Nikon D200

[mrclark321]

So without starting a war here I would like to hear from members who use or have used this camera. If you have not used it or don't know anything about lets keep the comments civil and realistic. I got to play around with one the other night and really liked it, high ISO can be a problem but honestly of the thousands of shots I have taken I barely use anything higher than ISO 400.
Would just like to hear some opinions from members.

Dan

[Croasdail]

I have one because a customer of mine has tons of Nikon glass that I am allowed to use. Honestly, I think it is the camera the 20D/30D should have been. I really like it, and Iif didn't have tons of other Canon equipment, I would have gone with it. Besides the weather sealing and better layed out focus points, what like is it just keeps focusing down to next to no light available. Where the canon begins to hunt, the nikon just keeps plugging away. Noise is worse then the Canon at 1600, not enough for me not to use it. At 3200 the Canon really shines over the Nikon. But the gap has been closed a lot. When I head off to Asia next summer for a month, if Canon hasn't come out with a better body, the Nikon is the one that will make the trip with me. I am not switching camps to Nikon, but it really has opened my eyes to the Nikon world. Nikon glass is expensive, and that is probably the biggest thing that would keep me from switching. The biggest thing I noticed is that "nikon" coloring of images is gone. While Nikon does lean to blue, just as canon likes red, the gap between the two are a lot closer then before. I can still easily tell the images apart, but it is a lot less pronounced. Net-net on D200 and it' competitors (20d/30d), none of these cameras will not be holding you back or the reason you can't get good shots.

[mrclark321]

I have one because a customer of mine has tons of Nikon glass that I am allowed to use. Honestly, I think it is the camera the 20D/30D should have been. I really like it, and Iif didn't have tons of other Canon equipment, I would have gone with it. Besides the weather sealing and better layed out focus points, what like is it just keeps focusing down to next to no light available. Where the canon begins to hunt, the nikon just keeps plugging away. Noise is worse then the Canon at 1600, not enough for me not to use it. At 3200 the Canon really shines over the Nikon. But the gap has been closed a lot. When I head off to Asia next summer for a month, if Canon hasn't come out with a better body, the Nikon is the one that will make the trip with me. I am not switching camps to Nikon, but it really has opened my eyes to the Nikon world. Nikon glass is expensive, and that is probably the biggest thing that would keep me from switching. The biggest thing I noticed is that "nikon" coloring of images is gone. While Nikon does lean to blue, just as canon likes red, the gap between the two are a lot closer then before. I can still easily tell the images apart, but it is a lot less pronounced. Net-net on D200 and it' competitors (20d/30d), none of these cameras will not be holding you back or the reason you can't get good shots.


Thanks for the honest input Mark, this is what I like to read. :)

[Hellashot]

, high ISO can be a problem but honestly of the thousands of shots I have taken I barely use anything higher than ISO 400.

Dan

This is a common statement by nikon users that high iso isn't necessary because they don't use it. If you have the ability to use high iso with clean pictures - you will use it! :)

When my family gets together for xmas this year, I am going to see if I can go totally flashless with my 5D. :)

[condyk]

I played with it and also the D80 and really liked them. Not specifically better than my 30D for the use I put it to but I could easily switch if I wanted to and not feel I was losing anything of worth. So, for me, much of the choice would come down to how someone uses their camera and, of course, the range of lenses available. The latter is what has kept me with Canon so far. If I was buying afresh as a newbie I would probably go for the D80 and be done as seems as good as my 30D and quite a bit cheaper shopping around in the UK. D200 wouldn't have enough to tempt me personally.

[gjl711]

This is a common statement by nikon users that high iso isn't necessary because they don't use it. If you have the ability to use high iso with clean pictures - you will use it! :)

When my family gets together for xmas this year, I am going to see if I can go totally flashless with my 5D. :)
Though I agree with your first statement about Nikon users claiming that you don't need it because I have heard the multiple times myself, I don't necessarily agree with the second. There are times that 1600 or 3200 is a blessing and without it you could not capture the pic, but I would venture a guess that 90% of all pics taken by Canon users is 400 or below. Maybe 800.

[mrclark321]

Thanks for the input guys

Dan

[LithiumNitrate]

my Dad has has d200 and i've shot with it alot. no question it is great camera. personally, i do like nikon's ergonomics and button layout better than on the 20/30d, and the menu interface is very logical, intuitive to use and look at. i really enjoyed its custom white balance modes, too. IQ is also solid. based on what i've seen, i think his pics come out a bit warmer than mine, which i like. but IQ does suffer above 800 iso, esp in darker, red tones.

here are some pics my dad took of me w/d200...

http://www.j0s.us/potn/mt_wilson.jpg

http://www.j0s.us/potn/q_mary.jpg

second pic is at 1600 iso & you can see the noise. it was really dark, tho

[gjl711]

my Dad has has d200 and i've shot with it alot. no question it is great camera. personally, i do like nikon's ergonomics and button layout better than on the 20/30d, and the menu interface is very logical, intuitive to use and look at. i really enjoyed its custom white balance modes, too. .....
I have the Nikon 8700 and though I really like the camera, it's interface is the most horrible thing I have ever seen. Something as basic and manual focus that you would think would be easily accessible is buried under layers and though I have owned the camera for over two years and shot often, I still have to refer to the menu to perform simple tasks. Why can Nikon use the interface from their SLRs in their compacts?

[drisley]

MrClark, you have complained to me before that the noise of the 1D isn't quite as good as with your 30D and 20D. So if you were bothered enough by that small difference, you will be REALLY bothered by the noise of the Nikons. No only that, the Nikons lose much more detail at the higher ISO's from what I've seen.
Case in point, LN has posted some nice pictures, but look at all the noise in that second picture on the face.

Also read this quote from somebody else in this forum (my wait with Canon doesn't seem so bad). "I hate Nikon becasue they still have my body for repair.....6 months so far it will be in a week."

[Tee Why]

I have messed around with it a few times and if I were starting fresh into dslr's knowing what I know, I'd probablyl go with the D200. In terms of features, I think it offers the most bang for the bucks. Only place where it's not as good seems to be with noise at high ISO and also with big RAW files, like 15MB for each RAW image.

The thing I really like about Nikons is their ergonomics, I think it's better than Canon's for me. In the end, I've invested into the Canon system, so I don't see myself changing, as I think overall the images won't be better with one or the other in my view.

[tim]

I wish the Canon ETTL system worked on radio, not visible light, radio's much more reliable. Having an AF beam on the body would be useful too, I think some Nikons do that.

[jamiewexler]

I've been using Canons professionally for two years now, and have a lot invested in Canon glass. I've always been curious about Nikons though (my colleagues that use them are fierce defenders), so last week I finally gave into temptation and picked up a D80. The first thing I did was compare the high ISO noise of my 20D vs the D80:

These are all jpegs, straight out of the camera, AWB:

Here's the target:


20D(Left) D80 (Right)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/bigpic20d.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/BigpicM.jpg



f2.8 1600 20D (Left) f2.8 1600 D80 (Right)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/1600f2-1.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/1600f2.jpg

f4 1600 20D (Left) f4 1600 D80 (Right)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/1600f420D.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/1600f4M.jpg

f4 800 20D (Left) f4 800 D80 (Right)
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/800f420D.jpghttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/800f4M.jpg

[strmrdr]

Thanks Jamie!
The D80 pretty much holds its own in that test in my opinion.
Run all the image thru noise ninja and there wont be much difference at all.
I will likely get a canon for the simple reason that I like this forum and the people here and havent found a nikon forum I liked as much.
To me a good forum is a huge part of the package.

[Croasdail]

Hey Jamie, yep... that looks about the same results I get with my d200. When actually printed and not viewed at 100%, you just don't see the difference on anything smaller then an 11x14. The interesting thing your shots do show is how the Nikons run cool and the Canons run warm. In the end, it doesn't matter. I simply have actions setup for both to compensate for both brands reproduction of color. I wish I could do my own test but I still don't have any Nikon glass of my own... it all belongs to someone else. Perhaps someday I will do a test of my own.

As to the Nikon 6 months in the shop... while my Nikon has yet to be in the shop for anything - I just don't buy the 6 months thing. There is more to that story then is being told. There is NOTHING in either brand camera that takes that long to repair. I completely discount that story.

[Tee Why]

doesn't seem to be much diff. in noise to me.
BTW is the 20D on top and D80 on the bottom?

[drisley]

There is something wrong there.
Have a look how poorly the D80 and D200 compare to the canon cameras. Extremely poor.
Although the above images the D80 still look much worse, and definitely lack detail due to nikon's poor nr.

http://www.modeemi.fi/~leopold/Photo/Kohina/en.html
http://digitalcamera.impress.co.jp/06_02/auth/toku1/index_iso.htm

The D80 and D200 are no where close to the 20D or any of the canon cameras.

[Bob_A]

doesn't seem to be much diff. in noise to me.
BTW is the 20D on top and D80 on the bottom?

Maybe my eyes are going but to me the images that jamie posted labeled as Nikon D80 look much better to me noise wise ... just a tad cool.

[drisley]

The D80 images above 800 are really pretty bad. The noise is different than the 20D's, in that it's all luminance noise, which to me looks horrible. Look at the jaggies, and artifacts the noise produces on the letters on the bag. Also, the luminance noise is much harder, if not impossible, to remove with Ninja or Neatimage.

[Jim G]

I picked up a D80 in Domayne recently and it felt very nice in my hands.. the build quality didn't seem to be that outstanding to my hands at least but it did feel better. I'm guessing the D200 would be similar.

I would be interested to see whom I'd go with these days if I was just entering the market especially since I had no idea how much I'd be using high ISO... The Nikons do appear to have more bang for the buck in a few areas though the 30D upgrade with spot metering and whatnot makes things a bit nicer on the Canon side.