Nikon D200 - is it too much of a dinosaur?

[jamiebonline]

Your thoughts on this camera. I can afford one. I need an inbuilt focus motor and it has one. It is available for around the price of a D3100 with grip.
I don't care about good high ISO performance or videography.

 

[tirediron]

The D200 was HUGE when it came out. If you don't need to shoot at > ISO 1600 and aren't interested in video, it is a good option. If's a LOT more solidly built than the DXXXX bodies, but if you're buying one, check it carefully as it's been around a while and could have seen hard use. I would also check on the availability of shutters and other critical replacement parts just for your own peace of mind.

 

[jaomul]

The d200 is a nice to use and well built camera. It does nice picture quality at lower iso. It is however falling well behind modern cameras in terms of resolution, dynamic range and iso ability. Its ok to say you don't care about these until you need them though.

Few examples at low iso

Feed me now by jaomul, on Flickr

Off camera flash by jaomul, on Flickr

 

[KmH]

I am on my 3rd D200.

The D200 has features the D3xxx/D5xxx lines don't have
• more external controls so you don't have to menu dive as much
• a built-in intervalometer.
• DoF Preview
• 1/8000 max shutter speed
• auto FP high speed flash sync
• flash Commander mode
• up to 9 exposure brackets
• Multiple exposure
and more.

 

[beachrat]

I use my dinosaur D200 almost daily.
But,90% of what I use it for is web viewing product photography,and 10% guys holding up big dead fish.
I also don't need to go higher than iso 100,maybe 200 because I light EVERYTHING with big strobes(Speedo Brown Line),and I use good glass.
For me,it's a great camera that fits comfortably in my hands.
The only drawback for me, is that it seems to eat batteries up pretty quickly so I always have three fully charged and ready to go.

 

[PropilotBW]

As long as you know the limitations of your camera, it will produce excellent photos. This has been proven many times in "cheap camera challenges".

Have you considered the Nikon D90? It is a very nice and capable "old" camera as well.

 

[nerwin]

Yep, I'd check out the D90 or the D300 first.

 

[jamiebonline]

As long as you know the limitations of your camera, it will produce excellent photos. This has been proven many times in "cheap camera challenges".

Have you considered the Nikon D90? It is a very nice and capable "old" camera as well.

I would like the D90 but the price gap is noticeable. I literally need a camera asap that has a built in focus motor and is built well. That's they a D3100, which is similarly priced, is ruled out.

I have been looking at pictures taken with the camera at low ISOs on Flikr and really can't see it being so inferior to the D7000 or maybe my eyes need testing. It looks sharp, is the main thing. Of course the lenses come into play. I use good primes anyway.

 

[goodguy]

As long as you know the limitations of your camera, it will produce excellent photos. This has been proven many times in "cheap camera challenges".

Have you considered the Nikon D90? It is a very nice and capable "old" camera as well.

I would like the D90 but the price gap is noticeable. I literally need a camera asap that has a built in focus motor and is built well. That's they a D3100, which is similarly priced, is ruled out.

I have been looking at pictures taken with the camera at low ISOs on Flikr and really can't see it being so inferior to the D7000 or maybe my eyes need testing. It looks sharp, is the main thing. Of course the lenses come into play. I use good primes anyway.

If you will mostly shoot at the 100ISO-200ISO then you will be hard pressed to see differences with other cameras, the D200 will be able to give you good results as long as you shoot in ideal lighting condition, shooting primes will mean you will have more flexibility to keep ISO as low as possible.
dynamic range is poor compared to modern camera, this will be noticable only if you process your own RAW files.
If you are truly strapped for cash a D200 wil do the work for you but again mostly in good lighting condition (if you want good quality pictures).
And as mentioned above be sure camera is in good condition, its been out there for a while and it will be a shame you will get the camera and it will die on you a week later.

Good luck

 

[jamiebonline]

dynamic range is poor compared to modern camera, this will be noticable only if you process your own RAW files.

You suggest I shoot in jpeg? Thanks for your other advice also.

 

[jaomul]

dynamic range is poor compared to modern camera, this will be noticable only if you process your own RAW files.

You suggest I shoot in jpeg? Thanks for your other advice also.

A raw file enables you to get more processing power and often can help with exposure/noise issues as it gives you more control over the final output. The camera decides the results within your set parameters when you use jpeg. I can only imagine that a camera with more dynamic range available in its raw file would give jpegs with a broader spectrum and less clipped or blown shadows/highlights, as its original data has more to work with.

Jpeg/raw is a matter for the shooter, with benefits to be had with both, but ultimately better image quality should be possible with raw and the knowledge to process the raw file, than a camera jpeg sooc

 

[AKUK]

My Dad still has the D200, which he takes on holiday instead of his D800. It's a well built camera and has a lot of professional features. The D90 has a better sensor but not as good AF system. Nor is it as well made and obviously lacking the more professional attributes too. I still have the D90. Not shot it in a long while but I got some great images from it. If you're doing posed portraiture or still life, then the D90 will suit. If you require better AF accuracy, look at the D200 or D300.

You can get some great deals on eBay. As previously mentioned, check the shutter counts. These cameras are quite old now. Some will have been workhorses. Some will be occasional shooters.

 

[Dave442]

I have two D200's so I have to say that if the price is good then go for it. I always shoot in RAW, I think the post processing software today is better than the processing options in this body to arrive at a JPEG image.

I have a couple f/1.8 lenses to use for lower light and added a decent flash unit that can use the Nikon CLS system. Don't plan on using the rear LCD extensively as it runs down the battery. I have one body with a grip and with the two batteries I have not been able to run them down during normal shooting.

With a 16gb CF card you can take almost 1000 photos in RAW, it can take up to a 32gb card.

I have the ISO set in 1/3 stops and usually go up to ISO 640 as my normal max ISO, but to stop movement will go to ISO 1600 (the three Hi settings above that I've used when going to B&W).

It has most buttons you need right on the body and you can also store 14 menu items in the Recently Used menu (use the items you want to store and then lock the menu from further changes).

 

[goodguy]

dynamic range is poor compared to modern camera, this will be noticable only if you process your own RAW files.

You suggest I shoot in jpeg? Thanks for your other advice also.

I dont suggest either, I only shoot RAW but thats my choice.

 

[KmH]

Yep, I'd check out the D90 or the D300 first.

Have you owned either?
I've owned both, and a D90 is not in the same league as a D200.
The D300 does have a better AF module than the D200 and a somewhat larger rear LCD, but other than that the D200 and D300 are nearly identical.