Thinkin about a D200

[newb]

Lenses are another thing Im thinkin of too. I dont want to spend a bunch of money on AF-S lenses, just to hafta turn around and sell em when I upgrade the body. Right now all I have are kit lenses for the D5000, so its not a big deal to get rid of that setup.

Nikon is working towards all AF-S lenses. At that point they will stop putting focus motors in any of their camera bodies, which is what Canon did back in 1987.

AF-S lenses work just fine on all Nikon bodies so you will only need to upgrade any DX only lenses you have to FX if you opt to go full frame. Most AF-S lenses focus faster than AF lenses driven by the screw motor in the camera bodies that have one.

Nikon is working towards all AF-S lenses.

I was going to say this to! KMH is right. But I still don't think this is a reason not to get a Nikon Body that has a focus motor but then just buy AF-S lens.

Wait, I was told that you could not put an AF-S lens on a body with a focus motor. Is that not true?

 

[newb]

Its the same sensor

Oh, right. Duh lol. Dunno what I was thinkin.

 

[NateS]

Lenses are another thing Im thinkin of too. I dont want to spend a bunch of money on AF-S lenses, just to hafta turn around and sell em when I upgrade the body. Right now all I have are kit lenses for the D5000, so its not a big deal to get rid of that setup.

Nikon is working towards all AF-S lenses. At that point they will stop putting focus motors in any of their camera bodies, which is what Canon did back in 1987.

AF-S lenses work just fine on all Nikon bodies so you will only need to upgrade any DX only lenses you have to FX if you opt to go full frame. Most AF-S lenses focus faster than AF lenses driven by the screw motor in the camera bodies that have one.

Nikon is working towards all AF-S lenses.

I was going to say this to! KMH is right. But I still don't think this is a reason not to get a Nikon Body that has a focus motor but then just buy AF-S lens.

Wait, I was told that you could not put an AF-S lens on a body with a focus motor. Is that not true?

Not true. D90 has a motor in the body and it comes with the AF-S 18-105mm lens as a kit from nikon.

AF-S lenses work and focus on bodies with and without a focus motor built in.

non-AFS lenses work on all bodies with and without a focus motor built in....but only focus on the one's with a focus motor built into the body.

There are a few exception like some of the really old lenses that will only meter on the D200 and above...but generally above is accurate.

 

[newb]

Awesome, thanks for the info.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If you compare the D90 and the D200, you'll find that just like the D5000, the only thing lesser in the D200 is IQ, video, and the screen on the back. D200's built better, D200 has a faster AF motor, D200 shoots 5fps, the D200 has a bigger viewfinder, the D200 costs less..

If I mainly shot at ISO 100-800, i'd get the D200 over the D90 anyday.

 

[newb]

If you compare the D90 and the D200, you'll find that just like the D5000, the only thing lesser in the D200 is IQ, video, and the screen on the back. D200's built better, D200 has a faster AF motor, D200 shoots 5fps, the D200 has a bigger viewfinder, the D200 costs less..

If I mainly shot at ISO 100-800, i'd get the D200 over the D90 anyday.

Well, I shoot at ISO 200-250 90% of the time. Anyone else have any more input on this?

 

[dmatsui]

essentially you have to consider whats been said and whats more important for you. The D90 may have a newer sensor enabling higher ISO's and video but the d200 will have fast AF and 5fps, it will also be built better and problably feel slightly more comfortable in your hands (naturally this will vary from person to person)
Personally (although i do use higher iso's than 800 from occasion to occasion) a better build, faster AF and 5fps is more important to me and for me the choice will go to a d200 easily. Keep in mind that i havent shot with either though.

 

[NateS]

I'm bringing this back to life for one reason.


Everybody says that the D200 is less than a D90 in IQ. Is there any proof or data to back this up or is everybody just assuming this is the case? I agree that once the ISO increases, the D90 will do better very quickly BUT that is not what keeps getting said. People keep saying IQ is better on D90....period..end of sentence.


So.....is The D90 at base ISO of 200 have better image quality than the D200 at a base ISO of 100? I'd be shocked if that was the case and wouldn't even be surprised if the D200 had the edge here. Anybody have any data or tests to back these claims up.

I even remember one person awhile back who kept their D200 over a D300 because they said at base ISO, the D200 had less noise in the image when shooting macros (noise comes to play at even base ISO in the macro world).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1039&message=34971423&changemode=1

That link has claims that the D2x has the best base IQ out of any Nikon ever made except possibly the D3x and it says that the D200 is the next to follow closely behind.


Edit: And I do have a personal interest in this. I've been tossing the idea around of getting rid of my D90 in favor of a D200 or D2xs since I shoot mainly macros these days.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Granted, this is a D3000, and jpeg, but the D3000 uses the same sensor as the D200 so the results should be close.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page



And yes, the D90 at 200 is cleaner than the 3000 at 100.

 

[NateS]

Granted, this is a D3000, and jpeg, but the D3000 uses the same sensor as the D200 so the results should be close.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page



And yes, the D90 at 200 is cleaner than the 3000 at 100.

Wow.....I'm amazed by what is shown in comparison to those D3000 @ ISO100 vs. D90 @ ISO200. The D3000 is WORLDS sharper. I clicked the appropriate images of the girl in the green jacket reading a book....zoomed in to 100% then scanned around the images comparing. The watch is very sharp on the D3000 and horribly fuzzy on the D90. The Book....I can read the words on the D3000 (even though they're slightly smaller due to the 10mp vs. 12mp) and they are way too blurry to read on the D90. Looking at the picture frame top right....worlds better on the D3000.

All of that and I could see no noticable difference in noise at all. Based on that link, the D3000/D200 has much better IQ at base ISO than the D90/D300/D5000.


You know...maybe I'd be better off getting a used D3000 or D60 or D40x (don't all three of those have the same sensor??) and just leave my Tamron 180mm f3.5 on and get a TTL cord for the flash and be done with it. Then again....I think I remember that the viewfinder is pretty small on those vs. D90 and especially D200 and that would definitely not be good for macros' w/ manual focus.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Granted, this is a D3000, and jpeg, but the D3000 uses the same sensor as the D200 so the results should be close.

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page



And yes, the D90 at 200 is cleaner than the 3000 at 100.

Wow.....I'm amazed by what is shown in comparison to those D3000 @ ISO100 vs. D90 @ ISO200. The D3000 is WORLDS sharper. I clicked the appropriate images of the girl in the green jacket reading a book....zoomed in to 100% then scanned around the images comparing. The watch is very sharp on the D3000 and horribly fuzzy on the D90. The Book....I can read the words on the D3000 (even though they're slightly smaller due to the 10mp vs. 12mp) and they are way too blurry to read on the D90. Looking at the picture frame top right....worlds better on the D3000.

Of course the book is softer on the D90, i't's completely out of focus!

When you DO look at parts that are in focus, the two in terms of sharpness are pretty darn close.

 

[KmH]

Everybody says that the D200 is less than a D90 in IQ. Is there any proof or data to back this up or is everybody just assuming this is the case?

For a time I shot sports with both a D90/long lens and a D200/short lens.

The difference in image quality was readily noticeable to me.

The D90 clearly had better IQ, though the difference wasn't great.

My understanding is that most of the IQ difference stems from differences between CCD and CMOS image sensors, and their associated ampifier arrays.

 

[NateS]

Okay...well, I guess I need to just save my pennies for the D300 upgrade then. I'm more than happy with the IQ I'm getting, I'm just not too impressed with the build quality/fitment of the D90...not to mention many other things I'd like about the D300 over the D90...but no sense in mentioning those.