FAO: Those with Nikon D200s/D2Xs

Sic

Sic

Sic

Soldato
Joined
9 Nov 2004
Posts
15,365
Location
SO16
im thinking of upgrading my D70 to something with a bit more clout. i'm probably going to try and scrape some cash together for a D200 + AF 35-70 f/2.8. has anyone made an upgrade from the D70 to the D200? was it worth it? would i be better off going to a D2X for the money? it's not really a problem, how much it costs - i'll just save for longer, i'm in no rush!

damn photography costing me money all the time!! :(;)
 
I bought a D200 & kept the D70. The improvement in so many areas is well worth the extra. The D2xs is obviously better again but I don't think the extra £2,000+ can be justified for amateur use.
In summary, go for the D200, you won't be dissapointed.

Gareth.
 
I went to the D200 and the 17-55 f2.8, which is a brilliant combo. But like said, I'd wait for nikons announcement. I'd only get a d2x if it has something you need, otherwise the D200 will be good for almost anything!
 
I went from D70 to D200 and its excellent, no regrets. Dont bother with D2X unless someone else is picking up the tab or you need the high speed crop mode it features.
 
If build quality, shooting at high ISOs and 5fps would make you a better photography or allow you to take pictures you currently can't do then it's worth it.

Otherwise it's not a significant improvement on the D70s. I upgraded from the D70s to the D200, and ended up sending the D200 back and investing in glass instead. Never regreted it.

If you have a lot of top quality glass then a body upgrade is the next logical step, but if you're currently sitting with 2 or 3 okay-ish lenses then picture quality is likely to improve more with some top glass.
 
Valleyman said:
If build quality, shooting at high ISOs and 5fps would make you a better photography or allow you to take pictures you currently can't do then it's worth it.

Otherwise it's not a significant improvement on the D70s. I upgraded from the D70s to the D200, and ended up sending the D200 back and investing in glass instead. Never regreted it.

If you have a lot of top quality glass then a body upgrade is the next logical step, but if you're currently sitting with 2 or 3 okay-ish lenses then picture quality is likely to improve more with some top glass.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but thats absolute carp!

Along with the better build quality, high iso capability and 5fps add faster write speeds, weather sealed body, better ergonomics, faster and better focus unit, brighter/larger viewfinder, flash sync lead socket, bigger prievew screen, better menu's, switchable custom fucntions, RGB histogram, 10.2mp over 6.1....the list goes on, and on and on!

The improvements are massive over the D70, and yes good glass is essential but saying the D200 is no real improvement over the D70 is spouting rubbish.
 
Slime101 said:
I'm sorry but thats absolute carp!

Along with the better build quality, high iso capability and 5fps add faster write speeds, weather sealed body, better ergonomics, faster and better focus unit, brighter/larger viewfinder, flash sync lead socket, bigger prievew screen, better menu's, switchable custom fucntions, RGB histogram, 10.2mp over 6.1....the list goes on, and on and on!

The improvements are massive over the D70, and yes good glass is essential but saying the D200 is no real improvement over the D70 is spouting rubbish.
Click to expand...

Everything you just mentioned makes negligable difference to the end result. Better menus? Come on.

You even tried to sneak in faster write time and weather sealed body which I think were indirectly covered by my faster fps and build quality comments. As I said, these things allow you to do things with your camera that could potential improve your photos or capture things you couldn't before. I admitted that. I'll give you the focus unit comment even if it is rather negligable and more dependant on GOOD glass. Which goes back to my comment on glass being more important.

The improved view finder is nice, yes, and so is the screen. The ergonomics are debatable. But I've never seen someone get an amazing photo over another camera because of a better menu or any of these things.

It's a nice camera. I didn't say it wasn't. My point was however that he is likely to get better photos by investing in glass.

As for the 10.2MP over the 6.1MP. Pfft, the sensor is the critical component here and image quality is pretty damn insignificant, even when side by side. 100% crops are bigger, but as I keep saying Lenses will improve the qaulity more even for a large print.

So back to my original point. If you have good glass already, the D200 is fantastic. But if not, you are likely to get better photos with the D70 and some good glass.
 
Just a thought on the D70vs argument.
I recently bought a 1D, but only on condition that I could return it if not impressed. The actual pixel count is pretty pathetic in todays terms, i.e. only 4Mp. In reality takes excellent photos as it does a stunning job of some of the other aspects of a good camera, i.e. very easy to use, awesome AF, amazing frame rate etc. As an example, I took it to the motorshow and blew off 250 plus shots. Threw away 5 that I'd naffed up. That is a MUCH higher keeper rate than I would have previously achieved.

Guess what I'm trying to say is that all some of those nice sounding features really do make the difference between a blury mess and a good photo. After all, no amount of great glass will save a blurry mess.
 
Valleyman said:
Everything you just mentioned makes negligable difference to the end result. Better menus? Come on.

You even tried to sneak in faster write time and weather sealed body which I think were indirectly covered by my faster fps and build quality comments. As I said, these things allow you to do things with your camera that could potential improve your photos or capture things you couldn't before. I admitted that. I'll give you the focus unit comment even if it is rather negligable and more dependant on GOOD glass. Which goes back to my comment on glass being more important.

The improved view finder is nice, yes, and so is the screen. The ergonomics are debatable. But I've never seen someone get an amazing photo over another camera because of a better menu or any of these things.

It's a nice camera. I didn't say it wasn't. My point was however that he is likely to get better photos by investing in glass.

As for the 10.2MP over the 6.1MP. Pfft, the sensor is the critical component here and image quality is pretty damn insignificant, even when side by side. 100% crops are bigger, but as I keep saying Lenses will improve the qaulity more even for a large print.

So back to my original point. If you have good glass already, the D200 is fantastic. But if not, you are likely to get better photos with the D70 and some good glass.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree, the D200 is in a different league, it has the D2x image processing and a far superior AF system. It also has instant access to whole host of functions unlike the d70s. The only thing it lacks is the preprogrammed modes for beginners who don't even need an SLR.

Good glass is a nice investment but you missed the obvious argument for it i beleive, it'll work with your next camera. that said, the 18-70 kit lens is fine on a d200 or d70s, it's resolving capacity far exceeds the resolution of either camera. my 17-55 is a build quality and slight sharpness improvement over it but is costs £1000!

It depends what you're shooting, but in my book if you can afford it and are competant the D200 is a great upgrade. It offers great capability over the D70, if you're shooting sport or nature then you could argue for the af-s vr 70-200 lens instead but it's a little specialist...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom