going from D40 TO D200

[tloon]

would it be worth upgrading from my d40 to the d-200? d300 out of my budget i already have nikon lens so i would rather stay with nikon the reason i want to up grade, use of more primes more fps.or is the d200 to far out of date to purchase? any input would be appericiated ty mike.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[Sagittarius]

Hi,

D200 is a very capable camera producing nice pictures and well worth to upgrade to.
--
Best regards

 

[Chuck Yadmark]

What do you think you want to do better.

If it's general photography, you'd be hard pressed to make a case for it, other than use of screw-driven lenses
--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

 

[tloon]

so another words just keep what i have unless i want to use screwdriver lens is the d40 as good as the d200 body? isnt the d200 af faster mfps ?ty mike
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[tloon]

another reason i was thinking about it i was going to purchase the sigma 50-500 thouht it might be an overkill for the d40
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[Chuck Yadmark]

Well for sports 5fps is better than 3fps, and the focus is better, but if sports is important to you I'd save up and jump up to D300 which at 8fps and much faster focus and higher ISO performance, is much better than the 200

so another words just keep what i have unless i want to use
screwdriver lens is the d40 as good as the d200 body? isnt the d200
af faster mfps ?ty mike
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

 

[Raymond Lowe]

I went from a D40 to a D300 but honestly it is "more camera" than I need. Support for older screw drive AF lens is probably the biggest gain - but I only get that if I actually go out there and buy (spend!) on more lens.

And at least where I am the old lens are NOT cheap -- people know their value and the shops are not giving you any bargins.

 

[tloon]

so if i go to a d200 with the 50-500mm that should keep me good for a whike i also have the 70-300vr or you think the 50-500 sigma will be ok on the d40 went to the camera shop today and tried one on my d40 heavy as all get out needed a monopod
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[Diddlbiker]

so another words just keep what i have unless i want to use
screwdriver lens is the d40 as good as the d200 body? isnt the d200
af faster mfps ?ty mike
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

Mike, the pictures on you flickr site are quite nice, well done!

The biggest difference in picture quality are lenses. Autofocus is the same story; autofocus speed relies largely on how much light the AF sensors are getting (compare focussing in the dark to focussing in bright sunlight. What is faster?). A fast f/2.8 lens on a D40 will focus quicker than a slow f/5.6 lens on a D200 in that respect.

Consider getting good "limited" glass. For instance the Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM lens will focus (quick) on a D40, has good sharpness, is a fast (2.8) zoom and well within your budget.

Instead of getting that 50-500 lens, consider getting the 70-200VR or even the 80-400VR instead. Those are very sharp lenses. Especially the 70-200 is very fast. Any 10x zoom lens is stretching its performance envelope in many ways; moderate 3x or 4x zooms will be faster, sharper, and with less distortion.

For FPS the D200 will indeed be quicker. It also allows you to change virtually all settings directly, as opposed to the D40 where virtually everything goes by menus. But the quality of your images will not improve when you're using the same lenses.

If you enjoy tinkering with the settings while shooting - bracketing, vary exposures in different ways, if you want to do a lot of shooting in manual mode (think studio-like setups), then by all means get a D200. It is a great camera and a joy to hold and you'll have a lot of fun using it (then again, the D40 is a lot of fun too).

If your primary concern right now is image quality (although your flickr images look fine to me) then better glass will give you the most bang for your buck - but go for fast glass with "modest" specifications, not high-ratio ultra long focal length zooms.
--
Cheers,
Bart

 

[tloon]

ty! thats what i was looking for i dont think the 80-400 will autofocus on my d40will it i also was looking atthe sigma f2 im just trying to get some ideas thanks for the comments on my pictures i only been at it since january of this year. i normally use my 70-300vr alot most of the time i just put a 70-200 f2 on my d40 today atthe camera shop was nice also tried the sigma 50-150 f2 .and i normally shot in manual mode i like to experiment in manual mode alot,almost all of my pictures are from my 70-300vr

so another words just keep what i have unless i want to use
screwdriver lens is the d40 as good as the d200 body? isnt the d200
af faster mfps ?ty mike
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

Mike, the pictures on you flickr site are quite nice, well done!
The biggest difference in picture quality are lenses. Autofocus is
the same story; autofocus speed relies largely on how much light the
AF sensors are getting (compare focussing in the dark to focussing in
bright sunlight. What is faster?). A fast f/2.8 lens on a D40 will
focus quicker than a slow f/5.6 lens on a D200 in that respect.

Consider getting good "limited" glass. For instance the Sigma
18-50/2.8 HSM lens will focus (quick) on a D40, has good sharpness,
is a fast (2.8) zoom and well within your budget.
Instead of getting that 50-500 lens, consider getting the 70-200VR or
even the 80-400VR instead. Those are very sharp lenses. Especially
the 70-200 is very fast. Any 10x zoom lens is stretching its
performance envelope in many ways; moderate 3x or 4x zooms will be
faster, sharper, and with less distortion.

For FPS the D200 will indeed be quicker. It also allows you to change
virtually all settings directly, as opposed to the D40 where
virtually everything goes by menus. But the quality of your images
will not improve when you're using the same lenses.

If you enjoy tinkering with the settings while shooting - bracketing,
vary exposures in different ways, if you want to do a lot of shooting
in manual mode (think studio-like setups), then by all means get a
D200. It is a great camera and a joy to hold and you'll have a lot of
fun using it (then again, the D40 is a lot of fun too).

If your primary concern right now is image quality (although your
flickr images look fine to me) then better glass will give you the
most bang for your buck - but go for fast glass with "modest"
specifications, not high-ratio ultra long focal length zooms.
--
Cheers,
Bart

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[RAL131504]

I don't have a problem with the 50-500 on my D40. It actually handles much easier than when I use it on my larger bodies. You should always support the 50-500 by the lens anyway and with the D40 hanging on the back it is almost like just carrying the lens only. With my D100 or D1H, the thing gets much heavier, less balanced and harder to handle. Too much weight hanging off the back of the lens.

 

[tloon]

yea i had it on my d40 at the camera store today on a monopod trying itout wasnt to bad brought home my card and loaded it onto my computer the images were pretty sharp i also was thinking about a prime 300f4 with the tele 1.4 im trying to get some reach for birding and wildlife i just didint know if the 50-500 would be an over kil for the d40 ty for your comments much apperciated mike.

I don't have a problem with the 50-500 on my D40. It actually handles
much easier than when I use it on my larger bodies. You should always
support the 50-500 by the lens anyway and with the D40 hanging on the
back it is almost like just carrying the lens only. With my D100 or
D1H, the thing gets much heavier, less balanced and harder to handle.
Too much weight hanging off the back of the lens.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[tloon]

is the sigma 70-200 f2 worth picking up and trying the nikon is kinda out of my budget right now?

so another words just keep what i have unless i want to use
screwdriver lens is the d40 as good as the d200 body? isnt the d200
af faster mfps ?ty mike
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

Mike, the pictures on you flickr site are quite nice, well done!
The biggest difference in picture quality are lenses. Autofocus is
the same story; autofocus speed relies largely on how much light the
AF sensors are getting (compare focussing in the dark to focussing in
bright sunlight. What is faster?). A fast f/2.8 lens on a D40 will
focus quicker than a slow f/5.6 lens on a D200 in that respect.

Consider getting good "limited" glass. For instance the Sigma
18-50/2.8 HSM lens will focus (quick) on a D40, has good sharpness,
is a fast (2.8) zoom and well within your budget.
Instead of getting that 50-500 lens, consider getting the 70-200VR or
even the 80-400VR instead. Those are very sharp lenses. Especially
the 70-200 is very fast. Any 10x zoom lens is stretching its
performance envelope in many ways; moderate 3x or 4x zooms will be
faster, sharper, and with less distortion.

For FPS the D200 will indeed be quicker. It also allows you to change
virtually all settings directly, as opposed to the D40 where
virtually everything goes by menus. But the quality of your images
will not improve when you're using the same lenses.

If you enjoy tinkering with the settings while shooting - bracketing,
vary exposures in different ways, if you want to do a lot of shooting
in manual mode (think studio-like setups), then by all means get a
D200. It is a great camera and a joy to hold and you'll have a lot of
fun using it (then again, the D40 is a lot of fun too).

If your primary concern right now is image quality (although your
flickr images look fine to me) then better glass will give you the
most bang for your buck - but go for fast glass with "modest"
specifications, not high-ratio ultra long focal length zooms.
--
Cheers,
Bart

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

 

[Alti]

D200 is a very good camera , better from a D40, is like pro camera, different , quality picture,very very nice body and more, but after all those the secret is what lens you use.
I love this camera, i feel good with my D200

D200 GALLERY
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/free/gallery.asp?memberID=266133

 

[smcaul]

Simple answer is yes.

I upgraded from my D40 about 9 months ago, use the D200 far more often then the D40, although the D40 does still see some use.

The D200 gives much better and quicker control on all the variables, which I like.
--
http://smcaul.zenfolio.com/p944356585

 

[Dan198196]

I went from the D50 to the D200 a few months ago, it was a big upgrade for me. The dynamic range is much larger, no blown highlights or blocked up shadows. The metering is superb, and doesn't require tweaking like the D50 did. Color is much more accurate, skin tones are perfect and the tonal balance is just right. I do less PP with the D200 and love the results. Noise is a bit higher than the D50 at ISO 800 and above, but the D200 does retain more detail at these ISOs as well.

 

[Rumpis]

Have both D40X and D200. Picture quality is pretty close the same and the difference is mainly in features and user interface.

If you need some D200 features than it is worth to upgrade. If not - invest the money in good lenses.

would it be worth upgrading from my d40 to the d-200? d300 out of my
budget i already have nikon lens so i would rather stay with nikon
the reason i want to up grade, use of more primes more fps.or is the
d200 to far out of date to purchase? any input would be appericiated
ty mike.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

--
Rumpis )

http://foto.pudele.com/ - Low intensity blog about photography, Nikon and some other stuff interesting to me. Just for fun. In Latvian.

 

[ctvader]

If you dont need all the features of the d200 then stick with the d40 and spend your money on great lenses. You can move on from body to body but great glass will be a better investment.

 

[Cpt Galant]

I have both and use both regularly, so I can compare them pretty well. First off, the D200 is a fantastic camera, and even though there will always be something "newer, faster, etc." the D200 is not obsolete. It produces great images and has amazing ergonomics.

Is the D200 right for you? Only you can decide. But here are a few points of difference to consider beyond support for screw thread lenses.

First, images out of the camera will look quite different and the D200 could, potentially, be disapointing at first. They are each tuned for different uses. The D40 is designed to look "finished" right from the camera. While you can tweak the D200 for a finished look, I've found the images are more neutral and perfect for post processing. (maybe it's just the way I have mine set up)

Despite the D200's higher resolution, I personally find the D40 image quality to be slightly better when care is taken not to blow highlights. This is a personal opinion, but I feel the D40 images look crisper and actually record more detail above ISO 800. The higher noise of the D200 will obscure the finest details above this level that the D40 retains. And 6MP vs 10MP is not as large a jump as the numbers imply in real world shooting and printing.

The D200 is a significantly larger, heavier camera. If you have large hands or don't mind the size/weight, then it souuldn't be a problem. If you want small, light and unobtrusive the D40 is the camera to beat.

The pop-up flash on the D200 can trigger an SB-600 or SB-800 flash remotely. Even if you don't do this now, once you've played with it it becomes a powerful tool for pleasant lighting of interior scenes.

The D200 has numerous external buttons, dials and controls that make setting various camera functions much faster than menu diving. Conversely, the D40 has a wonderfully uncomplicated layout and makes for a better "point and shoot" camera for fast grab shots.

The D200's buffer is MUCH larger than the D40's, particularly if you shoot RAW. If you shoot only jpg, you may not see as significant a difference because the D40 writes to the card amazingly fast.

Ultimately, the decision is yours based on your needs. I personally use my D40 for "everyday" shooting when I don't want to spend much time processing and my D200 for "high end" shooting. (for primes, lately I've been using my pre-owned D50 as the perfect comprimise between the two)

--
A camera is just a tool - no matter how much one loves it.

 

[PerL]

would it be worth upgrading from my d40 to the d-200? d300 out of my
budget i already have nikon lens so i would rather stay with nikon
the reason i want to up grade, use of more primes more fps.or is the
d200 to far out of date to purchase? any input would be appericiated
ty mike.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/ D40 18-55 70-300vr

I still have the D40, have switched the D200 for a D300. They are very different. The D40 is much smaller, lighter, more quiet.
(My D40 review here:
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/hands-on-nikkor-18-200vr/nikon-d40/ )
The D200 is much faster, both in AF, fps and shutter lag.

About the IQ - the D200 is excellent to about ISO 800. It has maybe a little more smooth output, but requires more PP work. The D40 is crsisper and punchier out of the camera, and better at high ISOs, very good really.
--
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/