Upgrading from a D200...

sedillonsedillon Posts: 6Member
edited August 2013 in Nikon DSLR cameras
So, I've been shooting with a D200 for about 5 years now. I started with an 18-200 and eventually sold it, I've found I'm a prime person ;) and shoot with mostly my 35mm f/1.8 now but also my 50mm f/1.8. I'm considering a 10-24 as well down the line. I'm not pro, but I am what I would consider a "serious hobbyist" I guess? I do portrait photography sessions, mostly newborn sessions but also sometimes babies and children.
ex:
image
image
image


Anyway... the D200 is outdated. Very. I've been frustrated with it's low-light performance since pretty much the beginning and when shooting natural light newborn sessions in someone's house where you can't much control how much light is available, it's a big issue. Nikon has increased the performance of their cameras, specifically in low-light, SO MUCH since the D200 came out and I think it's time to jump ship. I'm seriously looking at the D7100 and I think it's everything I need, but I'm feeling a bit weird about what feels like taking a step back - of course the D7100 is far superior to the D200, but it is more of a regular consumer class camera rather than the D200's "prosumer" class camera. I think I'm getting the impression that I would have less control with a D7100 than I do currently with my D200? Incorrect or correct hypothesis? I could look at the D600 also, but that's a MUCH bigger investment, not just for the body but also to upgrade all my glass from DX to FX. I'm not doing paid shoots NEARLY enough to put that much into my gear, I think? (I've moved twice in the last 18 months and haven't done a shoot in that time and have no current client base at all.)
So... step "down" to the 7100 or not? (And os it really a step down?)

Comments

  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited August 2013
    @sedillon: Welcome to NRF. The D7100 is a great body; moreover, in low-light situations it's performance is very nice...at least that is what many member that have one have expressed to us here. Given you lenses and your type of photography it should serve you very well.

    There are many topics that cover the D7100 on our forum...so by all means click away and read what the owners have to say.

    Cheers....
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,809Member
    While it might take some time for you to adjust to the more consumer controls of the D7100, just about anything Nikon has now would be a big step up in the area of low light performance. You might want to consider renting one, if you can to see if the change in controls is something you can live with.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • sedillonsedillon Posts: 6Member
    While it might take some time for you to adjust to the more consumer controls of the D7100, just about anything Nikon has now would be a big step up in the area of low light performance. You might want to consider renting one, if you can to see if the change in controls is something you can live with.
    Oh, that's a good idea! I'll look around, there should be some place I could rent it from in a big city like this. Thanks!
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,155Member
    edited August 2013
    I have a D200 clone (s5pro).. and I now i use the D7000.. and yes handling wise its a step down. I hated it for a year or so :-( .. However If you are considering an upgrade just for Low light capability. then I would suggest that the D7000 instead of the D7100 may be worth considering. The D7000 has a small edge in low light capability plus there are some reports of striations in the D7100 at the high iso. further more the price is fairly low now.

    What you really want (so do tons of us) is a D400. but that is up to a year away. if it comes at all. or it may be announced in september ! I got the D7000 to tide me over waiting for the D400.

    Other options are .
    * A D300S but that is fairly old tech now.
    * A D600 - same handling as a D700/D7100 but the best High ISO nikon except for the D4 and D3S. You can still use it in DX mode with better MP than your D200. and take your time to get the FX lenses.
    * A D800 - in terms of handling its the same level or above your D200. Price wise its really similar to your D200 was if you take inflation into account. and you seem to be the type of person who would be using it for the next 5 years or more anyway.. so it would be good value. especially if you get a refurbished one.

    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • sedillonsedillon Posts: 6Member
    I have a D200 clone (s5pro).. and I now i use the D7000.. and yes handling wise its a step down. I hated it for a year or so :-( .. However If you are considering an upgrade just for Low light capability. then I would suggest that the D7000 instead of the D7100 may be worth considering. The D7000 has a small edge in low light capability plus there are some reports of striations in the D7100 at the high iso. further more the price is fairly low now.

    What you really want (so do tons of us) is a D400. but that is up to a year away. if it comes at all. or it may be announced in september ! I got the D7000 to tide me over waiting for the D400.

    Other options are .
    * A D300S but that is fairly old tech now.
    * A D600 - same handling as a D700/D7100 but the best High ISO nikon except for the D4 and D3S. You can still use it in DX mode with better MP than your D200. and take your time to get the FX lenses.
    * A D800 - in terms of handling its the same level or above your D200. Price wise its really similar to your D200 was if you take inflation into account. and you seem to be the type of person who would be using it for the next 5 years or more anyway.. so it would be good value. especially if you get a refurbished one.

    Aaaaaahh, not what I wanted to hear! :P I'm looking at pictures of the camera designs closely and it seems that the D600 and 7100 are clones of each other as far as placement of buttons and the functionality of the exterior design, so either way I'll have to adapt to that. I rather like the ISO having it's own button on the top left of my D200. *sigh* I may as well wait through September and see if we get any news about the D400 since I'm not on a time crunch at all. I was thinking that I might like having a smaller & lighter camera so I can feel better about lugging it around with me to odd places & more every day things, so the 7100 appealed to that. I'll keep the 600 in mind though while I wait for news about the D400 I guess! I definitely don't want to go with older tech - try to hold off on upgrading my body again as long as possible!
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,809Member
    Another option, if you have full frame lenses, is a lightly used D700. The D700 still trumps all DX bodies (maybe not in dynamic range) in terms of noise performance, and the controls are basically the same as the D200.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • sedillonsedillon Posts: 6Member
    Another option, if you have full frame lenses, is a lightly used D700. The D700 still trumps all DX bodies (maybe not in dynamic range) in terms of noise performance, and the controls are basically the same as the D200.
    Unfortunately both my lenses are DX, but if I save up for a bit I could sell my whole setup and go for an FX body and maybe a 50mm 1.4? I've been shooting almost exclusively on my 35mm anyway (except when I rarely need the superior bokeh of the 50mm) and with the DX crop ratio that puts me at ALMOST a 50mm anyway, so I'd be fine shooting with an actual 50mm. Back to not being sure if I can justify the cost, though... I DO really like the D700 but for a camera that came out in 2008 I'm worried the tech is falling quickly behind. I looked on dpreview though and I see the controls are set up almost exactly the same as my D200, but I might just have to suck it up and adjust to something else. I'm leaning away from the D7100 now though. I just don't think I can drop down to a consumer camera from a pro-sumer and be happy, unfortunately. I don't want to have to take the camera away from my face to fiddle with dials to make adjustments while I shoot, I just need the buttons to BE there for me to hit! Either the D400 will have to come through for me, or I'm looking at going FX I guess... Why is the 600's layout the same as the 7000s'?! Dare I look at the D800?
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,809Member
    edited August 2013
    The D600 is considered Nikon's entry level FX body, which is why it has consumer level controls. Beyond the sensor they had to find a way to differentiate the D600 from the D800, what you see is the end result.

    I've shot with many higher end cameras, from the D200 (sold), D300 (paper weight), D700 (current backup) and the D800 (primary), so I can understand your position. Going from one of those cameras to another has been a smooth transition, with some improvements along the way. If you are going to go FX and don't like the inferior consumer control layout the D800 may be the camera of choice. You just have to decide if you really need all those megapixels, just for the sake of having the controls you are familiar with. For me there was no real choice, the D600 is plagued with sensor dust and oil issues, on top of having inferior controls and build quality.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,155Member
    edited August 2013
    Let me raise another option for you .. Consider the Fujifilm X-E1 or X-Pro1. Its got better Low light capability than the D7000/D7100 and the colours are awesome, especially for baby photos. its got great lenses as well ! esp the 35mm prime. its small and light.. and has great controls and layout
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    IMHO, don't worry about the controls or the "consumer/prosumer" marketing. The D7100 is superior in just about every way vs. the D200.

    About handling, people mostly complain that the ISO/WB/QUAL buttons are "inconveniently" on the back of the camera (instead of on the top). Mark of a consumer body, they say. Well guess what, on the flagship D4, these buttons are also on the back.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,363Moderator
    The issue for me in handling is when I am using my D90 and D4...figuring out the D90 controls for me is confusing when I am used to the D4. I sold my D200 as the low light performance is not up to either the D90 and of course limited severely compared to a D4.

    If, Nikon comes out with a D400, this is the replacement and should have the same ergonomics as the D200. Performance wise, the D7100 should be everything one wants in today's world. But, if you have done well with a D200 to date, I think I might wait a few months at least and see if Nikon introduces a D400 before the end of the year.
    Msmoto, mod
  • sedillonsedillon Posts: 6Member
    edited August 2013
    IMHO, don't worry about the controls or the "consumer/prosumer" marketing. The D7100 is superior in just about every way vs. the D200.

    About handling, people mostly complain that the ISO/WB/QUAL buttons are "inconveniently" on the back of the camera (instead of on the top). Mark of a consumer body, they say. Well guess what, on the flagship D4, these buttons are also on the back.
    Yeah, I'm not worried about the "marketing" per se. But for me, the buttons on the back are not going to cut it. I will hate it, I will be frustrated, and I'm not pouring over 1k into something I won't be happy with. Whether or not the layout on the back/top is superior in general or not isn't in question and honestly I don't even much care. I don't like the controls harder to access like that. I've used it on a friend's camera, it just doesn't work for me.
    The issue for me in handling is when I am using my D90 and D4...figuring out the D90 controls for me is confusing when I am used to the D4. I sold my D200 as the low light performance is not up to either the D90 and of course limited severely compared to a D4.

    If, Nikon comes out with a D400, this is the replacement and should have the same ergonomics as the D200. Performance wise, the D7100 should be everything one wants in today's world. But, if you have done well with a D200 to date, I think I might wait a few months at least and see if Nikon introduces a D400 before the end of the year.
    Yeah, I think I'll wait and save until the end of the year. I don't really want to switch brands, so if they release the D400, I'll heavily consider it. If not, I'll have saved up for the D800 I guess. *shrug*
    Post edited by sedillon on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 5,874Moderator
    edited August 2013
    IMHO you will not have to save much more for the D800 than the D400 - $500 maybe?
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Actually between the D800 and D400 (D300 as the model) the savings would be around $1000.

    I completely get the body size/controls and I can't get over the differences when I drop down to a D7000/7100. Good camera's but jusssst different enough to be really annoying. I have been using my D300 as a backup/2nd camera and would like to upgrade it. A D700 (or even a D3) is a real option to look at.

    D400 - been waiting for 3 years, so I went to a D800 (for multiple reasons) but would like the crop for some sports stuff. I doubt it will be a DX low light king like many hope for (but much better than the D200 for sure.)
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 1,954Member
    Other than the handling issues you won't miss anything about the D200 at all. I think even the buffer is better on the D7100.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • sedillonsedillon Posts: 6Member
    Actually between the D800 and D400 (D300 as the model) the savings would be around $1000.

    I completely get the body size/controls and I can't get over the differences when I drop down to a D7000/7100. Good camera's but jusssst different enough to be really annoying. I have been using my D300 as a backup/2nd camera and would like to upgrade it. A D700 (or even a D3) is a real option to look at.

    D400 - been waiting for 3 years, so I went to a D800 (for multiple reasons) but would like the crop for some sports stuff. I doubt it will be a DX low light king like many hope for (but much better than the D200 for sure.)
    Yeah, that's more the price difference I'm anticipating. I guess we'll see, though! I don't really shoot sports stuff or wildlife, etc, so for me the crop factor is actually an annoyance for shooting in tight spaces and such. Really leaning towards a D800 right now, honestly, unless the D400 is announced/released in the next few months and is impressive in both performance and price. Like you said, anything will be better than the D200 ;) but for me it's down to the D400 or D800 unless something comes out of left field. It's a wait-and-see game now!
Sign In or Register to comment.