D200 or D90?

C

Chappers.

Messages
169
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

My apologies if this has been answered before (I've had a quick search), but I'm after some advice. I'm about to upgrade from a Panasonic Bridging camera to a DSLR. I've already decided that it will be a Nikon (got a couple of friends with them).

Although fairly new to all this, I've narrowed my selection to either a D200 or a D90. I'm hoping to expand my range of photography and potential subjects, however I've found that it is mainly outdoors when the camera is used - a mixture of scenery/live/action shots.

Is it really fair to compare the two together or are/were they aimed at different markets altogether?

I'm aware that the D90 has a newer sensor etc and should be better at low light images. The D200 feels like it is built from stone and will last forwever, but the D90 is lighter and smaller. The D200 has the benifit of direct access for many settings, but the D90 is easier for the lazy photographer in me with it's mode settings.

I'm also aware that the D200 is now an old design of camera, but I have been loaned one and playing about with it at the moment.

So, will I really notice any difference in image quality? Which would be the better long-term prospect to purchase. (Extra lenses will have to be bought/upgraded over time). Whichever camera will be a second-hand purchase (the D200 has a distinct cost advantage here).

All advice greatly appreciated!
 
Hmm tough choice. I've had both, at the same time infact. The d90 is great and produces lovely images but is small in the hand a feels a lot less solid. The d200 is a solid workhorse that will last and last, but for that you sacrifice a small amount of IQ at higher ISO.

I think the d200 would probably just win for me, especially if it's going to be used outside a lot. Still a tough choice though, the d90 is great.
 
I went through that decision when upgrading from a D40. I wanted an in-body focus motor. I wanted some better lower light ability. I didn't want a tank. I went D90 for the newer sensor, higher ISO quality, and slightly lighter weight.

The benefits of the D200 (heavy build, extra buffer, more direct dials/buttons/controls) weren't benefits to me and my needs whereas the better sensor of the D90 was.

Thanks,
Rick
 
Fifty fifty .. :)

d90 has the video bit to play with too.
d90 was high end consumer...
d200 was the low end pro...

Both are good, although I thought there were more options in the d200 on shooting than the d90 (number of focal points?, other options to tweak)
Also thought the d90 was a cut down d300.

Probably best to try both and see which suits you more.
 
I went from a D40 to a D200, the D90 was a consideration for me at the time.

For me though, the Dxx, and now Dxxxx range are too small for me and the buttons I need just aren't to hand. I really like the build of the D200 and above, and I pretty much solely shoot with strobes right now so the D200 and it's noisy high ISO nature havent bothered me so far.

The images at ISO 100/200 are clean and that's what matters for me.
 
Having recently been in the same position as you i decided on the D200, for me i wasnt bothered about video (D90) but i did like the direct buttons (D200) for ISO, WB, Quality etc and having used it for a few weeks im confident i made the right choice.

The D200 feels nice and solid in the hand, is easy to use and as above i have found the ability to flick from one setting to the next with just one button is very handy..

all in all there both great cameras so you wont be sorry with either, for me the 200 just seems to have that extra feel of quality....
 
Many thanks for the replies and advice so far - it really is appreciated. The video mode on the D90 is of little interest to me - I'm not interested in making video's (and if I was, an HD camcorder would do a better job).

The main points I'm interested in is a good quality camera that will last a long time, but that I can "grow into" as I gain more experience, and that will give a good quality image. Being used to a Panasonic DMC FZ28, the D200 is certainly a hefty piece of kit - but the quality is outstanding, and it certainly feels substantial when being used.

My main concerns about the D200 are it's older operating system/sensor etc, but I'm thinking that a decent lens will go a long way towards countering this (plus the money that would be saved against a D90 could be put towards the lens).

Please keep the suggestions and advice coming.
 
There is no doubt that the D200 is a really good choice for someone who wants quality on a budget. It's probably the first ever affordable but high quality DSLR that Nikon produced as before that it was either a choice between high end pro or consumer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top