As the title says, I've got a Nikon D200. I must say I am happy with it; I am very happy indeed... or should I say I was very happy? I've recently purchased a Nikon D40 to give as a present. Before giving it, which won't happen until a few weeks later, I have been trying it out. I must say I was completely amazed by the quality of this little camera. But the "worst" came today, when I started playing "comparison" with its older brother the D200. For a moment it seemed to easily surpass it! :crazy: I'll explain a little more: I put both cameras in "P" mode and shot the excelent old-town view I have from my appartment. Both cameras were also set for JPGs. It was a night shot. So, the D40 treated it wonderfully, giving it a really beautiful blueish-night tone, whereas the D200's shot had a dull brownish tone to it. The JPG direct out of the camera was far better from the D40. The D40 was set in "auto" for optimizing image; since the D200 has not such thing, I tried different options. None would give the great JPG the D40 did. That's the end of the story. If I continued, I would have to add how -expectedly, luckily- the D200 treated better more complicated shots. And, I know, I know, you're most likely going to shoot RAW and process yourself the JPGs, as I normally do (not always! that's when this "discovery" bothers me), but it still puts me down how the D40 can surpass the D200 at in-camera process. I mean, does the one year difference between the two explain that? Did Nikon develop a better conversion in that lapse of time?