Is a d200 too old?

Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
3,969
Location
Chicago
Too old for what. Good for up to ISO 400. Use NR on 800 & 1600 images.

Superb images at base 100 which is what I use most. A little hard on batteries, but carry extras because they are cheap.

I used to use 25 Kodachrome, so to me 100 is pretty speedy.

Mine has around 4000 clicks so it has a long way to go. I certainly do not mind using it.

It cost me $1700 new. now it is worth maybe $600. Perfect condition and the original battery still reads 100%. 4000 clicks for 1000 dollars, `bout the same as film. Who says digi is cheap?

So if you find a fine one for a good price with a warrantee, I say go for it. Use it until it dies.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
300
Location
Ontario
Yeah, depends entirely on your shooting style. If you're going to be shooting it in well lit situations then it can still do a really good job. If you're going to do mostly low light shooting then I would probably consider a different camera. All in all, I'm extremely happy with my D200 and don't really see myself upgrading soon. ISO up to 800 or 1000 is pretty usable, and 1600 is usable with modern noise reduction. 3200 is pushing it, but in an emergency it'll "do",
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
5,246
Location
Denver, Colorado
I have a D200 to Backup my D700. As it has been said before, In well lit, it does a great job! as soon as the lights go down, I would take out my D3100 before I went over ISO 1000 with the D200.

But For studio work (or the like) it is a rockin camera. I have had mine for 2.5 years now and it still does everything I ask.

I think its a great camera so if you find a good deal, pull the trigger.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
11,635
Location
Southern California
From following your 14 posts here so far, I would have to ask: What is it you enjoy shooting the most? What is it you desire to shoot the most? The D200 is a very fine camera, and I currently use 2 cameras from the same generation. However, if you can afford more, I would suggest buying a newer generation camera. They are simply better.
 
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
946
Location
Eau Claire, WI
D200's are a bargain at the current prices!! The only poor mark it gets is high iso performance....but everything else below iso 400 is equal up to the d3.

Thats right....I said D3
 
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
9,081
Location
Oregon
The d200 is a fine camera, and with the new noise reduction in ACR, ISO 800 - 1000 produces great images. At ISO 100 - well the camera's among the very best. I bought mine for the same price I paid for the D7000 - $1200 and I don't regret it. It will die in my hands:)
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Location
atlanta ga
Too old for what. Good for up to ISO 400. Use NR on 800 & 1600 images.

Superb images at base 100 which is what I use most. A little hard on batteries, but carry extras because they are cheap.

I used to use 25 Kodachrome, so to me 100 is pretty speedy.

Mine has around 4000 clicks so it has a long way to go. I certainly do not mind using it.

It cost me $1700 new. now it is worth maybe $600. Perfect condition and the original battery still reads 100%. 4000 clicks for 1000 dollars, `bout the same as film. Who says digi is cheap?

So if you find a fine one for a good price with a warrantee, I say go for it. Use it until it dies.

When you say NR do you mean in post processing or in the camera? I thought there was not NR in RAW (unless you mean jpeg).
 
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
529
Location
Idaho
The D200 is a damn good camera, its only failings that I can see is it sucks at high ISO and now that I have the D7000 and used to the nice LCD screen on it, the LCD on the D200 is pretty outdated. But still a very nice camera and I plan to keep mine for a long time.
 
B

Bill N

Guest
When they sold them brand new at Best Buy for $599 it was a great buy and I picked one up. Looking at used prices you can pick up a D300 for about $200 more. I was looking for another D200 a while ago and seeing how much they were selling for used I just added the extra money and got a D300. A much better value for me.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
94
Location
UK
i've been using one for a year or so & i love it
its solid & reliable & seems to cope pretty well with most stuff
i echo the previous comments about the high ISO performance as if you want to shoot something fast moving in poor light its not the best choice but for regular outdoors stuff or with studio lights the CCD sensor in there can still grab a great colourful image :smile:
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
850
Location
Rochester, NY
Too old? I'm still shooting with my D50 when I need to - it's the camera I keep at work for NILMDTS work (because quite frankly, if it were to get stolen it wouldn't be the end of the world, not so much with my 300 or 700.)

When I shot the Stuart Horse Trials last summer my D50 came out for the first time in two years when my 300 quit on me.

As long as you are ok with the limitations (and there are a lot more limits on the 50 than the 200!) it's a solid camera.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
774
Location
Austin, TX
When you say NR do you mean in post processing or in the camera? I thought there was not NR in RAW (unless you mean jpeg).

The NR they are referring to is in post.

The D200 is a great semi-pro camera. Like everyone else has said, if you are NOT going above ISO 800, its as good as any camera out there. Above ISO 800, the newer technology shows.

Many people on this board feel that ISO100 on the D200 is about as close as you can get to film quality.
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
902
Location
Highland,NY
I use my D200 all the time. Only other bodies in my arsenal are the D50 and a 70s. I love the D200, and outside of the bad high ISO performance it is a great camera to have. I mainly shoot outdoors and usually in good light and have no problems getting quality images out of it.
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
94
Location
UK
i think its maybe a tad unfair to describe the high ISO performance as bad
its just that the modern stuff is just so much better in this respect as thats really THE major improvement in the last few years.
shooting perfectly exposed well lit scenes on base ISO you'd be hard pushed to pick a new camera from an old one :smile:
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
300
Location
Ontario
When you say NR do you mean in post processing or in the camera? I thought there was not NR in RAW (unless you mean jpeg).

Definitely in post-production. The things Lightroom can do with an ISO1600 photo border on magic. I also own a copy of Nik's Dfine which produces similar magic results. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot in 1600 if the situation called for it. My preference would be NOT to, but knowing that I can salvage the shot by running it through a cleanup in lightroom is a great feeling.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
300
Location
Ontario
i think its maybe a tad unfair to describe the high ISO performance as bad
its just that the modern stuff is just so much better in this respect as thats really THE major improvement in the last few years.
shooting perfectly exposed well lit scenes on base ISO you'd be hard pushed to pick a new camera from an old one :smile:

This is true too. Objectively bad high ISO is point and shoot cameras from 2002 or something.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Messages
3,473
Location
Wyoming, USA
Is a d200 too old?

Absolutely.

High ISO performance is two generations out of date. Forget posting any of those cool self portraits taken with candlelight.

No video. Your YouTube career will be seriously compromised.

At only 5 fps you will not have that wonderful machine gun sound while shooting from the bleachers.

Matrix metering is far too consistent and predictable. You'll lose the fun of chasing your blinkies about while chimping.

And forget that ISO 100. It completely lacks the Rockwellian punch. Its au naturel rendition will give you headaches in post as you try to achieve the digital look.

No 3D tracking. Like we're supposed to keep up with those kids runnin' around? How archaic.

Spending so little on a camera is really not making the whole commitment here, ya know? You'd have extra money left laying about and that's just not how it's done.

:biggrin: :biggrin:

Seriously, I recently picked up a nice clean D200 for my kayak/canoe river kit. It'll be used with an 18-70 and 70-300 VR. I chose it over the D90 as its more durable and shares support/ergonomics with my D700. I chose it over the D300 as its more economical and the features of the D300 would not be of great benefit to me for this application. I wanted a kit that I could lose in a river mishap and not break my bank.

And I just like the D200 files. I won't be shooting past ISO 800 and the AF system is up to the task of capturing the wildlife and riverscapes I desire.

I chose the D200 because I know its strengths and weaknesses and I have faith in the machine.

Be honest with yourself in terms of your specific needs and make your decision respectively. No shame with swinging a D200 whatsoever in my reality.

Good luck to you.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom