Have used many cameras over the years and my D200 has been my choice since I purchased it new. I am a pro of 50+ years and the key for me is its versatility and ease of use. I have tried newer models and always go back to the 200. Remember, it is the 'eye' that takes the picture and the lens that is your best partner. The ONLY advantage a newer model has is a larger megapixel chip. But I regularly print up to 11X17 with no depreciable loss of clarity.
iamimdoc wrote:
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine
I am a competent amateur. Shoot for fun. Display photos on an 8 X 10 digital picture frame in my office for folks to look at (MD office)
Any prints I make anymore (rare) are 8X10 or less
No sports
No video
Do some pics of grandchild but mainly I do photo on travels (go to the UK for family), flowers, landscape, architecture, some macro work
Does spending up to $2000.00 (or less) for a new camera get me anything for what I do?
My sense is that this is money not well.
Thanks
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine ... (
show quote)
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Words to live by, plus they can save you lots of bucks.
iamimdoc wrote:
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine
I am a competent amateur. Shoot for fun. Display photos on an 8 X 10 digital picture frame in my office for folks to look at (MD office)
Any prints I make anymore (rare) are 8X10 or less
No sports
No video
Do some pics of grandchild but mainly I do photo on travels (go to the UK for family), flowers, landscape, architecture, some macro work
Does spending up to $2000.00 (or less) for a new camera get me anything for what I do?
My sense is that this is money not well.
Thanks
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine ... (
show quote)
Sounds like it would just be putting a big hole in your wallet. Based on what you posted it would seem that your current equipment is fulfilling your needs well.
Keep the D200 - there is nothing you want to do that a new camera will improve. I use a D300 and my wife has a D5200 that is much lighter. In normal light conditions, you would never tell the images apart (12 v 24mp). As far as print size, I have lots of perfectly nice 12x15 prints from D50 images (6mp). Now, lenses are a different issue and some fast primes could be worth the money.
PS in re megapixels, when friends say something like “still shooting with only 12mp” I show them 8x10 prints made from a 4mp Minolta I used back in the day.
JennT
Loc: South Central PA
A lot of people are moving to the mirrorless camera-- before you buy perhaps looking around a bit---you may find something easier to use, maybe smaller--
likely you will enjoy a new camera results--
The difference in speed of focus, low light capability, and detail in the images will surprise you. I was surprised by the improved image quality in in the D300 over the D200. When I upgraded to the D500 I was even more amazed by the improved image quality and substantially improved low light focus ability. Last summer I photo graphed a group in a cave, lit by a small campfire, hand held, with a D500 and an F/3.5-5.6 lens. If you can easily afford it, get a D500, I doubt you will regret anything other than waiting so long.
iamimdoc wrote:
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine
I am a competent amateur. Shoot for fun. Display photos on an 8 X 10 digital picture frame in my office for folks to look at (MD office)
Any prints I make anymore (rare) are 8X10 or less
No sports
No video
Do some pics of grandchild but mainly I do photo on travels (go to the UK for family), flowers, landscape, architecture, some macro work
Does spending up to $2000.00 (or less) for a new camera get me anything for what I do?
My sense is that this is money not well.
Thanks
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine ... (
show quote)
If you like what you’re getting, don’t change anything! Have fun👍
I would say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Unless you have a need that the camera does not fulfill stay with what you got.
Suggestion -- Rent a newer camera for a week, and see if you like having a newer camera. See for yourself it it makes a difference.
Or borrow a newer camera from a friend (if you can find a friend willing to let you use their camera.)
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
iamimdoc wrote:
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine
I am a competent amateur. Shoot for fun. Display photos on an 8 X 10 digital picture frame in my office for folks to look at (MD office)
Any prints I make anymore (rare) are 8X10 or less
No sports
No video
Do some pics of grandchild but mainly I do photo on travels (go to the UK for family), flowers, landscape, architecture, some macro work
Does spending up to $2000.00 (or less) for a new camera get me anything for what I do?
My sense is that this is money not well.
Thanks
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine ... (
show quote)
If you like what you've got and it does the job for you, then why switch?
I’d say rent a new glass, one you don’t have, and see if it change anything
Wow. You just made me realize I'm solo Gassy. Unfortunately it's true. But for the gentleman who originated this thread I would recommend at least D750. Not only pretty good model. Also full frame giving better light and colors.
IMHO, if you have a burning desire to upgrade, you could look at the D3XXX series, or even the D5XXX series. They won't cost you an arm and a leg. As another option, there are some nice, inexpensive mirrorless cameras out there...
htbrown
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area
A new camera is only worth considering if there's something you want to do that your current camera doesn't do well, or well enough.
New glass is a much better investment.
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it - is my motto. Buying a new camera might bring some joy for a while but it will open a can of worms all by itself. You will need to learn all about it and the changes in the menu system etc. You will be tempted to buy some new accessories such as lenses etc.. But who knows, maybe you might discover that you want to do more photography and the new camera might inspire you to use it more often.
iamimdoc wrote:
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine
I am a competent amateur. Shoot for fun. Display photos on an 8 X 10 digital picture frame in my office for folks to look at (MD office)
Any prints I make anymore (rare) are 8X10 or less
No sports
No video
Do some pics of grandchild but mainly I do photo on travels (go to the UK for family), flowers, landscape, architecture, some macro work
Does spending up to $2000.00 (or less) for a new camera get me anything for what I do?
My sense is that this is money not well.
Thanks
I use a Nikon D200. > 10 years old. Works fine ... (
show quote)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.