Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising
4whitakers

US
18 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
4whitakers Registered since 31st Aug 2008
Fri 05-Sep-08 01:34 PM | edited Fri 05-Sep-08 01:45 PM by 4whitakers

I am planning on upgrading my D50 and I am struggling with the best option. I was all set to purchase a D200, but with the release of the D90 I am struggling with my choice. Below is a comparison of some of the features. Note: Both cameras are a significant improvement over my D50.

D200 vs D90
Sensor: 10.2mp CCD vs. 12.3mp CMOS
ISO: 100-1600 vs 200-3200
LCD: 2.5" 230000 dots vs 3.0" 900000 dots
Card: CF vs. SD
Lens Support: All AF & AI-S vs All AF
fps: 5.0 vs 4.5
Metering: 1005 pix vs. 420 pix
Viewfinder: 95% vs 96%
Image processing: undefined vs Expeed
Flash Sync: 1/250 vs. 1/200
Built in Flash: 39ft @ ISO 100 vs 57ft @ ISO 100
Build Quality: Pro vs Consumer
Video: no vs. yes
Max Write Speed: 8.7 mb/sec vs 9.5 mb/sec
Shutter lag: 50ms vs. 65ms
Sensor Cleaning: No vs Yes

With the D200 I would get a better build quality, better metering, higher fps and I can use manual focus lenses. Also, the D200 is a nice size and weight. One of my complaints with the D50/D80/D90 is the camera just seems a little small and light to me. One other advantage of the D200 is I can get one used for about $750-$800 which is less money than the D90. Of course if I buy new then the price is about the same. With the D90 I get better high ISO performance, a better LCD and slightly better resolution and dynamic range. Also, I understand that the D90 processing can remove CA's from jpegs and write the info to exif data for removal with NX. Oh and there is video which my wife likes. Obviously, if I could afford a d300 then I could have the best of both worlds, but the D300 runs about $600 more.

I just wanted to add that I typically shoot at ISO 200. I love to shoot with primes with large apertures. Higher ISO performance would be nice, but I am not sure how much I would use it. I guess it is one of those things...you don't need it until you need it.

I am interested in what others are thinking.

Subject
ID
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
1
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
2
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
3
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
4
     Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
5
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
6
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
7
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
8
Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
9
     Reply message RE: D200 vs D90
10

G