VinceC
Senior Member
I got the D200 before Christmas, but had to use a borrowed 18-200 Sigma on it until my Nikon 18-200 VR and 35mm f2 turned up a few days ago.
I have had a Canon 10D, Nikon D70 and a Canon 350D in the past - so I am guilty of "hopping systems". My initial impression of the D200 is highly favourable, albeit with some qualifications. It is as bulky as the D70 and significantly heavier, but feels well put together (except for a comment below) and is comfortable to hold. Construction is magnesium alloy, rubber and quite a bit of plastic.
I am keen on portability and using the camera in low light situations, so handling of noise at high ISOs and the ability to use slow shutter speeds and an effective VR lens are major atttractions. I haven't done a direct comparison with my EOS 350D, but if the D200 lags behind it on high ISO noise isn't by much - and I'm not sure at the print level it does.
Even without VR the D200 seems to enable me to get a sharp shot at a lower shutter speed than I would expect. This may be a combination of the extra mass and a well balanced and damped mirror action.
The new 18-200 VR lens was a major attraction - and I think thiis delivers magnificently. The VR seems much more effective than the Nikon 24-120 and Canon 17-85 and 28-135 IS I have owned. Nikon's claims are not exaggerated. There is a little CA wide open with trees against a sky, but it is better than the Canon 17-85 I had and even the little 35mm f2 shows some CA in the same situation. The 35mm f2 can reveal more detail - but this is to be expected.
So far I'm shooting jpegs (see below) and am most impressed with the quality straight out of the camera. Default settings are sharp (without halos). Exposure is consistent, saturation about right and colour balance is very good. It is not, however as crisp and clear as the Canon 30D.
The controls are good, welll laid out and accessable and the menus are not as intimidating as they first seemed. An exception is the focus mode switch at the front - which keeps gettin gknocked to continuous. Focus is spot on, fast and works in very low light.
I'm not putting this down as a problem, but at first I believed Nikon's hype about the 1800 shot battery and didn't buy a spare - this is one area Nikon are "economical with the truth" and I'm happier now I have bought a spare.
I have seen no evidence of banding - but I haven't tried to force it and my previous cameras were perfectly capable of some strange effects in dificult lighting. - Update here - I was surprised to get pronounced banding on a very ordinary shot - which has now been fixed by Nikon.
Bottom line - I think it is a good. I challenge anyone to match the results the D200 can produce using 35mm film.
Last update - I've now sold the D200 and ended up with a Canon 30D - effectively an upgrade on my 350D. I found the Nikon very bulky and heavy, and I'm afraid IMHO the slightly lesser specced 30D just gives a better picture.
Problems:
Aras that have made me score it down:
Bits that fall off! My D70 cost me about £40 GBP to replace rubber eyecups and screen protectors that would fall off and vanish. These are much better on the D200, but I have still taken the precaution of tying the screen protector on with a piece of linen thread. But the little screw-on cover over the remote socket has already fallen off - in a muddy field! Also, I have broken a lug off the rear screen protector - at least I have found a supply of these at £6.99 each so I bought two. I often wonder if the guys who design things like this ever use them themselves! Nikon seem to employ more of these guys than the other major manufacturers.
Second "problem" is the lack of capable software to convert raw files. Picture Project is dire, slow and inflexible, it also puts a super-dumb converter into the Photoshop plug-in folder. Nikon Capture is an extra £119 GBP and runs like an asthmatic snail on crutches! If you buy a Canon you get the excellent DPP raw converter, plus access to free updates. I believe that Nikon are short-changing us with a lack of effective raw conversion software and by not bundling a flexible raw converter with the camera.
Update - banding. I got very pronounced banding on general outdoor (mixed scene) shots on a winters morning at ISO 400 and 800. It wasn't present on other shots taken at the same time and the camera has gone back to Nikon for "recalibration and adjustment". Nikon have put this right (I hope - I am not shooting lightbulbs to test it) so, cross fingers I now have a superb and reliable camera.
I have had a Canon 10D, Nikon D70 and a Canon 350D in the past - so I am guilty of "hopping systems". My initial impression of the D200 is highly favourable, albeit with some qualifications. It is as bulky as the D70 and significantly heavier, but feels well put together (except for a comment below) and is comfortable to hold. Construction is magnesium alloy, rubber and quite a bit of plastic.
I am keen on portability and using the camera in low light situations, so handling of noise at high ISOs and the ability to use slow shutter speeds and an effective VR lens are major atttractions. I haven't done a direct comparison with my EOS 350D, but if the D200 lags behind it on high ISO noise isn't by much - and I'm not sure at the print level it does.
Even without VR the D200 seems to enable me to get a sharp shot at a lower shutter speed than I would expect. This may be a combination of the extra mass and a well balanced and damped mirror action.
The new 18-200 VR lens was a major attraction - and I think thiis delivers magnificently. The VR seems much more effective than the Nikon 24-120 and Canon 17-85 and 28-135 IS I have owned. Nikon's claims are not exaggerated. There is a little CA wide open with trees against a sky, but it is better than the Canon 17-85 I had and even the little 35mm f2 shows some CA in the same situation. The 35mm f2 can reveal more detail - but this is to be expected.
So far I'm shooting jpegs (see below) and am most impressed with the quality straight out of the camera. Default settings are sharp (without halos). Exposure is consistent, saturation about right and colour balance is very good. It is not, however as crisp and clear as the Canon 30D.
The controls are good, welll laid out and accessable and the menus are not as intimidating as they first seemed. An exception is the focus mode switch at the front - which keeps gettin gknocked to continuous. Focus is spot on, fast and works in very low light.
I'm not putting this down as a problem, but at first I believed Nikon's hype about the 1800 shot battery and didn't buy a spare - this is one area Nikon are "economical with the truth" and I'm happier now I have bought a spare.
I have seen no evidence of banding - but I haven't tried to force it and my previous cameras were perfectly capable of some strange effects in dificult lighting. - Update here - I was surprised to get pronounced banding on a very ordinary shot - which has now been fixed by Nikon.
Bottom line - I think it is a good. I challenge anyone to match the results the D200 can produce using 35mm film.
Last update - I've now sold the D200 and ended up with a Canon 30D - effectively an upgrade on my 350D. I found the Nikon very bulky and heavy, and I'm afraid IMHO the slightly lesser specced 30D just gives a better picture.
Problems:
Aras that have made me score it down:
Bits that fall off! My D70 cost me about £40 GBP to replace rubber eyecups and screen protectors that would fall off and vanish. These are much better on the D200, but I have still taken the precaution of tying the screen protector on with a piece of linen thread. But the little screw-on cover over the remote socket has already fallen off - in a muddy field! Also, I have broken a lug off the rear screen protector - at least I have found a supply of these at £6.99 each so I bought two. I often wonder if the guys who design things like this ever use them themselves! Nikon seem to employ more of these guys than the other major manufacturers.
Second "problem" is the lack of capable software to convert raw files. Picture Project is dire, slow and inflexible, it also puts a super-dumb converter into the Photoshop plug-in folder. Nikon Capture is an extra £119 GBP and runs like an asthmatic snail on crutches! If you buy a Canon you get the excellent DPP raw converter, plus access to free updates. I believe that Nikon are short-changing us with a lack of effective raw conversion software and by not bundling a flexible raw converter with the camera.
Update - banding. I got very pronounced banding on general outdoor (mixed scene) shots on a winters morning at ISO 400 and 800. It wasn't present on other shots taken at the same time and the camera has gone back to Nikon for "recalibration and adjustment". Nikon have put this right (I hope - I am not shooting lightbulbs to test it) so, cross fingers I now have a superb and reliable camera.