D100 + D200 are old

T O Shooter wrote:

Don't tell me that. I bought a D2x yesterday.

i bought a D2xs in Feb, nice camera

BobSC wrote:

Ask Mait wrote:

Juergen wrote:

photoholiko wrote:

I don't see any rubbish in these pictures, I have the D200 that I use with a Nikkor 35-70/2.8 and can't find anything to complain about.

As I don't have enough Nikon DSLRs I recently added a D200.

I don't know why exactly (apart from the sensor) I like it better than my D300s, but I do.

I find 200 looks more beautiful than 300 😃

I've read that before, especially for portraits. I don't have a 300 to compare.

I also like the way the D200 does portraits, but I don't have a newer model DSLR to compare them to.

To make it easier to shoot portraits with the D200, last week I purchased the Nikon MB-D200 battery holder and grip which makes it easier to shoot images with the camera held in the vertical position.  The grips are currently selling (used) for $60 or less, which seems like a fair price.

Yep... I had a D200 for a long time, then I got the D300.  D300 just sat collecting dust and it literally took 1 year for me to start shooting consistently with it... then I sold the D200.

Well... I eventually *repurchased* a D200 off e-bay, and the D300 is collecting dust again

I have zero interest in buying a new dslr. Nikon made a product that is too good!

Captain Hook wrote:

Especially for you!

A HDR image , shot with my D200[…]
--
My images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chasa-imago/albums

I do like these shots. Enough light to succeed at a low ISO …and here’s my querry (new to the old D200), what ISO range do you recommend? TNX — Ren

randolin wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:

Especially for you!

A HDR image , shot with my D200[…]
--
My images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chasa-imago/albums

I do like these shots. Enough light to succeed at a low ISO …and here’s my querry (new to the old D200), what ISO range do you recommend? TNX — Ren

With CCD bodies always try to use base ISO any way you can (strobes, longer exposures, fast glass). These cameras have somewhat less dynamic range than modern CMOS cameras do and it decreases quickly as ISO is raised.

That being said, in a pinch I sometimes go as high as ISO 800 when shooting RAWs on my D200. Using a customized workflow in DXO I find these still clean up pretty nicely.

fPrime

fPrime wrote:

randolin wrote:

Captain Hook wrote:

Especially for you!

A HDR image , shot with my D200[…]
--
My images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chasa-imago/albums

I do like these shots. Enough light to succeed at a low ISO …and here’s my querry (new to the old D200), what ISO range do you recommend? TNX — Ren

With CCD bodies always try to use base ISO any way you can (strobes, longer exposures, fast glass). These cameras have somewhat less dynamic range than modern CMOS cameras do and it decreases quickly as ISO is raised.

That being said,

and thanks for that background!

in a pinch I sometimes go as high as ISO 800 when shooting RAWs on my D200. Using a customized workflow in DXO I find these still clean up pretty nicely.

Right, DxO (also the ‘lowly’ Photos extension) does a great job. — Ren

fPrime

-- hide signature --

Half of my heart is a shotgun wedding to a bride with a paper ring,
And half of my heart is the part of a man who's never truly loved anything.

If one is only doing word processing than an old 8086 powered PC with Windows 3.1 is all that one needs. Same applies to ancient digital cameras which are more computer than camera.

I owned the D100 and after 3 RAW shots I had to wait 15 seconds for the buffer to clear so that I could take another shot. I had the D200 that had only one cross type AF sensor and so I had to focus, lock focus, adjust the framing, take the shot, and repeat this sequence for each shot I would take.

Far better that someone buy a D3400 with a kit lens for $400 then to waste money on a D100 or D200 camera and waste more money on their batteries and obsolete CF memory cards.  D3400 provides better image quality, a 24MP sensor, higher ISO capabilities, more sensitive AF sensors, and is able to use SD cards.

calson wrote:

If one is only doing word processing than an old 8086 powered PC with Windows 3.1 is all that one needs. Same applies to ancient digital cameras which are more computer than camera.

I owned the D100 and after 3 RAW shots I had to wait 15 seconds for the buffer to clear so that I could take another shot. I had the D200 that had only one cross type AF sensor and so I had to focus, lock focus, adjust the framing, take the shot, and repeat this sequence for each shot I would take.

Far better that someone buy a D3400 with a kit lens for $400 then to waste money on a D100 or D200 camera and waste more money on their batteries and obsolete CF memory cards. D3400 provides better image quality, a 24MP sensor, higher ISO capabilities, more sensitive AF sensors, and is able to use SD cards.

Even before the D500 appeared, the D3xxx had no appeal to me. I was happy with a D200 until the D500 appeared. I still have two D200 bodies, nice backups to the D500 when light is good.

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

calson wrote:

If one is only doing word processing than an old 8086 powered PC with Windows 3.1 is all that one needs. Same applies to ancient digital cameras which are more computer than camera.

I owned the D100 and after 3 RAW shots I had to wait 15 seconds for the buffer to clear so that I could take another shot. I had the D200 that had only one cross type AF sensor and so I had to focus, lock focus, adjust the framing, take the shot, and repeat this sequence for each shot I would take.

Far better that someone buy a D3400 with a kit lens for $400 then to waste money on a D100 or D200 camera and waste more money on their batteries and obsolete CF memory cards. D3400 provides better image quality, a 24MP sensor, higher ISO capabilities, more sensitive AF sensors, and is able to use SD cards.

High resolution and high ISO are like priorities 5 and 6 for me in that order for the vast subject we lump together as "image quality". Personally I prioritize better color, tonality, dynamic range, and sharpness over either resolution that I don't need or ISO settings I'd never use.

One can always compensate for these old tech limitations with image stitching and strobes while retaining the aforementioned image quality advantages of the D100 or D200 (as Captain Hook nicely demonstrated).

Of course, although I am very adept at focus and recompose, I won't argue with the better AF in modern cameras!

fPrime

T O Shooter wrote:

Don't tell me that. I bought a D2x yesterday.

I had D2X up until a couple years ago? sold it and been sorry! so! I bought a used one a few months back, had 36K shutter, and i know it has loads of limitations, but in good light, and with my 17 55 2.8 its fun to use at festivals and crowd functions. Even some just plain street work is fun. Even youth basketball, works fine, although I push the ISO over the top.

I've been planning to try my 35 1.8 DX, just to see some results. I love that camera, is so firm in hand, and well built. I have no plans to ever sell, if it dies, I'll still keep it for a door stop.

"dog house riley"

There is also that indefinable pleasure of using a camera with which you feel 'engaged'.  With older cameras you still had that connection that somehow seems to be missing with modern machines.

I know the D3200 I had once was technically very good - but it was just a camera. The D200 and its ilk were/are machines that you can enjoy just for the sake of it, the pics may not always be perfect by current standards, but in the end it has to be fun or what's the point.