Nikon D200

I've owned the D200 for 2 years now. It seemed so up to date when I bought it, but like so many of our electronic gadgets lately, it too has become dated.

I've used it mainly for portrait and family gatherings. For nature shots I prefer film. I use an F100 and an old FE.

The D200 handles well, it reminds me more of the F100 than the D100 I had previously. Moving fro 6mp to 10mp wasn't the big jump you might think. One of my sharpest photos ever is with the D100, that of a lighthouse, taken on a tripod with a 35-70mm F2.8 lens. I have a 13x19 of it hanging in my house and it looks absolutely stunning. While I'm sure the D200 could duplicate that photo, it serves to remind me I don't need to jump on the next big megapixel bandwagon. 6mp was/is no slouch.

Build quality. It reminds me of my F100 every time I pick it up. Sometimes I get confused and have to see which one I have to my eye when I'm using both.

Ease of handling. It reminds me of the F100 once again. They are both great cameras, built well and I expect both to outlast me.

High ISO is the killer here. I use iso 400 at times, even 640, but at 800 and especially over 800 at it turns to crap. The D100 was better than this. What did you do, Nikon?

Even worse is IR. The D100 wasn't exactly good for IR, but the IR filter on the D200 is some 10x stronger. Was there a good reason for this?

D100, Coolpix 8400 - a very good little 'point n shoot'.

I guess my F100 is similar?

Never had a Nikon break down on me.

How the mighty have fallen! For 2005 the D200 was the "it" camera for Nikon's line. It looked so good simply because took the best features of Nikon's then-current cameras and put them into one.

To clarify where the d200 was supposed to fit, Nikon originally made the D1 as the top "pro" camera, then the D100 was the "advanced amateur" model, the D1X for high resolution and the D1H for high speed (fast burst mode). For the next revision we get the D200, the D2X, the D2H, but no D2. Go figure.....

What makes the D200 look so poor today (Yes, poor!) is it was stretching some of the available technology to the limit. The sensor simply was not up to the job, with lots of noise at high ISO and a tendency towards hot pixels. My D50 was far better camera for low light, while the D200 excelled at action.

I "liked" my D200 mostly because I paid so much for it, but after seeing the world of the uber D700 I keep it mainly because it's the only other body I have than can meter with AI lenses. On the other hand I don't care as much now about sending it through airport X-ray machines.

Within it's limits it gives excellent image quality.

Durable build with a metal frame.

Acceptably fast (5 FPS) burst speed.

Shoots in Raw (NEF) and Jpeg format.

Supports compact flash in the new large sizes, I was using a 16GB card in mine.

Can meter correctly with AI (Manual focus) lenses if they are programmed in the menu. However, with the DX sensor you still get the 1.5X crop factor.

Bad high ISO performance, 800 is about it for high quality pictures, 1000 can be cleaned up most of the time, forget about higher or even (shudder) 3200.

Tendency towards hot pixels. Mine had a few bright ones when I got it that (thankfully) went away, but I still see some every once in a while. Be very careful when buying used as this is why a lot of people want to sell their D200's.

Not good for IR (infrared), nigh shots, low light, or long exposures. Best for action, daylight and outdoor scenes.

Shorter battery life than should be acceptable, the Nikon battery grip is flimsy in mounting with a weak door, the aftermarket grips have a tray with contacts that are easily bent/damaged.

D50, D700

Haven't used it.

I previously owned the Nikon D80, which was a fine camera in many ways, but simply lacked the versatility and durability of the D200 (it met its end with a scratched sensor). Anyhow, The D200 is truly one of the greatest cameras I have had the opportunity to use, and that includes Leicas, Hasselblads, and the Eos 1d MkIII.

Some people might wonder why the D200 is worth it if the D300 is out now. The truth is, if you shoot at ISO 100-400 you'll be hard-pressed to notice the difference, even on a 16x20 supergloss lightjet or chromira print (a.k.a a print far beyond the quality [and price] of what you'll get at your local supermarket).

Autofocus: Quite simply, it's splendid. The camera sometimes will take a tiny moment to "think" but then it zips your lens exactly to where it needs to be. Naturally, the photographer is an enormous variable, as someone experienced with the D200 knows what focus zone to use where (contrasty objects allow for a faster focus). Of course, some lenses focus barbarically fast, while others are just fast. The supertele's, eg; the 300mm EDIF VRII f/2.8, focus unbelievably fast--- once the camera knows what its looking for you'll barely blink before the image is sharp in your viewfinder. For action and race-cars I definitely prefer the D300's 51 AF points; however, keep in mind that the D200 is already excellent in this regard.


Metering: The D80 had issues with highlights getting blown out in exchange for proper shadow exposure. The D200, being the mini-D2X that it is, properly exposes so that highlights don't get blown out. If you think the images are somewhat dark that's ok. Shoot in RAW and then mess with the fill lighting in Lightroom or PS if you need to. The D200 handle's most situations quite well (within reason). Remember that good metering doesn't cause the camera to defy laws of physics. If you want nice sunset shots or have intense contrast between halves or chunks of your scene, consider using a graduated ND filter.

Viewfinder: 95% Pentaprism. It's sharp, bright, and informative. Tells you everything except bracketing info (which you need to look to the secondary LCD for). Dust can stick to the focus screen though-- use a blower.


Build Quality-- You could probably hammer nails with this thing. Solid Magnesium Alloy Body-- just like the D2x, D3, D300, and upcoming D700.

Image Quality-- So long as you don't exceed ISO 800, image quality is excellent.

Build Quality

Metering

Viewfinder

AF Speed

Burst Speed

Wide Array of Features

High ISO performance isn't spectacular

AF on subjects with really low contrast can fool the camera.

Viewfinder is only 95%... fixed in the D300

D1H, D80, Eos 1D Mark III

As always, Nikon is great.

This camera was my first step into digital imaging after many years using the Nikon F4s and F5 35mm equipment.I was quite wary about going digital but have to say this camera is brilliant! it feels good, functions well and has a great menu layout.
The ergonomics are fantastic with most important setting adjustments at the fingertips for instant changing/correction.
The D200 gives outstanding results everytime and has replaced my beloved F5 as most used camera on wedding shoots and general landscape photography although with it's APS-C sensor I will need an ultra wide lens to replace the Nikkor 18mm I have always used. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED CAMERA and a little amount of learning will allow a world of creative freedom with this very capable and robust little beauty!!.

Build quality, ergonomic layout, logical easy to use menu, fingertip adjustments, matrix metering, good lcd screen size/resolution, fast capture rate and backwards compatible with most Nikkor lenses, feels good and solid in the hand.
Illuminated red sensor markers and grid(when selected) are better than the F5's all grey ones.

Battery life is not good at all but a grip allows switching between 2 onboard enel-3e batteries which helps a lot.
Battery door isn't properly hinged(just a bending piece of plastic!)although this hasn't caused problems it seems out of place on such a high quality camera).

No digital gear until this camera but used Nikon gear for 25yrs with no complaints.

Never needed any customer service until recently when my trusty old 50mm F1.4 Nikkor decided it liked F1.4 and nothing else!! - after 400+ wedding shoots with it I'll not complain to Nikon.

I'm sorry I bought this camera. I've shot about 800 images with this camera and I'm still in shock at the results I'm getting. I've been shooting Nikon products for about 20 years and I have never had ANY problems with the equipment or image quality. The D200 seems to constantly over expose every image. The highlites are blown out and the backgrounds are under exposed. Most of the images are out of focus.I have a small collection of Nikon and Sigma EX (Nikon mount) lenses. None of the Sigmas will autofocus on the D200 body. My Nikon SB-28 flash won't fire on the body either -even though it is listed in the instruction manual.
I've been shooting digital with a Nikon Coolpix 5000 for several years and have been very pleased with the high quality properly exposed images it produces, so I'm completely baffled by this "upgrades" performance.

Good build
Intuitive control layout
Fast exposure capture.

Poor exposure metering
Images lack midtones
Poor autofocus

Nikon Coolpix 5000