assessing used DSLR

On 2008-02-24 13:16:37 -0700, frederick said:

Tully wrote:
(I sold the two D80's)

I need to put off the purchase of a D300 for six months to a year.
Maybe by then the price will be down around $1200-1400 USD for a new
one. Until that day, I plan to buy a used D200. In the first stages of
evaluating a used one, I'm thinking that a pro probably puts around 2k
clicks on a DSLR shutter per month---if more than that, they would
likely be using multiple cameras. More significant might be the number
of lens changes and the type of maintenance.
My experience with (film) cameras that are owned by a studio or a news
organization is that they get pretty good preventive maintenance and
even if the exteriors are rough the mechanical & electronic bits are
well-cared-for. How much of this do you guys think is applicable to
digital beasts?

If I'm on the wrong track someone please set me straight.

You are possibly on the wrong track.
Unless a D200 offers some specific feature that you *need* over the
D80s that you have sold (ie weather sealing, full mirror lock up,
better compatibility with old manual focus lenses, or faster burst
rate) then you're probably grabbing at straws. The D200 won't allow
you to take better pictures than the D80s. Why did you sell them?
The D300 quite possibly will allow you to take better pictures -
especially at higher iso and/or if you shoot jpeg rather than raw.
On the price of the D300, it seems that we live in a USA-centric world.
In most currencies / countries outside the US, the D300 is priced
lower than the D200 was when first released. You could say that the
D300 isn't "more expensive", just that US dollars are a bit cheaper
these days. It's also much cheaper than a D2Xs, and in many ways a much
better camera.
It will get cheaper (but perhaps not where you are if the US dollar
stays weak), but I'll wager that it depreciates at a slower rate than a
laptop computer, TV set, or car.

Thank you for the economics lecture--not really pertinent to the topic
(as expressed succinctly in the subject line--but that's OK. The course
is already set, I just wanted some input and I appreciate everyone's
ideas who responded.
--
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

Will Ritson wrote:
On 2008-02-24 13:16:37 -0700, frederick said:

Tully wrote:
(I sold the two D80's)

I need to put off the purchase of a D300 for six months to a year.
Maybe by then the price will be down around $1200-1400 USD for a new
one. Until that day, I plan to buy a used D200. In the first stages
of evaluating a used one, I'm thinking that a pro probably puts
around 2k clicks on a DSLR shutter per month---if more than that,
they would likely be using multiple cameras. More significant might
be the number of lens changes and the type of maintenance.
My experience with (film) cameras that are owned by a studio or a
news organization is that they get pretty good preventive maintenance
and even if the exteriors are rough the mechanical & electronic bits
are well-cared-for. How much of this do you guys think is applicable
to digital beasts?

If I'm on the wrong track someone please set me straight.

You are possibly on the wrong track.
Unless a D200 offers some specific feature that you *need* over the
D80s that you have sold (ie weather sealing, full mirror lock up,
better compatibility with old manual focus lenses, or faster burst
rate) then you're probably grabbing at straws. The D200 won't allow
you to take better pictures than the D80s. Why did you sell them?
The D300 quite possibly will allow you to take better pictures -
especially at higher iso and/or if you shoot jpeg rather than raw.
On the price of the D300, it seems that we live in a USA-centric
world. In most currencies / countries outside the US, the D300 is
priced lower than the D200 was when first released. You could say that
the D300 isn't "more expensive", just that US dollars are a bit
cheaper these days. It's also much cheaper than a D2Xs, and in many
ways a much better camera.
It will get cheaper (but perhaps not where you are if the US dollar
stays weak), but I'll wager that it depreciates at a slower rate than
a laptop computer, TV set, or car.

Thank you for the economics lecture--not really pertinent to the topic
(as expressed succinctly in the subject line--but that's OK.
You're welcome.

The course
is already set, I just wanted some input and I appreciate everyone's
ideas who responded.

NP. You specifically asked for an opinion if you were on the wrong
track. I think that you possibly are. Are you? What is a D200 going to
do for you that a D80 wouldn't?

On Feb 24, 7:48 am, Tully wrote:
(I sold the two D80's)

I need to put off the purchase of a D300 for six months to a year. Maybe
by then the price will be down around $1200-1400 USD for a new one.
Until that day, I plan to buy a used D200. In the first stages of
evaluating a used one, I'm thinking that a pro probably puts around 2k
clicks on a DSLR shutter per month---if more than that, they would
likely be using multiple cameras. More significant might be the number
of lens changes and the type of maintenance.

My experience with (film) cameras that are owned by a studio or a news
organization is that they get pretty good preventive maintenance and
even if the exteriors are rough the mechanical & electronic bits are
well-cared-for. How much of this do you guys think is applicable to
digital beasts?

If I'm on the wrong track someone please set me straight.
--
"It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's
hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained
unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)


Go for the D200, prices are dropping, you will have a well made
durable camera, that will give you great pics. There is noise at
higher ISOs, more recent camera designs have set the bar high for
noise. If you find yourself shooting a lot above ISO 800, buy noise
reduction software. By all means check the shutter count, this can be
easily done on a low use camera by just sticking a CF card in it and
getting the image number, but Nikon resets every 10000 images so the
EXIF is safer. There is always a risk with buying beater cameras, but
I bought a trashed Leica M2 for $150 and it worked fine for 25+ years,
and it is still ugly. $900 should buy you a decent D200, price have
dropped that much.
Allin all if you can afford a D300 go for it, but a D200 will work and
produce good images, RAW better than jpeg.

Tom

Tully wrote:

(I sold the two D80's)

I need to put off the purchase of a D300 for six months to a year. Maybe
by then the price will be down around $1200-1400 USD for a new one.
Until that day, I plan to buy a used D200. In the first stages of
evaluating a used one, I'm thinking that a pro probably puts around 2k
clicks on a DSLR shutter per month---if more than that, they would
likely be using multiple cameras. More significant might be the number
of lens changes and the type of maintenance.

My experience with (film) cameras that are owned by a studio or a news
organization is that they get pretty good preventive maintenance and
even if the exteriors are rough the mechanical & electronic bits are
well-cared-for. How much of this do you guys think is applicable to
digital beasts?

If I'm on the wrong track someone please set me straight.


Hello, Tully:

For what it's worth, the Nikon D200 has a stated shutter life of 100,000
actuations.

Good luck and happy hunting!


Cordially,
John Turco

On 2008-02-26 06:59:35 -0700, John Turco said:

Tully wrote:

(I sold the two D80's)

I need to put off the purchase of a D300 for six months to a year. Maybe
by then the price will be down around $1200-1400 USD for a new one.
Until that day, I plan to buy a used D200. In the first stages of
evaluating a used one, I'm thinking that a pro probably puts around 2k
clicks on a DSLR shutter per month---if more than that, they would
likely be using multiple cameras. More significant might be the number
of lens changes and the type of maintenance.

My experience with (film) cameras that are owned by a studio or a news
organization is that they get pretty good preventive maintenance and
even if the exteriors are rough the mechanical & electronic bits are
well-cared-for. How much of this do you guys think is applicable to
digital beasts?

If I'm on the wrong track someone please set me straight.


Hello, Tully:

For what it's worth, the Nikon D200 has a stated shutter life of
100,000 actuations.

Good luck and happy hunting!


Cordially,
John Turco

Thanks, John. And thanks to all who offered the benefit of experience
and opinions in this thread. The choice was never between a D200 and
some other body. I did a cold-blooded eval. of finances and decided to
put off buying the D300 for perhaps a year, possibly even following the
"18-mo. rule" =^)

The 200 is one I always admired. I long ago decided it's not practical
for me to lug more than two cameras at any one time. I just recently
decided NOT to give up film entirely, so the load will be one film (F2)
and one digital (for now, D200).

The input I was looking for was: take a chance on used w/o warranty, or
go with a refurb with a 90-day Nikon + a dealer warranty for the
balance of a full year, (or alternatively, a local buy from someone who
would stand behind a "lightly used" D200).

I'm still shopping, but leaning in the direction of the refurb, since
that's where my D80s came from and they were fine.

The CF cards, spare batteries etc. I acquire in the coming months--and
of course the lenses--will transfer to the D300 when that upgrade
happens, probably in Spring 2009. As for the reasons, I want to meter
with all my manual Nikkors (both models will do that), and my older
Macs will be happier with a FireWire card reader (thus the reason for
changing from SD to CF). Eventually, I'll be looking forward to the
allegedly better low EV performance of the D300. The 12Mpx vs 10
wouldn't influence me much, but the newer sensor may be just the ticket
for natural light + fast action, a combination I've always favored.

As for using a camera upgrade as a crutch for "taking better pictures",
watch for the Zeiss Contaflex stuff I'll be posting when I get some
good scans out of the film I've shot lately. We're talkin'
fifty-year-old equipment with stunning performance on the part of those
uncoated optics.
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

Tully Albrecht wrote:

On 2008-02-26 06:59:35 -0700, John Turco said:

edited for brevity

For what it's worth, the Nikon D200 has a stated shutter life of
100,000 actuations.

Good luck and happy hunting!


Thanks, John. And thanks to all who offered the benefit of experience
and opinions in this thread. The choice was never between a D200 and
some other body. I did a cold-blooded eval. of finances and decided to
put off buying the D300 for perhaps a year, possibly even following the
"18-mo. rule" =^)

The 200 is one I always admired. I long ago decided it's not practical
for me to lug more than two cameras at any one time. I just recently
decided NOT to give up film entirely, so the load will be one film (F2)
and one digital (for now, D200).

The input I was looking for was: take a chance on used w/o warranty, or
go with a refurb with a 90-day Nikon + a dealer warranty for the
balance of a full year, (or alternatively, a local buy from someone who
would stand behind a "lightly used" D200).

I'm still shopping, but leaning in the direction of the refurb, since
that's where my D80s came from and they were fine.

edited

Hello, Tully:

Well, all that fancy Nikon gear is far out of my league. I'll just have
to be satisfied with my lowly Pentax K100D, which may be the lone DSLR
I'll ever be able to afford. :-J


Cordially,
John Turco