Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: D40/200

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Cool D40/200

    How much of an upgrade would a d200 be from a d40 for image quality ?
    Also how good is te D200 in 2010 terms, because i know its old but ia it still any good.
    Also i have seen quite a near mint examples for around <500-so would it be a worthwhile upgrade or should i spend ages longer (i have a limited budget) and get a D300 (kinda overlaps my other thread, sorry)
    I shoot mainly landscapes and wildlife

    Or to whack in another option, should i stick with the D40 and get a Sigma 50-500mm so i can get up clost to wildlife

  2. #2


    The 10MP D200 WOULD be a step up in image quality over your 6MP D40, but if that's your main criteria you'd get an even bigger step up by getting the new D3100. Although its the entry level model it has a new 14MP sensor, new Expeed 2 processor, and loads of extra features such as Live View and HD video. And you can buy the body for under 450.
    The main differences between the D3100 (and D40) and cameras like the D200 and D300 are in the much more rugged build quality of the latter two, the faster performance, the greater level of customisability, and the way in which you access the key functions. On the D40/D31000 the advanced functions are more buried within the menus to make the camera simple and unintimidating to novices. On the D200/D300 all the main parameters are instantly accessible on the body via their own dedicated buttons, which do make the cameras more complicated.
    Is the philosophy of the more advanced cameras what you need, or are you just looking for the biggest jump in quality?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Bit of both

    Thanks for the reply.
    I was hoping for a bit of both, my main reasoning for the D200 is that(to my knowledge) it was the semi pro camera from about the same age as my d40 therefore a step up, I also had a play with one a little while back and loved the ergonomics and the 'well built' feel of the D200 because even though the D40/3100 is light ans easy to carry i think its a bit too small and had to add a grip to the D40 to stop my little finger sliding off the bottom . Also from the specs it seems to have better AF, metering, DOF preview, time lapse, weather sealing, ect
    So for me i think the D200 would be a better bet than a 3100 and i dont want to pay extra for HD video that i will never use.
    Also, i guess you probably get asked things like this all the time but is a D300 really worth an extra ~400 over the D200 ( i know is is just a D200 with everything updated/upgraded, bit are the benefits actually justify the ~400 ? (although it is pretty much out of budget as im a student so would have to save for quite along time)

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts