Opinions on D200 & D90

XR6MOTO · March 26, 2009

Hello, I learned about this site from advrider. I'm fairly new to DSLRs but I've been into film photography for over 20 years. I took a break from it for the last few & now looking to get back into shooting again.

A couple of years ago bought a new D70, put it away & never used it until this year. I recently purchased a couple of new VRs lenses (18-55 & 55-200) & have taken a few shots with it. The D70 is nice but as always, the newer Nikons have some improvements that I wish mine had (bigger LCDs, better sensors). The two cameras I was looking at are the D200 & the D90. The D200 has come down in price & the new D90 looks killer for a couple of hundred more.

Pro's for the D200 to me are a bigger viewfinder, metering w/some older non-AF lenses that I already own, better body controls.

For the D90 are an even bigger LCD, better viewfinder, better construction, video is nice (better battery life than the 200).

My options at this point are to stick with my D70, use it until it's worth almost nothing & buy another camera later. Try to sell my D70 while it's still basically "new" (w/under 100 shots) & get $300-350 for it?, buy D90 & sell some of my older non-AF lenses to make up the difference. Or, buy the D200, maybe sell one of my VR lenses & be able to use some of my older ones.

The D90 is the most attractive to me so far.

Opinions?

Qarik · March 26, 2009

from an image quality, feature set, and iso capability..the debate is usually between D90 vs D300. Besides weather sealing I don't know if there is single advantage in a D200 vs D90. The D90 is trancends it's price range imo.

If I were you..sell the the D70 and buy the D90.

XR6MOTO · March 26, 2009

The reasons I included the D200, was because of it being in a similar price range as the D90 (actually cheaper now) & the ability to be able to use my older lenses.

For everything I've been reading, the D90 seems to be ahead of the D200 in most aspects (aside from how it's built). I gotta check what kind of $ my D70 can bring.

Cameron · March 26, 2009

XR6MOTO wrote:

The reasons I included the D200, was because of it being in a similar price range as the D90 (actually cheaper now) & the ability to be able to use my older lenses.

For everything I've been reading, the D90 seems to be ahead of the D200 in most aspects (aside from how it's built). I gotta check what kind of $ my D70 can bring.

Correct, as far as image quality I think the D90 would trump the D200, more noticeably at higher ISO settings. However, if build-quality is a concern, the D200 is very solid and can be had at a great price these days.

Qarik · March 26, 2009

XR6MOTO wrote:

The reasons I included the D200, was because of it being in a similar price range as the D90 (actually cheaper now) & the ability to be able to use my older lenses.

For everything I've been reading, the D90 seems to be ahead of the D200 in most aspects (aside from how it's built). I gotta check what kind of $ my D70 can bring.

yes the d200 is cheaper and it if you look at the rest of the nikon line up with out the D90...it's probably worth that price. If you include the d90..then the d200 is just not worth it from a price vs feature set POV.

My argument is if you can afford the $1k price tag..the d90 is the best bang for the buck. The d300 is $600 more with a marginally better feature set. The d90 is $200-300 more then the d200 with "next generation" better feature set then the d200.

All that said though..if you ge the d200 it is still a great camera and you will enjoy it for years. The technology is so good these days.. it's not like you can make a wrong choice.

NikonsandVstroms · March 26, 2009

XR6MOTO wrote:

The reasons I included the D200, was because of it being in a similar price range as the D90 (actually cheaper now) & the ability to be able to use my older lenses.

For everything I've been reading, the D90 seems to be ahead of the D200 in most aspects (aside from how it's built). I gotta check what kind of $ my D70 can bring.

the question is do you need the resolution or high iso of the D90... The D200 is a much nicer "camera" its all about the sensor, so if you do alot of low light work the 90 would be a better option but otherwise the 200 could be great (having all your controls actually as part of the body instead of going through menus is great)

ziggy53 · March 26, 2009

XR6MOTO, welcome to the Digital Grin.

You're getting good advice from the others so I'll back out gracefully at this point.

XR6MOTO · March 26, 2009

Thank you Ziggy53

One thing I gotta say though, for what I've been reading in many sites while doing my research, it seems that most D200 owners feel pretty strongly about their cameras. The D90 hasn't been out long enough in the market to have developed that kind of following yet but it looks like it might get there in time (people seem to love their D90's as well).

I'll be mainly doing a mix of outdoor, landscape & family portraiture photography (w/a bit of macro photography thrown in). Thanks for the opinions, I love to hear from people that feel so passionately about what they love.

jonh68 · March 27, 2009

Either camera is great. You just need to decide if IQ (d90) or features(pro body, better controls at fingertips, D200) are more important.

With that said, I don't think the differences in IQ between a D70, D200, and D90 are going to be dramatically different for you. Not knowing what your current lens line up is besides what you listed, getting lenses will improve your IQ.

With less than 100 actuations on your D70 after two years, you don't even have your feet wet in the digital age. Is a new camera an attempt to re-ignite your passion?

Jane B. · March 27, 2009

XR6MOTO wrote:

Pro's for the D200 to me are a bigger viewfinder, metering w/some older non-AF lenses that I already own, better body controls.

Opinions?

The part of your original post that that I have shown above is what the others have been ignoring. What are the non-AF lenses that you already own? How useful might they be especially while your are building your collection of AF lenses?

Just some more food for thought as I know nothing about them as I am a Canon shooter. I Do know that fellow camera club members have been frustrated with her D40 that won't work with some non-Nikon lenses that do fine on his that is a different model. They bought the D40 originally for the smaller size.

Jane

XR6MOTO · March 27, 2009

jonh68 wrote:

With less than 100 actuations on your D70 after two years, you don't even have your feet wet in the digital age. Is a new camera an attempt to re-ignite your passion?

I've always felt passionate about photography. For some reason, for the last couple of years I didn't really feel "inspired" enough to take pictures & decided to take a break. I didn't wanna shoot just for the sake of it, I have to feel it or the pictures I take will suck (to me at least). Since last year, I've been feeling that "inspiration" again & I'm ready to get back into it.

I used to love shooting in B&W film but for some reason I think that digital photography lends itself better to shooting in color (maybe I just don't know better yet). Color can be beautiful because of it but B&W is raw, naked & elegant.

XR6MOTO · March 27, 2009

Jane B. wrote:

The part of your original post that that I have shown above is what the others have been ignoring. What are the non-AF lenses that you already own? How useful might they be especially while your are building your collection of AF lenses?

A while back I sold a few lenses & I need to make a list of what non-AF I have left (I'll post it this wknd.)

NikonsandVstroms · March 27, 2009

XR6MOTO wrote:

I've always felt passionate about photography. For some reason, for the last couple of years I didn't really feel "inspired" enough to take pictures & decided to take a break. I didn't wanna shoot just for the sake of it, I have to feel it or the pictures I take will suck (to me at least). Since last year, I've been feeling that "inspiration" again & I'm ready to get back into it.

I used to love shooting in B&W film but for some reason I think that digital photography lends itself better to shooting in color (maybe I just don't know better yet). Color can be beautiful because of it but B&W is raw, naked & elegant.

If you want to do B&W go look at the Fuji S5 Pro, its by far the best camera I've used for black-and-white, and its a D200 body (also the colors it puts out are amazing, much better than Nikon in my opinion, so there's a lot less postprocessing needed)

edit:

I thought I'd give a quick little explanation as to why, if you can find a camera store that still has a S5 just take a sample image with it, and then you're D70. Desaturate the two images and play with curves, the middle gray area of the S5 is just so much greater that it makes black-and-white photography a lot easier than the Nikon sensors. For film analogy, think of the Nikons as printing black-and-white with a color negative, and the S5 as a traditional silver black-and-white negative.

Qarik · March 27, 2009

wrt to the fingertip controls..I have the d90 and it is hardly menu driven like tthe d40 series. Everything I need is button or button/dial combo. I looked at the d200 controls. They are different (different locations and ways to activations) but I only see one "button" on the d200 (1/2 shutter depress button) that the d90 doesn't have as a function.

Again The d90 may use a dial in conjunction with a button for things like meter mode that the d200 has a semi-dial dial for but I would hardly consider that a functional difference delineating the d200 as "pro" style buttons and the d90 as not. It might be argued that d90 controls are more "optimized" then the d200.

either way it's simply a matter of getting used to one style or the other.

XR6MOTO · March 27, 2009

At the moment, this is what I have for lenses:

AF: f/3.5-5.6 18-55mm DX VR, f/4-5.6G 55-200mm DX VR, f/2.8 105mm Macro & f/1.8 50mm.

Non-AF: f/2.8 24mm, f/2.5 55mm Micro, f/2.5 105mm, f/4 70-210mm E series, TC-200 2X (& a cheap f/4 Tokina 80-200).

Definitely some redundancy here.

Thanks.

XR6MOTO · April 12, 2009

$600 for a brand new D200 is very tempting right now. Yes the D90 is better in some aspects but it won't allow me to meter w/my older non-AF lenses & it's about $250-300 more.

The D300 would be closer in terms to the D90 & would allow me to use my older lenses but for a lot more $ so it's out of the question.

Is the D200 a big step up from the D70? I've read about the tech differences, I just wanted to know the opinion of actual users.

Thank you.

lacunae · April 13, 2009

XR6MOTO wrote:

$600 for a brand new D200 is very tempting right now. Yes the D90 is better in some aspects but it won't allow me to meter w/my older non-AF lenses & it's about $250-300 more.

The D300 would be closer in terms to the D90 & would allow me to use my older lenses but for a lot more $ so it's out of the question.

Is the D200 a big step up from the D70? I've read about the tech differences, I just wanted to know the opinion of actual users.

Thank you.

When I upgraded from the D70 to the D200, it was for the improved build/controls/handling, and ability to meter with my old non-AF lenses. What I also got was a much better viewfinder, much improved AF, a better sensor, more fps (for sports), better rear LCD, and ability to use a vertical grip (MB-D200) when I'm going to be be shooting in portrait mode a lot (or want the camera to look more impressive/pro -- it helps sometimes at events where lots of the guests are also carrying DSLRs) I've since moved on to the D300 & D700, but I'd have stayed with the D200 (while saving for the D300 or D700) rather than moving to a D90. Considering that moving from the D200 to the D90 gets you 1/2 way to the D300, I'd go with the D200 for ~$600. (and it would be a good backup if/when you do move to the D300 or D700)

XR6MOTO wrote:

At the moment, this is what I have for lenses:

AF: f/3.5-5.6 18-55mm DX VR, f/4-5.6G 55-200mm DX VR, f/2.8 105mm Macro & f/1.8 50mm.

Non-AF: f/2.8 24mm, f/2.5 55mm Micro, f/2.5 105mm, f/4 70-210mm E series, TC-200 2X (& a cheap f/4 Tokina 80-200).

I use my 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor quite a lot -- its small size means I can easily carry it when my bigger AF macro lenses won't fit. The 105mm f/2.5 is a great portrait lens (even if it duplicates the 105 macro length). The 24mm f/2.8 is also small and should be useful in low light situations.

You'll have to test/decide for yourself if the 70-210, 80-200 and 2x TC are worth using (possibly just for times when you need to be at 300-400mm?)

XR6MOTO · April 13, 2009

lacunae wrote:

When I upgraded from the D70 to the D200, it was for the improved build/controls/handling, and ability to meter with my old non-AF lenses. What I also got was a much better viewfinder, much improved AF, a better sensor, more fps (for sports), better rear LCD, and ability to use a vertical grip (MB-D200) when I'm going to be be shooting in portrait mode a lot (or want the camera to look more impressive/pro -- it helps sometimes at events where lots of the guests are also carrying DSLRs) I've since moved on to the D300 & D700, but I'd have stayed with the D200 (while saving for the D300 or D700) rather than moving to a D90. Considering that moving from the D200 to the D90 gets you 1/2 way to the D300, I'd go with the D200 for ~$600. (and it would be a good backup if/when you do move to the D300 or D700)

I use my 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor quite a lot -- its small size means I can easily carry it when my bigger AF macro lenses won't fit. The 105mm f/2.5 is a great portrait lens (even if it duplicates the 105 macro length). The 24mm f/2.8 is also small and should be useful in low light situations.

You'll have to test/decide for yourself if the 70-210, 80-200 and 2x TC are worth using (possibly just for times when you need to be at 300-400mm?)

Thanks for the feedback. Based on what I've been reading from previous D70 owners, I'll probably order the D200 today.

ziggy53 · April 13, 2009

lacunae wrote:

When I upgraded from the D70 to the D200, it was for the improved build/controls/handling, and ability to meter with my old non-AF lenses. What I also got was a much better viewfinder, much improved AF, a better sensor, more fps (for sports), better rear LCD, and ability to use a vertical grip (MB-D200) when I'm going to be be shooting in portrait mode a lot (or want the camera to look more impressive/pro -- it helps sometimes at events where lots of the guests are also carrying DSLRs) I've since moved on to the D300 & D700, but I'd have stayed with the D200 (while saving for the D300 or D700) rather than moving to a D90. Considering that moving from the D200 to the D90 gets you 1/2 way to the D300, I'd go with the D200 for ~$600. (and it would be a good backup if/when you do move to the D300 or D700)

I use my 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor quite a lot -- its small size means I can easily carry it when my bigger AF macro lenses won't fit. The 105mm f/2.5 is a great portrait lens (even if it duplicates the 105 macro length). The 24mm f/2.8 is also small and should be useful in low light situations.

You'll have to test/decide for yourself if the 70-210, 80-200 and 2x TC are worth using (possibly just for times when you need to be at 300-400mm?)

Lacunae, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for the comments.

f-rider · April 13, 2009

CSwinton wrote:

if build-quality is a concern, the D200 is very solid

D200, D300 are most definitely made to stand more banging around. But the build quality of a D90, D80 is not like they are plastic point and shoots. This build quality thing, to me, is overrated unless you are a photojournalist banging your cameras around looking for the great magazine cover, or an extreme sports shooter (e.g. rock or ice climbing). I have the D80 and baby that thing, as I do anything I spend that kind of money on. Still, I don't worry about 'build' so much. From the shooting you describe, I don't think 'build' would be an issue. And though everyone will poo-poo the video capability, it might be a lot of fun to have on your next ADVrider trip !

YMMV

JPerkins · April 13, 2009

I saw this on another forum...

Refurbed d90 for $699.

https://www.robertsimaging.com/cmItemDetail.jsp?pid=17492

Now which one would you pick?

XR6MOTO · April 14, 2009

Build quality w/my current D70 isn't an issue for me for the type of shooting I do & it wouldn't be w/the D90.

I also looked at that refurb D90 but the main reason I went w/the D200 was the ability to use my older non-AF lenses (+ bigger screen & viewfinder).

ziggy53 · April 14, 2009

XR6MOTO wrote:

... the main reason I went w/the D200 was the ability to use my older non-AF lenses (+ bigger screen & viewfinder).

That's a very valid reason to go with the D200. Actually, if you give the D200 sufficient light and good glass it will reward you with excellent results.

f-rider · April 14, 2009

3" Screen !! and useful, too!
I thought the D90 was a 3.0 " TFT LCD with Approx. 920,000 dots (VGA; 640 x 480 x 3 colors. The D200 a 2.5 " TFT LCD with 230,000 pixels, according to the specs at DPReview. Not to dis the D200 at all, but another thing I like about the D90 is the "info" button, which allows you to use that wonderful 3" screen to see what your settings are. Coming from a Minolta Maxxum 7D, it seems like a waste that the D200, D80 and others make you rely upon the tiny, very small, monochrome panel on the top of the camera. As a farsighted photographer, I would love to be able to see my settings on that great screen without having to put on my readers (I have plenty of batteries for the added power draw). Moreover, those settings would be visible when the D90 is high up on a tripod. With the top mounted LCD of the D200, D80 and earlier Nikons, you have to be 6' 6" tall to be able to read the settings. A real PITA in my opinion. Maybe I'll buy one of those refurb'd D90s... anybody wanna buy a D80?

Opinions on D200 & D90

Comments