Nikon D200, is it any good?

[ReynoImages]

Im looking at upgrading to digital SLR, I currently use a Samsung Pro 815, Its a good camera, and although has a fair amount of control over shots, it is begining to limit my shooting slightly. (Plus the images are fairly noisy even at low ISO).

Ive been looking at the D200, and realise its mainly for shooting in RAW format, and reviews ive read say that JPEG files arent great from it.

So if anyone uses one and can give me some more and their opinions on the D200 id greatly appreciate it.

[nightshade]

Hello,try this link http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...me-animal.html

[Zebethyal]

Try having a read of Ken Rockwell's comments on the D200 (his favourite Nikon body of the moment) he only shoots jpg (read why here), sees no benefit to shooting raw - just about anything you can do with raw you can also do with jpg (absolutely everything now that you can load jpgs into Photoshop CS3's raw converter)

Why increase your workload on every picture by shooting raw and no guarantee that the raw format will stay the same from camera to camera, it is not supported by any high street printing outlets and has excessive file sizes.

The D200 is what I currently want as my next camera body.

Regards

Tim

[ReynoImages]

Cheers for that, I just read a review in what digital camera, that said the JPEGS were poor off the D200. But I cant see why they would be any worse than say the D80.

[Zebethyal]

Originally Posted by ReynoImages

Cheers for that, I just read a review in what digital camera, that said the JPEGS were poor off the D200. But I cant see why they would be any worse than say the D80.

There are two types of "winning" review in magazines, items that shine because the reviewer likes the item and it is genuinely good, the second is where the company supplying the item is paying for a good review.

All reviews are subjective to a degree - ask a Canon fan to review a Nikon camera and he will not necessarily give it a completely impartial review (menus awkward, etc), give it to a Nikon person and he will rave slightly more about it.

How else can you have "supertests" every X number of months with pretty much the same participants and a different product winning each time?

As an example: Yamaha were particularly well known for paying for rave reviews in Hi-Fi magazines and Linn always received bad reviews in a certain Hi-Fi magazine (reviewers at that mag did not like Linn)

Unless there is something radically wrong with a particular camera I can see no reason why it would produce poor jpgs (and poor compared to what?)

Regards

Tim

[Boddie]

This is the only other camera I would have considered as it is supposed to be very nice indeed. I did go down the Canon route though and now have 3 grands worth of glass so its not really a viable option but I know owners who rave about them and they produce great results.

Check out OY's Gallery

[nightshade]

I always find the metering to be spot on with my D70s it does seem to be a strong point

[matt_xyz]

Everything I've read suggests that the D200 is a superb camera. As has been said above, there can be no reason why it would produce poor JPEGS.

I will read Ken Rockwell's comments about RAW v. JPEG with some interest. I must admit to still being sceptical of the benefits of RAW, despite experimenting with RAW for some time now and despite reading Practical Photography's recent guide on why we should all be shooting in RAW. Aside from being able to change white balance settings and lift shadows a touch more than in JPEG, there seem to be few other tangible benefits yet there are costs (not least processing time and memory space).

Anyway, I digress. If I'd had a slightly larger budget I would have been extremely tempted by the D200.

Matt

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Zebethyal

There are two types of "winning" review in magazines, items that shine because the reviewer likes the item and it is genuinely good, the second is where the company supplying the item is paying for a good review.

All reviews are subjective to a degree - ask a Canon fan to review a Nikon camera and he will not necessarily give it a completely impartial review (menus awkward, etc), give it to a Nikon person and he will rave slightly more about it.

Unless there is something radically wrong with a particular camera I can see no reason why it would produce poor jpgs (and poor compared to what?)

Regards

Tim

The Brand "Loyalty goes deep, on this site there seems to be exeptional loyalty to canon, I am a canon owner (my reason for becoming a canon user were simple economics) but truthfully I eny those who can afford Nikon and always feel slightly humbled when in the presence of a Nikon user. To me Nikon is the real proffesionals choice and canon a poor person's second choice. Were that sequence of six numbers to favour me one of my first acts would be to go and upgrade to Nikon equipment and donate my Canon equipment to some poor and needy person.

All illogical of course but it takes me back to some years ago when a neighbour knew my Olympus OM1 to be inferior because her boyfriend had a Chinon!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Boddie

This is the only other camera I would have considered as it is supposed to be very nice indeed. I did go down the Canon route though and now have 3 grands worth of glass so its not really a viable option but I know owners who rave about them and they produce great results.

Check out OY's Gallery

The one I'd really like is the D2X - if it could take canon lenses i would buy that in a heartbeat (not that there is anything wrong with nikon lenses I hasten to add, its just that I have over 2k tied up in canon glass) - i'd rather have it than the canon 1dmk2n , but not at the price of replacing all my lenses

my uncle has a d200 and i've used it quite a bit and i'd rate it pretty highly. mind you that said the D80 is a nice bit of kit too and is supposed to compare equally with its more expensive brother . Also the Fuji S5 pro is supposed to be based on the d200 body so that could be another option worth exploring.