For a start, I have a medium format Bronica ERTS 6x45 (with a standard and wide angle lens) for my 120 medium format film fix. As well as a Nikon F4 and F90 for my 35mm film hankerings. An IS-3000 Olympus 'Bridge' camera was a bit of a crazy purchase recently, and a Fujifilm Instax 210 Wide camera rounds out the film portion of my collection. That's quite a few film cameras.
The situation isn't much better when it comes to digital. Of course my main kit is my Olympus OM-D EM-1 micro four thirds with several lenses and accessories etc - but I also have a battered and bruised (but still working) Canon 50D with grip and several lenses, as well as a Nikon D70 that I hold on to for sentimental reasons (it was my first DSLR). So I don't need anymore cameras - right?
But who am I kidding? I established with myself a long time ago that when it comes to camera gear, it's never really about what I 'need', and much more about what I 'want'. And what I found that I 'wanted' was a fully featured 'pro' Nikon DSLR body to work in tandem with my F4 so I could swap lenses and shoot both film and digital at the same time. Why not...?
Many reading this in 2018 and beyond will more than likely be suffering from the 'but it's only's'. But it's only 10.2MP. But it only has one CF card slot. But it only has 11 focus points. But it's only 5fps. But it only shoots images (no video - and no live view!). But it's screen is only 230,000px. But it only shoots up to ISO1600 natively (and even then it's best not to go over 800ISO). But it's 13 years old!
I grant you every last one of those 'but it's only's', how could I not? They're all true.
BUT - in all honesty, do ANY of the points mentioned above stop this from being a drop-dead amazing image making machine? No, people - no, they do not. I don't know how many times I've written on this blog that I believe 10MP to be MORE THAN ENOUGH for 90% of the worlds photographers. Who are you shooting for that you need more? Seriously.
Maybe you regularly take photos and then crop in heavily on just a small portion of the image to blow it up to a 10x12" print. If that's you, then stop it. Seriously - stop it. Compose, frame and crop in-camera. Then you'll find that 10MP is plenty enough for an A3 sized print. I crop about 5% of my images. 95% of the images I shoot are composed and cropped in-camera. But what if, I hear you say, you can't get close enough? I have two responses to that. First - get a longer telephoto lens. That's what they're for. And second - you'll just have to be content with not getting the shot. Tuff. Here's a news flash for you - you're going to miss a lot of shots. Either because you didn't have the 'right' gear for the job, you couldn't get close enough, or you weren't quick enough. Get over it.
 |
| The rear of the D200. Ergonomic perfection |
Ok, maybe that's a bit extreme? Other, more measured critics might say something like "it won't be any good for weddings in low-light church environments". This argument seems to suggest that once a camera has been replaced by a 'newer' model, it instantly becomes unfit for any 'serious' photography. I have no doubt that Nikon's D500 is a 'superior' camera than the D200 in every respect. It damn well better be, since it's 12 years newer. But does that really mean that the D200 is now no longer capable of being used as a professional tool? Of course not! I shot weddings for 10 years, and started with a Nikon D70! Yes folks, I shot weddings 'professionally' with a 6MP D70 for a couple of seasons, and never, ever had a client complain - or even comment - about 'noise' in an image. Never. The only people who care about noise in a photograph are other photographers. Period.
 |
| Jessie. D200 with 18-55mm 3.5/5.6 G II. F4.5 @ 1/30th, ISO 800. |
What I'm trying to say is that for 'most' photographers, the D200 - even at 12 years old - is more camera than most of us need - despite what we may want. I would seriously encourage anyone who may be looking at buying an 'entry-level' DSLR to consider something like a used D200 (or D80, D90, D300) instead. And on the Canon side, an older 40D, 50D or even 5D Mk1 would be a much better choice - for less money - than the latest digital Rebel.
The used D200 I just purchased was $200NZ body only. It's in immaculate condition, and has a 15,000 shutter count. That's 15% of the shutter's 100,000 shot life expectancy. The entry level D3400 with 18-55mm kit lens is $699NZ retail at the time of writing this. That's basically a $500NZ difference. For another $100NZ I also purchased a Nikkor 50mm f1.8. The D3400 has 24MP, Full HD video, Bluetooth connection etc. The D200 doesn't. And yet, with only $300 invested, I could also get an 85mm F1.8 Nikkor and have a prime lens kit that would run rings around the D3400.
When it was released all those years ago, the D200 was second-only to Nikon's D2x Pro body. In fact Nikon packed so much into the D200 that many 'pros' called it the baby D2x and used it as a back-up body. Pick one up and you will understand why. It's an ergonomic masterpiece - a joyous photography tool to handle and use. It inspires confidence and screams professionalism. It may not have Bluetooth connectivity or Live-view, but what it lacks for in techno-frippery it more than makes up for in ergonomic superiority.
I guess it's obvious how I feel about the Nikon D200. Is it a 'modern' classic? Yes, it is. Is it the cutting edge of techno-wizardry in camera technology? No it's not. But does that therefore make it an obsolete, outdated, unusable camera? Oh no. No, it does not....
I couldn't agree more with your comments on the D200. As someone who has far too many digital cameras of various ages. I don't sell them as you sensibly do. I tend to keep them all until they break or fail. But the D200 always struck me as a sweet spot. Perhaps the timing of the industry move from CCD to CMOS was the reason this camera has been largely ignored.
ReplyDelete