where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hi dear Nikonians! I'm going to switch to Nikon after a few years of Pentax. Unfortunately, I don't have enough money to buy a D300 with lenses and flash. That's why I'm considering one of those two cameras, D90 & D200. They cost the same.
Could you help me in my choice 'cause I can't decide. I don't need Live View or video. I stick to photography.
Thanks a lot. Greetings from France.
psycopape - if You don't need hi iso go for d200, if You going to shoot above iso 800 then Your choice is d90; as for the AF speed d200 is slightly faster (at least in my case on longer lenses), IQ is pretty much the same on low iso (once again, in my case d200 is better, as it allows You to go down to iso 100), weathersealing - d200, but d90 is quite good too
"Q is pretty much the same on low iso"
Comparing cameras at low ISO's is like comparing a Pinto and Ferrari while both are at a red light lol
D200 and D90 both have the same AF system, the Multi CAM-1000 with 11 focal points. If you really need the big solid feel, get the D200 for sure. IF you want better picture controls get the D90 for sure. If you want better colors (let me say this is all up to you) the D90 wins. Both cameras allow you to get to things pretty quickly except the button layout is quite different. The D200 will meter with older lenses while the D90 will not. As mentioned before, when you're ready to actually push your camera, such as shooting at higher ISO's the D90 wins. It's slightly better than the D300 let alone D200. ISO 1000 looks pretty good on a D90 and 1600 isn't bad either.
Let me say this; if you're on a budget and you have other things you need to buy, get the D200. it's now less than half it's original price. However if money is not an obsticle get the D90 for sure. Now if you're moving over to Nikon you will also need to invest in lenses. Now you really want to start looking at cost. However you're original question wasn't about lenses so I'll stick with what you asked (which is more than I can say for following posts lol).
IMO the D90 would be the better buy.
I have both and prefer the D90. That said, there are a couple of things about the D200 which are really nice, that don't necessarily show up in the reviews.
1. CompactFlash - Some people have a preference between SD or CF cards. If you are a CF person, this is your camera.
2. Ergonomics - I perfer the button layout of the D200. Having the ISO & WB buttons on the top works better for me.
3. ISO - Everybody knows the D90 does better in low light. But what about direct sunlight? The D200 shoots natively at ISO 100. The D90 starts at ISO 200. This matters if you are trying to use flash to tame your ambient light. It's like having twice the flash sync speed.
"...Comparing cameras at low ISO's is like comparing a Pinto and Ferrari while both are at a red light lol..." - nope, it's not the same, as on low iso You take pictures, and on red light You don't move at all - and there is a difference Gentoo between shooting on iso 100 and iso 200
The D90 has ISO 100, its called lo-1.
I said Native ISO 100. The D90's Lo-1 mode is a software trick.
D90 and D200 are pretty much the same overall.
D90 has newer and better (especially in terms of sensitivity, power consumption and self cleaning) CMOS sensor vs D200 CCD (CCD has a bit better colors IMHO though), and D90 has much better LCD, Live View and Video if you are in to it.
On the other hand D200 has better build body.
Lately I have seen some really good prices on D200, around 500$ brand new and 2 year warranty included, and for that kind of money D200 is currently the best value for money Nikon has to offer.
That I would agree with. When Best Buy was selling them for $600, it was a real steal.
"ISO - Everybody knows the D90 does better in low light. But what about direct sunlight? The D200 shoots natively at ISO 100. The D90 starts at ISO 200. This matters if you are trying to use flash to tame your ambient light. It's like having twice the flash sync speed. "
I think Willis point is largely missed by A LOT of people, having native ISO is a great advantage of the CCD chip. . .heck, the CCD sucks at high iso's unless you REALLY work with the engineering behind it (let's see what the D3k does, and take a look at some of the high-ISO shots from a 10.2 mp CCD sensor on the Ricoh GD3 that was just released). . .
this topic has been hashed before many times, and as a recent D200 owner who was debating between the D90, it came down to the following:
1. If you have pro-inclinations, the D200's layout is VERY similar to the D300/D700/D3 bodies, which means the learning curve you put in NOW will pay HUGE dividends later; this mattered to me, as I started a photography company and knew the D200 was a just a steal at $599. Only comes with A, S, P, and M; the D90's "scene" dials lend itself more easily to a beginner.
2. Size and sealing; the D200 is just better built, nicely laid out, and its shutter is built to last a lifetime; the D90 felt smaller and toy-like in MY hands (you should see for yourself).
3. quicker native fps; I know 4.5 and 5fps is minimal, but to me, I needed every extra oomph I could get for the event photography I do (emotions are a split second thing, so if I capture something timeless, more bank for me)
CONS of D200 vs. D90:
1. view finder sucks compared to the D200, the D90 is just bright and brilliant (not as nice as a D300, but still nice).
2. CF vs. SD - I had to buy 2 CF cards when I bought the D200, but CF is standard fare for pro bodies, so better to invest now. . .
3. above ISO 640-800 sucks compared to D90. this is the CMOS vs. CCD debate here.
4. Gen 1 processor vs. Gen 2 - so things like Active d lighting, and other in camera enhancing tools are lacking; however, if you use a software suite like DxO, you will have more lenses covered under the D200 than D90, which worked well in my favor (so maybe not a con, not sure?!)
5. HEAVY!! You'll feel it, the D90 is easier for hikes and all day romp's. . .the D200 gets a little old after about 6 hours. . . .in the field, my adrenaline is pumping so I don't feel it (esp at a wedding), BUT, the next day my old ass is sore. . .
Neither are a bad choice, so it's up to the OP to go and test them out, don't trust our e-opinions!
"nope, it's not the same, as on low iso You take pictures, and on red light You don't move at all"
I think you know what I meant as this is not what you have said in the past. I believe your words were something like "they look the the same or nearly the same at base ISO". There was nothing mentioned about movement, it was IQ at low ISO's. So I will correct you and say that based on statements like that, the comparison stands.
Thanks a lot. Your comments have been very helpful. I've made my decision. I'll go for D90 - as my work involves concerts, theater plays & festivals. Beside, It will be easier to sell a D90 later. (LV/Video are almost vital for new DSLRs users coming from P&S or bridges.)
Now, my investment are lenses. Then, it will be the camera.
Thanks again for sharing your experiences. Soon, I'll be part of the Nikon family :)
Good choice .. Think of it another way .. There have been at least 7 nikon cameras that have been released in between the D200 and the D90..
Heartyfisher has a good point on that timeline.
You must log in to post.
