MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Upgrading Nikon D200  (Read 6356 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 25, 2013, 07:40 »
0
I have had my Nikon D200 for a few years and feel I have outgrown it. I would like to either upgrade to a better body that can use the same lenses (kit lens and telephoto) but with full frame and better quality. Or should I just get a very good lens for the D200 ? I am out of touch with what is out there so would be grateful for any pointers. I have been too long away from shooting editorial images (since college in 1989) which I had a niche. I like to get nice saturation close to transparency quality. HD video would be a nice added feature so I can also shoot stock video.

Another thing is I use Raw shooter essentials to render my Raw images and whatever format I save the edited images to a JPEG (Adobe RBG 1998, Pro) I never seem to get the same nice result as my Raw Shooter edit on the screen. They seem more washed out, less saturated versions. Perhaps some decent software also you could recommend for getting the best images from Raw.

Thanks folks.


« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2013, 07:45 »
0
Any current DSLR from any manufacturer is going to give you much better results than the D200, even the cheap ones. Managing noise is so much better nowadays, you'll be amazed I think.

« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2013, 08:16 »
0
you may find your lenses wont work at full frame if they are DX.

« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2013, 08:19 »
0
That's the trouble, I was hoping to avoid buying all again from scratch because of the expense. I could sell it all I suppose but I wouldn't get anywhere near the amount I paid in 2006. I do like the idea of buying an slr that takes hd video.

« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2013, 08:28 »
+1
Just like all technology, the price of digital cameras fall dramatically. I gave my D100 away since it was all but worthless. You can find a decent D90 or D7000 for not that much money and notice that the colors and noise are much better than the D200.

If you do not want to sell the D200, consider converting it to a infra-red camera

« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2013, 10:11 »
0
I just upgraded my D200 to a D800.  If all you have are DX lenses, be prepared to drop another couple thousand on some decent full frame lenses.  I have found that photos taken with my old DX lenses on a D800 body look like crap.  Also be prepared to upgrade your computer equipment.  Those files are HUGE and it seemed like they filled up my 500G harddrive in about 24 hours.  ;)  I got an external 1T harddrive, and that helped.
I like my D800, but if I had it to do over again, I would probably settle for the cheaper D7000 and get a really good lens or two with the extra $$.  It still has an excellent 16MP sensor, and it does HD movies. Your DX lenses will work fine on it too.
Hope this helps.

« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2013, 11:39 »
0
Thanks. Will I notice a massive jump in quality from the D200 to the above examples you mentioned, or just a little ?

« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2013, 11:42 »
0
Massive jump I think. I went D70 - D300 - D700 - D800 and each time there's a big shift upwards in quality of image.

« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2013, 11:52 »
0
But surely if the camera is good enough in the beginning and the lenses are good what are you really getting for a few hundred more? Isn't it the image making that is key ? The D800 is shockingly expensive but I am attracted to having HD video good enough for stock. Of course I will need a new PC as well as it's 9 years old and struggling. I read a lot of poor reviews regarding the D7000's poor auto focus where you just can't get sharp images.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 11:54 by Herg »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2013, 11:54 »
0
I just upgraded my D200 to a D800.  If all you have are DX lenses, be prepared to drop another couple thousand on some decent full frame lenses.  I have found that photos taken with my old DX lenses on a D800 body look like crap.  Also be prepared to upgrade your computer equipment.  Those files are HUGE and it seemed like they filled up my 500G harddrive in about 24 hours.  ;)  I got an external 1T harddrive, and that helped.
I like my D800, but if I had it to do over again, I would probably settle for the cheaper D7000 and get a really good lens or two with the extra $$.  It still has an excellent 16MP sensor, and it does HD movies. Your DX lenses will work fine on it too.
Hope this helps.

I went the D7000 route.  Many of my newer lenses were good quality DX and ... I found that the D7000 can be programmed to accept some of my really old lenses from Film days.  The D7000 produces quality work (I think) and has convinced me to stick with the DX sensor and continue working with my current collection of lenses.

But, during an indecisive moment, I did try the Canon T2i.  Another DX camera that I really like but will require a major expenditure in new lenses.  :P


« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2013, 12:26 »
0
The d 200 is a good camera, and pictures done at iso 100 are still very competitive.
I bought a d 200 in 2006, upgraded in 2012 to another d 200, since I didnt find the improvement of file quality worth the money.
But then the d 600 came out and I bought one of those.
Yes, it is better. Better dynamic range performance, especially the light tones and much larger files.
Then the full frame/ lens problem. It proved that many of my lenses worked on full frame, that was a relief.
Of course I also found out that my computer suddently became slower at image processing and storage shrinked.

So advice to you would be...
consider if its worth the money, can it earn back?
and if you think about lenses, make sure not to buy dx lenses. The dx days are over.

« Reply #11 on: March 25, 2013, 13:15 »
0
Thanks. Will I notice a massive jump in quality from the D200 to the above examples you mentioned, or just a little ?
Well, the files are certainly more massive.  The image quality is better, but I don't know about massively better. The one thing I was disappointed in was  the noise level in low light.  I really don't think the D800 is tremendously better with noise than my old D200 was.  But then again the huge pixel count might just make the noise level more noticeable? You really can't go on my experience so much as I am just now in the process of upgrading my lenses to full frame.  Bear in mind that most of my DX lenses were pretty old.  I was anticipating upgrading to full frame for a couple of years and haven't bought any of the newer DX lenses.
I can tell you that the D800 plus my 50mm 1.8 prime produces a very good photo.  If you do a lot of cropping, you will love the D800 and those huge files.

« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2013, 13:39 »
0
I upgraded D70 -> D200 -> D300 -> D800.  My images got dramatically better when I moved to the D300, even though many of the reviews said I wouldn't see much of a difference.  The move to the D800 has been even more dramatic, and not just because it's better in low light and has so much more resolution.  Even looking at a 100% view I can see a huge improvement in detail and contrast.

It helps that I've been upgrading my lenses since my D200 days.  More F/2.8 lenses, more FX lenses, and of course much higher cost.  But the results are amazing, so I'm okay with the expense.

« Reply #13 on: March 25, 2013, 16:11 »
0
Still, it is not about your camera and lenses.
It is about your eye and imagination.

A brilliant mind with a d 200 can produce pictures that can outsell any of those fancy upcomlings with ever so many lenses and megapixels.

« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2013, 17:32 »
0
"A brilliant mind with a d 200 can produce pictures that can outsell any of those fancy upcomlings with ever so many lenses and megapixels."

Yep but could sell even more with a fancy camera ;). Its about both surely no matter how brilliant you are you can't take pictures without a camera!

« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2013, 19:00 »
0
I upgraded D70 -> D200 -> D300 -> D800.  My images got dramatically better when I moved to the D300, even though many of the reviews said I wouldn't see much of a difference.  The move to the D800 has been even more dramatic, and not just because it's better in low light and has so much more resolution.  Even looking at a 100% view I can see a huge improvement in detail and cotrast.

It helps that I've been upgrading my lenses since my D200 days.  More F/2.8 lenses, more FX lenses, and of course much higher cost.  But the results are amazing, so I'm okay with the expense.

I bought two D800's and scrapped them.  Very high noise level in virtually all shadow areas, crunch at 100% and focus soft.  Downsizing helped but then why pay for all the MP's if you have to downsize? Maybe I got duds because both of mine has the left focus point issue where auto focus said it was sharp when it wasn't.  Focusing manually, the results simply were not impressive.

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2013, 19:40 »
0
AFAIK all your DX lenses will fit, but you will be shooting in cropped mode. but isn't that like putting cheap sneakers on an athlete?


tab62

« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2013, 21:28 »
0
I jumped from a rebel T1 to the 1D Mark IV - non of my lenses transferred but worth the jump. I just bought one lens at a time (24-70 F/2.8 being my first choice) as I could afford them.

« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2013, 08:55 »
0
The D7100 has just been released and it is supposed to be wonderful at high iso.  Scott Kelby gave it quite a good review.

I believe the D7000 is being discontinued isn't it?

I went from d200-d7000 and the d7000 felt like a toy in my hands, but it is far more responsive - esp taking shots of flying dancers or sports.  When shooting a dancer in a jump I would miss more shots than I'd get with the D200 and with the D7000 I would get almost all of the shots.  And quite honestly, no matter what they say about camera vs photographer - the newer cameras take better looking photos.  More detail in the dark zones, better contrast, greater dynamic range.  And using the same lenses, the D200 spends more time hunting for focus which equals losing more shots.

Quote
Still, it is not about your camera and lenses.
It is about your eye and imagination.

A brilliant mind with a d 200 can produce pictures that can outsell any of those fancy upcomlings with ever so many lenses and megapixels.

Sure, to a point...but I have 2.8 lenses and I have 5.6 lenses and the difference in quality is vast.  Rarely see fringing on the good glass.  Can't shoot a subject like deer with the cheap lenses - they come out of the trees at dusk and the shots are useless for the most part with cheap glass.  Really tough shooting sports and moving subjects (like toddlers/birds) with the slow glass. 

« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2013, 09:06 »
0
Not sure if the 7000 will be discontinued for a while - theres a very big price gap
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 10:58 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2013, 09:44 »
0
may consider a nikon soon.. i had read some good review of d7000, but how is it comparing to a more expensive model like d800?

and you guys mention something like DX lense.. so there are old digital lense can't use on new body?

I got a few nikon manual lense, any of this new machine had able to shoot with it?


« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2013, 12:01 »
+1
The Nikon D7000 will work with Nikon manual AIS lenses.

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2013, 20:39 »
0
may consider a nikon soon.. i had read some good review of d7000, but how is it comparing to a more expensive model like d800?

and you guys mention something like DX lense.. so there are old digital lense can't use on new body?


nope, DX is the cropped sensor size. they still attach and work, but the camera adjusts and effectively you get that 'cropped' view.
Nikon film camera lenses (all full frame) still work on DSLR bodies, barring one or two oldies. (it was Canon who changed their mount, not Nikon :P)

« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2013, 00:15 »
0
what does the crop view mean? i thought there is only 'normal' sensor and 'full frame' sensor..

I saw D800 is almost like 3 times price of D7000.. any features that make it more valuable?

may consider a nikon soon.. i had read some good review of d7000, but how is it comparing to a more expensive model like d800?

and you guys mention something like DX lense.. so there are old digital lense can't use on new body?


nope, DX is the cropped sensor size. they still attach and work, but the camera adjusts and effectively you get that 'cropped' view.
Nikon film camera lenses (all full frame) still work on DSLR bodies, barring one or two oldies. (it was Canon who changed their mount, not Nikon :P)

« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2013, 01:33 »
0
Check out this thread over at dpreview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/51125005

Download the model portraits from both cameras and look at them in Photoshop at 100 percent.  Some amazing quality from both camera bodies (d7100 vs d800).
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 01:35 by Sedge »

« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2013, 01:51 »
0
Crop view would be what a DX camera would take, Most of the DX lenses will not fill the complete sensor and have extreme vignetting.

For a real explanation read this

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/The-DX-and-FX-Formats.html

« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2013, 03:04 »
0
guys, there's the new D7100 launched a few weeks ago, it's 24MP and almost on par with the D600 !

the switch from D200 to D7100 will be like day and night !


gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2013, 03:37 »
0
Crop view would be what a DX camera would take, Most of the DX lenses will not fill the complete sensor and have extreme vignetting.

except they don't because the camera recognises the DX lens and adjusts in camera for it.
on a film camera that is certainly the case though.

« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2013, 04:49 »
0
oic..so a DX lense will project small image on a bigger FX sensor..

ha..I didn't really know one has to use different kind of lense on DX and FX body..


Crop view would be what a DX camera would take, Most of the DX lenses will not fill the complete sensor and have extreme vignetting.

For a real explanation read this

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/g588ouey/The-DX-and-FX-Formats.html

« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2013, 07:26 »
0
with a dx lens on a fx camera at 10 mp, you will get somewhere around a 6 mp images instead of the 10 you'd get with an fx lens.

« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2013, 09:03 »
0
Crop view would be what a DX camera would take, Most of the DX lenses will not fill the complete sensor and have extreme vignetting.

except they don't because the camera recognises the DX lens and adjusts in camera for it.
on a film camera that is certainly the case though.

That's an option on the D800.  You can have it switch the camera to DX mode when a DX lens is in place (16 MP instead of 36 MP), or you can have it stay in FX (full frame) mode.  Depending on focal length, you'll have extreme vignetting in the image.  For example, my DX 10-24mm lens will work as a full frame lens from somewhere around 16mm.  Below that I get a round peephole with black around it, the circular image shrinking as I zoom out.

To be clear, FX lenses work fine on DX bodies.  They're just bigger, heavier and more expensive than DX lenses.  But they tend to produce better quality images; before I moved to the D800, my bag contained a 24-70mm 2.8, 105mm 2.8 macro, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, and that 10-24mm.  Only the last was DX, and it was the only one without a fixed max aperture.  When I got the D800 I replaced the 10-24mm DX with a 16-35mm 4.0; it's about the same angle of view on full frame and not much bigger or heavier.

OM

« Reply #32 on: March 28, 2013, 19:46 »
0
D80>D90>D600 (3 months ago).

Still got all of them but the difference in shots coming from the D600 compared to the D90 is amazing especially at higher ISO's. I was going to go for the D800 but thought it a bit overkill. 24Mp is enough for me. What has been said about the D800 regarding the use of DX lenses applies to the D600 as well, although I haven't really tried it. You can also program old manual Nikkor lenses into the cam to get manual metering which is a great improvement on the D90. I do have some sensor crap on the D600 but as I never use f16 or f22, I don't really see it. Besides, I'll just take it into the Nikon service centre here and get it cleaned under guarantee.

Here in NL the D600 is 1,600 and the D800 is 2,300. Having said all that, I still like the output from the D80........maybe it's the CCD sensor. It's limited but still pretty good at ISO100 and almost all my best-selling stock was taken with the D80 (accepted by SS in the last 9 months).
If you stick with DX, seems like the new D7100 is the one to go for. Now I have to get a new computer for the D600 as Nikon NX2 doth turn exceeding slow on my single processor desktop!

farbled

« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2013, 10:47 »
0
I used D200's for years and years and loved them. I upgraded to a D300s and I love that even more. A tonne less noise and larger files, plus it'll take CF and SD cards. Really, it feels the same in my hand, same lenses I always use, just better quality. Highly reccomend.

« Reply #34 on: March 24, 2015, 06:47 »
0
believe it or not I still haven't got round to making a decision but my shortlist is a D810 or D750. Both identical at video but iq on the D800 is so much sharper.

« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2015, 07:58 »
0
I love my D700 but sold a bunch of lenses and dropped a small fortune on new ones when I upgraded from my old DX format D70. Bought a D5100 as a backup (which has HD video) and then bought new DX lenses. You can use the DX lenses on the full frame but you lose some real estate so I'd suggest that you consider the D7100 (I opted for the 5100 because it was lighter - I have a bad back/neck).

I haven't kept up with all the newest Nikon releases (because I've moved over to the Olympus OM-D E-1 and am slowly building up my mirrorless arsenal) but even back in 2011 the D7100 had everything you could ask for and that way you don't need to buy new glass. Even the D5100 is good in low light (not as good as the D700 but better than the D200) - it's 16 MP which also gives you lots of room to crop if you need it.

I don't regret getting a full frame and still love it for sweeping landscapes and studio work, but with a lighter camera you can carry more gear. Good luck. Getting a new camera is always fun and the newer ones really have noise licked - you'll be amazed at the difference.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2015, 08:03 by wordplanet »

« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2015, 10:31 »
0
two years is too much to make a decision like this...it's just a camera dude  ;) i've got a d800 but if you still have dx lenses i would go for d7100 without thinking much

« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2015, 17:50 »
0
In that time I had 2 copies of the RX10 which both had to be sent back as I had lemons. I need the best SLR for video as well so the D750 or D800are on the shortlist. It's the lens I can't decide.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2358 Views
Last post April 07, 2013, 07:42
by Mantis
4 Replies
2492 Views
Last post March 29, 2014, 18:08
by fritz
18 Replies
4035 Views
Last post August 15, 2014, 10:24
by Herg
19 Replies
2675 Views
Last post August 18, 2015, 08:26
by Herg
36 Replies
5801 Views
Last post August 09, 2015, 20:34
by Hildegarde

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors