D3000 Vs D200 Which would you recommend?

[msabas]

Im looking around into buying a camera. I looked into the D3000 and the D200, bothunder reading reviews seem like very good cameras. I have had a chance to hold the D200 and I like its size and weight.

I honestly don't know what the performance is like on either.

I would like to use it for all purpose photography, indoor, outdoor, witht he occasional kid sporting events.

Does anyone here own either one of the cameras what are your takes?

Are there things you like or don't like about these two cameras?

[zachary]

those are two completely different classes of camera

[ChrisTX]

Originally Posted by msabas

I have had a chance to hold the D200 and I like its size and weight.

Then you won't like the D3000. It is T-I-N-Y! Personally, I'd get the D200. I have a D3000 and it's a good camera, but there are so many features I use now that the D3000 simply isn't capable of. Also, once you hit ISO 1600, the pictures are really noisy. If you can keep the ISO down by compensating with a fast lens or a flash, then you're fine.

The D200 has commander mode, AEB, sealed body, and a lot more.

[msabas]

Originally Posted by ChrisTX

Then you won't like the D3000. It is T-I-N-Y! Personally, I'd get the D200. I have a D3000 and it's a good camera, but there are so many features I use now that the D3000 simply isn't capable of. Also, once you hit ISO 1600, the pictures are really noisy. If you can keep the ISO down by compensating with a fast lens or a flash, then you're fine.

The D200 has commander mode, AEB, sealed body, and a lot more.

Thanks Chris.

[AngryBlackBear]

Originally Posted by ChrisTX

Then you won't like the D3000. It is T-I-N-Y! Personally, I'd get the D200. I have a D3000 and it's a good camera, but there are so many features I use now that the D3000 simply isn't capable of. Also, once you hit ISO 1600, the pictures are really noisy. If you can keep the ISO down by compensating with a fast lens or a flash, then you're fine.

The D200 has commander mode, AEB, sealed body, and a lot more.

I second that vote. I would go with the D200 in a heartbeat. I only have the D3000, because I won it off of Facebook . I have been slowly gaining more gear and glass, and I'm starting to see that I need more out of my camera body.

I mean the D3000 really a great camera for what it is, there are just better ones out there. I hope soon to upgrade my body, and step up my game.

[jeffclow]

No comparison - the D200 is the better camera.

[Tom]

I wouldn't get a D200. Get the D90.

[pressp]

I would find a used d300

[msabas]

Im still reading up on both cameras, I actually read on Ken Rockwells Blog that the 3000 is slower in general. I may just lean to getting the 200. I really did like the feel of it, but i need to test out a 3000

[Tom]

Originally Posted by msabas

Im still reading up on both cameras, I actually read on Ken Rockwells Blog that the 3000 is slower in general. I may just lean to getting the 200. I really did like the feel of it, but i need to test out a 3000

He doesn't actually test all the stuff he writes about. He just throws **** up and hopes that people click his links. Ignore him.

[BigEasy]

It kind of depends on what you want to do... in my book the new senors, even on small bodies, are much better in with data and med/low light. - ?

[RT_Panther]

Might want to throw in the D80 as an option too....

[ChrisTX]

Originally Posted by msabas

Im still reading up on both cameras, I actually read on Ken Rockwells Blog that the 3000 is slower in general. I may just lean to getting the 200. I really did like the feel of it, but i need to test out a 3000

The autofocus isn't too slow. The picture review is pretty painful when you have the 'd-lighting' function on, but who cares about that?

I'd take a picture if my point and shoot had a good battery, but my D90 dwarfs my D3000. The D3000 is capable of really great pictures, but don't expect much in low light. My D3000 is usually mated to my 35 1.8. It is not near as bad as Rockwell makes it out to be though, but it is a very entry level camera.

[zachary]

I dont think you can compare the D3000 and the D200, their not only not in the same class, their not even in the same generation! The D200 would compare closer to the D50 I think.

The D200 is their Prosumer camera from 2 generations back. The D3000 is the current consumer camera. You cant really compare them. The D3000 can be more compared to a D40.

Which is an awesome camera by the way. The D40 really was like a tiny powerhouse. It can sync at any shutterspeed and is compatible with every nikon lens ever made, it just wont AF or meter with all of them, but so what?

[msabas]

Thanks everyone for the opinions. I just really want something better than what I already have and I was looking at these two cameras as an option.

Originally Posted by Thomas Campbell

He doesn't actually test all the stuff he writes about. He just throws **** up and hopes that people click his links. Ignore him.

LOL ..cool thanks for that heads up.