Should I update? D200 to D3200

K

Kirbot

Established
Local time
2:04 PM
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
63
View My Gallery
So, I picked up a used D200 about a year back, and I've really been enjoying it.
I've been using a 16-85 lens on it, and it's really impressed me.

Lately though, I've been thinking about upgrading, (or at least updating) to a D3200.
More megapixels, and the ability to shoot video are my main reasons. Although better low light performance would be very welcome.
Video is the main reason, but it's more of a "want", not really a "need".

So what I'm wondering is, how big of a difference in image quality could I really expect to see between the 10 mega-pixel D200 and the 24 mega-pixel D3200? The biggest I really see myself printing in 11x14/11x17.
Is it worth giving up a pro body and replacing it with an entry level consumer model?
The D5200 might possibly be in the budget, but only if there's a good reason to get it over the D3200.
 
The jump in image quality should be rather noticeable, especially since you're upgrading from a camera that is almost 7 years old now (I think I picked up my d200 in 2007!) Regardless, the D3200 has a great sensor and it will work well with most Nikon lenses, excepting AF-D lenses. The D3200 loses the auto focusing mechanism that drives the older AF-D lenses. They'll still work as manual focus lenses though.
 
Kirbot said:
So, I picked up a used D200 about a year back, and I've really been enjoying it.
I've been using a 16-85 lens on it, and it's really impressed me.
Click to expand...

Why either/or.

The D200 is a worthy robust camera. But the body has bottomed out on price for at least a year now. Furthermore. The Fuji S5Pro I just sold, which saw wedding and other Pro duty, sold with 254,000 shutterclicks on it.

Why not run both bodies until you find out which one you want to keep, or if you want both to have a backup.

Make sure to shoot both for 3-6 months, and I bet you'll get the same price 6 months from now for the D200 as now.

Over 250 D200 bodies only have sold for from $125 to $300 in the past 60 days on eBay. It's one of those, "too little value to let it go" commodities.

Hell, I'm thinking about getting another S5 or D200. Differece being the Fujifilm S5 Pro is selling at $500 to $600, while the D200 is seling for half that.

A real testament to the Fujifilm S2, S3 and S5 Pro superior color rendition and dynamic range over the Nikon guts.The Fuji uses all the Nikon lenses without adaptation and runs all the AF lenses as well
 
It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself the upgrade is needed. I bought a lot of gear that was surplus to requirements that way, and would ask probably ask if what you would gain from the D3200 will benefit you in any way that will be material to your photography. If you do need the sensor and smaller size of the D3200, just remember you'll be giving up the ergonomics of the D200 and the ability to use the full spectrum of autofocus lenses.
 
Remember the D200 is a semi-pro camera, you can use most all auto focus and manual
focus lenses with it and metering as well, I don't think the D3200 does that.

Range
 
Forget the D3200. Buy a used or refurbished D7000. The price differential should be very small (~$550 =/- 50 for the D7000). I upgraded from the D200 to the D7000 and went through a similar debate with the D3200. You give up nothing with the D7000. The downgrade in ergonomics with the D3200 was too much for me
 
You will get quite disappointed getting from a semi-pro camera to the cheapest entry level camera Nikon makes. Anything from the viewfinder to the handling of the camera will make you feel like having both of your feet in one shoe.
If you care just for the resolution upgrade then go ahead. Other than that D3100 has nothing else to offer.
 
Back when I was using Nikon DSLRs I had a D3100 as a backup. It was a great little camera, but it wasnt anything that could replace my primary (D700). But it was able to stand on it's own, and it was a fun camera to use. Image quality is pretty damned good on these little guys, the only real problem you would have are the lens issues (limited to lenses that have built in drives) and you wont have as many "pro" options in your menus.

As for upgrade from the D200, the image quality from the D3200 will make you very happy. Especially at high ISOs. I say go for it if you have compatible lenses, and if you need to, save up for something "manlyer" while you're having fun with the D3200
 
Nikos72 said:
You will get quite disappointed getting from a semi-pro camera to the cheapest entry level camera Nikon makes. Anything from the viewfinder to the handling of the camera will make you feel like having both of your feet in one shoe.
If you care just for the resolution upgrade then go ahead. Other than that D3100 has nothing else to offer.
Click to expand...

+1 on the viewfinder, one of the most personally important things to me in a camera, yet oddly the one thing I neglected to mention before. From my experience of Nikon dslrs, the viewfinders range from average (full frame dslr) to serviceable (semi-pro dslr) to looking down a tunnel (entry level dslr).
 
I'm really leaning towards going with the D3200 now.
I know I'll miss the build quality and extra buttons on the D200, but I think it'll be worth it.
I've noticed a LOT of shadow noise in some of my pictures with the D200, and I'm hoping maybe the D3200 will help with that some too.
 
I went from a D5100 to an original Canon 5D. The ergonomics are so much better and the viewfinder is much bigger. Those two things alone made me forget the high iso and more megapixels. I think I had a D200 in my hands one time, and I tell you, if you've got big hands, you won't like the toylike D3200/3100/5000/90/5100/5200 cameras.
At least try one in store.
 
I kept my D200 when I upgrade to a D700 because the price I would have received for it was too small to let it go. I still use it now and then. While I loved the thing when it was my main camera body I certainly noticed a jump in IQ when I moved up a notch to full frame. The D200 sensor is a CCD. Nikon has moved to newer CMOS technology with noticeable improvements and less digital noise and higher usable ISOs. (Quite apart from the D700 being full frame).

Not sure about whether the D3200 uses CMOS. I presume it does. If it has the new sensor you will find it is a benefit to your shooting even though it is still a DX sensor.

Dont write the D200 off altogther however. In daylight it takes great images - although even here I find they need just a tad more post processing than my D700 images.
 
Why not a Nikon d7000 instead? This have the robustness and ergonomics of your d200. There should still be some nice deals out there (the Nikon d7100 is the new replacing model). I upgraded from the d5000 to d7000 and I think there were significant improvement in image quality (no weird color effects anymore with the d7000, and little more pixels).
 
I had the D200 and the D7000, D200 looks and feels like a semi-pro camera, D7000 is amateur / hobbist kind of camera. Big difference is the sensor and the processing engine, the image quality from the D7000 is far above the D200. But think of the fact that the video mode in the D7000 is at least one generation behind the D3200 but you canot use screw-drive autofocus lenses.
My opinion get the D3200 for video and keep the D200 for all the wonderfull legacy lenses out there.
Anyhow whatever you do, have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Do you think a Nikon 800E is worth $400? As a purchase, I mean.
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Pioneer
Pioneer
Ken Ford
Moving from a X100S to a X100VI
Replies
10
Views
742
JohnGellings
J
A
Panasonic, Voigtlander, and the birth of the travel film
Replies
4
Views
645
Bolo Kukus
B
A
Migrating from Evernote to Joplin
Replies
3
Views
440
Chriscrawfordphoto
Chriscrawfordphoto
L
Picked up a GH5s, any users still here?
Replies
1
Views
480
Archiver
A
Back
Top Bottom