Is buying a D200 considered an upgrade from D5000? What do you think?

[SirusDeVirus]

Hi all Nikon user,

I recently pick up a very well looked after second hand D200 with only 5,000 shutter count for a really low price.

I was using D5000 previously and grew out of it already. Wanted a camera with more manual controls.

Do you guys think that it is considered an upgrade from D5000 or more of a downgrade given the D200 is old technology?

Some comments from D200 user would be nice.

Cheers

[arthurking83]

I guess in a lot of ways, it is.(ie. yes!)

D200 external hardware is far superior to a D5000, but the sensor itself is older tech, and in some ways inferior. But that doesn't mean you won't get good images at lower ISOs from the D200. Realistically, it'll be from about ISO400-800, where the newer sensor technology of the D5000 will surface.

But, you can't use software to gloss over the fact that the D5000 has fewer hardware features that are simply not avaialble, whereas they are on a D200.
Mirror lockup, AF-On button, user selectable memory banks for camera settings, magnesium body, a more full featured old lens(Ai/Ais) compatibility(such as lens settings in exif and metering).

While you can use software to create images as good as you can get with the D5000, you can't use software(or hardware) to make the D5000's 'handling' as good (or more featured) as you can get from the D200.

Note too tho, that some hardware features are in fact software features. Sounds confusing? ... it is. The Flash on the D200 is what I'm referring too.
On the D200, you get the ability to natively use the Nikon CLS wireless flash system, where you have the ability to wirelessly control external Nikon flashes(and possibly other brands too.. but not 100% sure on this).
The flashes need to be specficially capable of wireless operation tho.
That is, you set up a Nikon flash somehwere and the onboard flash on the D200 can control that flash via it's flash output. Generally, you need to spend more money on either wireless addon devices, or cables to do this same thing.
Each system has it's advantagers and distadvantages, but with the D200, the system is free...and hence the disadvantages are a minor inconvenience.
Plus!! the other aspect of (say the D200) over a less featured body in the D80 or D70 of that era) is that the D200 can also control the output of flashes depending on the channel you use them on. The entire system works on individual channels, so you can have 4 flashes, and the D200 can direct each of those 4 flashes to output a specific amount of light each, in an individual manner.
Other older Nikon camera's that can control external flashes wirelessly don't necessarily allow the flexibility to work on an individual basis, nor allow the option not to use the onboard flash as part of he lighting sytstem, so that the onboard flash only operates as the controlling system(commander).
On board flash is usually 'YUK!' in it's 'quality'. The external flashes usually drown out the onboard flash quite easily.. but anyhow.. the option not to use the power in the onboard flash is there in the D200.

Sometimes tho, even tho a feature may sound cool and like something you must have, the operation of and ease in accessing that featuree is not necessarily smooth nor easy.
Eg. the memory feature, where you set the camera up to a particular taste and you can set this camera setup for one purpose(say landscaping), is relatively easy to establish, but to switch back to a preferred different set of settings, requires the user to delve into menu settings instead of having a dedicated hardware button. There is a function button to help, but if you want this function button for other purposes, then you still get stuck in having to dive into menus.
not hard to do, so this is not a criticism of the feature! It's just that it could have been made easier to use. Is still use them, and used to regularly switch from my Landscape memory bank to my Portrait meomry bank and also into my Sports memory bank. The ability to set various camera settings into these memory banks is almost unlimited in most ways. Almost all camera settings can be changed to suit a particular style of shooting.. or set to one way for one photographer, and another for the spouse/friend/kids/etc. I also have a General setting that shoots jpgs instead of NEFs and changes a whole rash of camera settings, just to make it easier for the kids, or occassionally, friend or family to have a go with the camera.

So the more acurate answer to the question, is ..... depends on what you want!(as opposed to yes!).

Yoy get full manual control of the D5000, if full manual control was a requirement.
But the manualness of the D200 is a bit more complete. Take Mirror LockUp mode. In the D5000, you get a similar mode called Exposure Delay.. while this is close to.. say 90% the ability of MLU for most people, it;s not quite the same thing. Sometimes MLU requires a lot more patience.. I've waited for up to a few minutes with MLU to wait for a precise moment. Sometimes MLU or Exposure Delay is a good substitute for a good-excellent tripod, but then again you can substitute exposure delay with an excellent tripod, whereas you can't do the same thing with MLU(where MLU is needed for a specific requirement).
Other manulanesses not usually referred back too is the D200's ability to use older manual focus lenses with a few extra features, like metering and the lens specs added into the exif data. D5000 can use older lenses, but the sdettings are never recorded(ie. aperture always = f/0), and while metering can be guessed at, it's nice to have a helping hand if it was available.
Othe raspects of a D200 as being advantageous over a D5000, is the ability to use the older AF type lenses and auto focus. D5000 can use AF type lenses, but of course cannot focus autoatically. D200 can use both AF and AF-S type lenses.

My preference is for AF-S type over AF type lenses, despite a few shortcomings of AF-S as nikon have seen to implement in a few of them! I like the fulltime manaul focusing ability, whereas with the AF type lenses you need to switch a switch or turn a knob or rotate a ring.. not a particularly fast way to quickly refocus if the need ever arises.

I think there is more(info) to the inherent advantage of a D200 over a D5000, I may have not listed... but then again the D5000 is a far more modern camera and has features that were never a marketing strategy for the D200 and it's competitors back in it's day(2005-6 I think).

[JM Tran]

another one of Arthurs long posts.......!

Im gonna get straight to the point here - The end product of any camera is the photo itself - and the sensor is what will make the ultimate photo. AF-ON buttons or mirror locks and other whizbangs are just extra options as to how to take a photo. But its not as important as the sensor itself.

So yes, the D5000 is superior in colour and IQ, and especially noise, and sharpness over the much older D200 sensor. Camera technology is evolving at a very fast rate and quality is being improved every year. The D200 came out nearly 6 years ago.

[SirusDeVirus]

Thanks for the very informative comparison among the two cameras.

Cheers

[I @ M]

Sirus, I am going to liken a switch between a D5000 and a D200 to more of a sideways step than either a backward or forwards leap.
Arthur has summed up the differences between the consumer and semi pro ( as the D200 was marketed ) bodies very well.
If you want to concentrate on photography at low (100 - 400) ISO levels and not rely on the camera to be an all round auotomated picture / video producer then the D200 still has plenty of life left in its aging body. They last well, don't suffer from any major recurring faults and are quite a joy to use.



Im gonna get straight to the point here - The end product of any camera is the photo itself - and the sensor is what will make the ultimate photo.

So yes, the D5000 is superior in colour and IQ, and especially noise, and sharpness over the much older D200 sensor.

I still believe that the photographer is the major element in producing the "ultimate photo", sensors, lenses and bodies in general are only an aid to the process.

The ccd / cmos sensor switch by Nikon was very much a catch up move by Nikon to address better consumer appreciated reproductions of certain colours and the ability ( along with advanced processors ) to handle ISO levels that lagged badly compared to the competition.

Sharpness and detail capture is not an issue with ccd sensors, the D200 produces excellently sharp images when coupled with good to excellent lenses. It doesn't need purely excellent lenses to return "sharp" results. If you look at cameras that are using ccd sensors and in current production it would be hard to single one of them out and say that they lack "sharpness" due to the sensor.

[SirusDeVirus]

Thanks for your advise I @ M.

Point noted.

It's the photographer that producers good image and the camera/lens is just a tool to help produce that image.

I have noticed that the D5000 produces better image at high ISO compared to D200.

Cheers

[arthurking83]

another one of Arthurs long posts.......!

apologies for that, but some things require more than a straight to the point summary to describe accurately(eg, the wireless flash system, and why you may want such a system).


.... - and the sensor is what will make the ultimate photo. ....

Whiel I don't disagree with this statement, I beleive that simply having a better sensor in a less capable camera body is not entirely a better way to go.

if the sensor technology is a quantum leap, then yes. But if it's in an incremental step forward, then NO!!

The issue here is how the photographer goes about their chores of capturing exposures.

Jackie seem to have an entourage of workers to assist in the process, whereas I generally do it all in a diametrically opposing manner.
The stype of shoot and images Jackie does, is also in direct oppositiuon to the thing's I look for and find myself interested in.

If I used Jackies line of reasoning, I would never find myself ever looking for a higher end body such as a D2, D3 Canon 1Ds'es, etc, etc ... why waste money on a waste fo camera body, when you kow allyou want is the latest sensor available?.. Canon's 5D series is ultimately a complete waste of money using that reasoning, a 1000D is a far better proposition, as it has a newer, 'more capable' sensor.

Imagine a sports shooter, using a D5000 and happily snapping at 3fps, for only a two or 10 second burst, using this far superieor sensor when compared to a D2x instead, which is capable of 8 or 9 fps, and with it's much larger buffer, for about 10mins contimuously too!(note I can't remember the exact max frame rate of the D2x, but it is significantly higher than 3fps... it is only for highlighting a point).

Soemthing, I would dearly love to have in many situations.. a D7000 now. The sensor(as Jackie points out) is far superior to the D300's older tech. ISO6400, looks like ISO3200 on the D300.. wow! massive and uber great. But(from playing with the camera myself, as a sports camera, shooting fast fps, compared to the D300, it'd suck! The D300 is a better sports camera by at least a mile and a half. While they do the same fps, the faster write rate of the Compact Flash card system, and the larger buffer, means that with the D300 you can simply just keep on shooting(if the need to just keep on shooting was important), which in sports shooting is the most important aspect of a camera.
The D7000 would have allowed you about 12 images(mind you I only shoot in RAW format, never jpg again!!), and then it basically locks up. It' take what feel like an eternity to clear the buffer, and this is with a fast card, but the SD card system is an order of magnitude slower than the CF card system, and you just have to wait or shoot at abotu 1fps, as the buffer clears.
If you NEED to get these sports shots for some reason(as I sometimes feel I have to do, for my own puproses), then whiel the older sensor technology of the D300 is happily and continuously shooting and getting the shots, the D7000 can only produce pretty looking images(that not many folks will ever notice anyow!!), but will miss the best part of the action. Fat lot of good a newer sensor does for you then, huh?

So once again, apologies for my long posts, and hence why I post long.. there's more to it, unless you specify a reason for the question.

So to answer the original question(of the D200 being an upgrade), the real answer would be ... 'it depends'.
There is no real yes no answer to the question, as you haven't really specified all your needs. But some folks like to give you an answer basd only on their limited photogpraphy experiences. They only tend to shoot in one particular style, and concentrate on one particular genre. I can't really say that I do this, even tho I primarily seem to shoot landscape images... but in no way am I restricted to it, nor do it limit myself to them.

Also to add to the reasons I@M listed as to why Nikon went from CCD to CMOS, it was for a marketing perspective. CCD doesn't do LiveView(either easily, or very well :confused013), whereas CMOS does, a lot better. I think the sensor heats up too much or whatever, and without any cooling aides and as the sensor is very large in a DSLR, this is a major problem with CCD.

Anyhow, your needs and requirements will dictate whether the D200 will be considered an upgrade. What kind of photography you do wil dictate this. I was going to upgrade to a D200(when the D300 was first introduced), but eventually wnet with the D300, and not for the 'newer sensor'(I'm not that stupid!!).. I wanted Mirror Lockup and Live View(in that order of preference), as this was the biggest change to me geting better shots in many cases, which lead me to start concentrating on photography genres that I once only dabbled in.

As to whether the D5000 is actually superior in both colour and IQ to the D200, I doubt that anyone in the world could actually post proof(real scientific proof, not some post processed guff!) of that.