I have a D200. It is quite old. It takes as clean and sharp an image as the D7000s I have, a D300, a D90. I'd recommend that anyone buying as used camera check it out for clean sensor, metering, and undue usage. Some cameras get really beat up over a few years. My D200 has been in some pretty exotic places and some with more than a little danger. But drop it on concrete a few times and it may just be a camera to avoid. Despite all the newer features on the D7000 I still think it comes down to clean sensor and all of those sorts of things. I would not sell my D200. I would feel it was lower in value to sell to someone I wanted to encourage than uses we could put it to now. I'd recommend trying each used camera you get offered and then decide. A D90 for example gets a lot of my work right now as it is worth quite a bit less if I sold it and I can use it without great alarm that it may get dirty, etc., My trusty D300 currently has the most messed up sensor of my whole fleet except for a D40X that I still regard as my worst buy. I would rate the D300 as the best overall for the time I owned it. I also now want sharp video on a DSLR and that pushes me to "upgrade" more than stills.

But do read these posts on this thread with care. They are all well thought out! Many times I think of NR as a site to deliberate carefully BEFORE buying and many here have helped you a lot there. Once you own it.....it ends up owning you!

"Someone asked what type of shots I take, not really sure how to describe it, just interesting stuff I see, progress of home remodeling projects,"

I did some of that with an old generation camera. I frustrated by not being able to see enough detail when I needed to examine the pics when I looked back in order to see what I had written on something that was covered by plasterboard afterwards. With my D7000 I would have had no problem.

One other point though: If your level of interest and usage is DEFINITELY not going to change, then you actually could go for the old D200 - but if you spend any time looking around at the pics others here are taking using the later cameras (without great editing skills) then you may get to think there is a point to shelling out a couple of hundred extra bucks. When I look at my old pics, the technology difference between old digital and new digital pics is large.

If you are a very good technical shooter and don't need the camera body for action, sports or extreme low light then the D200 is probably fine for you. It has more than enough resolution to take great shots. The real key to answering your question is how are you post processing skills? If these skills are good then you could use any camera.

Well hard to say if it enough camera for you. It has more pro features, but I think the D5100 is probably more of a camera than the D200. You can get one brand new from Amazon for $549 right now and although it won't have the pro features it has the capability to take higher quality photos and will allow you to blow them up larger because of the more MPs.

That being said if all depends on what you want to use the camera for. If you aren't going to blow pictures up much then the MP might not matter. I think all the newer bodies will have better ISO performance. I think you have to find what balance of features and price you want. Older cameras can still be good cameras, but with digital technology 2 body upgrades out can make lots of difference.

First let me say thanks for all the helpful advice. I liked the reference to the 1911, my favorite too! One of the members asked if I was an officer? Yes I'm a Detective with Indianapolis Police. That's actually why I got the D50, that's still the cameras the department issues to the Evidence Technicians and we have one in our office so that's what I was comfortable with when I noticed a refurbished one for sale at the local camera shop some years ago. Someone asked what type of shots I take, not really sure how to describe it, just interesting stuff I see, progress of home remodeling projects, I try to take the camera with me or at least in the car most of the time, I have even used it to photograph a few minor crime scenes and some recovered evidence when it was just easier to download them onto my laptop. I am leaning to the D300 after looking at one. I like the size, layout, and "sturdiness". Also that it's a generation newer. For what I do I think something like the D400 when it comes out will be too expensive for my "just playing around".

It all depends on your budget. If you want bang for your buck, a used D200 or D90 would be great for the 500-600 dollar range.

TaoTeJared said:
You are starting to see the issue with the D50 - depending what is wrong, you will have a hard time getting it fixed. There is almost no chance the D200 being able to be fixed at this point. The D200 came out in 2005. The D300 came out in 2007 and was leaps and bounds beyond the D200. In many ways the D300 was better than the D2xs. In every way the D7000 is better by lightyears.

This. I've shot extensively with the D200 before getting hold of a D300 last year and the difference between the two cameras is staggering - AF,dynamic range , high ISO performance amongst others (you'll be buggered if you don't have f/2.8 or faster lenses with the D200).But the D7000 is a significant step up from the D300 in itself , more res , more dynamic range , little more low light performance.

What is your budget? I wouldn't get a D200 used right now unless you have little to spend. The D300 has better handling than the D7000 but coming from a D50 you'd probably not notice it - so my advice would be to get a D7000.

donaldejose said:
Dinosaurs are cool and amazing, just like old cameras. It is just important to know it is old and does not have some of the new features.

Yes, I think we probably agree on most issues. And the D200 is a bit on the "old" side, that is why I sold mine.

And, we do know what happens to the black or chrome Nikon F bodies.... brass underneath. But, we are not dinosaurs Donald, just chronologically more mature.

So, let'e compromise and I will recommend indycop get what he finds he is comfortable with. Or what she is more comfortable with... so, with the comment of shooting "downtown at night" maybe something with some ISO workable to 6400 would be better.

Now, as I do not know much about the newer Nikons with the ISO of 6400, please make a suggestion. D3200, D5100, or D7000?

Thanks

Dinosaurs are cool and amazing, just like old cameras. It is just important to know it is old and does not have some of the new features.

Dinosaur it may be, the controls and tools the D200 have to offer are what gives it an edge over a camera like a J1. Like I said before I love my D200 but my D7000 (and often my D90) get more mileage than it...

I am 65. No one should pick me with an expectation that for the next 30 years I will work hard to support them. I shouldn't become a new father; just don't have the 25 years of energy and hard work in me that it takes to launch a kid. I should lose a few pounds but then I wonder if those extra pounds will help feed me though a prolonged illness? Such is life during the "golden years."

I have a digital photography theory: don't know for sure if it will prove true.

I am thinking we don't need such robust cameras anymore unless we are a full time professional shooting every day. Why? Because technology changes faster than we can wear out the old equipment. I notice many cameras for sale with shutter counts only one tenth the life expectancy of the shutter. I don't think the processor or memory or sensor wear out. What happens is that new technology makes us want new cameras long before the old cameras are worn out. The pace of change, not the durability of the equipment is the limiting and motivating forces behind most new camera purchases today. Change is occurring faster and faster. In fact, faster than we perhaps need. I am astonished by a 36 mp D800 sensor and a 24 mp D3200 sensor and the rumored 24 mp D600 sensor. When I shoot a photo wouldn't it be better to have it recorded by one of those modern sensors just in case I needed to later crop or print big? For example, I recently shot a group of High School Seniors before they left for the prom. They wanted a group photo. so I shot 8 to 10 kids all lined up in groups. Later I decided to crop out the couples for couple portraits. Since I had used my D7000 I had the option to do something I had not planned to do. I could not have cropped so drastically with my older cameras. I is really nice to take one photo and make it into 5 different photos by cropping in different ways. I just cannot get past my admiration of the latest technology to not desire it. Likewise, I admire young parents who have the energy to chase after a two year old and a three year old. I have purchased older cameras on eBay just to see what they can do. I have a D70, D80, D90 and D7000. They are all still perfectly usable with only about 10% of their shutter life used. It is interesting to see how the image has improved significantly each generation. But when I want to go shoot something serious I almost always grab my D7000 because I just cannot get past the thought that something will be missing if I use the older bodies. And when my name finally comes to the top of the D800 wait list I will probably grab that most of the time.

Go back to the film days when cameras were viable for decades because the changes occurred in the removable media, the film. Remember "brassed" Nikons: bodies used until the chrome wore off? Remember frequent CLA (clean, lube and adjust) like the oil changes in a car? That is all gone. Cameras are not used that long anymore. I think cameras now are viable for 2 to 4 years. Why shoot with a 14 mp D3100 when you could be capturing your images on a 24 mp D3200? Why shoot with a 12 megapixel when you could be capturing your images on a 24 mp D600 or a 36 mp D800? It takes the same time and energy to take the photograph. Why not record it on the best tool available? The best tool available will change every 2 to 4 years these days so why do we need cameras which last 20 or 30 years?

Now back to indycop's question. What are you going to do with the photos you take? If you plan to print only 4x6 or 5x7 snapshots the D200 "grandparent" camera will be sufficient. But why not record that image with more modern equipment in case you later decide to show your photos on a HDTV or make a large print to hang on your wall.

Let me make a comparison with your sidearm. For generations officers felt a 6 shot .38 special revolver was adequate. Then the .357 came along offering additional potential and officers transitioned to 6 shot .357 revolvers just in case they needed the extra power. Than the 9mm auto high magazine craze occurred and officers wanted 17 shots in a Glock 17 readily available on their hips just in case they needed more shots. Now many officers want a 15 round Glock 22 in the more powerful .40 S&W caliber just in case they need additional stopping power. All tools and all doing the very same job over time. But as the tools evolve to become better most people are attracted to the "just in case" advantage the newest tool offers. If you have to shoot a "perp" who is shooting at you do you want to put a .38 special in him or a .40 S&W? Most of the time that .38 special will do the job but the .40 S&W will do it better. I personally prefer a model 1911 pistol in 45 auto, both about 100 years old now, because I simply shoot that combination most accurately and I never really expect to need it anyway. A really old tool, but it works best for me and is hardly "worn out."

Cameras can be the same. An old tool that does the job for you can be all you need. But you will have certain limitations and you will be missing certain advantages. I just would not buy too far behind the curve if I was expecting to use my camera often and if I was expecting to get more deeply into photography. You might want to display your photos on a 65 inch HDTV. You might want to crop for better composition. Nikon's D-lighting really helps with highlights and shadows and eliminating lateral color fringing greatly sharpens up photos but the D 200 is too old to have those technologies. Do you need them now? Probably not. Do you even know what I am talking about? Probably not. Do you want to learn what this stuff is? Probably yes. Once you learn what it is and see it missing in your images you will want it and become unhappy with your D200. So it sort of comes down to your own personal growth in photography. You will never miss what you don't even know exists. There is some truth to "dumb, stupid and happy" but in photography I would use the phrases "uneducated and satisfied" vs. "educated and unsatisfied."

I suspect Indycop has enough info to make a decision, so the thread is getting a bit outside the lines... so, grandmother, here, sold her Hayabusa (200mph motorcycle) at age 67 after riding it like there was no tomorrow. And, in the past few days, grandmother just carried a 30 pound back pack with the "big gun" up about two flights of stadium steps, to get to the photo platform at a speedway.

So, how many years does "granny" have left? Don't know, but I hope at least 10-15.

And if a D200 lasted half that, gosh, that works...

Very interesting, Donaldjose...you must be younger than some of us old people, ha, ha, ha....thanks for getting me excited...yes!

spraynpray said:
ye gods that is the most depressing analogy Donald!

Haha, I agree, it sounds like it's time to bring the grandparents around the back of the house and put them to sleep permanently!

I use a D40 and it's practically the same generation as the D200. Yes it's old, but if you use it for just snapshots you'd still be fine.

ye gods that is the most depressing analogy Donald!

I sort of think of Nikon cameras in generations. The most recent cameras are the kids (D400 - D7000). The cameras the kids replaced are the parents (D300s, D300, D90). The cameras which the parents replaced are the grandparent (D200, D70). Grandparents longevity is not a good long term bet. You want to start life as a kid, not a grandparent. You want to buy your photography equipment as kids, not as grandparents. It is OK to buy a parent rather than a kid but it is a mistake to buy a grandparent rather than a kid. A digital camera two generations old is an historical relic. If you want to purchase one for an experiment or so dirt cheap it costs "throw away" money you would blow on a night's entertainment, OK. But, don't buy two generations old and expect a long and happy life with it. If you go to a retirement home to find a bride, don't expect 30 years of wedded bliss. Expect things like holding her hand in the hospital as she goes through cancer treatments or surgery. If you buy a two generation old digital camera only to take 4x6 snapshots OK. You will have images but they will be lacking in dynamic range, color saturation, resolution, lack of grain when shot in lower levels of light, etc. Your images will not have all that has been developed during the last two generations of photographic improvement.

But understand this about us: we are not here because we want to take snapshots. We all want to do high quality professional level work. So we have a bias towards the cameras that allow us to do such work and a great appreciation for the advancements in the most current generations of cameras.

You are starting to see the issue with the D50 - depending what is wrong, you will have a hard time getting it fixed. There is almost no chance the D200 being able to be fixed at this point. The D200 came out in 2005. The D300 came out in 2007 and was leaps and bounds beyond the D200. In many ways the D300 was better than the D2xs. In every way the D7000 is better by lightyears.

To be honest, if you think that the D200 is all you need, you owe it to yourself to go look at the new cameras and what they are capable of. I have/had a D50 (converted to IR) and I can say you have no idea what you are missing out on.

If you can get one for $200 - what the hell. But I sure wouldn't waste much more than that on it. A J1/V1 will perform probably better than the D200.

Thanks for all the good information. I did find a place locally to get the D50 fixed at a price that seemed ok, Should be fixed in a few days and plan on using it until I decide, then it will become my backup. I did not mention in the first post but video is not something I would use the camera for. The D200's and D300's seem to have fewer people mentioning problems, I like that! I found a few used at Robert's Camera locally and the 200 was about $400 and the 300 was $800ish. I think I will keep looking at what people are using and if the D400 comes out soon maybe the 300's will cost what the 200's do now! Thanks again for all the good advice.

The D200 is fantastic and you can get one at a great price these days. I love mine. Money is only part of the equation tho. The D200 never cut it for me "downtown at night". In addition, the battery life, dynamic range, af speed, and viewfinder cause me to use my D7000 as a primary body (excluding the nice size and buffer, the D7000 equals or surpasses it in every feature). However I did get my D200 for $450 used and still love the camera. It is reliable for the most part, very capable at what it does, is a great secondary body and often gets used alongside my D7000 (I always carry 2 bodies minimum wherever I shoot). I abuse my cameras pretty well and both the D200 and D7000 put up with it very well.

I still use mine every other day...

Also a bonus for you it takes CF cards and the battery of a D50.

I absolutely loved my D200 (with battery grip). Great camera and you should be able to buy a used one at a fair price these days. The only downside was the noise at ISO800 and higher. If you plan to go downtown at night and shoot indoor family gatherings, that might become a nuisance over time.
I upgraded to the D700 mostly for the noise. The return to full frame, like back in de days of film, was an added (but costly) bonus.
For your situation: if you don't want to spend a lot of money, go for the D200. If you can afford a bit more look for a used D90 for a more modern sensor with a bit less noise. Still money left? Find a used D300. Big bucks? D7000, may be hard to find a used one. Willing to invest in FX lenses? Get a cheap used D700, they are abundant on the second hand market due to the release of the D800. I've just sold mine :-)

Hi,

As msmoto says, it's all about the Benjamins. An older camera in good shape takes the same quality pictures it did when it was new, so...

A lot depends upon what kind of shooting you do and more importantly want to do and feel that you're missing with what you currently have. IOW, what kinds of pictures are you not taking with the D50 that you could take with a D200 or D7000 or whatever?

It used to be a bit easier, in that there were specific functions in cameras that were different. An F2 had a higher flash sync than a Nikkormat, and you could add a different penta prism for various types of work. When doing repetitious catalog work, you could add a 250 exposure back to a F2.

While those sorts of differences aren't quite as striking in digital cameras, there are some you might find appealing - faster shutter speeds, ISO range, menu richness, Creative Speedlight System richness - they all have it to a degree - I'm just not sure that they support all channels, etc., motor for lenses, pixel depth (mixed blessing), and so on. Of all that, what is it that you want and need, and what will actually be a hindrance in your picture taking?

Furthermore, some of us, (me) are on the silver side of aging, and weight and size is a distinct disadvantage. Younger folks might need things that older folks don't. Just saying...

Hope that you make your decision easily and I'm sure that you'll enjoy whichever took you pick, as I really don't think there's a bad dog in this litter.

My best,

Mike

Bearing in mind how much sensors have moved on, the more recent the camera that you buy used, the more satisfying the results would be and the longer you will probably keep it before upgrading again. For that reason I would advise D5000 or if you want the extra controls and the ability to use old lenses, perhaps the D90 although we are starting to get more pricey with the very excellent D90. Always look for low shutter count examples and check they don't looked really worn or knocked about - that applies across the board of course.

Personally I think the D5000/D90 would fit the bill exactly, any better (D300, D300s or D7000) is up to you but any older and I think that you are missing the opportunity that your old camera starting to fail is giving you.

HTH.

Being the guy still shooting with a D200, should be saying get the D200 but I think it come down to the dollars. A quick scan of Craigslist in my area had 1 D200 for $400 and 5 D300's ranging from a high of $1500(to much) to $750. I imagine if/when the D400 comes out these prices will come down.

The D200 is a fine camera and it's good enough for most things but the D300 is better. I alway figure what my budget is first and then buy the best camera I can afford. So how much do you want to spend?

It is all about the money. You sound as though you are learning and becoming interested in photography beyond what the average "point and shoot" folks do. Good.

I just sold a D200....and am kicking myself. But, I think I would look for a D300 or D300s instead of the D200. Now, this is my opinion only, but the D200, D300(s) are "pro" DX format camera bodies. Nikon is hopefully bringing out a new D400. Although this is currently a big mystery at present. I do not think there is another Nikon DX body which has the same features in terms of operation as the DXXX bodies. All the rest are more amateur or "pro-sumer" bodies. One knows the difference when one picks up a pro body and sees the layout of the controls as in a D4.

My suggestion: Hang around the NRF and especially the Photo-A-Day http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=5726&page=23 and look at the cameras and lenses used. Some are a bit pricey, but others are very inexpensive. Maybe you should try to guess before looking at the information usually available from Flickr in the Exif data. You will see some shots taken with D40's that looks good as the D800's and D4's....that is until one goes to billboard size.

But, the point is, look around, be patient, then decide.

And welcome to NRF....

It's a good camera, low light capabilities can be limiting, I went with a used d7000 for that reason.

If he disagrees with you, he should buy your equipment for you.

I don't see why not, if it's enough for you, then go for it, especially if you can find a good deal on a D200.