Nikon D200 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Nikon D200

(37 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

« Previous 12

EdEnd

senior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 54
offline

Is there any reason why almost everybody here bashes the low light capabilities of the D200? I've got two of them and used them for more than 2 years by now for concert photography and the results are very nice. Of course they are no match against my D700 but in any aspect good enough for using 1600 iso photos to be printed at 75x50cm. A bit of noise reduction will do the trick and let's face it, who would want to print bigger than 75x50cm anyway? I think most people look too much at a pixel per pixel level. If you really need a good camera for low light (and with need I mean really need) get the FX camera's The D200 is perfectly useable at 1600 iso and how many of you all really need that on a regular basis?

For 225$ I'd buy an extra D200 any day :)

Posted 3 years ago #
tai

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 315
offline

EdEnd, We're all spoiled! Before the D3 release/D300 release, we wouldn't have said the same thing. The D200 is certainly far ahead 35mm film for low light. Nikon really made a big leap in this area between generations, so when you compare it with newer cameras, low light capabilities are poor. ISO 1600 to me looks pretty bad, even at small print sizes while 800 can be used for medium sized prints. I have printed larger than 75x50 from my D200, but all those shots have been ISO 100-400.

And yes, $200–300 is a steal for a D200.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I would say that d200 is fully usable up to iso 400, very usable up to iso 800, and usable as B&W up to 1600 - this at least is a key with my d200.
It all can shift one/two stops up once You run noise ninja on it.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Yeah, it's not like they hate the D200. It's just that every generation of digital cameras really are that much better.

Obviously a lot of it depends on the photographer, but having that gear is sort of important too.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

that's totally true, sorry to sound like a D200-hater on that ISO front. . .it's unforgiving, but if you NAIL the exposure, noise is very limited. . .I'm just not very good at nailing the exposure right ALL the time ;-)

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Hey Shiva, bring your D200 down to Austin and snap a few pics. Its still broad day light at 8:30... No low light worries here LOL.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

EdEnd: Have you used a D90? If not use both then tell us that.

Posted 3 years ago #
EdEnd

senior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 54
offline

I haven't tried a D90 so far and I'm most certainly not going to either. Once you get used to the options of that level of camera there's no way you ever want to go back, just further up.

The point isn't however that the D90 can be better than a D200 at high ISO, the point is: how important is it and how bad is the high ISO of the D200 anyway? I claim that at 1250 ISO I have a photo printed at 75x50cm and after some noise reduction there is close to no noise visible in the print. And that's not just one lucky shot, as concert photographer I have about 85% of my picture shot at ISO 1000 and up and there's a lot of them looking very good in prints.

But if I would have a choice I'd go for yet another D200 over a D90...

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"I haven't tried a D90 so far and I'm most certainly not going to either. Once you get used to the options of that level of camera there's no way you ever want to go back, just further up."

Admitting you've never used a D90, you cannot substantiate that statement. I have a D300 and had it for a while before I got the D90. Not sure where you're coming from exactly but I wouldn't say it's "going backward" (I've said this when comparing other cameras though). If you're not even willing to use one then your opinion is little more than guessing.

D90 F2.8 at 1/100s ISO 800

My roommate did this with my D90. The only thing I did to this photo was re size it. Nothing else was adjusted. There's no way a D200 would be this clean at this ISO setting. And this isn't even pushing what the D90 can do in poor light.

It's easy to say what you have is good enough if that's all you know. Until you use a D90 and are honest with yourself, your view on it doesn't hold water. I'm just sayin'.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

"I haven't tried a D90 so far and I'm most certainly not going to either. Once you get used to the options of that level of camera there's no way you ever want to go back, just further up."

I have both D200 and D90, with both of them I've shot couple thousands images (around 50k on my d200 and around 10k at least on d90) and what I can say, that both of them performs really good, and I have to disagree that You ever want to go back - I really don't see any problems with adjusting the d90 in a speedy way - I mean all the necessary adjustments are either under one or two button press, as for handling, once You attach battery grip it really feels good in Your hands (no comments on this guys plz :), especially from Niko :D) and I have big hands (can grab a basketball in one hand), as for image quality d90 really rocks, once You need to cross the 800iso (at least for wildlife shooting where You need to have a bigger tonal range than in concerts) - below that d200 is really a good camera, I used it for over two years with more than satisfactory results.

Posted 3 years ago #
EdEnd

senior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 54
offline

"It's easy to say what you have is good enough if that's all you know. Until you use a D90 and are honest with yourself, your view on it doesn't hold water. I'm just sayin'."

Well I do own a D700 so I know what high iso performance is. I know that my 6400 ISO is better than the D200's 1600 ISO. But the main issue isn't going for a D90 or a D200 when they are new. I most certainly wouldn't buy a D200 if it was out there today at normal prices. After all it's an older camera which should cost less. At the price the starter of this topic stated now way you have a better deal with a D90 at a higher price. That doesn't say the D90 isn't an awsome camera for those who don't need the extra's of the level above it. I'm sure many user are very happy with it and they should be. Like with the low light performance get what you really need, if you have no need for time lapse shooting, or hardly ever shoot in low light, you can pick the camera of your liking.

"at least for wildlife shooting where You need to have a bigger tonal range than in concerts"

I'm not too sure about that. I run into a lot of situations where the tonal range is pushed to and above the limit. Red light was a problem in the past now it's mostly with certain purple and blue tones you miss out on details. Not all concerts have lovely white spots shining down at the artists ;)

Oh and one of my D200's have over 150,000 photos taken by now and it's still working great... so at least for those of you who are scared of the number of actuations made by a second hand camera, lots is possible!

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

With the D3000 kit out now for $599, I think the D200 being sold for $599 this past year was TRULY a deal. . .both have the same sensors, 11AF's, etc. . .and yet, the D200's build and infinitely better layout will still stand strong. . .

I have recently invested in software by DxO that has IMMENSELY reduced noise in my RAW post-processed files. . .I mean, I'm shooting at now ISO 1250 and it's probably comparable to the D90's 1600. . .

But, remember, CMOS sensors don't even have a native ISO 100, so, for instance, down in Austin where Willis is, I could be snapping some hot shots during the day at what I would say is amazing quality for a 4 year old camera. . . .

Regardless, I'm anxiously waiting the new CMOS sensor in the D400 which shouldn't be that far off. . .

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Nikon D200

Reply