cameras scoring higher in this department holds for FX too...rkumar wrote:
It does not exist as a table - you have to look at the test page for each camera. Page for D200 is below as an example. You have to then go to the 'measurements' tab, and then look at 'color response'.
DXOMARK
This exists for FX cameras as well. It took me 15 minutes to compile the previous DX list
The following link has their explanation / description for the measurement.
About Us
DXOMARK is the trusted industry standard for camera and lens image quality measurements and ratings. For years we’ve been recognized for providing ...
marcio_napoli
Senior Member
Usually it's not easy to say this on a gear forum (a place where chronological technical advances always mean better)...
I'm 100% base ISO shooter, and I believe I have a good eye to tell differences in IQ at base ISO between camera models.
At ISO 100, I still believe the D200's IQ is among the very best there is.
Please note, this has nothing to do with DXO charts.
I'm not talking about SN ration, nor DR numbers, etc.
I'm talking strictly about what my eyes see, and my overall gut feeling about the picture.
IMO, the D200 renders nicer than the D700 (which I have used for 5 years), and yes, nicer than the D800 (from all samples I could gather).
About that gut feeling I've mentioned, the D200's images are very close to those I get with my Leaf Aptus digital back.
This should come as no surprise, considering they're both CCD and both made in a time when the compromises were different than today's.
For example: both the D200 and the digital back come from an era when color reproduction and base ISO IQ were much more important than High ISO.
That's one of the reasons you have really strong CFA in these cameras, great colors, great base ISO and terrible high ISO.
These cameras were designed with different compromises in mind.
So as long as you're a low ISO shooter, you'll be completely satisfied with the D200.
The speech would be different if high ISO is your thing, though.
Cheers!
--
Marcio Napoli
www.marcionapoli.com
I'm 100% base ISO shooter, and I believe I have a good eye to tell differences in IQ at base ISO between camera models.
At ISO 100, I still believe the D200's IQ is among the very best there is.
Please note, this has nothing to do with DXO charts.
I'm not talking about SN ration, nor DR numbers, etc.
I'm talking strictly about what my eyes see, and my overall gut feeling about the picture.
IMO, the D200 renders nicer than the D700 (which I have used for 5 years), and yes, nicer than the D800 (from all samples I could gather).
About that gut feeling I've mentioned, the D200's images are very close to those I get with my Leaf Aptus digital back.
This should come as no surprise, considering they're both CCD and both made in a time when the compromises were different than today's.
For example: both the D200 and the digital back come from an era when color reproduction and base ISO IQ were much more important than High ISO.
That's one of the reasons you have really strong CFA in these cameras, great colors, great base ISO and terrible high ISO.
These cameras were designed with different compromises in mind.
So as long as you're a low ISO shooter, you'll be completely satisfied with the D200.
The speech would be different if high ISO is your thing, though.
Cheers!
--
Marcio Napoli
www.marcionapoli.com
What are you planning to shoot? If you need dynamic range and can deal with some quirky menus the Fuji S5 Pro while slightly down on resolution (6+6MP arranged in a different pattern IIRC they said it's equivalent to around 8-9 MP) it offers amazing highlight retention and the auto WB/JPEG engine is much better than Nikon's.
The mechanical bits are all the same as the D200, just it has different electronic guts. It's a very niche product and has some drawbacks (like lower FPS) but also offers some unique images. I even used it for a shoot just last week when I really needed some highlight retention that my D700 couldn't handle.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,940
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
The D200 is great at lower iso. Heck, I still use a D2x and find at base iso it does as well as the D700 and is far better than the Canon5D
My experience is also that the battery concern is overrated. I can't see any significant difference between battery usage on my D200 and my D300, with the same battery.
Maybe the battery usage was different with earlier firmware in the D200, i don't know.
DigitalPhilosopher
Leading Member
- Messages
- 980
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 487
A remarkably intelligent and informative response; dare I call it "a photographer's response"...
I use a D2x too and although I haven't compared it with a D3, Thom Hogan - who, if anyone, knows what he's talking about - argues the D2x is better than the D3 at base ISO
gdourado
Well-known member
Thank you all for your replies.
I was thinking about the D200, because it can be had in good condition for a good price.
But I got offered a chance to buy a mint D300 with 35 1.8G and 18-70 AF-S for 750 Euros.
For europe, I guess that is a good price. It is cheaper than a D7000 with 18-105 kit new.
And for reference, a D90 with 18-105 costs 550. Add the 35 1.8G, and the price is practically the same...
I just don't know if I should pull the trigger...
My other option I was also thinking was a Pentax K5, due to the sensor, weather sealing and size.
Cheers!
I was thinking about the D200, because it can be had in good condition for a good price.
But I got offered a chance to buy a mint D300 with 35 1.8G and 18-70 AF-S for 750 Euros.
For europe, I guess that is a good price. It is cheaper than a D7000 with 18-105 kit new.
And for reference, a D90 with 18-105 costs 550. Add the 35 1.8G, and the price is practically the same...
I just don't know if I should pull the trigger...
My other option I was also thinking was a Pentax K5, due to the sensor, weather sealing and size.
Cheers!
I would go for the D300. While IQ at base ISO between D200 and D300 might be a moot point, D300 is better for just about anything else you may want to shoot. Personally, I find it very hard to fault D300 color response until we get into high ISO territory. This discussion though did make me wanna pull my D200 out of the closet, put Tamron 90 on it (a killer combination in my experience), and go shoot some nature/macro on a nice and bright day.
On a side note, I would be really curious to see how would the DxO sensor rankings look if they used color fidelity as one of their main parameters along with SNR, DR, and color depth. Perhaps camera makers persuaded them against such a move... ;-)
DigitalPhilosopher
Leading Member
- Messages
- 980
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 487
Oh, ye of little faith! :-D
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum