D200 Upgrade - D610 or D7100?

Stick with D200 or upgrade to D610 or D7100

  • Stick with my D200

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Upgrade to D610

    Votes: 7 58.3%

  • Upgrade to D7100

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Total voters
    12
DavidUK

DavidUK

Messages
473
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone. I'm contemplating an upgrade from my trusty D200. I've had the body for some time now...got it second hand originally. I'm thinking of an upgrade...I'm thinking ideally a D610 but am unsure whether a D7100 would be a better option given the glass I've got at present. Any comments welcome... or is sticking with the D200 still a viable option? I shoot primarily landscape.
 
DavidUK said:
or is sticking with the D200 still a viable option? I shoot primarily landscape.
Click to expand...
Does the D200 do the job you want? If yes, stick with it.
There are lots of reasons you might want to shift to a different model, but you haven't outlined them. I went from D200 to D7000 as I wanted a better ISO performance. I've never enjoyed the handling of it as much as the D200, but have put up with it ... you need to get out and feel a few models first (ooooh errr and all that) and weigh up what other uses besides landscape yo might have for it.
 
new2me said:
Does the D200 do the job you want? If yes, stick with it.
There are lots of reasons you might want to shift to a different model, but you haven't outlined them. I went from D200 to D7000 as I wanted a better ISO performance. I've never enjoyed the handling of it as much as the D200, but have put up with it ... you need to get out and feel a few models first (ooooh errr and all that) and weigh up what other uses besides landscape yo might have for it.
Click to expand...

Thanks new2me - I must admit I like the bulk of the D200 - the newer Nikon bodies seem quite small for those of us with big hands! Ultimately I'm exploring the options for an upgrade and along the way determining if it's even needed!
 
DavidUK said:
...so of all the potential advantages/disadvantages of each body the most important or key element is full frame?
Click to expand...
I think they are pretty much the same camera ain't they other than the sensor size?
 
I'm thinking spending some cash on a refresher photography course may give better results at present! ...or perhaps a good book. Think it's a 'jump start' after some years away that I need and not sure a newer body is the best option.
 
Hi David. You mention glass, but not what you have. If you have any crop specific lenses then will you need to replace them for full frame? If so then that could influence your decision perhaps?
 
Looking at your lenses, don't forget to consider the cost of upgrading those to FX lenses which are normally more expensive - buying a D610 in the summer cost me another £700 in buying a 16-35 FX wide angle!

(The post above wasn't showing when I posted!)
 
I went from a D200 to a D90 and couldn't bring myself to love it. I missed the chunkier body, even though it produced nicer image quality - which is what I wanted most, I thought at the time. Sold the D90 and a couple of kidneys and got the D800E, felt right at home again, best of both. If you can bump the budget to a used D800, that's what I'd suggest.

But .... as that's not one of your poll possibles I'd go D610.
 
You mention that landscapes are your primary interest, so just to confuse matters even more ... have you considered a used D800/E at all? prices are falling and they are as good as it gets for landscape work for a DSLR :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
You'll not be disappointed with a D700.
Don't be put off with a "measly" 12MP. It's a whole different ballgame when you go FX.
I've recently upgraded from a D7000 and it's a new world with the amount of information the FX sensor captures.
 
Last edited:
I still use my D200 for everyday pics but find that the quality of images taken with my D800 are far, far superior. The only real problem is lenses but if you are like me and only change kit rarely then it is worth starting to build your full frame kit, especially for the extra detail for landscapes. I suppose that for the me real downside of upgrading to a D800 is that it illustrates very clearly how bad a photographer I really am !!:(
 
Edited my last post > Removed reference to the advertisement for my camera as this is not the classifieds.

Apologies (just read rules)

Terry.
 
BBR said:
If you want to FX think about 2nd hand D3, a lot of camera for the money. If you want to stay crop what about D300/s. This has the same weight and layout as your current D200.
Click to expand...

...had actually considered the D300s, may have a look around LCE for second hand. I'd love a D800 but can't run to the cost sadly!
 
A d300/s would be a good upgrade from a d200, I've kept my d300s even though I now have a FX camera. Also look at MPB who seem to have a few d300/s in stock.

I do think the D7000/7100 has better IQ at high iso if you do any of that at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
The D300s was the camera I really wanted when I got the D90, but it was a fair bit more expensive, even used, at the time. The D7**** models will beat it in terms of image quality and ISO performance though. If I was still using DX now, I'd go for one of those, and just get used to the lighter body. Over time I've come to appreciate better ISO performance as much as ergonomics, I guess
 
If you don't need faster SS's in low light, and you're not going to be printing particularly large; then there's no need for FF. DX is more than capable and it's quite a bit cheaper.
 
I don't get this "if you don't print large" thing that many use as a reason not to go FF. By that logic, most people who own a D800 probably shouldn't have bothered unless they planned to print huge!

There are many reasons people go FF, and many people who never print at all who go FF. In fact I can't think of any one thing better about DX over FX in general, only it's cheaper, and there's nothing wrong with it, it's plenty good enough for any job with the right glass .... but I'd still choose FF every time, if you can afford it - better construction, better on body controls, wider view [ok, some might prefer cropped in that regard] - overall better image quality, yes, even on a monitor! better low light performance etc .... all these things make it worth the upgrade. For anyone who loves their photography, not just pros.
 
Last edited:
wide angle primes can be cheaper on full frame - i paid £40 for a mint 28mm nikkor ai but id be looking at *far* more for an 18mm prime for an fx body - going wide at low cost on dx really limits you to using cheap zooms rather than primes (im not keen on zooms, much prefer the simplicity of primes)
 
I think you should be asking yourself what aspects of your D200 you are dissatisfied with. I can't help my impression that the answer is nothing? But a newer generation body should provide lower shadow noise and I might mention that you can buy a new D7000 body for lesss than £600 ... and won't have to buy any different lenses!

The primary focus should be on the imaging, not the machinery.
 
Cagey75 said:
but I'd still choose FF every time, if you can afford it - better construction, better on body controls, wider view [ok, some might prefer cropped in that regard] - overall better image quality, yes, even on a monitor! better low light performance etc .... all these things make it worth the upgrade. For anyone who loves their photography, not just pros.
Click to expand...
Better construction/controls? Depends on what models you are comparing. Wider view? You can get just as wide for less $ w/ DX. Overall IQ at smaller sizes/on monitor?
Two of these are w/ a D4 and two are with a D7000 both are 16MP cameras. And just for grins, one is a D800 image.... At this size can you tell the difference? All are 1024 long edge (no cheating! ;)).

_SGK1113.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr

SGK_1989-Edit-Edit.jpg by skersting66, on Flickr

Golden Crowned Kinglet by skersting66, on Flickr

Black-Throated Green Warbler by skersting66, on Flickr

Baltimore Oriol by skersting66, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Yes, better pretty much everything! You do have the choice of bodies like ... if that's what you want you will go for the ones that feature it obviously.

I have no way of knowing what processing you performed on those for one, whether you shot RAW or Jpeg, or what settings each was shot at - also, I'm only looking at them small sized here, not full screen, because well, I don't care enough to go looking in detail :D I could grab my best D800 shots and worst D200 images to do opposite. The only way to properly compare is post full res identical shots from each - same settings

Are trying to prove something with a very select bunch of shots? :thinking: I don't know. I didn't quote you for a reason, because I wasn't directly referring to your post, it just reminded me how many times the ol' "if you don't print large" spiel gets chucked about.



[edit] also, now that I clicked them to try view larger, I see they are all shot using different ISO - so that's pointless. The second and last shots would be my favourites, but that's because of the bird in last, and the over all image of the second, but that wouldn't prove anything.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
[edit] also, now that I clicked them to try view larger, I see they are all shot using different ISO - so that's pointless. The second and last shots would be my favourites, but that's because of the bird in last, and the over all image of the second, but that wouldn't prove anything.
Click to expand...
I did my best to pick reasonably comparable images (processing/crop/subject/etc); they are all some of my better images that I posted to Flick'r. Other than a controlled side by side test I can't do better, and I can't do that because I don't have a D7000 anymore.

But that's kind of my point... there's more to it than just sensor size. From some of my best pictures the images you chose (2 & 5) are both D7000 images. Used well a crop sensor is more than adequate and virtually indistinguishable from FF at small sizes. And, IMO, a "good picture" isn't really about IQ anyway...
 
sk66 said:
I did my best to pick reasonably comparable images (processing/crop/subject/etc); they are all some of my better images that I posted to Flick'r. Other than a controlled side by side test I can't do better, and I can't do that because I don't have a D7000 anymore.

But that's kind of my point... there's more to it than just sensor size. From some of my best pictures the images you chose (2 & 5) are both D7000 images. Used well a crop sensor is more than adequate and virtually indistinguishable from FF at small sizes. And, IMO, a "good picture" isn't really about IQ anyway...
Click to expand...


But that still doesn't make DX as good, or better in general. I only chose those images based on a general quick glance, rather than any technical reasoning [they are nice pics btw, and does show the D7000 to be a very capable wildlife camera]

I'm talking ... outside of wildlife, outdoor, scenic ... just general use, or when you do need to pump the ISO, I prefer FF - I used enough cropped sensor bodies to know I do. I've had a Sony A200, Nikon D200 + D90 - and loved all 3, but was getting annoyed having to go to the LCD menus to change certain controls - also, I was never comfortable with any of them pushing the ISO - none of them felt 'right' in hand either - just not 'hefty' or solid enough for my liking. I did shoot gigs using the D90 up to ISO 3200 and grabbed some decent enough shots, enough to please the bands I was shooting for at least. But when I got the D800E I felt it allowed me to go a step beyond. I shot a band in worse lighting up to ISO 10K and even had a print done up of one shot taken at 10K printed up fairly large [exact size I can't remember, but poster size] for a friend who's a fan of the band

Don't have any examples of that range on Flickr, but did post up a few, it was the first gig I shot using the D800. This one was ISO 4000. And I know if I was using my old D90 I'd have not got the same result, not even close.

Y&T, Pick flick by Cagey75, on Flickr

How this helps OP? well, I guess I'd stick to suggesting the D610, because I feel you do have more scope with an FX camera, I do think they are better in every way - we're talking D610 Vs D7100 here I guess. They may be built very similarly but the D610 gives you more of an edge, in almost every situation. The dynamic range, the ISO performance, the crop-ability, I'd add build quality but they're probably not all that different in that sense? But if he went for a used D800, which i suggested to begin with ... you get that on top too.
 
Last edited:
I did qualify high ISO as one of the primary reasons for FF. My comment was only on DX vs FX and not about those two cameras specifically.
Of the two I would also choose a D610. But that's ignoring lens costs. And it's because I don't like the D7100; I feel it's too many pixels on too small of a sensor... it's too demanding of lenses and technique (more-so than the D8xx).

One would need to qualify the choice with $$$'s and subjects...
 
Last edited:
droj said:
I think you should be asking yourself what aspects of your D200 you are dissatisfied with. I can't help my impression that the answer is nothing? But a newer generation body should provide lower shadow noise and I might mention that you can buy a new D7000 body for lesss than £600 ... and won't have to buy any different lenses!

The primary focus should be on the imaging, not the machinery.
Click to expand...

I did come around to thinking earlier in the week that some nice glass may be a sounder investment, looked at whether the Nikon 14-24 F2.8 would be a good partner for my D200 :)
 
boliston said:
the 12-24 f/4 is probably a good dx wide angle zoom for the d200
Click to expand...

I'll check that one out, thanks.

I've had the Sigma 10 to 20 for some time and it's arguably my favorite lens.

If my understanding is correct the 14-24 f2.8 can be use on both DX and FX and may be a good stop gap whilst I save for a D810!
 
DavidUK said:
...
If my understanding is correct the 14-24 f2.8 can be use on both DX and FX and may be a good stop gap whilst I save for a D810!
Click to expand...
It will work fine on both DX and FX but it is rather large lens and costs a small fortune (around £1200 + new, best part of £1K used) ... and add in that it doesn't easily take filters unless you spend another small fortune on the Lee range, it may not be the best "stop gap" ;) Stunning lens though.
 
The 14-24 is a great lens, but hard to get along with (flare/ghosting/lack of filters/etc). I sold mine and got a 16-35 AND a Sigma 12-24 (for the UWA weirdness). A bit better lens w/o VR might be the 17-35mm f/2.8.
 
Surely a 450D is ideal...

I'll get me coat.
 
PaulButler said:
It will work fine on both DX and FX but it is rather large lens and costs a small fortune (around £1200 + new, best part of £1K used) ... and add in that it doesn't easily take filters unless you spend another small fortune on the Lee range, it may not be the best "stop gap" ;) Stunning lens though.
Click to expand...

...yes I read about the lack of a filter thread, I'd be extra wary not being able to put a daylight filter or such on to protect the lens, especially at that price!

Might just go nuts and get the D810... job done! (and bank account empty) :D ...same issue here though (as with the original D610 I considered) with glass, the only two lenses I have that I *think* would work on FX are the 50mm 1:1.8 D I bought ages ago and a recent outing into the world of macro with a Sigma 105mm 1:2.8 DG Macro HSM.

Decisions Decisions! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DavidUK said:
...yes I read about the lack of a filter thread, I'd be extra wary not being able to put a daylight filter or such on to protect the lens, especially at that price!

Might just go nuts and get the D810... job done! (and bank account empty) :D ...same issue here though (as with the original D610 I considered) with glass, the only two lenses I have that I *think* would work on FX are the 50mm 1:1.8 D I bought ages ago and a recent outing into the world of macro with a Sigma 105mm 1:2.8 DG Marco HSM.

Decisions Decisions! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Both those lenses will work fine on a D810 or any fx body. Lenses tend to be more expensive for FX so worth thinking about that too.
 
PaulButler said:
Both those lenses will work fine on a D810 or any fx body. Lenses tend to be more expensive for FX so worth thinking about that too.
Click to expand...

...so if I do go for broke at least I will have some lenses I can use! My partner likes the idea of macro photography - mushrooms and flora etc, maybe I can use this as a selling point ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top