Nikon D80 vs. D200

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by LDD, Oct 21, 2006.

  1. LDD

    LDD Guest

    I have a D70 and am very happy with it. I want to upgrade to 10mp and
    like the idea of a bigger rear screen; qualities shared by both the D80
    and D200. I'm happy to spend the extra bucks for a D200 if it is worth
    it. I am an amateur (nature/wildlife) and don't need the metal body,
    and 5fps v. 3fps won't change my world. Any other differences that I'm
    missing?

    Thanks.
     
    LDD, Oct 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. LDD

    Bill Crocker Guest

    "LDD" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have a D70 and am very happy with it. I want to upgrade to 10mp and
    > like the idea of a bigger rear screen; qualities shared by both the D80
    > and D200. I'm happy to spend the extra bucks for a D200 if it is worth
    > it. I am an amateur (nature/wildlife) and don't need the metal body,
    > and 5fps v. 3fps won't change my world. Any other differences that I'm
    > missing?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >


    This might help:

    Nikon D80 vs. D200
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/vs-d200.htm

    Bill Crocker
     
    Bill Crocker, Oct 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. LDD

    JohnR66 Guest

    "LDD" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have a D70 and am very happy with it. I want to upgrade to 10mp and
    > like the idea of a bigger rear screen; qualities shared by both the D80
    > and D200. I'm happy to spend the extra bucks for a D200 if it is worth
    > it. I am an amateur (nature/wildlife) and don't need the metal body,
    > and 5fps v. 3fps won't change my world. Any other differences that I'm
    > missing?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >

    Check the feature lists and reviews over on dpreview. Would the price
    difference cover the cost of a lens you may have wanted? Does the D200 have
    a feature you can't live without.
    John
     
    JohnR66, Oct 22, 2006
    #3
  4. LDD

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "LDD" <> writes:
    > I have a D70 and am very happy with it. I want to upgrade to 10mp and
    > like the idea of a bigger rear screen; qualities shared by both the D80
    > and D200. I'm happy to spend the extra bucks for a D200 if it is worth
    > it. I am an amateur (nature/wildlife) and don't need the metal body,
    > and 5fps v. 3fps won't change my world. Any other differences that I'm
    > missing?


    The D70s has a slightly bigger lcd screen than the D70, if that helps.

    I cringe at the idea of spending $1700 for a D200 given that $2.5K
    gets you an EOS-5D. Not that I have the cash for it anyway, but I'm
    holding out for a hypothetical D300 to be introduced in February at PMA.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 22, 2006
    #4
  5. LDD

    bmoag Guest

    If your D70 has served in the environments you intend to use the D80 there
    is no reason to get a D200.
    The TTL viewing system and the sensor of the D80 are a significant
    improvement over the D70.
    However you have to use SD cards for the D80, an additional expense.
    The files sizes for the D80 are significantly larger than the D70, moreso if
    you prefer 16bit color. You need to have the computer RAM for this or image
    processing will slow significantly.
     
    bmoag, Oct 22, 2006
    #5
  6. LDD

    acl Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > I cringe at the idea of spending $1700 for a D200 given that $2.5K
    > gets you an EOS-5D. Not that I have the cash for it anyway, but I'm
    > holding out for a hypothetical D300 to be introduced in February at PMA.


    But, supposing that one has concluded that a full-frame sensor is not a
    priority, what are the advantages of the 5D in your opinion? I am
    asking because I spent a considerable amount of time comparing the 20D
    (at the time) to the D200, and settled for the D200 in the end, after
    using the 20D for some time. The 5D is, as far as I can tell, a 20D
    with a bigger sensor, hence my question.

    Of course, if the main attraction is the bigger sensor, there's no
    comparison.
     
    acl, Oct 22, 2006
    #6
  7. LDD

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "acl" <> writes:
    > But, supposing that one has concluded that a full-frame sensor is
    > not a priority, what are the advantages of the 5D in your opinion?


    I'm sorry, I can't imagine reaching such a conclusion, so I can't
    answer that question. The full frame sensor is an overwhelming
    advantage as far as I can tell. The only barrier up til recently has
    been the price tag.

    > I am asking because I spent a considerable amount of time comparing
    > the 20D (at the time) to the D200, and settled for the D200 in the
    > end, after using the 20D for some time. The 5D is, as far as I can
    > tell, a 20D with a bigger sensor, hence my question.


    That 5D vs 20D comparison might be correct, I don't know, I don't
    follow Canon stuff all that closely. I can understand the idea of
    choosing the D200 over the 20D, or of choosing the Nikon system over
    Canon in general, and therefore not wanting a 5D. But if I didn't
    want a 5D, then my strategy as a Nikon user, as mentioned, would be to
    wait til PMA 2007 (that's in February) and see if Nikon launches a 5D
    counterpart.

    I was actually wrong about the 5D's pricing--with the current double
    rebate (as someone else posted) it's just a hair over $2K now, even
    lower than I thought. That's basically the same price class as the
    D200. I think we should consider the days of full frame sensors being
    limited to pro-level cameras as being near an end. I think there will
    be full frame DSLR's at D200-like street prices by next year.

    I had some interest in the D200 for a while but now I don't see it as
    worth bothering with. If Canon can sell a full frame camera at the
    D200 price level, Nikon can and presumably will do the same, so I'll
    just hold out for it. If I wanted to buy a Nikon DSLR right away, I'd
    get a D50 or D80 to use while waiting for future developments.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 22, 2006
    #7
  8. LDD

    acl Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "acl" <> writes:
    > > But, supposing that one has concluded that a full-frame sensor is
    > > not a priority, what are the advantages of the 5D in your opinion?

    >
    > I'm sorry, I can't imagine reaching such a conclusion, so I can't
    > answer that question. The full frame sensor is an overwhelming
    > advantage as far as I can tell. The only barrier up til recently has
    > been the price tag.


    OK. Here's where we differ, then. I think it's certainly an advantage,
    but not enough for me to spend more than a couple of minutes thinking
    about (1 stop of sensitivity, basically; I'd exchange it for a remote
    release coming with the camera, to be honest). Different priorities,
    obviously. But, if you do consider it an overwhelming advantage, I can
    see why the D200 isn't appealing.

    As for future availability of "cheap" FF sensors, I think you're right,
    but I doubt Nikon will come up with a FF camera in the D200 price range
    by early next year. However, Canon probably will and, with some luck,
    cheap used 5Ds will become available for people who want a FF sensor
    but don't want to spend a lot of money. Personally, I'd rather get used
    manual focus lenses.
     
    acl, Oct 22, 2006
    #8
  9. LDD

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "acl" <> writes:
    > As for future availability of "cheap" FF sensors, I think you're right,
    > but I doubt Nikon will come up with a FF camera in the D200 price range
    > by early next year. However, Canon probably will and, with some luck,
    > cheap used 5Ds will become available for people who want a FF sensor
    > but don't want to spend a lot of money. Personally, I'd rather get used
    > manual focus lenses.


    Used MF lenses are among the attractions of a hypothetical Nikon FF
    camera (assuming it's like the D200). The 35/1.4, 24/2 and 28/2 MF
    Nikkors are still wideangles with an FF sensor. The 20/2.8 is an
    ultrawide at a fraction of the cost of the 13mm or 14mm lens you'd
    need to get comparable coverage on a D200. And the 14mm has coverage
    you just can't get on a D200 without using a fisheye. The 55 micro
    (and for that matter the 60 AF micro) don't turn into medium
    telephotos requiring you to grow gorilla-like elongated arms for copy
    work. The 17-35/2.8 is a full stop faster than the 12-24/4 DX and is
    a better lens (though it costs more). And that extra stop of
    sensitivity from the FF sensor sort of turns the 180/2.8 into a
    180/2.0, worth the price of admission right there (the 200/2.0 Nikkor
    costs kilobucks and weighs a ton). For the larger telephotos (300/2.8
    or whatever) the effect is even greater.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 22, 2006
    #9
  10. LDD

    acl Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "acl" <> writes:
    > > As for future availability of "cheap" FF sensors, I think you're right,
    > > but I doubt Nikon will come up with a FF camera in the D200 price range
    > > by early next year. However, Canon probably will and, with some luck,
    > > cheap used 5Ds will become available for people who want a FF sensor
    > > but don't want to spend a lot of money. Personally, I'd rather get used
    > > manual focus lenses.

    >
    > Used MF lenses are among the attractions of a hypothetical Nikon FF
    > camera (assuming it's like the D200). The 35/1.4, 24/2 and 28/2 MF
    > Nikkors are still wideangles with an FF sensor. The 20/2.8 is an
    > ultrawide at a fraction of the cost of the 13mm or 14mm lens you'd
    > need to get comparable coverage on a D200. And the 14mm has coverage
    > you just can't get on a D200 without using a fisheye. The 55 micro
    > (and for that matter the 60 AF micro) don't turn into medium
    > telephotos requiring you to grow gorilla-like elongated arms for copy
    > work. The 17-35/2.8 is a full stop faster than the 12-24/4 DX and is
    > a better lens (though it costs more). And that extra stop of
    > sensitivity from the FF sensor sort of turns the 180/2.8 into a
    > 180/2.0, worth the price of admission right there (the 200/2.0 Nikkor
    > costs kilobucks and weighs a ton). For the larger telephotos (300/2.8
    > or whatever) the effect is even greater.


    Well yes, except that eg the 300 f/2.8 becomes a 450 f/2.8, the 135mm
    f/1.8 a 200mm f/1.8 and so on. It's all a matter of priorities. It's a
    personal choice (aside from noise issues).
     
    acl, Oct 22, 2006
    #10
  11. LDD

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "acl" <> writes:
    > Well yes, except that eg the 300 f/2.8 becomes a 450 f/2.8, the 135mm
    > f/1.8 a 200mm f/1.8 and so on.


    Nah, you can get that transformation with an FF camera by cropping the
    central portion of the image. We just had that discussion about the
    10D vs the 5D, where someone thought the 10D's higher pixel density
    was a big deal (maybe it is for him). However, even if you think the
    extra pixels are important, nothing stops a new FF camera from having
    a similar pixel density to the 10D. That would put it in the 22 MP
    range, which I think already exists in 24x36mm sensors in medium
    format digital backs.

    I actually want three cameras, all full frame (and all priced like a
    D50 of course):

    1) one with a 5D-like sensor (color, 12 MP)
    2) one with a 20+ MP monochrome sensor, for copy work
    3) one with a 1 MP monochrome sensor and clean 6400+ ISO

    I think #1 is the only one we'll likely see real soon.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 22, 2006
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >If Canon can sell a full frame camera at the
    >D200 price level,


    Where is that coming from? That sounds like pure speculation to me.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 22, 2006
    #12
  13. In article <>,
    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >And that extra stop of
    >sensitivity from the FF sensor sort of turns the 180/2.8 into a
    >180/2.0, worth the price of admission right there (the 200/2.0 Nikkor
    >costs kilobucks and weighs a ton). For the larger telephotos (300/2.8
    >or whatever) the effect is even greater.


    Usually, the reference system is 35mm fullframe. So 180/2.8 on DX
    corresponds to 270/4 on 35mm and 300/2.8 corresponds to 450/4.

    If you want to take the DX as reference, then a 180/2.8 on 35mm corresponds
    to 120/2 on DX and 300/2.8 on 35mm corresponds to 200/2.

    Nikon does have a 135/2, so that is no problem. The 200/2 does become tricky.

    It's a pity that Nikon seem to introduce just VR lenses and consumer zooms,
    and almost nothing for fast wide-angle.

    Maybe that is simply where the money is. Maybe they plan to do a fullframe
    camera, which would make fast DX wide-angles obsolete.

    Anyhow, I sort of doubt that Nikon would introduce a fullframe D200 replacement
    before or even concurrent with introducing a fullframe professional camera.
    So it seems to me that it is going to be very unlikely that you will be
    able to buy a fullframe consumer body from Nikon in 2007.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 22, 2006
    #13
  14. LDD

    Paul Rubin Guest

    (Philip Homburg) writes:
    > >If Canon can sell a full frame camera at the D200 price level,

    > Where is that coming from? That sounds like pure speculation to me.


    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/51566f2964424ec4

    The double rebate explained above puts the 5D at $2050. This is
    somewhat more than the D200 ($1700) but I'd describe it as being in
    the same general price class. Of course the mfgr costs will keep
    dropping, so if they can sell it for $2050 today, they'll be able to
    sell it for $1700 by sometime next year.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Paul Rubin wrote:
    []
    > Of course the mfgr costs will keep
    > dropping, so if they can sell it for $2050 today, they'll be able to
    > sell it for $1700 by sometime next year.


    The costs, or the profit margins?

    <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 22, 2006
    #15
  16. LDD

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
    > > Of course the mfgr costs will keep dropping, so if they can sell
    > > it for $2050 today, they'll be able to sell it for $1700 by
    > > sometime next year.

    >
    > The costs, or the profit margins?


    The costs keep dropping, so the margins increase for a while, then
    they have to cut the retail price, and eventually they come out with a
    new model. The margin for a D200 (approx same price it's been for the
    past year) is probably quite high, compared to the margin for a D80
    (mostly the same camera at a lot lower price) or of a 5D with the
    current rebates (full frame camera at only slightly higher price).
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 22, 2006
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    > (Philip Homburg) writes:
    >> >If Canon can sell a full frame camera at the D200 price level,

    >> Where is that coming from? That sounds like pure speculation to me.

    >
    >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/51566f2964424ec4
    >
    >The double rebate explained above puts the 5D at $2050. This is
    >somewhat more than the D200 ($1700) but I'd describe it as being in
    >the same general price class. Of course the mfgr costs will keep
    >dropping, so if they can sell it for $2050 today, they'll be able to
    >sell it for $1700 by sometime next year.


    There is something I don't understand about this rebate. Recently in
    a discussion about cameras, somebody brought up that the 5D doesn't sell
    very well (in .nl). In this group, some people suggest that the 5D sells
    very well in the US.

    Now, if the 5D sells very well, why these huge cache backs? Why not simply
    lower the price?

    On the otherhand, if it does sell slowly then the cache backs may be more to
    clear out a warehouse, then about lower production costs.

    I have to admit, this is a great price to get a fullframe body. Hopefully,
    Canon keeps the 5D at $2000.

    Down from $3300 to $2050 in a bit more than one year does sound a bit
    extreme. I wonder what is happening here.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
     
    Philip Homburg, Oct 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Philip Homburg wrote:

    > There is something I don't understand about this rebate. Recently in
    > a discussion about cameras, somebody brought up that the 5D doesn't
    > sell very well (in .nl). In this group, some people suggest that the
    > 5D sells very well in the US.


    Relatively speaking the 5D really isn't a big seller compared to the 1D MK
    II. The group of people more worried about FF gravitates more towards the
    MK II. The 5D was more or less designed as a starter camera and a tease to
    introduce us to inexpensive FF.

    > Now, if the 5D sells very well, why these huge cache backs? Why not
    > simply lower the price?


    Just marketing strategy. This is no different than Nikon offering a $500
    cash back rebate on the legendary D2x prior to the D2xs being introduced.
    It was a real bargain since the D2x was selling for $4,299 plus the $500
    rebate.

    > On the otherhand, if it does sell slowly then the cache backs may be
    > more to clear out a warehouse, then about lower production costs.


    Probably so. There's nothing wrong with giving us consumers a break. Let
    the early adopters that have to have the latest and greatest pay the
    premium.

    > I have to admit, this is a great price to get a fullframe body.
    > Hopefully, Canon keeps the 5D at $2000.


    Yep! And it is making it so much more attractive for me to buy one before
    January instead of waiting for spring to see if Nikon will introduce an FF
    body.

    > Down from $3300 to $2050 in a bit more than one year does sound a bit
    > extreme. I wonder what is happening here.


    Not really when the average useful life expectancy for the manufacturer of
    any dSLR body is 18-months.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Oct 22, 2006
    #18
  19. LDD

    acl Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > Nah, you can get that transformation with an FF camera by cropping the
    > central portion of the image. We just had that discussion about the
    > 10D vs the 5D, where someone thought the 10D's higher pixel density
    > was a big deal (maybe it is for him). However, even if you think the
    > extra pixels are important, nothing stops a new FF camera from having
    > a similar pixel density to the 10D. That would put it in the 22 MP
    > range, which I think already exists in 24x36mm sensors in medium
    > format digital backs.


    That's true, you can get the same results by a larger sensor of higher
    pixel density. So if price and weight were no object, something like a
    medium format back would be ideal. Large format if we also ignore
    portability. However, price, portability and availability of camera and
    lenses are important to me, as is the camera body and available lenses.

    I am pretty sure this discussion has happened thousands of times by
    now. As I said before, people have different priorities (eg how much
    emphasis is put on the camera body vs the sensor etc).

    >
    > I actually want three cameras, all full frame (and all priced like a
    > D50 of course):
    >
    > 1) one with a 5D-like sensor (color, 12 MP)
    > 2) one with a 20+ MP monochrome sensor, for copy work
    > 3) one with a 1 MP monochrome sensor and clean 6400+ ISO
    > I think #1 is the only one we'll likely see real soon.
     
    acl, Oct 22, 2006
    #19
  20. LDD

    Greg \_\ Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:

    > The 20/2.8 is an
    > ultrawide at a fraction of the cost of the 13mm or 14mm lens you'd
    > need to get comparable coverage on a D200. And the 14mm has coverage
    > you just can't get on a D200 without using a fisheye.


    Buy a second party lens, just got a very nice 11-18mm for a fraction of
    Nikons price for the 14mm.
    --
    Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
    and never looking back.

    www.gregblankphoto.com
     
    Greg \_\, Oct 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. W Chan

    Nikon D200 vs. D80

    W Chan, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    60
    Views:
    1,502
    measekite
    Sep 25, 2006
  2. E. E. Herbert

    Will the Nikon D80 or D200 do this?

    E. E. Herbert, Sep 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    960
    LuvLatins
    Dec 9, 2006
  3. davek57

    Nikon D80 vs Nikon D200

    davek57, Jun 15, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    2,190
    John Turco
    Jun 25, 2007
  4. ~^ beancounter ~^

    nikon d80 to d200 lense interchangibility.....

    ~^ beancounter ~^, Sep 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    480
    David Ruether
    Sep 12, 2007
  5. Nikon D80 Vs Nikon D200

    , Oct 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    454
    brother
    Oct 6, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page