A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Home > Equipment > Nikon > Nikon D200

Featured Equipment Deals

Photography Exercise: Animal Photography Read More

Photography Exercise: Animal Photography

Editor's Note: We are updating what was previously known as our "Monthly Project", to a regular series we're calling simply: "Photography Exercise". Why you ask? Previously we found that...

Nikon D200 Review

by Patrick Hudepohl, June 1997 (updated January 2007)

Nikon D200

The Nikon D200 is a digital single lens reflex camera for serious amateurs as well as for professionals who want a backup body for their D2Xs. The metal body, rubber-clad where needed, feels very solid and suggests a very reliable camera. The only part that does not appear as solid and that I would worry about if the camera gets knocked around, is the built-in flash. After several months and several thousand pictures, my Nikon D200 shows no sign of wear.

Key Nikon D200 features:

  • 23.6 by 15.8 mm CCD sensor ("DX format", 1.5x multiplier)
  • 10 megapixel output (3872 x 2592 pixels).
  • 5 frames per second
  • built-in flash
  • ISO 100 - 1600, and "Hi" -- Nikon's ISO 3200.
  • Compact Flash storage
  • USB 2.0 interface
  • optional vertical grip

More detailed Nikon D200 specifications are available at amazon.com (click on "more technical details").

What are alternatives to the Nikon D200? The Nikon D80, $1000, offers the same resolution at a substantially lower price. Compared to the D80, the Nikon D200's main advantages are better weather sealing, faster/better autofocus, and faster frame rate. If you're photographing a soccer game on a rainy day, the D200 is a much better machine. If you're tight on cash, you're better off getting the cheaper body and spending the savings on lenses. With money to burn, the Nikon D2Xs, $4600 (review) will deliver slightly better image quality and let you drive nails when you're not taking pictures.

In September 2006, amazon.com sells the D200 for about $1,700.

Operating Speed

The D200 is a fast camera that can take a picture immediately after being switched on. When you are reviewing an image on the 2.5" LCD display, or changing a menu setting, you can press the shutter release and it will take a picture almost instantly.

At 5 frames per second, the D200 is certainly fast enough for most situations. More demanding action photographers should take a close look at the high-speed crop mode of the Nikon D2Xsf. That camera can take 8 frames per second, at 6.8 megapixel, with a 2.0x multiplier.

Tested with a Sandisk Ultra III 512 MB card, the camera captured up to 20 RAW ("NEF") images and 25 JPEG images before the buffer filled up and it needed to write to the CF card. After the buffer filled, the frame rate dropped significantly. It should be a little better with faster cards, because the camera can write out a few more frames before filling the buffer. You do not have to wait for the camera to finish writing. As soon as some space is available, you can start taking pictures again.


The 11-point autofocus system of the D200 is very good and, particularly with AF-S lenses, is fast and accurate. It has no trouble focusing on static subjects, focusing in dark situations or keeping track of motor-cross action. Optionally, you can engage the focus assist light. This is a bright white beam of light; it does not project a pattern such as a flash focus assist light might.

I only encountered a problem when trying to photograph racing cyclists coming round a corner. There just was not enough time for the AF system to lock onto a cyclist before the next one raced into view.

If you are used to older film cameras, the AF system offers a bewildering array of options. There is the usual S/C/M switch on the front of the body. There is a game pad on the back to select an AF point (can be locked, not functioning in all AF-modes). There is a switch on the back to select between single-area autofocus and three different dynamic-area autofocus options. Depending on the lens you use, you may find a focusing range limiter and/or an AF/M switch on it.

All this does not mean that the D200 is difficult to use, but I would recommend reading the manual and playing with the available options so you will be familiar with them.


The controls on the D200 have a very sensible lay-out and important functions are easily accessible. Many frequently used settings, including ISO speed, white-balance, exposure lock, focus lock, exposure mode (Program, Aperture-priority, Shutterspeed-priority and Manual) and exposure compensation are accessed using one button and the main command wheel, operated with your right thumb. You usually do not need to enter the menu system during operation.

Specific cases where you do need the menu are: switching noise reduction modes, entering data about a non-CPU lens, using the interval timer, formatting a card and tweaking (JPEG) image parameters. You also use the menu for basic set-up of the camera, but you do not usually need to do that in the field.

The Depth of Field preview button is electronical and when depressed, you cannot change the aperture of the lens. I prefer the older mechanical button as found on several older cameras. For instance, on cameras like the F100 and FE, you set the lens to its maximum aperture, press the button and then gently close the aperture while constantly checking the resulting depth of field. This allows you to get used to the darkened screen and allows to continuously switch between aperture values. This is a little trick from John Shaw's Landscape Photography book. With the D200, you switch abruptly between full aperture and the actual value set. If you want to see the effect of a different aperture, you have to go back to full aperture first, change the setting and press the preview button again.

Optionally, the D200 can be equipped with a vertical grip, the MB-D200. It should allow for better handling with big lenses when shooting vertically. I have not tried this accessory myself.


The D200 has a very good viewfinder: bright and large enough to properly compose your photograph. It covers 95% of the image area. The viewfinder is not as large as the one found on the F100, but I had no problems using it wearing either contact lenses or glasses. It is better than the D70 which, by comparison, feels like looking through a tunnel.

Being used to an F100, I found the grid lines, which can be switched on and off, a useful feature. I was less impressed with the focusing assistant or electronic rangefinder. The F100 displays two arrows and a dot; the arrows indicate which way to turn the lens and the dot appears when the camera thinks you have achieved proper focus. The D200 leaves out the arrows, making it a bit more of a guess. It is not a big loss.

Strong points of the D200 viewfinder are the "low battery" indicator, the ISO speed indicator and the "frames remaining" indicator.

Choosing a lens

The DX format sensor means that the image projected by your older lenses (i.e., those designed for 35mm film) will be cropped. As a result, the AF-S 17-35/2.8 is no longer an ultra-wide lens and you should consider adding the Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX, $935 to your kit. If you are used to the angle of view of the AF 85/1.4 for portraits, then the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor, $270 is now probably your best option. If you always felt that the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor, $1750 was a little short for sports photography, the crop might help you out. A little vignetting by a lens will be less noticeable. On the other hand, lenses designed for 35mm are bigger, heavier and possibly more expensive than they need to be if you are using them on a digital camera. To explore the rest of the Nikon lens line, see the photo.net Nikon index page. For more information about depth of field and digital cameras, read Depth of Field and the Digital Domain.

Compatible with older lenses

The D200 is compatible with older, non-AF lenses. I had no trouble focusing the AI Nikkor 24/2.8, 50/2.0 and 105/2.5 lenses with this camera. Perhaps not as nice as the same-era FE, but very usable.

If you use the menu system of the camera to supply focal length and maximum aperture of the non-CPU lens attached (such as the AI Nikkors), you can use matrix metering. This is an improvement over older film bodies where you would be limited to center-weighted and spot metering.


The Nikon D200 uses Compact Flash cards, which fill up quickly when capturing RAW files ("NEF" in Nikon-speak). Each RAW file is approximately 15.5 MB in size and more than 500 exposures will fit on a SanDisk 8 GB CF card.

The LCD screen allows you to review your images on the spot, with an excellent zoom feature that also works on RAW/NEF images. I have found it more convenient to carry additional CF cards and sort through pictures at home on a big computer display.


The built-in flash of the D200 works properly, but has all the disadvantages of an in-camera flash: lack of power; inability to bounce up off a ceiling or reflector; prone to red-eye due to proximity to lens. Using the standard professional lenses, which tend to be physically large, the lens or lens hood will cast a shadow on pictures lit with the built-in flash.

For any serious flash photography work, consider add an Nikon SB-800 AF Speedlight, $330, to your camera bag.

ISO performance

The images below are 100 percent crops from a larger picture. They were taken at ISO 100 through 3200, with Long Exposure Noise Reduction and High ISO Noise Reduction both off.

Compare the last image, at ISO 3200, with the following to the see effect of the D200 noise reduction (set to "Normal"):

Automatic white-balance

White balance at exposure time is critical only to those who capture JPEGs. If you capture RAW/NEF, you can pick the white-balance afterwards and make sure it is consistent across a project. The Nikon D200 auto white balance system delivers accurate results outdoors (see the motorcross JPEGs) and under fluorescent light. Incandescent light results in warm images.

Fluorescent light



Incandescent light



Image Adjustments

You can adjust various properties of the JPEG output in-camera: sharpening, contrast, saturation and hue. Illustrated below is "maximum sharpening, maximum contrast and maximum saturation" versus "minimum sharpening, minimum contrast and minimum saturation". With RAW capture, these may be adjusted on a computer days later.

Compared to the D70

Does the 10 megapixel D200 resolve more detail than the 6 megapixel D70? Click on the two thumbnails below to settle this question. Both were taken with the AF Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8D, f/11, tripod, self-timer. Both images were taken at each camera's lowest ISO setting, which is ISO 200 for the D70 and ISO 100 for the D200. Images where opened with Camera Raw default settings, converted to sRGB profile, 8-bit per channel and saved as highest quality JPEG in Photoshop CS2.

Nikon D200Nikon D70

[Editor's note: photo.net's crack legal team has asked me to inform you that the company (hereinafter referred to as "The Company") will not accept liability for persons injured by listening to any of the CDs depicted in these test images, notably the Stars Wars Episode I and Stars Wars Episode III CDs. The United States courts have not ruled on the legitimacy of forcing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to watch Star Wars Episodes I-III, but it is believed that the European Court of Human Rights will soon outlaw the practice.]

Similar conditions apply to the next two images, except that I used the AF Nikkor 35/2 at f/16.

Nikon D200Nikon D70

Finally, with the AF Nikkor 35/2 at f/11, 1/10 sec, ISO 1600 (for both cameras). Noise reduction options all set to default or normal.

Nikon D200Nikon D70


The Nikon D200 uses a single EN-EL3e battery, which stores enough energy for a full day of photography. It seems hardly warranted to buy an extra battery except when you are going on a trip and may not be able to recharge very often, or when you will be working in very low temperatures (keep the spare one warm in a pocket). A quick charger is included in the box.

If you add the MB-D200 grip, you can use one or two EN-EL3e or six AA batteries.

Back to the F100

I do not (yet) own a D200 and when I switched back to my F100 after using the borrowed D200 exclusively for a while, I was somewhat surprised that there was no big sigh of relief. Certainly, the viewfinder is better, but not dramatically. The F100, probably because of its film winding mechanism, makes more noise. On assignment, taking pictures in a church, I realized I was at the end of the first roll of film just moments before the priest would bless a sculpture. Had I been working with a digital camera, I might have used a big card with no need to change it, and if changing were required, it can almost certainly be done quicker and more quietly than film. I missed the focus-confirmation beep of the D200, that I initially thought of as a gimmick. However, I did not miss the grid lines. I am happy to have my 17-35 back as a true wide-angle.

I do have an MB-15 grip and an SB-28 flash for my F100, accessories that I didn't have with the D200. However, I think it's safe to say that Nikon came as close as possible in creating a "digital F100" with this camera.


The Nikon D200 is a very good camera and anybody making the switch from a (high-end) film camera to digital should consider it. Take a look at the image quality, decide if it makes sense financially (don't forget extra lenses, memory etc.) and take into account that the low operating cost of digital encourages to capture more, experiment more.

Where to Buy

The Nikon D200 is a computer with a lens mount. We think that you will get the best price and delivery from amazon.com. To make it a complete package, consider adding the Nikon SB-800 flash, the Nikon MB-D200 grip and one or more SanDisk 8 GB CF cards.

With respect to lenses, it very much depends on what you already own and on your specific needs. Please refer to the Nikon System index for an overview.


Text and pictures copyright 2006 Patrick Hudepohl.


Article revised January 2007.

Readers' Comments

Add a comment

Rick Photographer , November 06, 2005; 09:51 A.M.

Hi everyone. I am sorry to ask a stupid question, but I use a Nikon F5 and shoot Velvia 50 or 100 and scan them. I get amazing 20x30 prints from those. I also shoot a Mamiya RZ67 and even a 4x5. The results are out of this world. I have been considering buying a D70 for a long time, but was never convinced of the quality of prints as I read everywhere. I am not looking to print 8x10 pictures by investing in a digital camera since I can get those from Costco at a really cheap price from my F5. So, going from 6.1 to 10MP, what is it really that I am gaining and is it really worth the investment? I still don't understand the explanation of pixels and how that translates to large prints. Is the D200 my answer, or should I stick to my F5 or RZ and continue doing scans?

Ilkka Nissila , November 06, 2005; 08:30 P.M.

Digital is not a replacement for film in the sense that the results will be different, no matter what you do.

The D70 produces generally (not always) higher quality color prints than 35 mm film, however, some people disagree. The D200 should be a noticeable improvement over that but it's unlikely to give detail comparable with your 6x7 or 4x5 film. However, the color accuracy and lack of noise of digital capture make the prints look different.

In your case, the D200 is a better buy than the D70. The D70 is good for prints up to 8x12 inches, after which some softening is apparent. However, there is no grain so more aggressive post-processing can be applied, which in many applications would mean a better looking print overall even at large sizes than you'd get from 35mm film. Since you already have the F5 and lenses for Nikon, you can't really lose much by buying the D200. Expecting that it will replace your medium and large format cameras is unrealistic, unless you get sucked in by the ease of use of digital.

As for prints made at Costco, well, lab prints are nowhere near as good as home made prints so you compromise quality there.

Steve Foster , December 15, 2005; 08:22 A.M.

Just thought I'd mention there are quite a few sample images to look at if you go to the d200 digitutor site that show different settings, etc. Much more informative than what I've seen so far. http://www.nikondigitutor.com/index_eng.html

G D , December 18, 2005; 06:18 A.M.

Hello Bob and those other users.

Yesterday I played with a D200 and saw some people were asking questions about it that I can answer.

Yes the D200 is amazing, I am looking at the upgrade of the EOS 10D (but to cut to the chase it wont be with the D200 for me)

The build quality is the same as the D2x, and better than the F100 in it's weater resistance.

The Nikon camera IS far more sturdy than the EOS 5D/20D and for the benefit of canon users it is in line with the EOS 1 range. Frame rate is essentially the same as the 20D just it feels so much better. It has a reasuring long lasting strength to it and so much lighter than the D2X / 1D models. The rear screen is massive and (abuse to Canon here) has a simple protective cover, bigger screens break more easily, this cover is so advantageous in the digital arena.

It is squarely aimed at where the EOS20D market was aimed and price wise about 8 months too late however it is a superior camera to the 20D, and at now twice the price it should be... Think back to the D30 vs the D100 its the same argument again, better camera just about too late.

I will now argue why the D200 is better than the 5D and 20D

The 1.5 x crop factor is arguably more useful for wildlife (err my passion) yet I think I disagree with public general consensus here. Hence waiting out for a full frame, considering the 5D. The frame rate of the D200 blows the 5D away and is useful in many ways, other than simply firing off action shots. Principally you can follow your subject so much better (I own the 1N RS pellicle mirror-no black out at all) and obviously get a two more crucial shots every second. Thats a big deal, one reason I am hesitating with the 5D.

Incidently has anyone seen that you can now basically shoot 36 pictures before you have to pause and wait while the camera catches up? Other than the 1dmk2 its actually quicker to shoot film! weve come a whole long way to get to where we started! Now those 150 shot film backs of the 80s hmmm

10Mp is only just an inch bigger on the enlargements so its not that great an advantage. yes I agree, but frequently you want to crop out a smaller portion, then the opposite is true, here the percentages work against you and the D200 out shines the 1Dmk2 and 20D

I prefer the canon controls and get along better with the Canon range of menus, I dont find the Nikon layout of thumb wheel all that convenient, and I am not a big fan of their software (though its not too bad and many people think the opposite) Oh For those numb nuts out there, mirror lock up is and has been custom function 12 not too difficult to remember.

Now the nikon nasties, err actually nasty.

The viewfinder. its crap.

Anyone thinking that their old ai and ais lenses were of use think again. you couldnt focus manually with any degree of real life timing through that viewfinder. The mirror itself is smaller that that on the D70, The whole setup is abysmal. When used manually, the focusing screen is a matt haze at best. Sorry your lenses fit and function normally, just that viewfinder...

So whats my verdict?

Now if I could I would have a kit bag that would be the most versatile travel option, it would be with: FM3a / D200 / F6 and 80-200 2.8 - 50 1.4 - 300 2.8 and... Oh crap an 18-70 wide!

Thats the point that the Nikon option falls on its ass because the digital option falls outside the fluid compatibility boundaries. To each specific purpose a camera, with one able to do everything.

I want a 5D with better weather resistance, 1 style menu controls and a better drive rate. I also want my FM2 to have a canon eos mount and a method of stopping down the aperture.

To the guy who wants to compare the digital apsc sized sensor with 35mm, medium format and 5x4. the answers simple, -it depends what you are doing, and how you are printing.

I the digital D200 better? up to 16x20

Wider than 24mm (35mmm equivalent) - No

35mm printed through any mini lab - Yes 35mm slide cibachrome hand enlargement - No Wildlife - errr yes, no wait no, ummm maybe Yes, i will go with yes, no (can I phone a friend?)

Medium format - No Large format - what are you nuts?

Will you be able to produce better results from digital more consistently at a vastly cheaper cost than from any of the above cameras. not sure buy a cheap D50 or 350D and find out just what they can do, the prices are ludicrously low at the moment and if you buy on master card in the UK you get a hundred pounds cashback

You will need to find somewhere to archive your shots and also choose a format to store them in, then you will need to back this up every year.

Steve Foster , December 18, 2005; 07:55 A.M.

You know, one thing that caught my eye on the samples in the gallery was the use of the 50mm 1.4 in portraits. Granted, we loose our wide angles but on the other hand it gives new uses for relatively cheap 50's. And, um, that is an awful nice bathing suit isn't it. So does this cam mean I can now use my pre-70 80-250 lens??

John Robinson , January 24, 2006; 08:29 A.M.

Regarding focusing of manual lenses on Nikon's digital bodies: I have a D50, 45-year old eyes, and a few mf lenses (75-150mm f/3.5 series E, 105 f/2.5, 200mm f/4). Using the "catch the green dot in the peripheral vision" method, I have had no trouble using these lenses on my D50. For a sample, please check the "Mr. Todd" photo in my portfolio. That was taken today with the Series E zoom. The subject was moving around and, like any photog, I waited until he was temporarily stationary, just keeping the old green dot in mind. Got plenty of photos like this. This one is somewhat cropped for standard paper sizes (I'm gonna print it at Yodobashi tomorrow).

Of course, the exposure takes a bit of experience, but that comes quickly in digital. :-)


Ilkka Nissila , January 31, 2006; 10:29 A.M.

The viewfinder is 0.95/0.7 times larger in magnification, or about 35%. It's the largest VF of the small-sensor digital SLRs I believe.

Jonathan Farmer , January 31, 2006; 11:23 A.M.

Full frame can be croped to enhance telephoto use, this will address the point that non full frame is better for telephoto use. Non full frame users will however suffer when it comes to wide angle photography.

Curtis Forrester , January 31, 2006; 08:16 P.M.

I have had my new Nikon D200 for about a month now, and I LOVE IT! The battery life and the large screen are great!

Ilkka Nissila , February 12, 2006; 09:45 P.M.

Jonathan, full frame can be cropped, but you need to have equal pixel density to the DX size sensor or otherwise the DX camera will yield better results (than a cropped FF shot). This would mean that a FF DSLR would have to have 20-25 MP to match the D200 and D2X for telephoto use.

Richard Atkinson , February 23, 2006; 02:02 P.M.

Hi - I have recently purchased a D200 but seem to have a problem with the AF on prime lenses (50mm, 20mm).I can only manual focus. Zooms and Telephotos are fine. Can anyone help? Is anyone having similar problems? Am I doin something wrong?



David Stevens , February 23, 2006; 08:39 P.M.

I love my D200. I always loved my D100 but the D200 blows it out of the water. As someone who shoots lots of sports the D200 can't be beat!

Tom Sperduto , March 07, 2006; 07:44 P.M.

I recently got my D200 as a back up to my D2X. I used the D200 on assignment over the weekend and really loved it at high ISO's. Much better than the D2X in fact. I shot a few low light shots at 1000 ISO and was very pleased with the result. The noise IMO is much reduced at high ISO with the D200 compared to my D2X. Matter of fact, I prefer the D200 1000 ISO shots to 800 ISO with my D2X. Anyone else have this same experience? 11X14 (shot RAW) print from my D200 was stunning. The D200 is worth every penny IMO.

focus mankind , March 24, 2006; 07:31 A.M.

Just happy! I love it! I was happy with my D70 and still it's a good value for its price.

However the VF and the screen (and the possibility to enlarge the photo) helps much to get a great control for shooting close ups (while shooting and controling the result on the screen afterwards).

I'm a bit tired about the discussion wheter 6Mp or 10 Mp is a need or not. Fact is, it gives me an additional reserve to optimize the crop on my PC.

I'm really happy with my D200 - and I'm happy to reuse my my great MF-lenses - about 20 years old but (from my father). Since I'm working in IT: To me it's a miracle having such an old lens working on a digital camera.

Jonathan Farmer , April 02, 2006; 07:50 P.M.

I got my D200 about a week ago and got my repaired 80-200 Silent Wave 2.8 and brand new 17-55 2.8 yesterday. The combination of these three items are great. The camera is everything and more than what I expected and the 17-55 2.8 is as sharp as the 80-200 2.8 silent wave.

The only small complaint is battery life; If you are going from D 70 to D 200 as I have, you will quickly learn that the battery life is much shorter. If you do a lot of raw shooting and are away from the PC for any extended period of time then get another battery for back up and a 2 gig card.

Daniel KIm , April 09, 2006; 07:23 A.M.

Hello, I just wanted add my comment/question on the pixel size and density relations. D200 pixel size is about 6um(micron), and the visible light wavelength is less than 1um (0.4~0.7um). But I haven't seen any microscope that resolves below 2um (correct me if I'm wrong). As many expect, sensor technology is expected to be advanced. But the mother nature is there. It cannot be smaller than the wavelength. At the extreme, the sensor will count photons (oh my wave vs. particle duality) with cooler. If it count photons, signal-to-noise ratio depends on the number of photons, according to Poisson distribution. To get more photons, it needs longer exposure and more sensor area. It was just my two cents.

Joseph Liftik , April 09, 2006; 02:28 P.M.

When I print my enlarged D200 photos e.g 13x19, I am consistently asked I if took the image with a medium format camera.

Jonathan Farmer , April 10, 2006; 01:33 P.M.

To Daniel Klm, Your 2 cents has probably gone over most peoples heads by being way techno. What is really happening I think is that Canon and Canon users think it's pay back time as Nikon were the leaders during the 35mm era with superior optics and more durable equipment than Canon had to offer. Yes the FF is better if you go huge; all we need is a Mamiya ZD user to put his "2 cents" in and have this whole issue start all over again. Having a few pro Nikon lenses myself, I am stuck with Nikon bodies, and if Nikon do go FF, I hope I can get rid of the 17-55 2.8. I have made 12 x 16 prints from the D 200 and find them better than 12 x16 35mm slide prints; sure if I had the 35mm slides drum scanned by someone who really knows how to use it, they might and I did say might be better than the 10 megapixel image, but the digital image is instant and all the bracketed images you get for the perfect exposure has not cost me a cent with digital not to mention No cost for scanning. I said it before and I will say it again, if you are printing no bigger than 12 x16, there is sweet dilly squat difference between 10 megapixel DX and 12 megapixel FF. If you are printing bigger than 12 x 16, the FF 17 megapixel will be better but look at the cost, for that money and not having any Canon lenses, I would throw in a few more bucks and get the Mamiya ZD and keep the Nikon DX format for telephoto photography. That's my 2 cents worth. Happy shooting

walter groves , April 28, 2006; 10:10 P.M.

i do love my d200, however low light interior shots seem 2 stops underexposed. unfortunately on the LCD they look fine but when downloaded I need to ladjust the exposure in capture 1. anyone else experiencing this? i know its not a monitor calibration problem because the outdoor shots are right on.

Rick Min , May 07, 2006; 01:34 P.M.

Nikon vs. Canon 20D: I was shooting Canon 20D with Canon EF 24-70MM f2.8 USM lens at a wedding gig. While indoor, with bar-like lighting at a reception, meaning electronic candel lights, it was rather difficult to focus with 20D. Now, I was using their top quality f2.8 USM lens. But, it was clear to me that 20D's low-light focusing ability was definitly inferior to my Nikon N80. It had a focus assist light but it was pretty much useless. Since my friend who owns 20D did not supply a hotshoe mounted flash for me, i used the popup flash on the camera. It kept on bursting maybe to assist focusing, but locked up and did not take a picture. Where as Canon 5D with 580EX flash did not have that problem. But, then again that is nearly twice as much as the price of Nikon D200. I suspect that Nikon's excellent low-light focusing ability carried on to D200. To me it is a no-brainer to go with D200 over 20D. Since 30D came out after 5D came out, it MAY have same capability as far as low-light focusing capabilities go. but I do not know about it because I haven't used that one.

Jonathan Farmer , May 19, 2006; 04:24 P.M.

I either got a bad 18-70 lens or this lens is no good. The left side of images taken with this lens are very soft. I replaced this lens with the 17-55 2.8; what a difference, some say that unless you are a professional don't wast your money buying expensive lenses as the only difference is wider apertures and a more robust lens which is not needed for casual photography and that a less expensive lens will give you just as sharp images, Well in my experience that is pure B.S.

James Moule , June 02, 2006; 12:29 P.M.

Have owned a D200 for two weeks, replacing a D100. Initial impressions:

The larger pixel count makes significantly sharper photos, which is why I bought the D200 in the first place. Can not yet say whether color is better, but it certainly is not worse. The layout of the controls is much simpler and more intuitive. The eyepiece gives a slightly larger and sharper image. Perhaps the sharpness comes from more available diopter corredtion than the D100.

Depspite the comments of others that the magnesium case gives a more solid feel, I can't say that I can tell any difference between the D200 and the D100 in that regard. They are both big, heavy, cameras. (I still pine for my dear departed Leica IIIg.)

All in all, I am very happy that I made the upgrade.

Khalil ismail - Palm Desert California , June 19, 2006; 01:30 A.M.

Finally it arrived last week, I have shot a wedding with it and I Like it, the only thing that was a disappointment for me, it drains the battery so fast it is not funny, I bought 3 batteries for my D70s and yet to use these spare in a shoot after 800 shot the battery still had a juice in the other hand after 100 shot the battery died on me. You can use the d200 batteries for D7s but we can't use the d70s, d100 on the d200 and that suck. Especially when these battery are out of stock everywhere

Carl Gierstorfer , July 03, 2006; 10:47 A.M.

Hi all,

simple question, probably lots of different answers. What's a good wide angle (zoom) lens for a D200? Should not be in excess of some Euro 500 - so perhaps a Sigma or Tamron will do as well? And: Would be great if the lens fairs well on my F3 and Fm2, too.

Cheers, Carl

Jonathan Farmer , July 16, 2006; 03:38 P.M.


No DX lens will work on any 35mm camera without vignetting; the DX lenses are not designed to work on film cameras, but most of the film camera lenses will work with the D200. One point you must remember... The SB 800 flash has different settings for non DX lenses; Set the flash to AA for DX lens use and A for non DX lenses. A lens to look at is the 17-35mm 2.8, this will work on the D200 as well as a 35mm camera.

Ron van der Kolk , March 07, 2007; 06:06 P.M.

Richard: My D200 is working fine with my 50/1.8AF and 20/2.8AF-D. Can you be more specific on the problem you are experiencing?

Adrian Hinojosa , March 22, 2007; 08:16 P.M.

Regarding the question about which is a good alternative wide angle zoom, I'd suggest the Tamron AF 19-35mm f3.5~4.5. It is in no way as good as the Nikon but its a well priced alternative and pretty solid lens. Mine has survived a couple of drops and even though its slower compared to Nikon's f2.8 zoom, the D200's good performance at high ISO's will compensate. IMHO, the easy price of the Tamron 19-35 makes the small sacrifice in quality easy to live with too.

As for the D200 vs D70/80 debate...

The D70/80's are great and extremly capable especially in the hands of a pro but its all the little things about the D200 that make it a better value and more practical camera for the profesional user. Some of the features a more advanced user might call upon are the enormous buffer, option to use the battery grip (nice to have a vertical shutter release on the battery grip but is anyone's thumb long enough to activate the focus point selector with the battery grip like you can with the f5?), high speed framerate, the better viewfinder, more rubost construction, and what I think is the greatest featuer of the D200 - the ability to use older lenses. I found an old manual focus 105 micro nikkor in a thrift store, it even came with the lens hood and in its golden box but they were about to throw it in the dumpster so I got it for free. When I tested to see if it worked on my D200, I was shocked to find out that in addition to working, its actually sharper and has better color/contrast than my 60mm AF-D micro nikkor. Focusing is a pain but I've been manually focusing my 60 micro AF-D when doing macro photography anyway. The MF 105 is even better than the AF lens because with the manual lens I can use the depth of field preview and slowly stop down to let my eye adjust to the darkness. Little things like this make the D200 so much more usefull. I only wish they didn't get rid of the manual cable release that the D100 had.

John Julich , March 27, 2007; 07:49 A.M.

After owning a D-70 I was on the verge of defecting to the Canon Camp. Instead, I purchased a D200. It is a dam fine camera. My faith in Nikon is restored.

Matthew Amster , April 06, 2007; 11:21 P.M.

D-200 with manual lenses

For anyone who is considering using the Nikon D-200 with non-AF lens (or similar Nikon body) this note might be of interest.

I am an anthropologist and back in the days of film photography I used Nikon FM2 bodies and a bunch of prime lenses for my work--equipment that I loved (and still love) for its durability and simplicity (Opps, no batteries? No problem!). After having a kid, I decided that my point and shoot 5 MP Olympus just wasn't cutting it for the family photos and that it was time to get a digital SLR. I was curious if I could find a body to use with my old Nikon lenses. Of course the big question was whether to stay with Nikon or switch to the Canon system. In an effort to help me figure this out, a friend loaned me a Nikon D-200. As wonderful as the camera is, I decided to purchase a Canon Rebel XTi in the end, a decision I do not regret.

Shooting with my trusty non-AF primes proved to be difficult for me with the Nikon D-200. My subject was often either my toddler or my dogs and many of my shots were out of focus. After a while I found myself looking for the green dot all the time to find out if I was in focus or not rather than composing my shot. The lenses I used during this trial were mainly a 20/2.8, 28/2.8 and 50/1.4. Needless to say I got some beautiful pictures and this camera is amazing, but much more camera than I need. I was also rather impressed by the relative ease with which you can manually program in information about the non AF-lenses, allowing the camera to correctly 'read' the aperture setting. This is good. However, if you decide to change the lens often, which I would do, it would have to be reprogrammed each time and has no memory function for this. Perhaps this is too much of niche situation, but it would be nice if there were a way to somehow program in a number of frequently used lenses. Still my miss rate was so high with my manual focus lenses that the only way I could keep using this body is if I went out and bought new lenses. I should also mention that I do own one AF lens, a 180/2.8 and this worked great, but the given the multiplier I did not find this focal length all that useful (whereas I did suddenly like the range of my formerly rarely used 35-105).

My reasons for choosing the Rebel were simply convenience (and the positive review on photo.net). It is incredibly light, especially if you are willing to start out with the kit lens (15-55 zoom) which has so far served me well and adds initial minimal cost. Initially, particularly after using the Nikon D-200, the Rebel seemed too small in my hand, but after a few days of using I adjusted to the compact size and no longer notice it. I also bought one prime lens, the 100mm/2.0, which I chose because I like this focal length for shooting my favorite subjects: my toddler and dogs (all of whom run around incessantly), and also like it for picking out features of landscape, such as barns, fields, etc. With this heavier lens on the camera it is initially a little front heavy, but again I adjusted quickly and no longer notice it. In sum, I have nothing bad to say about the Rebel, even after having a much more professional camera in my hands for a few weeks. I get amazing shots, even in low light with the kit less (as is easy to switch the ISO to 400, 800, 1600 with the press of a button on the back). I do not miss the D-200, which was way more camera than I needed and is not something I would as casually throw in my bag.

If you are thinking of staying with Nikon simply because, like me, you have many lenses that you already own and are attached to, I would say that unless most of them are AF this might be the time to switch. The viewfinder on a digital SLR is a fraction of the size of your old film camera, so manual focusing is just not going to be terribly easy and, unless you are shooting only landscapes and flowers or things that don?t move, your going to need to invest in AF lenses whether you stay with Nikon or switch to Canon.

Image Attachment: D200.jpg

Jeroen Wenting , April 10, 2007; 01:06 A.M.

One correction: you can format CF cards without using the menu. Just read the manual (or look at the controls, they're right there) :)

Avinash Chinchalkar , April 10, 2007; 02:31 A.M.

Matthew Amster: I agree with you on focusing using MF lens is a pain on D200, but looking at your MF lens collection.. i would say you should have considered installing Katz-eye ( Split focusing screen similar to FM-10) on D200 which makes sea of a difference when using D200 with MF lens.

:) It feels just as good as Digital FM2, well... cant do without a battery though.

ALI Zulfiqar , April 16, 2007; 05:11 A.M.

I have recently photograph of a cement plant with D200 AND VR 18-200 Lens. The RAW mode i have used during photography. The result on 30" x 40" print are amazing. and their is no blur from bottom to top. The colours are more vivid than my old D70s.

best regards

zulfiqar zulfiqar.ali@kmlg.com

Artur Nogueira , April 24, 2007; 08:03 A.M.

It will seems that I would probably produce a biased comment about the D200 - I am a Nikon user for 30 years - but the D200 was the last camera I've considered to buy during one full year of testings with other proposals from Canon, Sony and Pentax - the brand new K10D, being that at the end the true competitors were the D200, the EOS 30D and the K10D. As for lenses I already owned, the only one that I have that fits perfectly the D200 is a superb AF 85mm f/1.8, so I was not that attached to buy a Nikon camera. So, why the D200 and not ie the K10D, which produces amazing RAW images and have more or less the same specs as the D200?

Thirty five years ago, when I started photography - at home, with a good darkroom - as a serious hobby and later on, earning some money with it - not a professional though - main, best known and best japanese camera brands on SLR's were Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Asahi-Pentax, Olympus and Yashica. Being that my dream camera at that time was the Minolta STR 303b, I ended buying a Nikkormat FT3 - taking advantage at that time of Christmas rebates in London - and later on, a Nikon F2A Photomic - now a classic and collectors camera with 30 years old and still using it, like new - and later on a Nikon FE2 as a second body. So I was - and still am - a Nikon man, although I also have an excellent Olympus OM1.Photography has changed, - analogue is almost dead - some of the above mentioned brands have disappeared - Minolta, Yashica - others lost part of their name - Pentax from Asahi, Fuji from Fujica, etc - and the big ones still exist - Nikon, Canon as well as Olympus. Although a Nikon man, I had allways great respect and admiration for brands like Pentax, Olympus and Minolta, being that these three allways had great camera bodies and optics - who does not remember the Rokkor lenses from Minolta and the Super Takumar lenses from Asahi-Pentax?. I am not an "emotional" kind of guy in what regards camera brands - I own a little Canon S80 as my little/go everywhere pocketable camera - Canon will always be considered the main "enemy" and rival of Nikon - and as I do only have now, 3 primes Nikkor lenses - 28mm 2.8,50mm 1.4 and a 85 mm 1.8 autofocus - I do not consideedr myself " tied up" with Nikon, in what regards the acquisition of a new camera, as the only above mentioned lens that works with a Nikon DSLR is the 85mm1.8.

For more than a year I was looking for the " perfect DSLR" for myself, being that what is perfect for me, maybe not perfect to anybody else, and perfection for myself in a camera is measured by construction, handling, confort ,good optics and the final result, which is the image we produce everyday in our particular way of doing photography.

In the meantime, I have offered my youngest son an Olympus E500 - which is a very good entry level camera - and have obtained ,even with the 45-150 kit lens, very nice, sharp, detailed images.

At the end of searching, reading about,experimenting cameras like the Canon EOS 30D, Nikon D200, expecting newcomers like Sony,- I was completely frustrated with the A100 - Olympus - E400 or even the successor of the E1 - when the Pentax K10D was announced I just scratched my head and said to myself: "well here is one contender I did not expect to be on the run."

And after very close inspection, reading and field experimenting, I ended buying the Nikon D200. It will seems from the lines below that I bought the K10D, but I prefer to take the other way around: enhance the features of the K10D and counterpoint with the ones of the D200.

Why the Nikon and not the Pentax - I did not even consider the Nikon D80 as I think that in general, although with more resolution, is not a better camera than the D70/70s.Besides, the handling of th D200 is a better one for me.

I am not going to describe the features that one camera has against the other ( D2oo vs K10D ) and vice-versa - you all know for sure. but for my work, the D200 is the ideal camera. First, its construction is...well a Nikon construction. Magnesium body, great assembling, robust.The Pentax, although not having a magnesium body as the D200, its very well constructed also, robust enough and heavy as the D200 - yes, I like heavy and big cameras - my Nikon F2A with the Nikkor 85mm f.18 attached, "just" weights 1390 grams - 3.0 lb, so anything below this is OK, I am used to shoot with big and heavy cameras and even can shoot at 1/30 second perfectly steady. I am not afraid of weight.

The K 10 D has two features that the D200 does not: CCD cleaning system - a must have and it's a pitty the D200 does not have any - and the Shake reduction. I love to shoot in low light situations but not with high Iso's, so SR comes handy sometimes, but do not substitute the tripod. However the Nikons approach seems the correct one: I only need the SR when using big and heavy glasses, not for the common lenses and therefore if I need one, I would buy a VR lens for the D200.Ok, more expensive but I believe is the correct way to go.The K 10D has interchangeable focusing screens, the D200 does not it allow multiple exposures,as the D200,dust and weather seals,as the D200, has very good buffering and Pentax lenses are very good, although not very fast ones.Just wait for the new "star" lenses due mid this year. The K10D does not have intervalometer as the D200 and an array of "hidden" features the D 200 do have.

Pentax glasses - especially the primes -were always on par - if not superior in some cases - with Nikon's Olympus and Canon's offerings.Moreover, in the case of the Pentax, the kit lens - the DA 18-55mm, - it's considered one good kit lens that is bundled with camera.We all know that kit lenses are not the best lenses we can have for our cameras, but even so, the kit lenses from Pentax are very capable glass, for everyday use.This 18-55mm is much better than the 18-55mm kit lens suplied with the Canon EOS 30D and all Rebels .The Nikkor 18-70, supplied with the D200 is a very capable and good kit lens. Well, so far so good. If we notice also that the DA 50-200mm lens from Pentax is also an good performer, just needed the another excellent DA 10-17mm to be served from 15mm to 300 mm ( equiv 35mm )focal distances. All at reasonable prices.One thing is for sure: Pentax lenses are very well built and generally very good performers, and this is something every serious photographer does know for years.

The viewfinder on the K10D is brighter and apparently bigger than the D200, but Pentax always did great pentaprims viewfinders . if not the best ones.

The unique metering/exposure features are ok on the K10D and come very handy in terms of different ways of controling exposure , main buttons and menus are easy to operate and understand. But the D 200 is very quick to operate, as soon as we adjust all the parametres and menus - too much for my taste, but...OK. I think it is not as straighforward as the Pentax at the first sight but after everything is parametrized....is fast as hell, with all the essencial controls on the reach of our fingers. The degree of customization is amazing, you can personalize the camera to your needs, almost impossible to not find one special parametre we cannot adjust to our taste. Ergonomics are better on the D200 than on the Pentax, although Pentax's very good also. I have the vertical grip, but i think that the one from Pentax is better designed, although I do not know if it is better in terms of handling than the Nikon vertical grip.

A further note on the vertical grip: if you can afford it, go for it as the overall handling of the camera is completely different and much better, even for horizontal shooting situations.The overall camera grab is much more "solid and secure" and with the possibility of using AA batteries , we do not run out of batteries anymore, especially if you shoot raw as it consumes more power. Shooting vertical is much more balanced as should be and another interesting thing, is that if we place two Nikon batteries, their management is much more consistent as if seems that the battery in use, not only powers the camera but also keeps the other one at its full power. Nice. Once I attached mine to the camera, never took it out again.In this config, the camera body and the vertical grip with a couple of ENL3e batteries, without lens, weights 1.275 grams - more 125 grams than the D2X.

Now for image quality: I always shoot in RAW - being that the K10D is the first DSLR offering the advantage of two RAW formats - the PEF and DNG. Nice touch.That said, image quality is from very good to excellent on both, depending on the glass used and, like with all others, one has to compose and measure carefully the scene and lighting conditions.However, in RAW format the D 200 is as good as the Pentax with a better overal resolution.

In JPEGS, images although on the soft side,- both cameras have the same approach - are no much different from the D200 in what concerns sharpness. In fact, when comparing the thumbnails and crops of Phil's review on the sharpness test, will see easily that when both cameras are on "0" sharpness, the Pentax is a bit sharper than the D 200, despite after weighting all other parametres, JPEGS from the D200 are better than Pentax's. And this can be very handy when shooting sports, outdoors events, where RAW takes more time to do the work

Also I have compared carefully ISO noise on both cameras and despite noise at higher ISO's - 800 and 1600 - is similar, the fact is that the K10D holds detail better than the D200. However I never go up the 400 ISO mark, so, no issue on this matter anyway.I made a test on a BW self portrait, hand helded, with a 85mm 1.8, 1/30 sec, F5, with surprinsing good results.

Night photography is a must to me, so after comparing both cameras I realized that the K10D images are as good and detailed as the D200.

With Jpegs out of the way - as told, I only shoot raw - then the K10 is on par, with the D200 and on par with the Canon EOS 30D. Overall, the K10D has a little more detail for the same amount of noise, compared with the D200. However, I found overall resolution to be just slightly better on the D200. Facts are facts.

More about the standard kit lens: I just advise new buyers to get the camera with the 18-70 mm kit lens as for the price difference with/without kit lens,we get a more than capable kit lens - I would say even, a very good kit lens for all around shooting purposes - which is also dust and weather sealed, as per Nikon literature. Image quality is very good with this lens, although is even better with my 85mm 1.8 prime. So get it with ths kit lens and you will not regret it at all.

Overall on handling,and grip are both very good, with an advantage to the Nikon - afterall, I feel " at home" when handling it, with all main controls in the right places.And again, do not forget that the vertical grip transforms an already confortable camera in a more pleasant one.

Where does the Nikon outstands the Pentax ? - thus the reason I spent more 1000 euros on the Nikon

First I true believe - although probably it is just a stupid feeling - that the D200 is overall better builted and assembled than the Pentax - psicological kind of feeling, probably due to the D200 magnesium body, excellent presentation and assembly and the fact that my old F2A is alive and kicking, like new, for 30 years, without any failure, which confirms the great know how Nikon has when building semi-pro to pro level cameras.One thing I checked only by curiosity: I weighted both camera bodies- the F2A and the D200 -and for my surprise...the D 200 is heavier by 150 grams.I was very astonished as if weight is directly related with good build quality and good materials...well, the D200 is indeed well built, well assembled with top notch materials. Do not forget that 30-35 years ago, the F2A was considered the best 35mm SLR in the world in terms of thoughness amongst other top notch features. That said....

The other reason...well, the whole Nikon system itself, an unbeatable system indeed, and easy availability of other brand lenses, like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron.But, although quite short on lens proposals, the ones that Pentax do offer, are good enough for the job.However, the acessories list of Nikon is so huge that I feel a sense of confidence that I can get any particular accessory I need for the camera.The kind of feeling I do not have with the Pentax.

The question I have asked myself also was: do I need all the versatility of the Nikon system ? the answer was: probably not but the confidence I feel "behind me" with such a system, is reassuring.

Is the D200 worth 1000 euros more ? Well,when weighted all these questions and answers and being a more than happy Nikon photographer for 30 years, I do not have any strong reason to leave Nikon. And we can put the equation all the way around: for the features and construction, the D 200 is a very good alternative do the D2Xs, for half the price.Or in another way: the D200 is not an upgrade of the D100, but a somewhat downgrade of the D2X.I had the oportunity to grab the D2Xs and the biggest difference I noticed is the brighter and somewhat "bigger" viewfinder of the D2Xs.Handling is also superb. Wow !!!

No camera is perfect, Nikon does not have it, neither do Canon, Olympus, Pentax and others. At this level, I do not even dare to say that X camera is better than Y camera. I can say what pleases me more or less and what is more correct for my type of work.It depends on the targeted work and kind of photography we are doing. The perfection of a camera it is the work you can do with it,the results you achieve and in your personal taste for handling and reliability.

The D200 is so quiet and silky smooth when working, that is a charm. After working with it, I did remenbered why I love Nikon SLR/DSLR semi/pro and prolevel cameras: Nikon does know what they are doing indeed.

For me, Nikon is still making great - if not the best - semi-pro and pro level DSLr's, with their deep know-how of photographic manufcaturing, on what a phtographer does need and good optics experience.I bought the kit lens - 18-70, I also have the very good 70-300 VR zoom, and expect to buy the Nikkor VR 105mm Micro and the Nikkor or Tokina 12-24 mm,as well as the 800 flash unit.

One last word in favour of the Pentax K10D: for the price/features/overall/image quality ( raw shooting )/price, Pentax created the best DSLR in its price point.I have no doubts also regarding this. One can argue that the D80 is a match for the Pentax.Probably is and probably is a better choice in terms of overall image quality but do not forget that the K10 has features you can find on the D200 and not on the D80.

Kudos Nikon for the D200, kudos Pentax for the K10D...but I'll continue to be a Nikonist. At the end...this is my 7th Nikon SLR/DSLR camera being that all my previous ones - Nikkormat FT3,Nikon F2,Nikon FE2, Nikon F301 and Nikon F501 and a "cheap" Nikon F80 were always...top performers. So , why to change from a winning team?

Paul Trunfio , June 13, 2007; 09:07 A.M.

Just to add 2 cents here... Personally I think the viewfinder is nice and bright, especially with fast lenses. I shoot mainly photojournalism, but also portraits and events and I just love it. I use a pro print lab and the results are nothing short of amazing even with 16x20 and 20x24 prints. The trick with making large prints is to reinterpolate (I use blowup) and finesse the image in CS3. I've always used manual focus cameras up until now and the action shots I can get are wonderful. maybe it's not as fast a frame rate as other cameras, but it just does a great job for me. I don't know if it's the camera or me, but I do have trouble sometimes following sports action and some images come out soft.

My scanned Hassey negatives from an Imacon, printed to 16x20 are NOT as good and it takes like a week to drive to lab 20 miles away, have them scan, print, etc. and they cost A LOT!

Patricio Murphy , June 19, 2007; 12:37 P.M.

Jus my 2 cents regarding the use of MF lenses: my most used lens is probably the 400 f/3.5 MF lens, and I find the viewfinder as good as it gets. I come from a D70, and that one did took a time to get used to focus manually, but the D200 is great, in that and in almost any other respect.

Patricio Murphy , June 19, 2007; 12:38 P.M.

Jus my 2 cents regarding the use of MF lenses: my most used lens is probably the 400 f/3.5 MF lens, and I find the viewfinder as good as it gets. I come from a D70, and that one did took a time to get used to focus manually, but the D200 is great, in that and in almost any other respect.

Josh Penner , June 27, 2007; 12:03 P.M.

Don't get me started about how much I love my D200! I just feel confident this camera will perform in any situation I may be shooting. I love landscape so I'm in the dust, humidity etc. and the extra sturdiness and sealings on the D200 are just one reason why I trust this camera.

Emad abdulmotaleb , June 28, 2007; 04:54 P.M.

i got that d200 with 50mm f1.8 Af.....results ARE amazing

32"x12" prints are life like "ALOT"......my friend thought am shoting with medium format like his ....NIKON ROCKS WITH D200

Jesse Hayes , July 10, 2007; 06:11 P.M.

d200, friggin great!! Too bad i can't afford lenses now.. ;)

Andrew Prokos , August 20, 2007; 11:41 A.M.

I agree with Ilkka that digital is not and never will be a replacement for film, especially for large format. I purchased the D200 specifically for assignment work where very large files were not necessary. The detail captured with the D200 is very impressive and I think that the shots are actually a bit sharper with my D200 than I get with my usual Provia or Velvia. Where the D200 (and most other digital cameras) can't compare is in the dynamic range of film. You have to be very careful what and how you shoot as once the highlights are clipped there's no way to recover them. -- Andrew New York City Fine Art Photography

Ryan Cardone , August 21, 2007; 11:56 P.M.

I love this camera....It is a work horse. I shoot surfing from the water and put this camera in a housing and it works great. The D200 is tough as nails!!!!

Michelle Maor , November 18, 2007; 02:58 P.M.

I have a D70s and I have never really been happy with it. After reading all these posts I can't wait to buy a D200 although I know the D300 is coming out soon. I'm wondering if it's worth spending the money and going directly to the D300 rather than going to the D200. I am an amatuer/semi professional photographer. I'm not planning on blowing up my photos to larger than 20X30 so would you guys recommend the D200? My photos can be found at Bend Oregon Photography

Milan Lorenc , May 29, 2008; 04:52 P.M.

I'd like to ask for advice about Nikon D200. I'm just a beginner and trying to get into photography.I'm thinking buy a new NikonD200. Is it good start with camera like that?

Pete Appleby , July 22, 2008; 08:22 A.M.

Hi Milan,

To be honest the D200 is aimed at serious amateurs a semi-professionals so I'm not sure it's the right camera to start out with. I own one and it doesn't have any presets such as portrait or sport settings, as it's aimed a people that would understand how to set the camera up for these situations. Have you looked at any of the entry level DSLR range from Nikon?

dhuksha vib , September 29, 2008; 06:44 A.M.


I have a d200 and think it's great, as a first camera it's got everything from auto everything to manual everything and since the price has dropped alot i'd def recommend it. it's beaten in the high iso stakes recently but is robust and will probably last..

a question.... I'd like to print big, 20x30 even if the prints seem good are they good up close? can anyone recommend a good UK print lab?


Add a comment

Notify me of comments