D80 vs D200

BuZzZeRkEr · Mar 26, 2008

Why would Nikon make the D200 and up models with compact flash instead of SD cards?! AAHHHH!!!!

I was going to purchase a D200 with my D40x as a backup body, but I can't believe Nikon doesn't have a standard for compact flash or SD cards.

So I was thinking of just going with the D80 since it uses SD cards as does the D40x.

Unless of corse the D200 is leaps and bounds over the D80....what do you think?

kundalini · Mar 26, 2008

Why would the memory card format make that much of a difference when purchasing a camera body? The cost of a CF card is about 0.025% of the cost of the D200.

Mav · Mar 26, 2008

Yeah CF cards are cheap...

If you're truly being serious about photography and especially if you're doing a wedding or other event with once in a lifetime shots that you can't miss, you really do need the D200. It's a serious tool whereas the D80 (I have one) is more an expensive toy. I find my D80 only marginally more useful than my D40 is, and most of that extra usefulness comes from the added lens compatibility. From the D40 to the D80 are all amateur level cameras in terms of capability - the D80 just has more bells and whistles is all. Some are marginally helpful, but others can actually get in your way.

If you're "truly" being serious just get the D200 and buy a CF card at Costco. 4GB for like $30, geez. :greenpbl:

If you just want a secondary camera for more versability, I'd actually get a cheap ol D40. In a lot of ways it's arguably better than the D80 is for a lot less money.

Easy_Target · Mar 26, 2008

If I remember correctly, CF cards had a higher data throughput, so you could read/write from the card onto the camera faster, but SD cards have caught up so it's not that much of an issue anymore.

Socrates · Mar 26, 2008

BuZzZeRkEr said:
Why would Nikon make the D200 and up models with compact flash instead of SD cards?! AAHHHH!!!!

I was going to purchase a D200 with my D40x as a backup body, but I can't believe Nikon doesn't have a standard for compact flash or SD cards.

So I was thinking of just going with the D80 since it uses SD cards as does the D40x.

Unless of corse the D200 is leaps and bounds over the D80....what do you think?

The cards are inter-changeable but you need to carry a hammer in your camera bag.

Garbz · Mar 26, 2008

CF used to have an advantage in speed. It is the de facto standard for DSLRs. SD cards have a big size advantage. The Nikon D40x is a tiny camera. I think you can see where I am going with this...

SpeedTrap · Mar 26, 2008

As well CF Cards can take way more abuse than SD Cards can.
Go into any camera store and ask them how many broken SD cards they see vs. CF

JerryPH · Mar 27, 2008

kundalini said:
Why would the memory card format make that much of a difference when purchasing a camera body?

Thats the very first question that popped into my head as well. While both are good cameras, the D200 is less automated and to get good pictures out of it you'd had better know what you are doing.

I went through this very dilemma last June, and bought the D200. Best move in my life. It forced me to learn more about photography in a shorter time than any other camera before that.

BYoung · Mar 27, 2008

All brands really do this though. The Canon XTi uses CF, the new XSi uses SD. I'm with you in thinking them changing formats is silly, but hey I'm a noob.

Mav · Mar 27, 2008

A lot of upgrading point and shooters will all have SD cards. If the entry level DSLR cameras have SD also, that's one additional way to get people to upgrade. No need to re-purchase a different type of memory card. That's really all it is I think.

Mike_E · Mar 27, 2008

At this point Speedtrap is right. CF cards have metal cases and SD cards are plastic.

JerryPH · Mar 27, 2008

BuZzZeRkEr said:
Unless of corse the D200 is leaps and bounds over the D80....what do you think?

I think the D200 is leaps and bounds better than a D80... but anyone that buys a new D200 over a D300 is really not on the ball. Thats just something that I thought I would toss in.

If you have a D200 already, its not enough to justify an upgrade to a D300 (speaking for myself, only, of course)... but if you have a D40, the D300 is huge jump and there should be no reason to take the D200 over the D300, unless you are just a pro looking for a second body or can't afford the couple hundred dollars more for the latest and greatest (at this point, if you can afford a new D200, you SHOULD be looking at a new D300!). It all depends on how seriously you want to take your photography.

Stranger · Mar 27, 2008

between the i went with the D200..

Noise levels will be dfferent but that is a con that i outweighed with all the pluses

JerryPH · Mar 27, 2008

Stranger said:
between the i went with the D200..

Noise levels will be dfferent but that is a con that i outweighed with all the pluses

Noise levels on the D200 are acceptable up to ISO 800, and if pushed above that can be addressed down to the excellent levels with appropriate software like noise ninja, neatimage, noiseimage, etc...

The D200 is more challenging to get under control than a D80 for a novice, as well.

An example would be this pic I took in a poorly lit indoor ice rink at ISO 2500.

Eastw77 · Mar 28, 2008

JerryPH said:
If you have a D200 already, its not enough to justify an upgrade to a D300 (speaking for myself, only, of course)... but if you have a D40, the D300 is huge jump and there should be no reason to take the D200 over the D300, unless you are just a pro looking for a second body or can't afford the couple hundred dollars more for the latest and greatest (at this point, if you can afford a new D200, you SHOULD be looking at a new D300!). It all depends on how seriously you want to take your photography.

Not sure about the states but over here a new D80 would set you back £500($1000) and a new D200 is about £650 That's only £150 more. However the D300 is about £1000, thats' £500 more than a D80!! A big difference, seems to me that the D200 would be more of a option to alot of people who want more than the D80 can offer.