D200 crew: your images, show them to me

[Cracker]

A friend is selling his Nikon D200 and I'm contemplating buying it. I was just curious about what images you all have shot. This would be an upgrade from my Canon Rebel XT.

[Cracker]

i should say, i'm also considering a Canon 40d, so Canon users, feel free to add commentary/photos.

[WaveRiderXIX]

You won't be disappointed with it. It has almost the same sensor as a D2X.
How much is he selling it for?

At the time, I paid a little over $1800 for it after taxes when it was new.
I then got the Fuji S5 to accompany it as my backup. (Purchased from Jarred Land) - ***** selling feedback hehe.
Then I had to shoot stuff in harsh conditions. So I got the D2X.
Now I've moved to the D700. D2X as my backup. S5 as my 3rd backup & portrait camera.
D200 for my personal camera.


When my D200 was still my main.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b86/iphil/bebe/DSC_0229_evacake.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/437315168_50f35d2c54.jpg?v=0
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b86/iphil/bebe/oliviamunn1.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/373635674_e759fa3074.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/363888483_d3dbc6d874.jpg?v=0
http://www.philipcuencofilms.com/live/content/Fashion/Print/l_f9c583d9544fea030fa2c9169b279337.jpg
http://www.philipcuencofilms.com/live/content/Fashion/Print/l_0ace26fad62c4c8abf813c678a2c07c2.jpg

[Cracker]

looks nice!

selling for $1k, body, 12-24, 50 1.8, grip, maybe a flash...i don't remember.


what's this about a D200 low ISO noise issue?

[WaveRiderXIX]

The body used (alone) you can get as low as $600.
Depends on the conditions and shots were put through it.

However, that 1.8 50mm is a VERY nice piece of glass. ($129) I believe new.
Depends how fast that 12-24 is too.
The grip is like $120 new. But most D200 and S5 outfits come with the grip now.
I paid $140 for mine. I guess it depends on the value of the 12-24 and how many batteries he's throwing in with it.
Also, if he is throwing in an SB-800 speedlight, it might be something to consider.

But if I were you, offer him like $750-800. Wave the cash in his face and say take it or leave it :)

Because you can get a D90 (body only) for $859 from B&H no tax.

The ISO above 800 on the D200 is not quality friendly. But it's nothing a little noise ninja could take care of. If you have a flash though, it won't matter. The ISO noise thing is mainly for people who need to shoot in low-light environments with no option for flash.

[Jeremy Ordan]

That 1k for all that is an incredible price. I am in the process of selling a D200 with grip, battery, and 18-200 lens plus a sb600 and have offers in the $1600 range that I am debating against, so needless to say, that is an incredible buy.

The 12-24 is a money lens and was $750 when it came out.

[DivotDan]

Yes, I agree with Jeremy. It is a good price. Depending on the use of the camera most D200's with grips are selling for ~$600. The 50mm is a great lens, I have one, but they are cheap and sell for ~$70-$90. They are not much more new. The 12-24 is the real "deal" in this deal. It is a constant f4 lens and depending on its condition you can get them for ~$400-600......so that what makes this a yes from me. If I were the seller I would not go below $1000. If it has a flash then that makes it that much better. SB600's usually sell for ~$140-160 and SB800's go for anything between $200 and $300.

All the prices I mentioned are for used equipment, but even without the flash that is a good deal.

Also, I don't know that I would call ISO above 800 poor quality. In good light I think it is very acceptable up to 1600, but in poor light I would agree that 800 is about all you can pull from it.

Here are some picks for you to check out. I just pulled my most viewed images from Flickr. There were all shot with various forms of lighting and lenses. Really the D200 is a great camera if you want a cheap way to get into a Pro body, and then you should just invest in your glass. I suggest buying as much FX glass as possible to have the most versatility down the road.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2854672076_78a3cc4b33_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2791327174_672b329806_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3078/2458811551_03223a8c3d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2039/2362007770_de2924d2e8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3020/2656446946_1958f5276b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/2911526563_9777f432f3_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/2675314671_81398449aa_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2486985216_af26969e1a_o.jpg

[Cracker]

wow, all these pics are incredible. i'm gonna shoot with it this weekend and see if it's everything I want. keep the pics coming, they're great!

[Adam Gonzalez]

I wouldn't even think twice about buying that camera package. That's amazing in its self. These pictures are all from my D200 i purchased used for $800. It came with a lens that I sold and then bought a grip.

The 12-24 is kinda slow at a f. 4 but you will not be upset with the image and how wide it is. (The bottom two images of the dude doin 360 Whip and a Manual on the rail were taken withe the 12-24mm w/ SB600 on slave.) The 50mm F1.8 was one of the first lenses I bought for my package back when I had a D70s. It is a fun piece of glass.

So yes buy it.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/RunwayHDRExport.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/Power.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/CK45copy.jpg

This image was taken with the 50mm 1.8
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/DSC_8425-2.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/UhOh.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/MistyCat-1.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/Redline.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/ManualonRail.jpg

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/FilmGizmo/Tailwhip.jpg

[Cracker]

what would be the "must have" lenses for the D200? I've used the 12-24, and 80-200 before and love them.

[DivotDan]

Depends on what you want to shoot. I think they are all must have! :) At least that is what I tell my wife.

[Adam Gonzalez]

It all depends on the subject but it is great to have a full spectrum of glass if you can afford it and find it cool to carry it all around.

Since I can't afford the glass I want I have made a list of lenses that I need instead of want. I own a Nikon 18-70mm F3.5-4.5 and a 50mm F1.8.

Nikon 70-200, or 80-200 F2.8
Nikon 24-70mm F2.8
Nikon 16mm F2.8
Nikon 10.5 F2.8

It all depends on your subject as Dan was saying. For portrait photography I would be using a 50mm or 85mm. If I was out shooting sports depending on how close I could get to the action it would be a 70-200 or a 12-24. Good luck with your choices. Hope you can get what you want.

[DivotDan]

If you buy some older lenses there are some really nice Nikon glass that would be great for film, DX, or FX digital cameras. The 35-70 2.8, any of the 80-200 2.8 lenses....particularly the push-pull model. You can also find some great deals on primes, and since most do not cost too much you can add them as you get the cash. I'd really like an 85 f/1.8 or 1.4 (big cost difference) as Adam was suggesting. I'd also like to get something wider than my current 20mm f/2.8.

[Cracker]

It all depends on the subject but it is great to have a full spectrum of glass if you can afford it and find it cool to carry it all around.

Since I can't afford the glass I want I have made a list of lenses that I need instead of want. I own a Nikon 18-70mm F3.5-4.5 and a 50mm F1.8.

Nikon 70-200, or 80-200 F2.8
Nikon 24-70mm F2.8
Nikon 16mm F2.8
Nikon 10.5 F2.8

It all depends on your subject as Dan was saying. For portrait photography I would be using a 50mm or 85mm. If I was out shooting sports depending on how close I could get to the action it would be a 70-200 or a 12-24. Good luck with your choices. Hope you can get what you want.

is the 18-70 a decent piece of glass? i was looking at the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. I've never shot portraits. I tend to shoot in the city, in the woods, or bicycles.

[Adam Gonzalez]

I like the 18-70 but I would def like something different like something with a constant 2.8. I am a cyclist as well. I saw your road bike in your avatar. I Mountain Bike, Road, and BMX Race.

The Sigma sounds good, but to tell you the truth I would go with a Nikon on this choice. Even though the bottom of the lens is a 2.8, the build to me is crap. Correct me if I am wrong on this anyone. I do like the Sigma 10-20mm though. That seems fun and to have a bit stronger build.

[DivotDan]

I totally agree with Adam.

The 18-70 works great for outdoor stuff. The first picture I posted on the last page was taken with it.

If you want the constant 2.8 it's well worth your time and investment to save up for Nikon glass. I've had Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon stuff.......and nothing compares to the Nikon.

[Cracker]

I totally agree with Adam.

The 18-70 works great for outdoor stuff. The first picture I posted on the last page was taken with it.

If you want the constant 2.8 it's well worth your time and investment to save up for Nikon glass. I've had Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon stuff.......and nothing compares to the Nikon.

I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 on my Rebel and the AF pisses me off to no end sometimes. Especially in low light. I rented a 24-105 F4L and it had next to no problems focusing. Is the AF issue characteristic of 3rd party glass? I'm just wondering why people swear by Nikon or Canon glass vs. 3rd party.

[Cracker]

I like the 18-70 but I would def like something different like something with a constant 2.8. I am a cyclist as well. I saw your road bike in your avatar. I Mountain Bike, Road, and BMX Race.

The Sigma sounds good, but to tell you the truth I would go with a Nikon on this choice. Even though the bottom of the lens is a 2.8, the build to me is crap. Correct me if I am wrong on this anyone. I do like the Sigma 10-20mm though. That seems fun and to have a bit stronger build.

bikes are fun. it's nice to have a local bike club where i can use them to film/photo when I'm not racing.

[DivotDan]

I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 on my Rebel and the AF pisses me off to no end sometimes. Especially in low light. I rented a 24-105 F4L and it had next to no problems focusing. Is the AF issue characteristic of 3rd party glass? I'm just wondering why people swear by Nikon or Canon glass vs. 3rd party.

AF, along with build quality and optic quality will be your main issues. They are basically the cheaper alternative, but you pay a price for that. I've taken nice images with my 3rd party lenses before, but I can assure you that once I bought Nikon replacements that the 3rd party lenses left my bag very quickly.

[Cracker]

AF, along with build quality and optic quality will be your main issues. They are basically the cheaper alternative, but you pay a price for that. I've taken nice images with my 3rd party lenses before, but I can assure you that once I bought Nikon replacements that the 3rd party lenses left my bag very quickly.
Got it. Well, I didn't get to shoot the D200 because our weather sucked all weekend. I wanted to shoot some urban stuff but it was soggy all weekend. Maybe next weekend!

[TimurCivan]

The D200 is a very nice camera. My friend has one.

check his photos here...

www.nextlevelpictures.com

[Cracker]

okay, so it's clearing up this weekend...according to weather.com, and I'll be in town...maybe this weekend i'll get my test drive in