D90 or D200?
Im rapidly outgrowing my D40x(not really hard to do I guess!) Im considering a new body and dont want to have to upgrade from the new body for a while as I would rather spend the money on new lenses. I would prefer to get a D300 but its about 300.00 out of my range. Any opinions on the D200 or D90? I've read the specs but wanted some real world advice.
0
Comments
How would you be using the camera? What applications?
The more specific you can be with your description of usage the more we can help guide your choice.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Definitely amateur shooting. I do wildlife so I would like something that has good AF speed. I also do a lot of street and portrait style pictures so I would also like something that can record the colors as close to perfect as possible(a friend with a D200 can take the exact same picture as me with the same lens and turn out better images without having to tweak the settings as much). I also want something with an internal AF motor to open up the range of AF lenses that will actually AF as opposed to having to do it manually. My biggest gripe with the D40 is the lack of custom settings available. I find myself switching from shooting my kids playing to a duck swooping into the water and I cant change the settings quickly enough so ideally i'd like my next purchase to have multiple custom setting or have quicker access to changing them. I am by no means a pro but I also dont want to limit myself to being an amateur forever.
The D200 sensor is very similar if not the same as your D40x the difference would be in the output settings (in RAW you should be able to do shots that are really close).
The D90 is the next generation of sensor, you will get more resolution, better low light performance, plus built in dust reduction and even the movie mode.
The D200 offers you a better body, AF I am guessing is similar someone can come in and fill that in. But I have a D200 with a Fuji skin and love it so the body is great. You get more settings as actual dials, and then there is the toughness of the body. But I did have a D50 which took lots of abuse being banged around trails in Oaxaca and came out fine so the D90 level of Nikon is no ultra fragile body either.
Ok I will get off the rambling
D200= stronger body, more controls on the menu (less going through menus), and you can meter with non-AF lenses.
D90= better resolution, better low light performance, built in sensor cleaning (really nice to have), and video mode.
If you need a more robust body go D200, but in most ways the D90 is superior.
Also I am not sure how you shoot so if you use scene modes they are not on the D200, it is just P,S,A,M.
The D200 is known for it's "not so great performance" at higher
(above 400) ISO settings. I think the D90 would do a better job in that area.
I bought my D200 from Best Buy when they were dumping them at $599. I couldn't get close to a D90 for that price. It's over $800 at Adorama Camera right now.
You can look at my images if you need some examples
http://www.djdimages.com/Music
One of the galleries is from a bar at a CD release party using the 50mm f1.8d lens exclusively. The other gallery is from a Nine Inch Nails concert in New Jersey from the back of the arena using a 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR lens.
I think the D90 is far superior to the D200 as I've seen the noise level in the D300 and I believe the D90 has superior performance to the D300 in low-light.
"Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."
-- Abraham Lincoln
My primary reasons for a move were:
1) lack of an internal focus motor for my older lens
2) three vs eleven focus points for greater control
3) upgraded sensor in the D90
4) slight increase in MP from 10-12
5) increase in continuous shooting mode fps
6) ability to automatically bracket exposures either side of metered
7) better color saturation
8) live view mode
I haven't configured any presets, but I can't speak enough about the virtues of the higher ISO/low noise capabilities. It just rocks.
.
If I were in your shoes, I'd save my pennies and buy a lightly used D300. They are out there around $1,000 since the D300s has been released.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
I just shot a Rutgers basketball game last night, and the night before. My 17-55 f/2.8 was on my D200, and the 70-200 f/2.8 was on my D90. In the same exact area, I was shooting ISO 1600 on the D200, and ISO 800 on the D90. Then again, I missed a shot with the D90 because of the 4.5fps limitation, where the 6fps on the D200 saved my a** a few times.
If you are shooting sports professionally, or just want to shoot sports well as a "hobby", then save for the D300, because it has the same sensor as the D90, with the FPS and focus abilities of the D200.
If you just want an excellent body, without the focus on sports/etc., get the D90 and enjoy one of the more powerful cameras Nikon has let loose! The only time I've hit a wall with my D90 is when I'm shooting pro sports, and I feel like I would appreciate the bigger buffer, higher FPS, and better focusing. For EVERYTHING else, the D90 far outpaces what I need it to do!
Hope this helps!
~Nick
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8
Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6, 50mm f/1.8
I bought a D90 a few weeks ago to replace my D100. I am doing more available like portrait work and needed the better sensor. My goal is to make enough to buy the D300 this summer and use the D90 as a backup body. The D90 is a very capable camera, but does not have the same feel as the D100 or D300. As other posters have noted, it also does not have some of the D300's features and build quality. If you plan to have only one camera body and you need it to perform in a wide range of situations, I would recommend buying a good used D300 or saving the extra money for a new one.
davidmcpherson.smugmug.com
Caspian, welcome to the Digital Grin.
Congratulations on the D90 and thanks for your thoughts.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
davidmcpherson.smugmug.com