looking at a nikon d200

[inTempus]

Yeah, for the money the D90 is a more capable camera for sure. At ISO 800 the D200... well, sucks. It's a neat camera, for sure, but Nikon has made some pretty huge forward strides in their newer models. If given the choice of spending more on an older CCD camera like the D200 vs. spending less on a brand new CMOS camera like the D90 - I would go for the D90 for sure.

But then all that's important is that you're happy. If you're happy with your purchase and the price of it, hey - all is good.

 

[slash]

Yeah, for the money the D90 is a more capable camera for sure. At ISO 800 the D200... well, sucks. It's a neat camera, for sure, but Nikon has made some pretty huge forward strides in their newer models. If given the choice of spending more on an older CCD camera like the D200 vs. spending less on a brand new CMOS camera like the D90 - I would go for the D90 for sure.

But then all that's important is that you're happy. If you're happy with your purchase and the price of it, hey - all is good.

not arguing the point, the d90 is an amazing camera. But the ccd/cmos argument is flat imo. the d200 is a great camera and i actually enjoy it over my d300.


I hate to have the person that bought this camera have regrets based on what they read on the internet before they get a chance to use it and find out for themselves.

and for the record..

CCD sensors create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise.

i also challenge anyone to find a d200 with a ldecent ens that has not been beat and under 10k actuations for under 5-600 dollars.

 

[ANDS!]

You can definitely find them under 600 dollars. As for the actuations, I have had my D300 for about a year and appearantly have put 22K shots on it. 10K shutters on a camera is nothing, especially one rated for up to 100K shots.

However I will agree that the CCD/CMOS debate is moot for a majority of situations. Image quality wise, you are not going to notice the difference. It is only when you push either into territory it was/wasnt designed for that you are going to have an issue, and generally that is low light/high iso shooting. However, the majority of shooters do not have a majority of their shots in these conditions.

 

[rhall54]

Hmm.. well I will figure out for myself if I like the camera or not. A lot of people in this area are in to car photography and absolutely love this camera. So regardless, if I don't like it I'm sure it won't be hard to sell it and try something else. However, I'm sure I'll like it just fine. I've heard many great things about it.

 

[inTempus]

CCD sensors create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise.

i also challenge anyone to find a d200 with a ldecent ens that has not been beat and under 10k actuations for under 5-600 dollars.

That sure sounds great in theory, but in practice the CCD can't touch modern camera systems that employ CMOS. Tell ya what, why don't you post an unedited pic from your D200 at ISO 6400? Oh, that's right... it can't go that high. Ok, how about a shot taken at H1 (3200) and well have a D90 owner post a pic taken at ISO 6400 and lets see which has less noise.

CCD's are great at low ISO as their dynamic range and color depth is really good. Anything above ISO 400 and they start to show their age. As you go up in ISO the color and dynamic range go in the crapper and the noise gets unmanageable.

Nikon tried to continue on with the CCD but now they're finally abandoning it in favor of CMOS in their newer cameras (D5000). Also, all of their pro-sumer and pro bodies now employ CMOS in place of CCD. If the CCD were so superior, why doesn't the D300 have one?

Here's why.

D300 ISO 3200:

D200 ISO 3200:

...and that's from Ken Rockwells site. He's notorious for screwing around with things like images.

Here's a D200 ISO 3200 shot with noise reduction applied in camera.

Here's the same image without noise reduction applied.

 

[inTempus]

However I will agree that the CCD/CMOS debate is moot for a majority of situations. Image quality wise, you are not going to notice the difference. It is only when you push either into territory it was/wasnt designed for that you are going to have an issue, and generally that is low light/high iso shooting. However, the majority of shooters do not have a majority of their shots in these conditions.

I agree with that.

Unfortunately I find myself at ISO 400 and above more often than I would have thought initially. I shoot a lot of natural light shots in doors and in the afternoon outside. With a 70-200 lens on a cloudy day, ISO 400 is quite normal if you're trying to stop motion.

But for studio or for well lit shoots, the CCD is great.

 

[slash]

CCD sensors create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise.

i also challenge anyone to find a d200 with a ldecent ens that has not been beat and under 10k actuations for under 5-600 dollars.

That sure sounds great in theory, but in practice the CCD can't touch modern camera systems that employ CMOS. Tell ya what, why don't you post an unedited pic from your D200 at ISO 6400? Oh, that's right... it can't go that high. Ok, how about a shot taken at H1 (3200) and well have a D90 owner post a pic taken at ISO 6400 and lets see which has less noise.

CCD's are great at low ISO as their dynamic range and color depth is really good. Anything above ISO 400 and they start to show their age. As you go up in ISO the color and dynamic range go in the crapper and the noise gets unmanageable.

Nikon tried to continue on with the CCD but now they're finally abandoning it in favor of CMOS in their newer cameras (D5000). Also, all of their pro-sumer and pro bodies now employ CMOS in place of CCD. If the CCD were so superior, why doesn't the D300 have one?

Here's why.

D300 ISO 3200:

D200 ISO 3200:

...and that's from Ken Rockwells site. He's notorious for screwing around with things like images.

Here's a D200 ISO 3200 shot with noise reduction applied in camera.

Here's the same image without noise reduction applied.

i will digress, as i said in my original post, im not looking for an arguemnt about a camera. you have a real hatred for the d200 for some reason. obviously a camera with 2006 technology would be inferioir to a camera with 09 tech. the question the person asked was about a 5-600 dollar d200 not a 1000 d90. not sure why you keep pressing the point about this?

she does not want a d90, she wants and bought a d200 and i congratulate her once again.

 

[inTempus]

LOL, a real hatred of the D200. Classic. When all else fails, toss in some drama.

i will digress, as i said in my original post, im not looking for an arguemnt about a camera.

Then stop responding, problem solved. Every time you tell me I'm wrong and fail to provide evidence, I will counter with evidence of my position. If you don't want to have the conversation, then don't.

Simple solution, eh?

 

[slash]

LOL, a real hatred of the D200. Classic.

i will digress, as i said in my original post, im not looking for an arguemnt about a camera.

Then stop responding, problem solved. Every time you tell me I'm wrong and fail to provide evidence, I will counter with evidence of my position. If you don't want to have the conversation, then don't.

Simple solution, eh?

im sorry camera czar, please accept my humble apologies...

 

[Sherman Banks]

im sorry camera czar, please accept my humble apologies...

Oh geez... Come on guys, just drop it.

D200 = good camera. End of story.

Congrats on your purchase!

 

[inTempus]

im sorry camera czar, please accept my humble apologies...

Ahh, a little more drama.

Apologies accepted.

 

[coreduo]

D200 has 11 autofocus points. Anybody who knows what it means. My D40X has only three. Does it mean aperture, shutterspeed, and ISO?

 

[PhotoXopher]

Means just what it says, focus points... areas you can select for it to focus on.

This allows you to override what the camera 'thinks' should be the focus for example. If there's a person in front of me and a waterfall behind them the camera may want to focus on the person (nearest object), however if I want the waterfall in focus I can move the focus point to the waterfall.

Might be a bad example but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[rhall54]

im sorry camera czar, please accept my humble apologies...

Oh geez... Come on guys, just drop it.

D200 = good camera. End of story.

Congrats on your purchase!

thanks. didn't realize so much negativity would be generated from this post. CHILL. and then..

smile

 

[slash]

im sorry camera czar, please accept my humble apologies...

Oh geez... Come on guys, just drop it.

D200 = good camera. End of story.

Congrats on your purchase!

thanks. didn't realize so much negativity would be generated from this post. CHILL. and then..

smile

not negative, just counterproductive bickering by both parties...


make sure you post pics up once you take them...lol