Hi Guys,
I'm at it again. . . . checking your opinions of course
I'm tossing a coin between a 'Like New' D200 and a 'Like New' D90?
Nikon, every now and then, have been releasing re-furbished D200's and the used market is starting to see some pristine D90's appearing at roughly the same price.
My question to the forum is simply which body would be considered being 'better/best' for field/studio work for photomacrography?
I am looking into photo stacking but at the moment, but my current hobby/work involves macro lenses with teleconverters, extension tubes, close-up filters and lens reversal.
BTW, I currently own a Nikon D70S and this camera's short-comings have been discussed previously and I would expect that both the D200 and D90 would/should show considerable performance improvements?
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to help me spend my 'hard-earned' cash Guys. . . . hehehehe
Just click on the green "Our In Depth Review" under the camera pictures to get a 30+ page review of each. The D90 has a later sensor with more megapixels, but is a consumer camera rather than a semi-pro or "prosumer" camera. The choice is yours in the end.
I use a D200 and am happy with it, but have never used a D90 so don't know how image quality/noise compares. In most cases it is lens quality that matters as much as the sensor. An expensive camera with a cheap kit lens on it may not perform as well as a cheaper camera with say a high quality macro lens on, so allow yourself some money for a decent lens. Best usually to buy body only and get the lens you want rather than buy a ready made kit.
If the images are for web use you will not notice the difference with any modern camera due to the limiting resolution of the computer screen, unless you crop radically.
Thanks guys.
ChrisR, you mention that you like looking at the live view. Which camera are you 'looking' at? Also seems as if you are having 'a bit each way' with the mirror lock-up option?
DaveW.
In my previous postings, I have said that I'm using nikkor 60mm and 105mm 'micro' lenses with Kenko extension tubes and teleconvertor.
I'm also on the lookout for a good condition s/h 'micro' 200mm F4.
I'm really interested in finding out how well the D200 handles the higher ISO range as compared to the D90, which is supposed to be very good in this area. Also the 'older' 10mp sensor of the D200 compared to the resolution quality of the newer 12mp sensor in the D90?
As you say Dave, one camera was shipped as 'semi-pro' while the newer unit is now an 'enthusiast' level camera. What the hell is the difference?
The D90 is based on the old D70 body and that was touted as being solid as a rock, but now finds itself being reclassified as a 'prosumer'.
Neither camera is going to be flogged to death, continually dropped from height, or shutter actuated into the millions, so I'm just looking for a 'solid' performer with capable credentials. DaveW uses a D200 and he says that he 'likes it' and doesn't appear to be in a rush to move it on; these are the sort of endorsements that hold credibility for me...
Well when I bought my first DSLR, for architectural stuff, I got a D700.
As far as I know it's much the same as the D300, apart from the sensor being bigger. I've played with a D90, which I found incredibly light and squashy, but I'm sure it would do the job.
The big sensor can be a nuisance at times, for macro/micro.
I wouldn't worry about the number of pixels, in the range we're talking about. High iso isn't much relevance to macro either.
I use live view a lot for adjusting the subject, fine focus (check for dof on stack steps), checking the focus range etc, then turn the knob to mirror-lock mode (needs two presses per shot) or via the menus use the shutter delay mode. (A second delay between mirror flap and shutter opening).
Hi iso does have some nice uses. High shutter speeds on 2-300mm lenses, avoiding full aperture on cheaper lenses, and the pop-up flash goes a heck of a way at 6400!
Last edited by ChrisR on Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't use high ISO's I am afraid so probably the D90 may be better than the D200 since I consider most digital cameras above about ISO 400 start to have deteriorating image quality.
If you had read through the reviews in my previous link you would have got to these comparison pages. Scroll down the links and note the noise on the grey and black patches, since you can compare them better without the image.:-
If it's high ISO performance you want then the D90's newer sensor is probably better as not only does it beat the D200 but most of the competition.
What is the difference between consumer - prosumer - professional and cameras? Apart from some extra "bells and whistles" usually build quality. The shutter is rated for more actuation's before failing, though most of us will not reach these limits, although heavy photostackers may. The camera is also more robust, particularly the professional models that expect to have to stand a certain amount of throwing around in camera bags by pro's in a hurry. Amateur equipment does not usually get so much abuse so needs to be less robust.
The best way to see yourself is go to a camera dealers and handle the equivalent new products. A D300 and a D90 to see the difference in build, although the D300 is obviously a better camera than the D200 from an image point of view having a later sensor.
To see any real differences in adding extra pixels you have to remember it is an area not a linear matter, so a few extra megapixels on a modern camera makes a lot less difference than it did in the past. They used to say that to see the same image improvement from a 2 to 4 megapixel camera the next step was not 6 but 8 megapixels and a doubling sequence from then on 2-4-8-16-32-64 Megapixels, so in fact sensor progress regarding image quality by adding a couple more megapixels each time is actually slowing with each new camera model, not increasing. Image improvements have largely come from better noise reduction circuits, not extra pixels.
From what I've read the D90 should have a little better image characteristics.
For the "macro" world, there are a few features that you might want to consider. The D90 has no mirror lock-up, the D200 does. Both can use a 1 second exposure "delay"... the exposure will not start for 1 second after the mirror goes up. This helps, but a real mirror lockup would be nice.
The D90 will not meter non-CPU gear (bellows and such). The D200 will.
Tough call. The D90 probably has the best image quality. The rear LCD is much than the D70s, and somewhat nicer than the D200. The D200 has better metering options with non-CPU hardware and a real mirror lock-up.
True Harold, but with the virtual demise of film the manufacturers have little incentive now to keep improving it, whilst digital is now matching film but still in it's infancy. The first permanent photographic image seems to have been made in 1822, that's 187 years ago:-
The first real digital camera was seemingly made in 1975, only 34 years ago, yet in that time many would say digital image quality has now overtaken film in most respects so how will today's, or even future film, compare with digital in another 153 years of development?
Thanks fellas for all the input.
Charles, you speak a lot about the virues of mirror lock-up.
Am I assuming correctly that mirror lock-up is a real benefit for studio and stacking use, and not so beneficial in the field?
From what i've read, I'm leaning towards the D200.
Thanks again for all your help guys. . . .
Bruce
Bruce, for your uses, I don't think this is a hard question. The D200 is a solid, pro-oriented camera that has mirror lockup. The D90 is an amateur camera without mirror lockup, but it has video. Do you want video? Doesn't sound like it. Want mirror lockup? You betcha!
At their base ISOs (that is, the lowest "normal" ISO at which a camera shoots, the D90 and D200 should produce nearly identical pictures. The main differences between these cameras aren't in the images produced, but the build quality and feature sets of the boxes themselves.
To put it in perspective, I have a D200 and a D700. The latter camera is currently one of the best that Nikon produces--it has high ISO and wide contrast range capabilities that make it outstanding for much general work. But for macro? I'd happily shoot with whichever camera is in my hand. And in truth, at base ISO, I find the D200 to be a bit better.
There is a lot of hype in the marketing of cameras, and it often gets confusing. But for macro work, most of the stuff trumpeted by the camera companies isn't important. We mostly shoot manual focus, so fancy focusing features aren't important. We check our histograms and have time to reshoot based on what we see, so intricate exposure modes aren't too important. For me, just give me a good imaging chip inside a solid box with a lot of manual control, and I'll be happy.
I do use mirror lockup in the field, by the way, any time I can. It matters most in certain shutter speed ranges, but it never hurts. I keep an electronic release taped to my tripod--if the tripod is out, the release is in use, most of the time. This isn't just for macro, but for scenics, architecture, telephoto use, etc. Keeping a camera stock still during the exposure is fundamental. Shooting people or fast changing events--of course I turn my M-up off at such times. But for me, a camera without M-up is missing an absolutely critical feature.
While you haven't mentioned it, a very useful thing for studio work is Nikon's Camera Control 2 (or other tethering software--this isn't the only program in town, but simply the one I know and use.) Seeing every shot immediately on a full-sized computer screen--with histogram showing--is a real plus--I wouldn't shoot studio macro without it.
I got a D700.