Is it time to upgrade from a D200 ?

[davlynski]

We travel extensively, and have enjoyed using the D200 and 18-200 lens since early 2006.... when we have an opportunity to carry gear of that size/ weight (whilst using canon s90 in the pocket for trekking and skiing holidays)

We have a trip to India booked, and Im sure that 18-200 lens will still be perfect.... but, which body ??

To be frank, I don't understand the tech detail about improvements to sensors, and I don't post process. I shoot JPEGS, and try and nail the shot through correct camera settings. However, I do understand photography, and still currently enjoy shooting with a couple of film cameras (OM-2 and a M6ttl)

I'm thinking of moving away from D300 series, maybe "backwards" to a D7100, or even lower down the Nikon tree.

Advice and feedback would be appreciated

 

[Lightpath48]

You could still bring home excellent travel photos from your D200, and even better ones from a current D7100, which would also be a better handling experience in many ways.

Generally, later sensors perform better at higher ISO, providing less noise. In low light shooting you might see the same image quality in a Current DX Nikon body at ISO 3200 as your D200 could provide at ISO 200. Later Nikon bodies also have faster processors and higher continuous frame rates. They have much improved video capabilities and live view, two features not even available in the D200. A later body for these reasons would be much better.

But another consideration follows: pro body vs. consumer body. There are many differences. A D7100 would provide many advantages over a D5300 or certainly a D3300 in that regard. Others will probably give more detail, as more posts show up following your question.

Ironically, I'm now shooting with a D80 after having had a D5100. For my needs the D80 has a larger, brighter viewfinder, more external button controls, depth of field preview, and reasonable price. I shoot jpeg and just like the D80's CCD output for my travel, landscape and nature shooting at ISO 100 or 200. I don't use it for low light shooting however. (The D80 is sort of a cheaper cousin to your D200, with a number of similar features but a lower price point.)

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

I used to shoot a D200 with 18-200, for a about a year in 2007. At the end of 2007 I bought a D300 and shot both, but usually was using the D300, and especially in lower light or with longer lenses (where I needed higher ISO for decent shutter speed).

Then I added a D700, and then a D800e.

Each camera upgrade was primarily for better low light performance, but the D300/D700/D800e were all better than the D200 in terms of overall AF performance and dynamic range, both of which make a noticeable difference in almost any kind of shooting and lighting. I also like the 100% viewfinder of the D300 and D800e a lot mor.

With the D200, I was only comfortable up to ISO 400. With the D300, that bumped to 800-1000, plus higher if I was careful to expose correctly and had scenes with limited dynamic range. The D700 bumped that to ISO 1600, and I'm pretty comfortable with 3200 on the D800e.

Each doubling of 'useful ISO without having to worry about it much' opens up another realm of shooting possibilities and extends shooting possibilities farther into the evening. The 18-200 isn't a fast lens, but a new DX sensor will still let you get decent shots in lighting so dark you can hardly see the subject. But even the D300 will give you possibilities you didn't have before.

The newer sensors (D7100) will also show you the flaws in the 18-200 if you start pixel peeping much. The 18-200 is better suited to a D300 than a D7100.

 

[n057]

We travel extensively, and have enjoyed using the D200 and 18-200 lens since early 2006.... when we have an opportunity to carry gear of that size/ weight (whilst using canon s90 in the pocket for trekking and skiing holidays)

We have a trip to India booked, and Im sure that 18-200 lens will still be perfect.... but, which body ??

To be frank, I don't understand the tech detail about improvements to sensors, and I don't post process. I shoot JPEGS, and try and nail the shot through correct camera settings. However, I do understand photography, and still currently enjoy shooting with a couple of film cameras (OM-2 and a M6ttl)

I'm thinking of moving away from D300 series, maybe "backwards" to a D7100, or even lower down the Nikon tree.

Advice and feedback would be appreciated

Is it time? Well, it is long overdue for an update, but, from Nikon, to what?

I shoot low-light. In that respect, the D300 was not a big enough improvement for me, so I upgraded my lenses instead, figuring that an f/2.8 lens will still be good no matter what body comes out later.

I still have not upgraded. I do not want to migrate to FX (that would be a migration, not an upgrade). The DX sensor that would really give me a leg up is only available from Nikon in a lackluster body. Sooooo ... I am not upgrading my very-long-in-the-tooth D200.

Ogling with interest towards Pentax K3.


JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 

[davlynski]

Thanks for your comments.

They do reflect my thinking, as low light shooting and video is not important for this trip. I'm looking at shooting out of train windows, landscape, and people/ colour in the streets.

Your mentioning of the body being a "pro" build is important.... I've hauled this gear to Everest Base Camp. Its never missed a beat.

From the feedback received so far, I may just stick with what I have.

Thanks again....

David

 

[davlynski]

Thanks Craig,

For the shooting Im likely to do (out of train windows, landscape, and street/ people scenes), ISO 400 is likely all I'll need.

However, I've noted your comments re higher ISO shooting possibilities, and may explore that one day.

I've always liked the 18-200mm as its just easy as a "do it all lens" for travelling.

Thanks for your time in replying.

David

 

[davlynski]

Thanks JC,

2.8 lenses are good, particularly for lower light, but I love the 18-200 as the "do it all" travel lens.

Maybe a D400 is the answer if it ever comes out !

Thank you for your time in responding.

DW

 

[JanMatthys]

I love the D200, but for travel I do not recommend any D-SLR, the IQ from compact mirrorless systems from Sony, Fuji, Oly and Panny is superb and the weight is about 1/3 of a D-SLR. If you don;t want to buy a whole new set of lenses, then I'd say the D3300 is the best bet, it's compact, simple and great IQ

 

[davlynski]

Thanks... but apart from weight saving, isn't the shot from the 200 going to be similar to the 3300 ?

 

[f8BeThereToo]

I still use my D200 for travel/street photography. My fave travel photo accessory: the R Strap. After I switched from OpTech straps I discovered that I was taking more and better pics while speeding up the process considerably… Now I can take photos while having more time to enjoy my companion(s) and what is happening in the moment.

The R Strap also makes carrying a heavier camera more comfortable. I can walk around all day with my D200 behind my right hip and barely notice that it is even there… I stick two memory cards in the tiny R Strap pouch on its shoulder pad, put a wide-angle zoom on the camera and I am Good To Go. If I feel the need for it I add a fast medium-range zoom in a jacket pocket, small unpadded waist pack or my day-trip bag (which can hold the D200 with a lens attached: http://www.ebags.com/product/baggallini/messenger-sling-bagg-crinkle-nylon/47360.

As fas as low-light shooting goes, I am fine shooting up to ASA1000 or even a tad faster. I post-process the images using noise-reduction software and the results are really very good.

The D200 body is one of my favorite Nikons in over 30 years using the system. If you happened to "downgrade" to a prosumer body such as a D7100 I think that you would be disappointed in its build quality and handling… For example, I always use the D200's dedicated AF-ON button; you can remap an AF/AE-LOCK button but it isn't in the best location compared to the AF-ON button.

My first DSLR was a D80. I thought that it would be fine because I have always gravitated toward the smaller Nikon cameras. But I wound up selling it and getting a new D200 when Best Buy had them on sale for $600. The differences convinced me to stick with DXXX Nikons...

 

[davlynski]

Thanks MrMojo, looking at all the responses so far, my thoughts on continuing with the D200 are confirmed. I'll have a look at these straps, but Ive been using a tiny over shoulder "Vaude" bag that actually doesn't show you are carrying a camera....with the camera placed in such a way that its ready to shoot almost immediately.

Thanks again

 

[f8BeThereToo]

Your shoulder bag and my bag sound very similar. I often carry the bag and use the R Strap at the same time. If I want the camera totally out of sight/out of the elements it goes inside the bag. I use small locking caribeners to secure the zippers. (The bag also carries all the little things that I may need during a full day of walking.)

But using the R Strap is much faster than getting the camera out of the bag. And my camera is effectively hidden behind me (even more so with a jacket or similar garment, with the strap worn under it…) while being instantly available. I can have a DSLR readily available and yet I don't look like a tourist with a camera dangling around my neck or on my shoulder. I can engage potential subjects, gain their trust and cooperation and only bring out my camera when I want to use it.

The strap is invaluable if you want to take a picture surreptitiously. I usually don't make photos that way but when I do I really appreciate having the R Strap.

The R Strap is a different beast, what with your camera hanging upside-down and behind you. It requires an open-mind just to consider buying it... But it didn't take me long to love the R Strap. Fortunately, when I bought mine directly from blackrapid.com they had a 30-day return policy. If they still have that warranty it removes most of the risk; you are just out the shipping cost. (I think that the website has videos of the R Strap in action…)

One other thing about using the D200 for travel pics: if it should be stolen, go missing with checked baggage (I don't check bags…) or be damaged, you won't be out much $$$. I'd cry over a good Belgian beer (or three…) but my budget wouldn't have taken a serious hit.

 

[davlynski]

thanks again. I will look into those straps.

Your final point about the $$$ is not lost on me !

Its sooo easy to get sucked into upgrading every 6 months. My D200 has been to Everest Base Camp, Mt Blanc, and lots of places in between. Its not too precious.

 

[f8BeThereToo]

Its sooo easy to get sucked into upgrading every 6 months. My D200 has been to Everest Base Camp, Mt Blanc, and lots of places in between. Its not too precious.

I don't understand "upgrading mania" either… Unless a new/upgraded function will have a major positive effect for my photography I won't upgrade.

Do DSLRs wear-out quickly for most photographers? My film Nikons soldiered-on for years even after I turned pro… And unless a repair wasn't cost-effective I would just have a problem fixed. My oldest digital camera is in its sixth year and it is still going strong. I don't expect to ever sell the D200 because I like the look of its sensor and its ISO100 base-speed. At this point I consider it to be "disposable" so I am willing to risk using it in dicey environments...

The recent spate of new Nikon products with serious design and/or manufacturing flaws makes me very gun-shy about upgrading. Dropping $3000+ on a new camera is a significant investment; ditto the cost of most top-shelf lenses.

I'm going to take a good look at the new D810 but I'm going to wait awhile before I seriously considering getting one. I regret missing the boat when new D700 bodies were available… That's a camera that would have met my needs for some time to come and it seems to have a very good track-record when it comes to reliability. The D800/810 is overkill for my needs. And its much more likely that its sensor will demand too much of some of my older lenses that still serve me well.

 

[EcoPix]

Thanks... but apart from weight saving, isn't the shot from the 200 going to be similar to the 3300 ?

I have D200, D300, D300s, D3200 and D7100. I can't answer that except to say that no two photographs are the same, so they would be different in some way. The D3300 pic would also be much larger, and downsized to 10mp, would be finer textured. In print, it will give more detail at larger sizes, provided the lens and technique is making the most of the sensor.

Mainly I just wanted to report that I used a D3200 with 18-200 for exactly your upcoming use on a trip to India last year and I was very disappointed with the results. I'm pretty experienced with cameras and technique (semi-pro for 30 years, full time for last 10), but I was dismayed and still not sure what went wrong.

The AF wasn't hitting the mark, the optical faults were being exaggerated by the high-res sensor, and the VR was degrading the image too, I think. When I got back I bought a 2nd 18-200, and it was much the same. I get great results on the D3200 with a Tamron 17-50 and a lot of other lenses.The lens and camera just didn't work well together.

I'm sure others might report great results with that rig. I just think we should be wary assuming that because it's all part of a single 'system', it will all work well together. Upgrading can open new doors, but it requires care to avoid being a time-waster or opportunity loser.

The two 18-200's I now have perform differently to each other, but are fine on the D200/D300s for reportage. Using a D3300 SHOUD work IF you downsize the image to 10 or 12mp, but at 24mp they won't look good. Neither 18-200 cuts it for landscape work, with any camera.

I also took a Nikon V1 and FT-1 which served as a backup, so it wasn't a total wipeout, but the mirrorless cameras use too much battery to be a primary camera on bigger trips, unless you want to line every pocket with batteries. They are very discrete, though.

Also bear in mind that the D200 is getting long in the tooth, and they did have their problems. If you like using the old camera, you still might need to consider a second body.

 

[davlynski]

Thanks EcoPix,

Thanks for mentioning your experience with D3200 and 18-200.

Ive generally enjoyed my results with the D200/ 18-200, but aware of it becoming, as you put it, long in the tooth. I understand photography (Im still shooting 2 film cameras as well), having learnt over 50 yrs ago, but finding it difficult to dedicate the time to keep up with digital terminology, and sensor speak.

Again, reading responses, no-one has provided a convincing argument not to keep to using the D200/ 18-200 .... knowing that I keep a Canon S90 usually in my pocket, as a back up.