This review is being updated frequently as I have more time to discover the D200's strengths and weaknesses. Thanks to Paul (colonialpara) for reminding me of some key issues.
Introduction
I shoot primarily with Nikon 35mm film SLR cameras and not until recently has digital yielded results that were acceptable in terms of image quality for the type of photojournalism that I do. The Nikon D200 appears to be the first camera that has acceptable image quality and good build quality together at a reasonable price. So, I decided to give it a try knowing I might need to sell it if its performance required substantial adjustments to my normal shooting technique.
Build Quality
Film cameras such as the Nikon F100 and Nikon F5 have set the standard for professional build quality. These cameras are built like tanks in that they are designed to withstand the rigors of professional use, day in and day out. Rigid metal frames, weather seals, and rigorously tested shutters and controls are some of the build quality elements that I require. In the harsh environments I frequently find myself in, life without these build quality elements can become troublesome. I had no interest in comparing the build quality of the Nikon D200 to any other digital camera; it either met the build quality of my F5 and F100 film cameras, or it didn't. Once again, if it didn't, you'd be seeing mine on Ebay.
My D200 has seen its share of rain, blowing dust, high temperatures, and rapid temperature changes. It has not flinched under any circumstance. I have absolutely soaked this camera on a recent assignment in rain that lasted for hours and this camera kept going without any problems. A few bumps against the car door and the ground on some rougher assignments have not caused any problems whatsoever. Indeed, the solid body of this camera inspires confidence. There is no noticeable flex in the grip, and there are no creaks or other signs of weakness in the body that I can detect. Both my F5 and F100 feel even more robust, but I don't worry about the D200 taking some hits when I'm shooting and that's probably what is most important.
Handling
So, is the handling as good as the F100 or F5 as some other reviewers have suggested? Not quite. However, it's very close and it's as close as you can get without investing $4000 in the Nikon D2X, itself a superb camera that shares many of the features and specifications of the D200. Would I consider the handling of the D200 to be professional quality? Yes. But not without the
Nikon MB-D200 vertical grip (see below).
The buttons on the rear of the camera are slightly larger than the D100 and D70, which does make them easier to operate. Nikon has borrowed the "three kings" design from the F100 and included three control buttons (quality, white balance, and ISO) on top of the left dial. This makes me happy - fewer buttons means less time scrolling through menu options to get the camera to do what I want it to do. For me, this means I can get more shots because the world doesn't wait while I'm pushing the menu buttons instead of the shutter release button. The additional function button on the front of the camera near the lens mount is very accessible and has saved me from pulling the camera away from my eye on more than one occasion. This can be invaluable. Overall, the ergonomics of the D200 are superb. For photographers familiar with the F100 film SLR, you'll find the transition to the D200 a fairly easy one.
The larger LCD (2.5 inches) has very good resolution and is visible in most lighting conditions, but I still struggle to see the menu in direct sunlight. The larger size does make menu operation a little easier. Sometimes I use it to preview images, but usually I do not because I don't have time when I'm trying to capture a story. You can't really see your image on a screen that size anyway; most of the time, I feel confined by my 20 inch computer monitor - 2.5 inches just isn't going to help me a lot. In other words, if you're shooting professionally, the primary advantage of a larger LCD screen will likely be ease of menu operation. Remember, most digital SLRs only allow you to compose with the viewfinder, not the LCD screen. Speaking of the viewfinder, it is fairly bright and feels like a film SLR viewfinder. I wish Nikon would have kept the round viewfinder design of the F100 and F5 because I feel these work better with the human eye. Viewfinder coverage is 95%, which is great, but I want even a little more. My personal feeling is that you can never have too much viewfinder coverage. I want to see all of what I'm shooting as I'm shooting it and crop with my camera, not my software.
The vertical grip / battery grip for the Nikon D200 is the MB-D200. For me, this is an absolutely essential accessory for the D200 and I wouldn't consider shooting without it. This is one of the reasons that I always considered the D100 to be a superior camera to the D70. While the critics argued over the details of which 6 MP camera was better than another 6 MP camera, I had already made up my mind that a vertical grip contributes much more toward making a camera a photographic tool than a slight adjustment in processing algorithms. The MB-D200 is no exception; besides doubling the battery power and therefore the number of shots between charges, the MB-D200 also greatly improves the overall handling characteristics of the D200. Look for more about this essential accessory in my
dedicated MB-D200 review.
Shooting Performance
Another feature of film SLRs that digital SLRs have been playing catching up on is their ability to just keep shooting. My F5 can eat through a roll of 36 exposure film in about 4 seconds. Usually, I don't need this kind of speed, but there are certain subjects that require several frames per second and the ability to continuously shoot at several frames per second. Nikon's professional digital SLRs have always emphasized this, but the D200 is the first professional digital SLR that really does it at a reasonable price. According to Nikon, the D200 can shoot up to 22 RAW frames at 5 frames per second. For most professionals, this is a sufficient number of frames and sufficient fps. While I haven't personally confirmed how precise these numbers are, this camera is fast. Certainly not as fast as the F5 or F6, but it nearly keeps up with my F100. However, if you shoot a lot of high speed action, consider your shooting requirements carefully before you make a purchase.
One of my big complaints with the D100 was its focus speed. With my 80-200mm f2.8, focusing was simply too slow and I was missing shots. The D70 suffers from the same problem. The Multi-Cam 1000 in the D200 is noticeably faster and hasn't yet caused me to miss any shots. Again, it's not up to the benchmark standard set by the F100, but it certainly gets the job done and I can spend my time thinking about composition rather than worrying about getting the shot.
Shutter lag has been reduced to almost nothing on the D200. I believe Nikon claims 50 milliseconds. Although I have no way of quantitatively measuring shutter lag, I can easily say that in my experience, this is the quickest firing digital camera I have used. Faster than my D100, certainly faster than my old 5400 Coolpix, and nearly as fast as my F100 film camera. Essentially, the shutter fires so quickly that I don't even think about it. Startup is also amazingly fast. Nikon claims 0.15 seconds from turning the power-on dial to capturing a shot. In other words, no missed shots while waiting for the computer to remember that it's a camera. Again, I can't personally confirm this number, but I have grabbed the camera, flipped the power switch and captured a shot immediately.
Battery
UPDATE: After some additional time in the field with more attention paid to shots between recharging, I've updated this section of my review.
Battery life is good, but not outstanding. I always get at least 400 shots on one battery, and usually more. If I'm driving my 70-200mm f2.8 for half a day, the battery is drained much more quickly than it is in half a day of 35mm focal length photojournalism. With two of the EN-EL3e batteries in the MB-D200 vertical grip, I can shoot over 800 shots before needing to recharge. For reference, these numbers were obtained while shooting in RAW mode under daylight conditions without the use of the flash and with light to moderate use of the LCD.
Image Quality
There are plenty of digital camera review websites that compare every imaginable detail of image quality between cameras. Although these sites attempt to quantitatively (and therefore objectively) assess image quality, the bottom line is always the photos, not the measurements. Photos are most often judged qualitatively and in the digital SLR world, it can be quite difficult and usually impossible to tell if a photo was captured with a Canon 5D, Nikon D2X, or Canon 1D Mark II. Does the Nikon D200 join this fine company of cameras? Absolutely. The Nikon D200 will yield images at least as good as any of these cameras when judged on a computer monitor or as a display quality print with a discerning eye. Anyone who tells you there is a significant difference in image quality between these digital SLRs is trying to sell you something.
Image Noise
Like grain in film, image noise is something that has always been one of my top concerns with digital cameras. In 8 X 10 prints or as a full-size image on a 20" computer monitor, the D200 has no discernible noise at ISO 100, 200, and 400. At 800 a very low level of noise is detectable, but only if you really look hard in the shadows. Since this is the highest ISO I ever use (and most photographers are likely to need unless you're using slow lenses or photographing darkness), I mostly consider noise a non-issue with this camera, as I do with the Canon 5D, Nikon D2X, and Canon 1D Mark II.
UPDATE: I've had a chance to spend some time shooting with the higher ISOs. As several review sites have noted, the D200 has slightly above average noise at ISO 1600, which may be a concern if you need to make large prints (8 X 10 or larger). I've noticed this noise more in the shadows than the midtones or highlights. In my opinion, ISO 1600 is still usable because there isn't really a loss of detail, but the image quality is noticeably less than it is at ISO 800. ISO 3200 is not really usable as there is simply too much noise and the resulting loss of detail is unacceptable. This is not an issue for me because I have yet to find a situation that requires a sensitivity of 3200.
Long exposure noise reduction works very well. It requires a few extra seconds of processing time, but the image quality is stunning. I recently shot a thunderstorm over the Colorado Front Range and the lightning photos are the best I've ever taken.
Color
Using the sRGB color space in the D200, I've been quite satisfied with the color rendition of this camera. Again, there isn't a significant difference in color rendition between the current professional digital SLRs, although I've been slightly more impressed with the D200 than the above mentioned models. The Adobe RGB color space is less impressive than the sRGB color space, except when an image is filled with the boldest shades imaginable. Since nature has more variation between the less bold shades than it has occurrences of the most bold shades, sRGB is a noticeably superior color space and I leave it selected most of the time.
Dynamic Range (UPDATED)
The dynamic range of the D200 is nearly identical to all other digital SLRs, which means it has poor dynamic range relative to film. Film still has a significant advantage over digital here, and this contributes to my F100 sometimes providing superior image quality to the D200. Have I lost any shots because of blown highlights when the midtones and shadows were properly exposed? You bet. I've learned that I need to always take my film camera with me because there are times when the D200 just can't get the job done, despite exposure bracketing. The Matrix Metering isn't adjusted to the limited dynamic range of the sensor, so cumulus clouds over trees or ocean waves on a dark shore are almost completely blown out. It seems that Nikon just took the Matrix Metering off the F100 and didn't adjust for the significantly lower dynamic range of current digital sensors.
"Versus" film?
Although many professionals will continue to use both film and digital indefinitely, many amateurs are transitioning away from film toward digital. They are often dumbfounded when they discover that I still shoot film and demand an explanation. When I show them a $20 drum scan from a piece of Kodak E100GX, they quickly become speechless. Just as digital has progressed, so has film. The images from my Nikon D200 are amazing in many aspects. However, they are sometimes not as good as the images obtained by my F100 (which costs about half as much) when I'm shooting ISO 100 slide film,
and when the slides are scanned with a drum scanner. With my Nikon Coolscan V scanner, images from ISO 100 slide film and ISO 400 slide film are not quite as sharp as the RAW images from the D200, but the color resolution of the film scan seems equal. At ISO 800, the D200 starts to make up a ground and yields images that are better than color ISO 800 film scanned on the Nikon Coolscan V. I have not drum-scanned any ISO 800 film, so I can't make this comparison.
Digital is useful to me because I can publish the images quickly, the resolution is now sufficient enough for most types of publications (newspaper, web, etc.), and it can eventually save me money on film processing costs. However, there are some circumstances that still require film level dynamic range and color resolution and this will continue to be the case for several years. The bottom line? Digital and film are different media. Each has its advantages and disadvantages and one is not "better" than the other. There is no need to "go digital" if you're still comfortable with film - shoot both.
Conclusions and Comparisons
Compared to Nikon D2X
Once again, Nikon continues to lead the way in the digital price-to-performance ratio. Great build quality, great image quality (except dynamic range), great specs, great price for its performance. Amazingly, the D200 will do most of what the superb D2X does, for half the price. This is approximately analogous to the F100 and F5 relationship. There are some features of the F100 that I prefer over the F5, but the F5 is always my go-to camera when the going gets really tough. The D2X and D200 have the same relationship for me.
Compared to Canon 5D
If you're heavily invested in Canon lenses, I encourage you to consider the
Canon 5D before jumping ship. This is also a good digital SLR. However, it does have some significant shortcomings. Although it yields nearly the same image quality as the D200, it's unfortunately twice as expensive, lacks environmental seals, only shoots at 3 fps, has less buffer capacity, lacks the superb ergonomics of the D200, and feels noticeably less well built than the D200. For these reasons, the Nikon D200 is considerably more of a professional camera than the Canon 5D, which I consider to be mostly an advanced amateur camera (and a good one at that).
Happy shooting!
|
Gumtree.com
