Verdict on Nikon D200?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Rich, Jan 8, 2006.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Seems like there are widely varied opinions of the performance
    of this camera. Some of the comparison pages I've seen have
    attempted to make it seem like a bit of a dog. But that could be
    because it's being compared to a camera that costs nearly 2x
    as much, the Canon 5D.
    It does not stack up against something like the
    5D, but it's natural comparator would be the Canon 20D
    so given that the 200 has been out for awhile, how does it
    really compare?
    Rich, Jan 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Skip M Guest

    One reason it is being compared to the 5D is that so many of the Nikon
    shooters wanted the next Nikon to be a "Canon Killer." At the release of
    the D200, the DPReview 1D/1Ds/5D forum was inundated with posts making that
    very claim. The other reason may just be that they were released so close to
    each other...
    As far as the 20D, the D200 is better sealed, with 2mp more res on a
    marginally larger sensor. Everything else seems to be rather comparable.
    Skip M, Jan 8, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    leorampen Guest

    The D200 is obviously not a direct competitor to the 5d. The 5D is
    designed for a very specialist FF market which encompasses a few
    thousand cameras a year. The D200 is (as far as I see it) a direct
    competitor to the 20D. The only problem with that is the 20D is
    18months old and a replacement/upgrade is due out within the next few
    months. I have no first hand experience of either, but currently the
    D200 outstrips the 20D specs wise, but don't be surprised if the (30?)D
    is much better than the D200.

    just my 2c

    leorampen, Jan 8, 2006
  4. Yes, you might be right. I think that some were (unrealistically)
    expecting its noise level to match or beat EOS 5D on high ISOs, which
    would force Canon to lower its price. Obviously, these were grossly
    disappointed and are just expressing it loudly - I can at least
    understand EOS 20D users waiting with upgrade and hoping they could
    afford 5D *if* Nikon D200 were that good. Some are even more
    disappointed as D200's noise level in high ISOs does not even seem to
    match EOS 20D. But given its tiny pixel pitch, this is hardly surprise
    for anyone who knows something about CCD technology. Personally I feel
    that D200 noise level up to ISO 800 (maybe 1000) is quite acceptable,
    while noise characteristic is rather pleasent even in higher ISOs (also
    considering lost of detail). But I do not have personal experience with
    this camera.

    I'm actually very interested in picture quality comparison (not just
    noise, but also color accurancy and dynamic range in RAW data) in ISO
    range up to ISO 800 between this camera and successor of EOS 20D.
    Unfortunatelly, too many folks are just interested in noise levels at
    high ISO (as if they were using it) to expect some fair comparison when
    this new camera shows up. Most photographic review sites do not bother
    to show what given camera can produce in hands of someone with skills
    and passion, they just use the same mediocare (ie. JPEGs straight from
    camera) process for every tested camera.

    Bronek Kozicki, Jan 8, 2006
  5. IMHO, to compare the noise level of pictures with different resolution,
    you should first resample them to a common resolution. Of course here
    the result depends on the resampling mechanism...

    Michael Schnell, Jan 8, 2006
  6. Rich

    Matt Clara Guest

    The 30D will undoubtedly have some nice specs, but a magnesium alloy body
    with weather sealing will not be among them--in this the D200 is unique at
    its price point.
    Matt Clara, Jan 9, 2006
  7. Rich

    Ron Lacey Guest

    While not hermetically sealed but the 20D does have a magnesium alloy

    Ron Lacey, Jan 10, 2006
  8. Rich

    nashvlmike Guest

    I would say the d200 is aimed *between* the 20D and 5D. I think it's a
    better body than the 20D, and competitive to the 5D but obviously not
    up to the hi iso quality of the 5D. I would think it's feature set and
    AF system is better though. Nikon doesn't really aim directly at Canon
    - they tend to make cameras that "make sense" for their user base. The
    D200 does, because it's pretty solid for very little cash (relatively)
    - it's not the best at anything, but pretty good at everything it has
    to do.

    As far as bodies from here on out - I tend to think with the D200 (and
    5D, D2X, 1DsMkII, etc) that we've reached a point where at the base
    level ISO's (not the high stuff) the camera is no longer going to be
    the limiting factor - the lenses and the photographer will be. I shoot
    with a D2X - and its *every* bit as competitive with *anything* Canon
    has, and honestly, puts such a demand on the lenses and my technique
    that going much further is going to bring rapidly diminishing returns
    and actually extra pain in terms of reality. With either of the
    high-end bodies from Nikon or Canon - we are quite easily at MF film
    quality up to fairly reasonable print sizes - for those wanting the
    next jump in image quality, honestly, I think the bigger MF backs are
    the way to go. With the current DLSRs, thing is, it takes the best
    glass and the best technique to get to those levels of max quality. The
    average photographer, even a lot of pro's, simply aren't at that point

    As for the 1600/3200 range, yea, Hi ISO performance will eventually
    improve, but it's not of use to everyone and it doesn't make sense to
    judge all cameras based solely on how they do at 1600 or 3200.

    My personal prediction is that Canon will likely try to push near 20mp
    in a full frame body, Nikon will likely bump up the rez (and speed) in
    their next "sports" (H series) camera, and that both companies will
    start to take a long hard look at lens designs and new lenses - given
    Canon has issues at 16mp with a lot of their less-than-impressive wide
    angle glass already, they aren't going to be able to sit pat with a
    20mp hi-rez body with lenses that aren't up to it. As for the 30D, I
    would tend to doubt it's going to be "much better" than the D200 - the
    law of diminishing returns I believe will sit in around camera's in
    this range - one can buy a D200 or 5D right now (or a 30D when it comes
    out) and realistically not need another DSLR for a while because the
    image quality has gotten to a point where you, the reader, and also the
    manufacturer and their lenses, most likely aren't up to the task of
    extracting everything from the camera anyway.

    nashvlmike, Jan 17, 2006
  9. Rich

    Brian Guest

    Hi Mike,

    any chance of you uploading one of your images to your web space for me
    to have a look at? I would love to see the quality of the images you are
    getting off the D2X. One criticism I have of a lot of reviewing sites,
    including dpreview, is that the quality of their sample images is often
    quite inferior to what the camera owners obtain from the same cameras.

    I would love to see a "real" image from your camera.

    Brian, Jan 17, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.