Used D200 vs. new D90

Top Geek

Top Geek

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
10,837
Location
Canadaland :)
Car(s)
1995 Nissan 240SX
Sorry, I didn't want this to get lost among the "Random Thoughts" or "Your Equipment" threads...

Lately, I've been starting to eye the D90 for its better control interfaces over the D40. However, I found a used D200 while browsing a local camera shop today and it really piqued my interest. The store bought it from a local pro who used it as a backup and it only has about 11.5k shutter actuations (I checked).

So, they're asking $650 (at 12% tax, making it $730). The warranty isn't much (2 weeks return, 30 days repair) and the price pales in comparison to Best Buy's now-expired sale of $600 brand new (but that was only the US), but it's still pretty tempting for me: native ISO 100, non-CPU lens metering, a magnesium frame and weather sealing would be nice to have, and the controls are even better than the D90's. I also think the group dynamic AF would work really well for the way I do action shots.

On the other hand, the D90, while $450 more after taxes, gives me an additional stop of clean ISO, a full Nikon warranty, a better screen and a CMOS sensor. I've had issues with blooming when shooting into light sources with my D40 (and I do that pretty often). As I understand it, that is more due to the fact that it basically has an electronic shutter. As the D200 has a "real" (mechanical) shutter, would be less (or not at all?) susceptible to CCD blooming?

Decisions, decisions!
 
Last edited:
I'll leave the heavy debate for the pro's, but just remember that while a weather sealed camera is nice what about the lenses?

And doesn't the D90 have a typical focal plane shutter? I thought the electronic shutter was why the D40 had that ridiculous flash sync, but the D90 has a 1/200 or 1/250 one so..
 
And doesn't the D90 have a typical focal plane shutter? I thought the electronic shutter was why the D40 had that ridiculous flash sync, but the D90 has a 1/200 or 1/250 one so..
Click to expand...
Yeah, the D90 syncs at 1/200, the D200 syncs at 1/250. But, they both have FP mode.
 
epp_b said:
Yeah, the D90 syncs at 1/200, the D200 syncs at 1/250. But, they both have FP mode.
Click to expand...

True, but phucking is referring to the semi-electronic shutter in the D40/D50/D70 series that through happenstance allowed the cameras to sync at any shutter speed with any flash, including studio strobes. Newer cameras do not have the semi-elec design and thus lost that (unadvertised) ability.

Personally, I liked the D200 but the D90 has better image quality. It's a generation newer and unless you absolutely need the external controls of the D200, I'd stick with getting the D90.
 
True, but phucking is referring to the semi-electronic shutter in the D40/D50/D70 series that through happenstance allowed the cameras to sync at any shutter speed with any flash, including studio strobes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know what he meant (tape over TTL contacts, sync all the way up to 1/4000! :thumbsup: )

Newer cameras do not have the semi-elec design and thus lost that (unadvertised) ability.
Click to expand...
Sort of off-topic, but why don't all DSLRs have the option shoot in an "electronic shutter" mode so they can sync up to any speed and not have to rely on sucking down flash batteries with FP mode?
 
Well, Nikon has never given an official reason for removing a feature that never technically existed, but I do know there was "tearing" issues when shooting into really bright lights (solution: don't take pictures of the goddamn sun), and the switch from CCD to CMOS sensors may have made the semi-elec design impossible.
 
but I do know there was "tearing" issues when shooting into really bright lights (solution: don't take pictures of the goddamn sun)
Click to expand...
But, but... sunsets! :( ;)

and the switch from CCD to CMOS sensors may have made the semi-elec design impossible.
Click to expand...
Ah, right.

I think I'll let the store sweat it out longer ;) If they drop it down enough, then I'll start thinking about it more seriously. As it is now, the D90 is probably a better deal.
 
Last edited:
D90 hands down. The image quality is just better and you know you want that sexy 3" LCD. :cool:
 
TopGearDog said:
D90 hands down. The image quality is just better and you know you want that sexy 3" LCD. :cool:
Click to expand...

you know what, i was just looking at some comparisons and at 100% converted from RAW, they look exactly the same. Actually I think the D200/d80 was a bit sharper haha. Yeah the D90 can produce amazing colors, but you can do that in photoshop anyways.
 
At what ISO? Most cameras (GENERALIZATION PLZ) can produce roughly the same at ISO 100, resolution aside.

You start hitting 800+ though and the good cameras start to separate themselves.

In other news, the kitten has found the mouse on screen. And text entry into this box is screwing with his mind. When the mouse jumps from one screen to the other it really plays with him.
 
phuckingduck said:
At what ISO? Most cameras (GENERALIZATION PLZ) can produce roughly the same at ISO 100, resolution aside.

You start hitting 800+ though and the good cameras start to separate themselves.
Click to expand...

oh yeah haha forgot to mention. yeah ISO100 to 400 is probably quite similar. besides it doesn't matter what camera it is. it just comes down to the photographer and how he uses it.
personally i'd go with a d200. better performance and build.
 
It does matter. No matter what you do, you will never get as technically good results with a D200 at high ISO as you'd get with a D90, given the same exposure. A skilled photographer with a D200 vs. a noob with a D90 though.. ;)
 
BUMP. I have the exact same decision to make. Exactly a year on.
I need a replacement for the D40, as it's not really mine anyway :p
So I was thinking of a new D90 kit, but a second hand D200 would be better value, wouldn't it? They're going for about ?500 now which is decent. And less than the D90.

However, the problem is that then I only have a body and have to buy a primary lens seperately. Which is expensive. I was thinking a 18-105. But they are quite pricey. Any thoughts on the cameras or the lenses if I do go for a D200?

Thanks as always ;)

PS. I already have a 70-300 zoom so I don't need more than 105.
 
If it helps, I bought a D90 earlier this year. My only regret is how Nikon cripples the metering with manual lenses (inb4 BCS tells me it doesn't have an AI-S ring... I know, it's not like there aren't simple ways around that). I'd love to be able to use an old MF macro lens with metering. Other than that, it's everything I could possibly need in a camera and more.

If you chose to buy the D200, get a 35/1.8 and then a 18-55 for something a bit wider.

Alternatively, since you're open to buying used anyway, a used D300 is down to the price a new D90.

EDIT: Oh! Nikon will almost certainly be announcing a D90 replacement by the end of the year. Take that as you will: buy a D90 before it goes out of stock everywhere (that seems to happen almost immediately whenever Nikon discontinues a model) or wait for the newer, better model.
 
Last edited:
I'd wait if I were you, the D95/D7000 is rumoured to be unveiled in the next week or so. I'm in the same situation replacing my D40, and waiting for the new camera will help you get a cheaper D90 at the very least. :)
 
Matt2000 said:
I'd wait if I were you, the D95/D7000 is rumoured to be unveiled in the next week or so. I'm in the same situation replacing my D40, and waiting for the new camera will help you get a cheaper D90 at the very least. :)
Click to expand...

I'm finding multiple examples of used D90 bodies with less than 10K actuations on the shutter for well under $800 on craigslist, you should check that as a source because you can test out the equipment yourself before money changes hands. I just bought a Nikon SB800 flash for only $220 in nearly new condition, it was a hell of a bargain and the D90 body I bought was brand new and less than $900, both from local sellers.
 
I can't wait 2 more days until the rumoured announce day, I want it now!
 
That expanded ISO range and increased fps is enough to make me want to upgrade from my D90 (i'd probably keep it as a backup body). Yes I could always get a used D300S at that point for possibly the same price, but we'll wait and see how the D7000 actually plays out once it comes out in stores and actually reviewed.

Only thing I worry is that by making this a 'bargain price' D300s, I hope they dont remove the in body AF servo motor like they have been for the D3000, 5000 line. It wouldn't surprise me if they did for this model as well, forcing you to use AF-S lenses only unless you want to just do manual focusing (my eyes are bad so my manual focusing is always off).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top