Deliberating between a Nikon D200 & D90...

N

Naith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
716
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I've been looking out for a Nikon D200 body lately, and are seeing most in mint condition with 3,000 shots or less going for around £400 - £450.

However, with my parents coming to see me in a fortnights time, I'm also giving thought to dad picking up a new D90 at the airport (Dixons Tax Free shop), for £621 complete with the 18-105 VR lens. The idea being selling the lens for around the £140 mark, meaning the D90 body will be costing me around £480.

I realise the D200 has a much better body (feels lovely) and the controls are a definite advantage. The D90 is the latest generation of Nikon's technology (with that awful gimmick of 'Movie' mode), but I see & hear plenty of praise of the ISO performance which would be a plus for me when I'm out dusk time and beyond.

So I'd like for you all to give me your tuppence worth. I'm also thinking about the resale value in a year's time or bit less as my ultimate goal next year is to get hold of a D300...

Thanks in advance :thumbs:
 
Ok, at first I thought the following.

If you do not do much low light photography which requires a fast shutter speed, then get the D200. It's cheaper than the D90, and the difference between 10 and 12MP is not really that much. The D200 is a fantastic camera, and at ISO200, 400 and perhaps even 800, it generates some outstanding images.

Also, if your goal is to get a D300, then for now go for the cheaper option. A second hand camera will retain a lot more of its value than buying new and then selling second hand.
 
Assuming you have a DSLR at the moment, I wouldn't go for either. If your plan is to sell what you get to help finance the D300 next year, you'll get a nasty shock when it's time to trade in. You might get better prices selling privately but even then, the fill in camera will end up costing you around £150 - £200, possibly more.

Struggle on with whatever you've got and put all your efforts into saving for the D300.
 
yeah as great as the D200 is if your using it at higher ISo i would save the extra and cut out the "bridge" so to speak in a D200 or even the D90 to be honest
 
If you want a D300, then wait until you can get a D300.

Anything which you get as a stopgap will not satisfy you and will simply delay the time when you actually get what you want since you will end up losing on the deal.

Only other option would be to buy a couple of D90 kits duty free and sell them on the bay unopened - this would potentially go most of the way towards closing the gap to the D300 ;)
 
Nod said:
Struggle on with whatever you've got and put all your efforts into saving for the D300.
Click to expand...

That's the thing - I've just sold my D40x :D

With the money from that and a bit extra I've put aside I'm looking at spending the £450 - £500...
 
Get the d200 if its cheaper
As said before, it will hold its value better second hand then a new one will
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Get the d200 if its cheaper
As said before, it will hold its value better second hand then a new one will
Click to expand...

Having said that, if I get a D90 now for around £480 will I lose that much if I sell it within a year's time? (bearing in mind prices for 2nd hand gear hold out better over here...)

I think I'm going to have to have a play with the D90 1st, before I make my mind up for sure.
 
I've been deliberating the same thing (although no plans to go D300 for a while yet!!), in the end i've decided a very low mileage D200 is the best option. It's done less than 750 shots and arrives wednesday. Can't wait.............

Just got to decide if i want to hand onto the D40 as a backup or more likely sell up :)
 
What about the S5 pro as an option which combines the best of both worlds? D200 body with a great sensor which handles high iso's pretty well? Cheap too. Gets rave reviews.:thumbs:
 
Naith said:
I know, but it's done too many 'miles' (for me) :D
Click to expand...


Too many miles..??

27k isn't a lot, the shutter is rated at 150,000 actuations.

Average number of actuations after which shutter is still alive: 68,232.2
Average number of actuations after which shutter died: 313,083.4


I was going to say, you'd probably be better off with a brand new D90 for your own piece of mind, but I read that the D90 has been tested beyond 100,000 actuations, it doesn't say what its rated at.
Nobody can say when any shutter is likely to fail, but I'd still take a bet on a 27k D200 still lasting longer than a new D90. :)
 
Ted said:
What about the S5 pro as an option which combines the best of both worlds? D200 body with a great sensor which handles high iso's pretty well? Cheap too. Gets rave reviews.:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yes, I've read quite a bit about it recently. From what I gather it's superb for portraits and the dynamic range is great, but it's not quite an 'all-rounder' that the D200 or D90 is.

Still, I wouldn't mind one in the future as a second body...
 
Go for the D90, at £480 net of lens sale it's a bargain !! I don't think you will be disappointed and it will be brand new, with 2 year guarantee etc etc

You'll probably get 2 years good use out of it before affording a D300 and will give you some time to spend some money on some great lenses.

It's also extremely good at high ISO.
 
I went through the d200/300 or d90 loop tried them all and opted for the D90, as it fitted my budget at the time.
No regrets at all it's a fine camera for the money, although I only bought the body, because I have lenses from my D70.

The video option has proved to be better than expected and is the shape of things to come on midrange dslr's maybe.:love:

I purchased the d80 battery grip as well, this makes the camera fell very comfy to use. :woot:
 
Forget what value a camera will be in a year's time. If you're thinking like that, then don't spend the money on it at all. Not being harsh, but at the end of the day, it's worth whatever it's worth.

But, to give you an example, I bought a D80 in summer of 2007 for £500. I sold it earlier this year (just after the D300 came out) for £375. I sold it with 10,000 clicks. I had loads of offers but also quite a lot of watchers and bidders on eBay, so it was very easy to sell! :) It was exactly the camera people wanted for that money, ie those who wanted something more than an entry level DSLR but were happy to buy one second hand, because you get more for the price of a brand new entry level DSLR.

If you want a D300, wait and get it. ;)
 
What do you want/need?

For me, I want the controls of the prosumer boides - being able to change AF-S/AF-C, Single Point/Dynamic Area/Closest subject, Metering mode etc, with hard controls instead of going through the menu. I also preferably want shooting banks (a few banks containing your own settings), but I'm not sure if they're available on either camera.

The D90s better LCD is nice, but wouldn't be a deciding factor for me.

But, because I'm mostly taking in door shots of my children, without flash, if I were choosing between the two, I would have no choice but to go for the D90 due to it's better high ISO. You just need to know what is most important to you. Both great cameras.
 
Shak said:
If you want a D300, wait and get it. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, the idea is to wait for the D300...and the meantime use either the D200 or D90 ;)

Regarding value, I'll lose about the same whichever camera I get. I don't mind losing some money, as with bodies that's nearly always the case. Lenses on the other hand are a different story :thumbs:

It's just at the moment to fork out for a D300 is just too much :(
 
I would go for the D200. Higher ISO capability of the D90 may be a consideration if you shoot at high ISO all the time, but the D200 will cost you less to buy and the resale price will be pretty good, so overall you should lose less than the D90, which has the "awful gimmick" movie mode that you dont really want.
Allan
 
joxby said:
Too many miles..??

27k isn't a lot, the shutter is rated at 150,000 actuations.

Average number of actuations after which shutter is still alive: 68,232.2
Average number of actuations after which shutter died: 313,083.4


I was going to say, you'd probably be better off with a brand new D90 for your own piece of mind, but I read that the D90 has been tested beyond 100,000 actuations, it doesn't say what its rated at.
Nobody can say when any shutter is likely to fail, but I'd still take a bet on a 27k D200 still lasting longer than a new D90. :)
Click to expand...

even better, i had though i had seen somewhere it was good for 75000

it may stay as a backuip if i get the D300 now lol
 
allanm said:
I would go for the D200. Higher ISO capability of the D90 may be a consideration if you shoot at high ISO all the time, but the D200 will cost you less to buy and the resale price will be pretty good, so overall you should lose less than the D90, which has the "awful gimmick" movie mode that you dont really want.
Allan
Click to expand...

That's the thing - I love to shoot with available light when possible. The higher ISO performance of the D90 is drawing me. For example, recently in Italy my D40x simply didn't cut the mustard when I had to bump up the ISO and use the available light (especially in Rome late afternoon in the Pantheon :()

Regarding prices I don't think I'll be losing that much if the D90 is going to cost me around £480 (body) and I don't keep it that long. There won't be much in it between the two, so I'm now concentrating on the actual choice of camera.

Regarding the video, yes I know, it's a nasty gimmick, but as a DSLR it seems to be doing OK. I had a play with a D90 earlier today and was pleasantly surprised - and that was side by side with a D300. For a plastic coated body the D90 felt pretty substantial, and the screen was VERY nice :)

So let's see...
 
The D300 is expected to cease production in approx. 15 months. By that time it'll be worth getting a D400 although that'd be around £1300 to start off with!
 
Shak said:
The D300 is expected to cease production in approx. 15 months. By that time it'll be worth getting a D400 although that'd be around £1300 to start off with!
Click to expand...

That could be the cue to get a bargain D300 ;)
 
Don't get hung on on the video aspect of the D90. It is an extremely competent camera in the first instance, which Nikon happen to have added video to obviously to begin the move from DSLR camera to DSLR camera and video. The camera is worth the money as a camera on it's own, the video is just a free extra.

It's quite funny to hear it described as a gimmick, I'm sure when digital SLR's first came out, some of the traditional film camera brigade said it was a gimick too. If the manufactruers don't start somewhere with an idea, they would never develop it into something better and better over time.
 
Actually, I suppose it was going to happen sooner or later on a DSLR. From what I gather, you can only record in HD (ish) for 5 mins or up to 2Gb (?). I suppose if the companies want this to take off they'll have to do something about that...
 
Note the D90 + lens is now out of stock at Dixons Tax-Free. The D300 (body only) is still available for £787 though. ;)
 
I have the D200, on the plus side it takes very good pictures with as many settings as you could wish for, also the balance with a heavy lens is no problem. On the minus side it can be a little heavy on the battery and has no anti dust feature.
At the moment I am pondering as to getting the D300 with the D200 as a backup.

I wouldn't go for the D90 because if I wanted a digital movie camera I would go for one built specifically for the purpose, not saying it is a bad camera but seems to me a bit of a compromise.

As for shooting in low light a lot depends on the lens, an f2.8 lens will shoot in far lower light than an F 3.5- 5.6 lens but the cost is that much more being pro against consumer.

Realspeed
 
I really need to think of things to say in one post lol.

The higher ISO settings on the D300 is fantastic. Unless you want something amazing, then you need a D3. The D90 uses the same sensor, BUT otherwise the D90 is a streamlined version of the D300. Why don't you go out and play with both, next to each other? I'm sure Jessops or somewhere has them in.

The ISO on my D80 was pretty horendous above ISO 800. Even then, image noise started creeping in. You can notice it straight away on the LCD. (Don't forget, the D80 sensor was the same from the D200). Not so, in the D300. :) I haven't tested it properly but from the LCD previews, even as far as ISO 2500 is probably when the image noise starts to creep in.
 
If you can I would sit it out and wait for the announcement of the next Nikon body/bodies (due Dec 1st I believe).

If you have pro lenses (i.e. heavy), I'd get the Nikon D300. If not I'd get the Nikon D90. I'm very impressed with it as a stills camera, the movie function is a nice extra (for a bit of a play-around or show-off to the kids/easily amused adults) but the next generation of video should be a lot better.

I would say that if you're after shooting at high ISO levels the D700 or D3 would be a better investment. I won't go above ISO800 on my D90 (maybe 1250 and 1600 at an absolute push).

I tend to shoot OOC jpegs a lot and I'm very happy with the Picture Controls and active d-lighting on the D90.

As ever *** I guess the investment is in good glass not in bodies.
 
Rumours say there is a D300 replacement coming out, so called D400.

Not sure about this myself, while I know (having seen) the "D3X" is coming, I've not heard a peep about the D400. Doesn't mean its not coming though.
 
puddleduck said:
Rumours say there is a D300 replacement coming out, so called D400.

Not sure about this myself, while I know (having seen) the "D3X" is coming, I've not heard a peep about the D400. Doesn't mean its not coming though.
Click to expand...

Well I said on a previous post on this thread; the D300 is expected to cease production in the next 15 months. I base that on the life of the D200 and D80. 12 months is far too soon to replace a model, shirley????
 
Who knows with Nikon at the moment. I'm sceptical myself on this.

Nikon may well feel they need to break the 12 megapixel barrier (for marketing purposes), unfortunately the first question a lot of people ask is "How many megapixels does it have?", and at the moment Canon has 15 with the 50D, vs 12 for the D300 / D90.

So if a "D400" comes out, it'll probably be something to do with that. But I'm skeptical on this.. we know the "D3X" is coming.. but a second body may come as well.

And remember the D3 and the D300 launched on the same day ;)
 
I did wonder if a D300s type model would come out, or perhaps a D700s model. But it seems Nikon have learnt from the D70/D70s moment.

I can't see it happening to be honest, unless it's a D300x with 500 million pixels.
 
Nod said:
Assuming you have a DSLR at the moment, I wouldn't go for either. If your plan is to sell what you get to help finance the D300 next year, you'll get a nasty shock when it's time to trade in. You might get better prices selling privately but even then, the fill in camera will end up costing you around £150 - £200, possibly more.

Struggle on with whatever you've got and put all your efforts into saving for the D300.
Click to expand...

im with nod on this one been saving all this year for my d300 its coming soon so worth the wait:woot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top