D200 or D90?

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:50:37 GMT, RTack
wrote:

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?

As the proud owner of a D300, I say take the D90. But then, never
having seen a D90 or what it can do, what do I really know?



Eric Stevens

In article , RTack
wrote:

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?

unless you need a specific feature in the d200 that isn't in the d90,
i'd get the d90, without question. it's newer, the sensor has lower
noise, the camera has live view (ideal for macro) and the movie mode
might be useful on occasion. as for which takes better photos, that
depends on who is behind it.

In article ,
RTack wrote:

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?

If the purchases were equal then why ask? It rather depends on the
intended use, I would not spend 800-900 on the D200. I have one I was
offered another body for 500. I declined, in six months I'll be
considering a FX sensor.

If you are a hobbyist then maybe the D90 suits better, other wise I
would cough up the money and buy a D300.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , RTack
wrote:

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?

unless you need a specific feature in the d200 that isn't in the d90,
i'd get the d90, without question. it's newer, the sensor has lower
noise, the camera has live view (ideal for macro) and the movie mode
might be useful on occasion. as for which takes better photos, that
depends on who is behind it.

How is live view ideal for macro work?

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

____ wrote:
In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , RTack
wrote:

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?
unless you need a specific feature in the d200 that isn't in the d90,
i'd get the d90, without question. it's newer, the sensor has lower
noise, the camera has live view (ideal for macro) and the movie mode
might be useful on occasion. as for which takes better photos, that
depends on who is behind it.

How is live view ideal for macro work?

For tripod work, the high resolution screen allowing zooming 10x or so
allows for critical manual focus and depth of field preview /much/
better than any dslr viewfinder. For hand-held macro, photos of moving
subjects etc. the viewfinder is just fine.
Macro is the only good use I've found for liveview. LV with a tilting
screen might be okay for hand-held overhead shots etc, but it's not very
practical IMO unless you have a very light dslr with small lenses.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:09:37 -0400, ____
wrote:

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , RTack
wrote:

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?

unless you need a specific feature in the d200 that isn't in the d90,
i'd get the d90, without question. it's newer, the sensor has lower
noise, the camera has live view (ideal for macro) and the movie mode
might be useful on occasion. as for which takes better photos, that
depends on who is behind it.

How is live view ideal for macro work?


Man! I can tell you its wunnerful!!



Eric Stevens

If I was you I would wait till around Xmas, the price of the D90 will come
down.

Also you need to allow Nikon to get any bugs they might have with the Camera
worked out.

What's the rush if you have a good D70.

RTack wrote:

Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000?

Neither, I'll stay with the system I got good lenses for.

Or more accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything
being equal?

The one the photographer is more comfortable with.

-Wolfgang

RTack wrote:
Which would you buy - the rock solid semi-pro D200 used for about
$800-$900 or the gizmo'd up brand new D90 for about a $1000? Or more
accurately, which do think takes better photos, everything being
equal?

Wait for the dpreview tests where they will very likely compare the two
side by side, including for specific technical measurements (noise,
resolution).

If you want a D200 class camera, perhaps you should buy the D300 new for
a couple hundred more than the D90 new, although the differences are
somewhat slim, you do get a faster shutter and 1/3 stop ISO.

Consider the D700 for a true differentiation with a FF sensor and
presumably lower noise.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.