Tue 19-Mar-13 12:27 AM | edited Tue 19-Mar-13 12:29 AM by ZoneV
>Thanks for all of you're input. >I originally had some concerns about the D200, but the >responses have convinced me that both are good cameras. I >thought about the D90 but could not get one to look at. So >that eliminated it from consideration. As far as low light >goes, my D5100 is very good in low light situations. >I looked at both models and ended up with the D200. It is >just short of being LN condition and at the time of purchase >had fewer tham 3000 shutter actuations. Image quality may be >slightly better than my D3000 was. I resized an image to >16x23.5 and printed a crop at that magnification. I am more >than satisfied.
I originally bought a D90, but didn't really like it, so I sold it after a half a year and then bought a D200 a few months later. I never regretted the choice, except for the fact that I ended up spending just as much on the D200/grip as I did on the D90 ($800), so there wasn't a cost savings. The D300 was never under consideration, because I knew its sensor was going to be obsolete in terms of high ISO after a short while. For a sensor with one stop better ISO than the D200, the D300 was too expensive to justify. The D200 has been a great camera for the past few years, except for high ISOs, the very highest of which which it lacks, or at which it is noisy above a certain level.
For PJ, I most often shoot in jpeg fine/medium on the D200.