Nikon D200 - is it too much of a dinosaur?

I own and use 3 of those D200's and am not very gentle with them.They are a workhorse for me up to about 800 ISO.Just local drag racing stuff.
 
As with most things photography related, my opinion is that it really depends on your own needs. I honestly have nothing against a dinosaur...I still have my old Sony H1 (5mp) and I still use it on occasions where I won't bring my DSLR's (such as in a canoe). It goes without saying that the D200's/300's have a rather loyal following, however I would suggest a bit of discretion regarding the replies...they're decent cameras, however they're not the end all/be all bodies that some people like to believe...going on about how rugged they are doesn't mean other models are "cheap" by any means and all the extra knobs and dials can be extraneous to someone who doesn't need them. When I switched to Nikon a few years back, I actually went with the D90 myself and when I got a "new to me" body recently, I went with a used D7000...both were over suggestions of the D200's/D300's. In my case however, while I don't (usually) need a rugged body built for extreme environments and have little use for the super fast shutter speeds, I -do- need those low light capabilities and I also do use the video as well...I have other camcorders, however none of them produce the "cinema-like" quality of my DSLR's, so for myself those were huge factors. In my case, a D200/D300 would have been a poor choice...that said, obviously my own needs and priorities are different from others.

Since we're talking about used cameras here, the one piece of extra advice I would offer is that if you're comparing a few different cameras, do ask about the shutter count. If you have 3 otherwise comparable bodies (all the same make), assuming they are comparably priced, go with the lowest shutter count. In short, you don't want to end up with a camera body that is nearing the end of it's life expectancy. The D200 for example is only rated at 100,000 shutter clicks, so being older/used cameras, that's something you'll want to pay close attention to as any repair cost is likely to exceed a better replacement body.

BTW...for what it's worth, while I will occasionally use jpeg for shots to use on Craigslist or Ebay, any serious work I do is ALWAYS in RAW. As far as I'm concerned, there just isn't too much advantage to shooting in jpeg...anything your camera can do in jpeg, you can do in post and convert later if needed. Regardless of the body/brand/make, RAW just gives you FAR more flexibility for processing your images.

So with that said, again I think it depends on your own specific needs. If you're comfortable with the comparatively limited capabilities of the D200 and as others have suggested, you can find one in decent condition that hasn't been beat on/abused (a different issue in itself), then go for it. Just because it's less than bleeding edge doesn't mean it's useless.
 
Paired with a good bit of glass most camera bodies made in the last 10+ years are still capable of producing amazing photos.

DanO on this forum still shoots with a Canon 5d mki and produces amazing photos.
 
Paired with a good bit of glass most camera bodies made in the last 10+ years are still capable of producing amazing photos.

DanO on this forum still shoots with a Canon 5d mki and produces amazing photos.

What you say is mostly true, but comparing a 5d to a d200 is comparing 2 cameras with vastly different image quality once lighting gets difficult. I've owned both and the 5d is very far ahead here
 
I bought it today. I got it with an 8GB card and no less than 3 batteries. The shutter count is only 7000! Seems incredible but the guy seemed genuine. The low light debate continues I know but as I said few times, I rarely shoot above 100 and the highest I have ever used is 800. It's just a habit of mine. I shot film the summer too and was comfortable with 100 speed film or 400 if I was doing an indoor windowlit shoot. I don't consider this to be a main camera for me but right now, it's something I can afford and having taken some pictures with the 50 1.8D, I like the results. I don't see them being so inferior to the D7000 but then I don't zoom in analyze much if at all.
Thanks
 
I grew up on ISO 64 Kodachrome and ISO 100 Ektachrome and ISO 160 color neg film for "quality" work. Enjoy the new D200! 7,000 clicks is like...three weeks in the summer for many of us!
 
I fell into the digital age on the D200. I knew it's limitations and weak areas and I knew it's good points. The worst was it's hunger for battries, so a Nikon battery grip and 2 extra batteries served me well for a nice while.

People said it had bad high ISO performance, well as long as you used the highest quality of RAW and a decent noise cleaning app, it was brilliant up to ISO 1600 for a camera of it's time.

Did you guys know that the D200 won more industry awards than the D3 and D4 combined? In it's day, it was *THE* pro camera to own. Yes there have been other cameras that have come out, most that are better, but there are indeed times that I still pull mine out and use it. It's kind of like pulling out that old Corvette... the new ones are better in all measurable ways but the old ones continue to impress.

A shot I took in October 2008 with the D200 at ISO1600:
2966190055_1914590205_z.jpg


Enjoy your D200. :)
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top