d200 significantly better than d40?

fontmoss

fontmoss

Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
the plan was to get a d300 but i think now for financial reasons i might end up with a d200. Is the high ISO performance much better than the d40? i know the d300 is a stop better than the d200 and has a much better battery life but i dont know how the d200 stacks up against the d40.
 
There is no contest. My wife has the model above the D40 the D40x. The D40,40x and 60 do not have the motor to AF on lots of different lenses. They are much smaller, less focus points and made of plastic (plus lots of other things too). Lots of functions that you use regularly are hidden away in the menu system rather than available via special buttons. They are very good camera BUT the D200 is far more flexible.
 
yeah the access to functions is why id go for the d200 over d90 and im using manual lenses so negates the better auto focus (most of the time)

really i want to know if ill notice a difference at high ISO between the d40 and d200?
 
The D40 is better at high ISO than the D200.

This is how I'd rate things:

D3 / D700 - 2 stops better than the D200 / D80
D300 - 2/3rd to 1 stop better than the D200 / D80
D40 / D50 - 2/3rd of a stop better than the D200 / D40x / D60
D2X - 1/2 to 2/3rd of a stop worse than the D200, nearly 3 stops worse than the D3 / D700

You need to quantify what you mean by high ISO performance, no camera exists with clean ISO1600.

The D3 and D700 do have noise at ISO1600.

The D300 has more noise, and less detail. The D200 has more noise, and less detail. The D40 some noise, but good detail. The D200 has a chunkier unpleasant noise charactersist, the D300 is more fine grained, and less "clumpy", it has noise, but its more pleasant.

The real issue I think is how much detail is retained. The D3 and D700 retain much more detail than the others.

Ignore any "pie in the sky" claims about high ISO - regardless of camera. ALL cameras to date have noise at ISO1600, and you can start to see it from ISO800 even from the D700, I can see if from ISO320 from a D300. There is no noise free camera. The issue I think you should look at is detail retained, not noise (low noise is often at the expense of detail), and also the quality of the noise that remains.
 
The D40 is better at high ISO than the D200.
Click to expand...

this probably tells me all i need to know. i know im being too vague but what i mean which is going to allow me to end up with better images when using ISO 800 and 1600 but your comments above have kid of clarified that.

it comes down to whether its worth me spending £750 on a d300 or £400/450 on a d200 over using my d40. there are lots of features the d200 has over the d40 but it's whether the d300 is worth the price hike.

im not sure ive made that any clearer??
 
Can I ask why you have discounted the D90? As far as I can tell the only thing that is radically better on a D300 compared to a D90 is the actual body i.e weatherproofing. Do you really need it? The D90 noise reduction at higher iso (and retained detail) is, I think, superior to the D300. And the ease of use of the D90 is fantastic.

Andy
 
good question.

ultimately im after more control than i can get with the d40, purely for high ISO id probably get a d90 but the d200/300 body feels much better (to me) in the hand and offers a lot more flexibility. they'll also meter my old manual lenses which is a bonus. so it'd be a d200 or a d300 and im wondering if the d200 offers a significant upgrade from the d40 and beyond that whether the d300 is worth another 300 (not only for high ISO necessarily but overall for IQ, colour etc)
 
You did state in your other thread (D90 or D300) that you wanted better ISO performance (D300/D90>). In all honesty I don't think you'll get that with a D200 over what you already have.

FWIW if you want that kind of body you may as well get a D300....as sure as anything when you've got over the initial new body excitement with a D200 you'll be wondering "what if".
 
yeah im probably confusing folk more than enlightening them to what i want. i guess most of it boils down to money, money no object then its a d300. im a bit nervous of throwing £700 at non warrantied 2nd hand electronic goods! plus given that most folk have prob bought their cameras before the price hikes then it seems, well a bit unfair really. but such is life
 
Fuji S5 Pro - £460 or so new, will work with all your old lenses and as long as you're not planning to shoot motorsports or something like that it'll be far more useable than an old D200 or a half a D300 :LOL:
 
ta.

if you had to choose between a d200 for 400 quid or a d300 for 750 what would you buy?
 
I'd go for the D200.

But if high ISO is your main motivation, the D200 will disappoint I think. That was never a strength, even in 2005.

Low ISO its better than the D300 (ISO100, 200). You might find much over ISO640 on a D200 problematic, it'll look like your D40 at around ISO1000 / 1250.
 
puddleduck said:
I'd go for the D200.

But if high ISO is your main motivation, the D200 will disappoint I think. That was never a strength, even in 2005.

Low ISO its better than the D300 (ISO100, 200). You might find much over ISO640 on a D200 problematic, it'll look like your D40 at around ISO1000 / 1250.
Click to expand...

I don't take my D200 over ISO400, unles it's absolutely necessary. High ISO's are not the D200's strong point!!
 
I don't take my D200 over ISO400, unles it's absolutely necessary. High ISO's are not the D200's strong point!!
Click to expand...

really? thats not good surely?
 
I have a D200 and rarely need to go above 400 iso as I shoot light aircraft and its superb for this
 
as far as i recall the low noise on the s5 was pretty impressive comparatively to the d200 that might be a choice instead?

really should get my hands on one tbh :)
 
fontmoss said:
really? thats not good surely?
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not good, but then it isn't supposed to be good - it's 2005 technology.

In 10 years time, when "Auto ISO" will mean each pixel can set it's ISO independently of the others, we'll all be saying "Fixed ISO, that's not good, surely?" :LOL::LOL:
 
alexkidd said:
as far as i recall the low noise on the s5 was pretty impressive comparatively to the d200 that might be a choice instead?

really should get my hands on one tbh :)
Click to expand...

I understand the same thing - S5Pro would seem to be the way to go providing speed is not required...
 
ok looks like the s5 pro is the best compromise and as i take pics of people it should suit me for colour and high ISO use. remains to be seen if the slow speeds will get annoying but for £500 and 2 year warranty then seems like a winner.
 
fontmoss said:
ok looks like the s5 pro is the best compromise and as i take pics of people it should suit me for colour and high ISO use. remains to be seen if the slow speeds will get annoying but for £500 and 2 year warranty then seems like a winner.
Click to expand...

one year warranty.....
 
just hope its got the same proper snap when you press the shutter as the d300 i tried today had :D
 
both places im looking online state 2, i know the second is with them but 2 is 2!
 
puddleduck said:
You need to quantify what you mean by high ISO performance, no camera exists with clean ISO1600.
Click to expand...

Until black silicon is fully developed for DSLR's lol That's something I'm definitely looking forward to! :)
 
fontmoss said:
ok looks like the s5 pro is the best compromise and as i take pics of people it should suit me for colour and high ISO use. remains to be seen if the slow speeds will get annoying but for £500 and 2 year warranty then seems like a winner.
Click to expand...

One Year - at least if its a Fujifilm warranty.

For some reason I've never had anything that looks like warranty paperwork with my S5 Pro's (all bought from WHE / Jessops) they go purely by reciept for Service.

As you won't get any warranty paperwork, 2 years sounds like it could be a Grey Import. I'm not sure what the Fuji stance in on doing repaairs (if needed) on Grey.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:thinking:

D300 new: £1000+
S5 Pro new: £460


so, no....not 3/4 :LOL:

If you mean a used D300, then still not 3/4 of the price,unless there are "several" :)lol:) available around the £600 mark ;)
Click to expand...

:nuts:

Sorry, I thought you were referring to a D90. :bonk:
 
camerabox do a 2 year warranty on their stuff, i know fuji only do 1 but if camerabox/mack cover the second then theres still 2 years warranty surely
 
i decided to go for a s5 pro, best compromise between cost and performance im after cheers to everyone for their help.

flash im not convinced my gender has anything to do with me not being able to read numbers properly ;)
 
fontmoss said:
camerabox do a 2 year warranty on their stuff, i know fuji only do 1 but if camerabox/mack cover the second then theres still 2 years warranty surely
Click to expand...


Camerabox sell gray imports, so the whole warranty is with them, not 1 year Fuji/1 year Mack

Edit: I know it says "UK stock", but that doesn't necessarily mean Fuji UK stock :LOL:

£499 isn't all that cheap for an S5 anyway ;)
 
ok ok you're right, im wrong

i dont care now, ive got a new camera on the way !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top