John O.

Many professional photographers switched to APSC from 35mm sensors because of the crop factor and how it enhances those long wildlife shots. I use full frame lenses on my APSC size sensor camera upon occasion. I would not switch back to full frame because of the high resolution with today's sensors. If I want wide angle, I use my separate wide angle 10-22mm zoom lens. Plus, APS size lenses are lighter and less costly than full frame lenses.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

CAUTION:
The D200 is a 10 MP DX camera. If you have DX lenses be aware that using a DX lens and cropping by 1.5 on an FX body has a huge cost in pixels. Take a 24MP FX body, crop the photo by 1.5 (in both width and length) and get 24MP/1.5/1.5=10.67MP! This is about the same resolutioon as using the D200 and not cropping.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Why do you "want your 35 to be 35, not 52.5"?

You could just buy a 24mm lens, then you'll have "a 35" again, on your D200.

FX can be very good for landscapes... but only if you are in the habit of making big prints from your images. That's because FX requires less magnification to make any given size print, than DX does. For example, an 8x12" print from an FX camera is approx 8X magnification, while the same size print from a DX camera is more like 12X magnification. As a result, images from an FX camera can be used to make larger prints and still have good detail and sharpness, compared to images from a DX camera. HOWEVER, this assumes you make truly large prints... You wouldn't see much or any difference in an 8x12" print. It would probably need to be bigger than 13x19" before you started to see much difference.... especially with newer DX cameras with 24MP sensors and no anti-alias filter.

DX cameras are actually a better choice for most people for sports and wildlife photography: Or anything that might require a telephoto lens... because you can use smaller, lighter and considerably less expensive lenses. If you are using a 3 lb. 10" long, 77mm diameter, 300mm f/4 lens on a DX camera now to shoot a player on a soccer field or a bird in a tree... with an FX camera, instead you'll need a 8 lb. 15" long, 130mm diameter, 500mm f/4 lens.... and a hefty tripod to sit it on. If you're using a 400mm... plan to replace it with a 600mm. If you're already using a 500mm on DX, to switch to FX you'll want to look at an 800mm. You also might want to hire an assistant to help you carry your gear.

I don't begrudge you wanting to update from a D200... it is only 10MP, dates from mid 2005 so is now over 13 years old, and was one of Nikon's last CCD cameras. The D300 that replaced it was fitted with a CMOS sensor, as are all other Nikon DSLRs since then, which makes for MUCH more high-ISO capable cameras. A friend of mine was among the first in line to replace her D200s with a pair of D300s, when they were first intro'd. She was never happy shooting higher than ISO 400 with the D200s. I was using several older and considerably less expensive Canon 30D at the time and able to shoot at up to ISO 1600 in the same venues we were working together (all Canon DSLRs have used CMOS, except for the very earliest Kodak models). Nikon's sensors (mostly purchased from Sony), have continued to improve ever since.

I would suggest you look at a newer DX camera instead. Right now I'd recommend the D7200 because of it's feature set and current, highly discounted price. It's 24MP and is now available for under $700, after a $400 discount. In comparison, the 21MP D7500 costs $1150 and the 21MP D500 is selling for almost $1800, both of which are also DX models. When it was new, the D200 sold for about $1600, if I recall correctly.

The D7200 has a 51-point AF system (same as D7500) and dual SD memory card slots (same as D500). It can shoot at up to 6 frames per second continuously (compared to 5 fps your D200 can do). D7200 has a native ISO range of 100-25600 (compared to 100-1600 in your D200... both cameras have 1 stop expansion ISO available too). You'll have to judge for yourself, but I have little doubt you'll find the D7200 usable at least two or three stops higher ISO than you are comfortable using on your D200. This is hand-in-hand with almost 2.5X higher resolution: 24MP. The newer camera also has greater color depth and considerably wider dynamic range. Compared to your camera the D7200's rear monitor is also larger (3.2" vs 2.5") and much higher resolution (1.23 million pixels vs 230k pixels). The D7200's rear monitor is NOT articulated or a Touch Screen (the D7500's is... but it's also lower resolution).

Regarding the AF system... besides more points (51), of those 15 are the higher performance "dual axis" type... Your camera has only one of those, at the center. The D7200 also is "f/8 capable" (center AF point), meaning that it can be used with more lens/teleconverter combos. Your D200 is "f/5.6 limited". For example, the D7200 will be able to autofocus an f/5.6 lens with a 1.4X teleconverter attached, while your D200 can't.

The D7200's viewfinder shows 100% of image area (your D200 shows 95%).

The D7200 and it's newer battery are also more efficient. It's rated to get 1100 shots per battery charge, compared to 400 shots with D200. (These are standardized CIPA ratings which use on-board flash 50% of the shots... In both cases, most users get more shots with less flash use and other power saving measures.)

Compare prices of D7200 with other DX and FX models:

- D7200 (DX, 24MP, 51-point AF).... $697
- D7500 (DX, 21MP, 51-point AF).... $1147
- D500 (DX, 21MP, 153-point AF).... $1797
- D750 (FX, 24MP, 51-point AF)... $1297
- D610 (FX, 24MP, 51-point AF)... $1497
- Nikon Df (FX, 16MP, 39-point AF)... $2747
- D810 (FX, 36MP, 51-point AF)... $2797
- D850 (FX, 46MP, 153-point AF)... $3097

But to truly take full advantage of FX cameras, you also have to plan to replace any DX lenses you might have, with FX lenses... even having to exchange current FX telephotos for bigger, heavier ones with greater focal length. This can add a great deal to the cost of "going full frame". Yes, Nikon's FX cameras can be used with DX lenses... but doing so results in a heavy crop and huge reduction in resolution. As pointed out above, the 24MP D750 and D610 end up with around 10MP when in DX mode... similar to the resolution of your D200 and right back where you started. DX lenses and "DX mode" on the FX cameras is really only practical on the 36MP and, especially, 46MP cameras which end up with approx. 15.5MP and 20MP, respectively.

Your D200 was a great camera in its day.... 13 years ago. It was actually was the first truly pro-oriented crop sensor camera, IMO, and it pushed Canon and others to develop similar. The D300 and D500 models that followed are great, too.

However, right now the D7200 is a real bargain and would be a very significant DX upgrade from your D200 in nearly all respects, without the "issues" related to an FX upgrade. The D7200 even offers higher resolution, slightly wider dynamic range and slightly more high ISO capability than it's 21MP DX stable mates, the D7500 and D500.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I bought a D3 and it was a workhorse of a camera and built like a tank. I traded it in on a D810 because I wanted to have a video feature. Although I really like the D810, frankly I wish I had my D3 back.

Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned about the shutter count for it truly is a professional grade camera built to be used and I believe that they are now priced as quite a value for what they provide.

BjB1953 Loc: Rice Lake, WI

It's not going anywhere. I still have my F, F2, F3, FM2 and my Nikormat not to mention a 6006 and 8008. Thanks for the reply.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Even Nikon refurbs don't post shutter counts, at least none that I could find.

russraman Loc: New York City

Check out the Nikon Df... accepts Nikkor lenses back to the 70's and resembles a Nikon F. Save money by buying a refurbished Df on nikonusa.com... https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/refurbished-dslr-cameras/nikon-df-refurbished.html

BjB1953 Loc: Rice Lake, WI

Would love you but way out of my price range.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I agree it is mostly, however very patient review of Ebay listings might turn up one that is closer. It took me a while to get my first one with a 610 shutter count for half the list price of new, a USA model as well. With your collection of vintage lenses, it might be worth the wait and the search.

BjB1953 Loc: Rice Lake, WI

I feel in love with it the first time I saw one. I have some very nice AI-s glass and don't care all the that much about AF. Shot professionally for years without it. It's nice, but would rather use my old glass and do it myself.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

If money is a consideration, the D700 might be your best bet. Even though it's 11 years old and 12 pixels, it's still a formidable camera even by today's standards. The D600 and D610 isn't far behind price wise, don't worry about the sensor problems of the D600, if you deal through a reputable dealer, you shouldn't have any problem. Your right, finding a D3 with a low shutter count might be a problem, that's why a D700 is a better option, back in 2008,the D700 was considered a D3 in a smaller package. Good luck.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

Danno1602 Loc: Kentucky

If you are trying to keep cost down I would recommend a D700. I bought one when l made the jump to FX and love it. They are not to had to find either.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

D700, $379.00 @ MPB.com 113K, <3000 clicks $489.00 and a warranty. They have 14 of them.

nikonuser750 Loc: Monroe, LA

I went from film to digital with the D750 and have been very happy. New the D750 is $1299 and refurbished from Nikon is $1196. There was a link in this thread to KEH with a price of $1069 I believe. Look around here and at B&H, Adorama and others.

I love my D750 and the 24-120mm lens. Good luck.