Maybe I'm nuts but I want a D200

[Alnitak]

BTW, I'll also mentioned that I had to upgrade my s/w to use the D300s (had to get NX2 to read the D300s raw files; I had been using Capture).

Personally, I would sell the 5000 and get the D200 (unless you need the smaller size of the 5000 for travel).

Here are some sample pictures from the D200. Notice ISO 1600 in the v-ball shot.

 

[Tony Beach]

...And it seems at this point the d5000 and the d200 are somewhat stagnant in price so I could still use both for a year, resell for almost the same price and pickup the d300 when the price drops if the d400 is ever released. So there it is...

After this post I'm thinking even more that the D300 option is your way to go.

The D300 has already dropped to be within Kris' budget if he wheels and deals, and the relative values of the D300 compared to the D200 and D5000 is not going to change significantly (or at all). The D300 has some feature and performance advantages over the D200 (the list gets pretty long actually), and it has the same sensor as the D5000; having both in one camera is a win-win, whereas splitting those into two cameras is more problematic.

 

[Alnitak]

Good points. I'm still looking at a $350-$400 difference in used prices between the D200 and D300. But you are correct. The D200 is probably near it's bottom (e.g., a used D100 is still getting $250), and the D300 will be getting closer to it. So, if the OP can come up with the difference, the D300 may make more sense.

BTW, for the OP, do NOT EVER sell the Tamron marco! What an amazing deal you got on that. I had the 90mm f/2.8 AF version, and loved that lens. The Tammy 90 is one of the sharpest macros ever, and you do not need AF for macro (I turned mine off...made it easier to get the focus correctly). I have since moved to a Lester Dine 105mm macro...manual focus...for the extra working distance with bugs (but that cost me more than $15).

 

[Tony Beach]

I also sold my D200 to move to a D300, and regret that decision. I did for two things specifically...and extra 1/2 stop of hi-ISO performance and improved AF in low light (I shoot a lot of indoor sports). After a year with the D300s, I'm still not convinced that those benefits materialized.

With the D200 I had no problem shooting at ISO 1000 or even a little higher. At ISO 800, I don't see any difference between the D200 and D300s.

I do, I see more DR from the D300 at ISO 250. Also, the practical difference in ISO performance between the D200 and D300/D300s is about half a stop in daylight, it's closer to a full stop in artificial light.

As far as AF performance, my percentage of keepers was higher with the D200. I think the simpler dynamic focus mechanics/AF points actually makes the D200 focus more predictably.

The D300 has better acquisition when the light is low, has more sophisticated tracking (something you apparently haven't mastered), and it has AF fine-tune.

On top of this, I lost the wonderful colors and metering of the D200 (especially flesh tones). The D300 is "off" -- either too saturated (in standard mode) or too "red" (even in neutral).

Metering is essentially the same, especially if you use Center-weighted metering (Matrix metering is different with practically every camera).

As for colors, that too appears to be something you haven't figured out. If you don't want to shoot Raw and experiment with different settings in different Raw converters, install D2X Color modes on your D300 (unfortunately, this is not available with the D300s).

And the D300s has no ISO 100. The D200 at ISO 100 has a magical, film-like quality.

Effective ISO of the D300 (when using ETTR) is ISO 125. Don't want to use Raw and use ETTR? Use ISO Lo modes.

There is a difference between the CCD look and the CMOS look.

This is the biggest misconception being spread about DSLR technology right now. All the colors come from the CFA, take away the CFA and all you have is a monochrome sensor. The D2x was a CMOS sensor, and its colors are still arguably the best you can get from any DSLR -- no one ever said the D200 had better colors than the D2x back when those were Nikon's two best DSLRs. The CFAs on the D300 and D200 are very close to each other, and all the differences you see are coming from Nikon's change to Picture Controls.

...the larger file sizes have added more time to my PP,

Sounds like you need a better computer.

I'm looking for a used D200 as well.

Good, they can be had at a bargain price. It's a great deal for an excellent camera. Given your disappointment with the D300s, you should sell it and get a D200 instead. That said, your two biggest gripes with the D300s (AF and colors) are both related to you not mastering them and not because the camera has some inherent deficiency.

 

[Tony Beach]

I'm still looking at a $350-$400 difference in used prices between the D200 and D300.

My own take is that the D300 is worth about 50% more than the D200, that based on a long list of features and performance (individually they are really marginal, but collectively they add up). That the D200 is closer to half the price of the D300 (and the D300s is even more expensive) makes the D200 the exceptional deal it is these days. The thing about the D200 though is that Nikon made too many of them and then left excess inventory on the market by bringing out the D300, and that resulted in the $600 for a new D200 fire sale at Best Buys which has established an unusually low used price for a very good camera.

 

[Alnitak]

I'm not even going to respond to your critical post. You make way too many assumptions, both about my shooting style (e.g., RAW), my knowledge/experience with the camera, and my workflow. If you want to post a differing opinion or different experience...fine. But throwing stones at someone without knowing the reality of their shooting and workflow is uncalled for. Go back under a rock, Troll!

And yes, the D300 does have other features, like video, lens fine tuning, etc. that may be more important to others -- not that important to me (e.g., tuning is more suited for primes...and none of mine need it).

 

[Alnitak]

I'm still looking at a $350-$400 difference in used prices between the D200 and D300.

That the D200 is closer to half the price of the D300 (and the D300s is even more expensive) makes the D200 the exceptional deal it is these days.

And how is this different that what I stated? A D200 for $400 and a D300 for $800 is still 50% and it does equal a $400 difference, as I stated.

Funny how some people need to disparage others and their abilities to feel better about themselves....

 

[Tony Beach]

I'm still looking at a $350-$400 difference in used prices between the D200 and D300.

That the D200 is closer to half the price of the D300 (and the D300s is even more expensive) makes the D200 the exceptional deal it is these days.

And how is this different that what I stated? A D200 for $400 and a D300 for $800 is still 50% and it does equal a $400 difference, as I stated.

I wasn't disagreeing with what you wrote; I think the D300 is worth 50% more than the D200, not 100% more. What I was writing in response though is that I don't think that those prices are going to move much or any in a year from now. The relative low price of the D200 is the result of a peculiar set of circumstances that will not be repeated by Nikon with the D300/D300s.

 

[Alnitak]

I wasn't disagreeing with what you wrote; I think the D300 is worth 50% more than the D200, not 100% more. What I was writing in response though is that I don't think that those prices are going to move much or any in a year from now. The relative low price of the D200 is the result of a peculiar set of circumstances that will not be repeated by Nikon with the D300/D300s.

I see. Thanks for the clarification...and I agree with you.

 

[Tony Beach]

I'm not even going to respond to your critical post.

Oops, you just did.

You make way too many assumptions, both about my shooting style (e.g., RAW),

I didn't make an assumption about whether you shoot Raw or not, I offered solutions to either shooting Raw or shooting JPEG.

my knowledge/experience with the camera,

You see something different than I do with regards to metering, AF, and DR at any ISO above base.

and my workflow.

You stated that you have used Standard and Neutral Picture Controls, that suggests you're using NX or possibly ACR with emulations, or you are shooting JPEG. Regardless, if neither of those Picture Controls suit you (as you stated), that doesn't mean that's all there is. We've been down this road many times in this forum, and I would mention here that the first thing to do is lower the Brightness setting used with the D300/D300s (Nikon themselves recommend this if you want to get the Picture Controls to look more like the Image Optimization settings used with the D200 and D2x), and that immediately triggers a need to set EC for the metering up about half a stop (which gets to the ISO 100 argument).

The D300 is different than the D200 mostly because Nikon changed to Picture Controls. It has nothing to do with CMOS sensors, metering, or base ISO. If you adjust the Picture Controls, those things you complained about all change and at base ISO the cameras are nearly identical.

And yes, the D300 does have other features, like video,

No, the D300s has video, the D300 does not. Just as the D300 has D2X MODE Picture Controls and the D300s does not.

 

[Tony Beach]

Thanks for the clarification...and I agree with you.

90% of what people disagree about and get angry with one another over in these forums is related to misunderstandings or valid disagreements over perhaps 2% differences; i.e., we tend to make mountains out of molehills.

 

[Alnitak]

And yes, the D300 does have other features, like video,

No, the D300s has video, the D300 does not. Just as the D300 has D2X MODE Picture Controls and the D300s does not.

Yes, I know. I have a D300s (as mentioned in the previous post), so I was referring to MY camera and the differences between the D200 and my D300s...and mistakenly left off the "s".

Yes, in response to the OP, we should be talking D300 only...and no video.

Geez, Tony, you could lighten up a bit. Seems like, not just this thread but others, that you prefer to be combative and nit pick, rather than go with the flow and intent of the conversation.

 

[olyflyer]

Please disregard.

 

[Tony Beach]

...Tony, you could lighten up a bit.

Good advice.

 

[FujimotoPhoto]

FWIW I shoot exclusively with the D200 and have no problems with it's performance. It delivers what my clients want and is an ergonomic joy to work with (I am a Canon convert and nothing will have me switching back .) I use it with newer AF-S lenses and older AI ones, and it all works beautifully. For the price, it offers a lot; happy shooting!

 

[Kris in CT]

So this is my d5000(phottix rechargeable battery grip) with my $15 Tamron, a dejur 2x auto TC $5, a +2 closeup filter (part of a 3.99 set). Oh and the 550 thyristor flash (for c/r) that belonged to my late father, with my coffee filter diffuser. At the same time I am learning lightroom 3 and this is my first attempt with the grasshopper. So for $25 I'm at 2:1 ratio and even with the TC and +2 lens ,this old Tammy is super sharp at least to me...





the lens in is great shape but the hood is a little grimy... So this was full manual metering...

 

[Kris in CT]

Well I might be pretty poor but my sarcasm is even worse. Just to lighten up the turn this thread took, this is the lens I need the focus motor for, my $68 baby.. It's not the newest or the sharpest but does ok f8-f11 and it pretty long with the hood filter on.. Think I might need better tripod also So with MF on my d5000 this is one seems pretty sharp, handheld... I'm thinking the d90 will probably be good for me for now, unless I can flip a craigslist camera and lens and make some more money.. Thanks for all your posts...

 

[ianz28]

I love my D200, and am in no hurry to replace it. I tend to shoot at ISO 100 whenever possible. The D200's high ISO isn't as good as newer cameras, it's true. It is head and shoulders better than my old D1X, however.

The JPEG images out of the D200 are soft and a little dull looking. I shoot almost exclusively in RAW, though, so that's not an issue for me. If you shoot JPEG, you'll want to either turn up the in-camera sharpening a lot, or apply sharpening in post. If you sharpen in post, make sure you shoot at the highest image size and quality (large/fine). The JPEGs from the D200 hold up to adjustment and post processing quite well, considering.

If you buy a camera with stuck pixels, you should build the cost of Nikon service into the total cost of the camera. Supposedly pixel mapping is quite simple. From what I understand, all sensors have a few stuck pixels, and they are mapped out as part of configuring the camera.

I shoot a lot of macro, and there are tons of samples in my gallery (link in my signature.) All shots from the last several years are with my D200. The older images were shot with my D1X, and marked as such.

If you want fast focus, you should plan on using an AFS lens. Motor-driven lenses don't focus nearly as fast. I've always been happy with the focus speed on my D200, especially with my 70-200 VR. Then again, I don't shoot birds in flight very often.

Take a look at my marco lighting gallery. I've tried all different kinds of lighting for macro, and finally settled on a $10 pop-up diffuser attached to the front of my lens. It gives results that are far superior to anything else I've used, including a $400 Sigma dedicated macro lens. It took a little tweaking to get it to stay securely on the front of my Tamron 90, but it was worth it.

Milk jug diffusers work great for all kinds of purposes.



Great thing about making diffusers like this is that there are endless possibilities for shapes and sizes. They can be cut to be used directly on a flash and they have no noticeable effect on white balance.

 

[Kris in CT]

I will have to try that but you sure have a much more compatible flash Thanks for the post...

 

[ianz28]

Well I might be pretty poor but my sarcasm is even worse. Just to lighten up the turn this thread took, this is the lens I need the focus motor for, my $68 baby.. It's not the newest or the sharpest but does ok f8-f11 and it pretty long with the hood filter on.. Think I might need better tripod also So with MF on my d5000 this is one seems pretty sharp, handheld... I'm thinking the d90 will probably be good for me for now, unless I can flip a craigslist camera and lens and make some more money.. Thanks for all your posts...

The D200 is a better camera than the D90. Just because the D90 is newer doesn't mean it's better. The D90 is a lower model and won't meter your AI lenses. From everything you have stated high ISO abilities are not a concern.

I've posted on this subject before as I own both a D200 and D5000. The camera I reach for is the D200. The D5000 is my wifes camera - and what I would classify as a consumer camera. The D200 is an enthusiasts camera. My wife likes the D5000 because it's small, light, and easy to use.

I like the D200 because of it's better ergonomics, viewfinder, 100x better responsiveness, better white balance, ai lens metering, faster frame rates, better controls and buttons, and ultimately it's very satisfactory output.

What I will concede is that the new sensor in the D7000 and D5100 is phenomenal (though I haven't been able to compare apples to oranges). Unfortunately, both those camera's still don't have the build quality and responsiveness of a D200 (something I have compared).

Personally I think you were right with your original assessment of your needs and wants. The D200 is a great camera when used within it's ISO limitations (ISO 100-800).

I hope this is of some help.
Ian