# Kind of dissapointed with my D200



## panocho (Mar 14, 2009)

As the title says, I've got a Nikon D200. I must say I am happy with it; I am very happy indeed... or should I say I _was_ very happy?

I've recently purchased a Nikon D40 to give as a present. Before giving it, which won't happen until a few weeks later, I have been trying it out. I must say I was completely amazed by the quality of this little camera. But the "worst" came today, when I started playing "comparison" with its older brother the D200. For a moment it seemed to easily surpass it! :crazy:

I'll explain a little more: I put both cameras in "P" mode and shot the excelent old-town view I have from my appartment. Both cameras were also set for JPGs. It was a night shot. So, the D40 treated it wonderfully, giving it a really beautiful blueish-night tone, whereas the D200's shot had a dull brownish tone to it. The JPG direct out of the camera was far better from the D40.

The D40 was set in "auto" for optimizing image; since the D200 has not such thing, I tried different options. None would give the great JPG the D40 did.

That's the end of the story. If I continued, I would have to add how -expectedly, luckily- the D200 treated better more complicated shots. And, I know, I know, you're most likely going to shoot RAW and process yourself the JPGs, as I normally do (not always! that's when this "discovery" bothers me), but it still puts me down how the D40 can surpass the D200 at in-camera process. I mean, does the one year difference between the two explain that? Did Nikon develop a better conversion in that lapse of time?


----------



## mrodgers (Mar 14, 2009)

Ooops, never mind....


----------



## Marc Kurth (Mar 14, 2009)

The D40 does a great job on jpg's on Auto. It is specifically targeted at that market.

If that's what you are after, then sell the D200 and go for it. There is no shame in that!


----------



## stsinner (Mar 14, 2009)

Marc Kurth said:


> The D40 does a great job on jpg's on Auto. It is specifically targeted at that market.
> 
> If that's what you are after, then sell the D200 and go for it. There is no shame in that!



Any dSLR does a great job on AUTO-the only reason you leave it is for ego...  Auto takes perfect pictures until you want to stop motion, etc...

You need a camera that has AUTO for the days that you just want good pics with no effort or thought...  If the egotists look at your exif, they may dog you for shooting in AUTO, but the pictures can't be challenged.... If you are comfortable with AUTO. sell your D200 and get a D40..   It's a fine camera, unless you want to make posters...


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 14, 2009)

The D200 is a camera made for a professional.  If one's photography is weak, this camera *will* display this in your pics VERY fast.  One has to know the camera perfectly, understand photography VERY well.  Once you do both, this camera will impress.  It has won more awards than any other camera in Nikon history... and that list includes cameras like the D3 or D700.

I own the D200 and D700 and both have a place in my bag anytime.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 14, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Any dSLR does a great job on AUTO-the only reason you leave it is for ego... Auto takes perfect pictures until you want to stop motion, etc...


 
Auto is great... for people that lack understanding and skill. Manual is where true mastery (or lack thereof), of a camera is displayed. 

The D200 doesn't even have an auto mode, just a P-mode... and let me tell you, as an owner of a D200, the P-mode of this camera is... WEAK.

I will happily put up my D200 in full manual or aperture priority mode against the auto mode of the D40 any day of the week, and my pics will come out better.  My understanding of this camera is SOLID and my understanding of photography is not half bad either.

One has to know what they are doing with the D200, it is VERY unforgiving and if your "kung fu" is weak... this camera will make that blindingly obvious.


----------



## Joves (Mar 14, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Auto is great... for people that lack understanding and skill. Manual is where true mastery (or lack thereof), of a camera is displayed.
> 
> The D200 doesn't even have an auto mode, just a P-mode... and let me tell you, as an owner of a D200, the P-mode of this camera is... WEAK.
> 
> ...


Exactly on both of your posts. You have to tweak the settings in the camera to get what you want. Like you said it is a pro/prosumer camera which ever you  choose to call it. Read the manual fully then read it again. You will find it is by far beeter over the D40. It was never meant to be pulled out of the box and, just shot as is.


----------



## panocho (Mar 15, 2009)

Thanks for the replies. I was not really envying the D40.  If you read my post, it starts that way but soon it comes happily back to the D200. I have the D200 and am really happy with it. I'd never use auto mode; I even dislike a camera just for having "situations" modes (portrait, landscape, etc.). I'm kind of old-fashioned (wish you could just insert a digital cartridge on a F2!) and like and enjoy the D200 for letting me take greater responsibility in taking a picture, as well as allowing me to try much more things in order to take a nice picture.

Now back to my "complain" (kind of): although I shoot that way, there still are some occasions when you just need one picture, I guess you know what I mean. That's why the camera has the Program mode, AF, matrix metering etc It allows to, in those occasions, just point and shoot. I think it's OK that a camera like this offers that as just an occasional alternative for most of their users. So, the day you resorce to that, why is it that an entry-amateur camera does it better? The comparison was kind of fair: I did not use Auto mode on the D40, but Program, as in the D200. How come Program mode plus in-camera jpg process did a better job in the D40 than in the D200? The fact that the D40 was created to do that, whereas not the D200, doesn't convince me. I mean, you're going to be doing something different with the D200, but the day you do that, why should it not give those great results? I just don't get it. Unless, as I said, Nikon had changed in-camera JPGs process from one camera to the other.

A final note: the comparison was just "kind of " fair, since it refers to just one shot.

And _the_ final note: I am REALLY happy with my GREAT D200. I would only change it for the combination above mentioned of F2 and "digital cartridge"


----------



## panocho (Mar 15, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I will happily put up my D200 in full manual or aperture priority mode against the auto mode of the D40 any day of the week, and my pics will come out better.  My understanding of this camera is SOLID and my understanding of photography is not half bad either.



Would that challenge include letting both cameras directly give you a JPG? Because that's where I suspect some significant differences are. In such case you'd have to add "and process myself the RAW files afterwards".


----------



## Garbz (Mar 15, 2009)

I think it comes down to the target market of the D40. It's aimed at people who would really buy a point and shoot. But people who then get a D40 and are used to over-saturated and high contrast photos from point and shoot would be disappointed. I personally believe that the D40 is biased slightly towards this kind of image and there's nothing at all wrong with that, just that the higher end cameras have a more neutral default setting. I often flick my D200 to +1 for sharpens and +1 for saturation when snapping JPEGs (which is rare) but then again when processing my RAWs my defaults settings are slightly different from the standard too.

It comes down to not only what you are used to but what your style is. Certainly both cameras can do whatever you want, just that out of the box they are slightly different.


----------



## epp_b (Mar 15, 2009)

It sounds more like a white balance issue (and not knowing how to use it).

Also, I don't use optimization settings.  I just shoot it flat (RAW or JPEG) and do what I want to it on my computer afterwards.


----------



## elemental (Mar 16, 2009)

stsinner said:


> Any dSLR does a great job on AUTO-the only reason you leave it is for ego... .



Barring any enormous issues I may have with this statement, I am left wondering why many cameras intended for working professionals completely lack an "auto" mode (notably the D200). It seems to me like people putting food on their tables with their cameras couldn't afford to shoot in such an ego-dictated manner.

Otherwise, I agree with epp_b: The D200 has very advanced white balance controls, and color casts would probably be corrected here. Even if you shoot it wrong, I think it's to say that the D200 is targeted towards the sort of photographers who shoot RAW and can correct such an issue in a matter of seconds in their post-processing workflow.

That said, it does sound frustrating. If you want to make yourself feel better, compare the ergonomics and build quality.


----------



## epp_b (Mar 16, 2009)

Whatever the case, you're welcome to trade your D200 for my D40


----------



## panocho (Mar 16, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Whatever the case, you're welcome to trade your D200 for my D40



mmmm.... I'd rather not 

I guess it's just what Garbz points, although it didn't look to me as over-saturation or higher contrast; simply a nicer JPG. And when occasionally getting directly JPGs, I guessed the D200 might as well render them that way.

But as I already said, that was just the case with ONE picture (the night view). Otherwise, there is no trace of any complain at all, not to mention that if I got a D200 it's because I shoot RAW and Aperture priority mode almost all the time.

Oh, and, again: the D40 was not in Auto mode, but in Program. Which is not a big difference, anyway.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 16, 2009)

panocho said:


> How come Program mode plus in-camera jpg process did a better job in the D40 than in the D200?


 
Simple... because the D200 *doesn't* have an automatic mode. It has a P-mode for those times you want to limp through in lazy mode... but you pay the price. If you wanted an automatic mode camera, the D200 is the wrong choice. This camera was designed for being the scalple in the surgeon's hands. In the hand of an undeducated person, it is no better than a club for intricate work.



panocho said:


> Would that challenge include letting both cameras directly give you a JPG?


 
Absolutely! Of course, I would need to change a few settings in the D200 to optimize the picture for the situation. Knowledge is power and there is *no* situation that a D40 will give me better results than a D200.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 16, 2009)

Joves said:


> It was never meant to be pulled out of the box and, just shot as is.


 
OMG no... and no one knows that better than I. 

The first 2 weeks I had the D200, I could not even get a single shot that was in focus becuase I did not know the camera nor how to optimize it's settings. A quick order to Thom Hogan and 2-3 days with his PDF e-book and I had some *drastic* positive improvements.

I know we say that no camera is "out of bounds" for a new dSLR user, and I still agree with that, however, the higher up the scale you go, the mode demanding things get. Things do not get easier the more you spend, they increase in complexity exponentially.  Sure you can give a D3x to someone that never held a camera and they can use it... but they will never get satisfactory results out of it until they improve their knowledge of photography and master the intricacies of their camera.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 16, 2009)

Panocho, just as a point of curiosity, which image settings do you have your D200 set to in the menu?


----------



## panocho (Mar 16, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Simple... because the D200 *doesn't* have an automatic mode. It has a P-mode for those times you want to limp through in lazy mode... but you pay the price. If you wanted an automatic mode camera, the D200 is the wrong choice. This camera was designed for being the scalple in the surgeon's hands. In the hand of an undeducated person, it is no better than a club for intricate work.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely! Of course, I would need to change a few settings in the D200 to optimize the picture for the situation. Knowledge is power and there is *no* situation that a D40 will give me better results than a D200.



I insist: the D40 was NOT in auto mode, it was in Program mode, the same as the D200. And I know very well that one's control of the camera may imply better pictures, otherwise I would never have spent the money in the D200, in the first place. But that was never the point here.

I'll say it again: I never said I wanted an auto-mode camera. Quite the opposite, if you read my "wish" on a "digital F2". That's quite far away from an auto-mode camera, is it not? But since the D200 offers program mode (by the way, along with a lot of auto -yes, auto- functions that you yourself surely benefit from, such as auto focus, metering, etc), there are times when for whatever reason I don't want to really take a picture myself, and want instead to have the camera do it, so to speak, my question arises: how come the D40 with exactly the same settings (program mode, large fine JPG and the same lenses -actually I tried with 2 different in both cameras) may give a better JPG?

I'm very glad if you're so good with your D200 , but this has NOTHING to do with one's skill with a camera. I would definitely never question myself having the D200 just for this stupid little thing, but still it does surprise me -and not pleasently.



Mike_E said:


> Panocho, just as a point of curiosity, which image settings do you have your D200 set to in the menu?



I guess you mean the "optimize image" settings: the D40 had "auto", but since the D200 offers not such thing, I tried some of the ones it offers, appart from custom, the one I normaly have. None of them would render the blueish night sky that the D40 easily gave. And the sky was blueish to my eyes, so I guess it has little to do with "auto image optimize" giving artificial extra saturation or contrast, which some people love.

But I'll add again, I don't mean to imply that this single image comparison can be taken  as a prove for anything. I know that. It only surprised me when I saw it, that's why I posted. Basically, it made me wonder whether there was any difference between the two cameras in how processing the JPGs in-camera, appart from the settings the user may choose.


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 16, 2009)

Here's how to think about it:

The hardware of the d200 is significantly better then the d40.

The software of the d40 is significantly better then the d200.

The photographer is the same--the more skilled/experienced the photographer, the less the need for helpful software.

Also, digital post-process is just as much a part of photography skill/experience as darkroom techniques for film.


----------



## anubis404 (Mar 16, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Auto is great... for people that lack understanding and skill. Manual is where true mastery (or lack thereof), of a camera is displayed.
> 
> The D200 doesn't even have an auto mode, just a P-mode... and let me tell you, as an owner of a D200, the P-mode of this camera is... WEAK.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with Jerry here. If all you want to do is snap a couple of photos in AUTO, then the D40 is for you. The D200 is meant for a serious amatuer or professional, and is not meant to be shot in P mode. The D200 may be old, however it is far superior to the D40. One must know how to use it to its full potential, and snapping old town pics in P mode is not what the D200 was designed for.


----------



## Micah (Mar 16, 2009)

This thread has made me realize how far I've come since buying my D80 last september. I didnt even think about it much untill now, but I never shoot in aything but manual and aperture priority. I still dont have it down, but every time I shoot I learn a little bit more.I was nothing but p&s untill a few months ago. I may have to shoot in some of the auto modes to compare.


----------



## panocho (Mar 17, 2009)

Over and over again. Sorry, but that's what some replies here say to me. You keep insisting in me wanting to shoot auto with a D200 and things like that; assuming that I must be stupid for having an expensive and bulky D200 in order just to "snapping old town pics in P mode" when I would be just so happy with a D40 and my so-called beloved auto mode :er: and so and so :chatty:

I never said that and that was never the point, as I -hopelessly- keep repeating. What I intended to point was in THIS direction:




djacobox372 said:


> Here's how to think about it:
> 
> The hardware of the d200 is significantly better then the d40.
> 
> ...



Thanks, djacobox372, for listening!

That kind of thing, as I previously said, was what I first suspected. And it does bother me, even though it is something that only affects 1% of my use of the camera. So no big deal, definitely, but still was an unpleasent surprise.

Do you, djacobox372, know that for sure or just suspect it? In case that is actually the explanation, and it definitely looks like it is, my question is, has it something to do with an upgrade Nikon made in the lapse of time between the two cameras, an upgrade precisely worked out in order to release the D40, or they just saved themselves that software in the D200? Because the latter, although not really important, still would be disapointing to me.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 17, 2009)

Personally I do not agree with it and the specs deny that. 

The software is *far* from even close between the D200 vs D40. Look at the focus points on a D40 (3 maximum) vs the D200's more than 3 times more focus points.

The menuing system of the D200 contains several options that do not even exist in the D40.

Again... the D40 is a beginner's toy compared to the D200, which is a serious camera for the serious photographer. It takes expereince and knowledge to get the superior results out of the D200, but it *is* there, and once you know how, it is very easy (near thoughtless).

If all you want is nice JPGs without effort, get a canon G9 or G10 and that makes nicer SOOC JPG shots than a D40 for less money, but if you want superior control and results from a professional grade camera, that is the D200.

You guys are comparing a stone club to a custom made Ping golf club to play golf with.


----------



## schumionbike (Mar 17, 2009)

panocho said:


> I'll explain a little more: I put both cameras in "P" mode and shot the excelent old-town view I have from my appartment. Both cameras were also set for JPGs. It was a night shot. So, the D40 treated it wonderfully, giving it a really beautiful blueish-night tone, whereas the D200's shot had a dull brownish tone to it. The JPG direct out of the camera was far better from the D40.


 
It sound like the white balance is off on your D200, did you check that? Given that all the setting are the same such as white balance, saturation, sharpen and all that stuff, the image quality shouldn't be that much different from one camera to another weather the image is from D40 or D200. I have been shooting raw lately in the D40 and sometimes I couldn't get the same effect from processing my raw file as I got from the D40 jpeg of the same picture.  Most of the time, I like my own processing better but sometime it seem the camera default setting got lucky.


----------



## panocho (Mar 17, 2009)

I wonder, who is comparing two cameras?? Me, at least, I'm just trying to find out whether the D40 has a better in-camera JPG process software than the D200. Period.

Whether that's important to you or not, that's not the point. As a matter of fact it is of minimal importance for me myself, but I am still interested to know about it. And not to compare any cameras.

Another thing: processing software, or whatever you may call it, has very little to do with the amount of AF points and the like, I suspect.

And a final note, since you seem so concerned about the superiority of the D200: that other stupid little camera still has some things that surpass the D200. Yes it does. Flash sync.? 1/500 the D40; 1/250 the D200. Is it important, is it not? That depends on the photographer, but it is.


----------



## panocho (Mar 17, 2009)

schumionbike said:


> It sound like the white balance is off on your D200, did you check that? Given that all the setting are the same such as white balance, saturation, sharpen and all that stuff, the image quality shouldn't be that much different from one camera to another weather the image is from D40 or D200. I have been shooting raw lately in the D40 and sometimes I couldn't get the same effect from processing my raw file as I got from the D40 jpeg of the same picture.  Most of the time, I like my own processing better but sometime it seem the camera default setting got lucky.



Well, I just put both cameras on AUTO white balance, and I guessed both cameras would give a similar JPG, or the D200 a better one. So be it in the white balance or in the JPG process or wherever, I do suspect there is some difference as far as software is concerned. And with this one picture in particular, my surprise was the better was the D40.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 17, 2009)

I am going to keep shaking my head and laughing... sorry but if you are getting better results from a D40 than a D200, you are simply not knowledgeable with your D200.

Look, I wish you well and hope you sell your D200 and pick up a D40. Maybe you will one day be happier... but I doubt it.

Good luck.


----------



## panocho (Mar 17, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I am going to keep shaking my head and laughing... sorry but if you are getting better results from a D40 than a D200, you are simply not knowledgeable with your D200.
> 
> Look, I wish you well and hope you sell your D200 and pick up a D40. Maybe you will one day be happier... but I doubt it.
> 
> Good luck.




Definite: there is no way you understand what this is about. So just keep laughing and praising yourself. I just hope one day you'll become so so self-satisfied with your insistent "knowledge" of the camera that you'll decide try then on the knowledge of reading, for a change.


----------



## Tolyk (Mar 17, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I am going to keep shaking my head and laughing... sorry but if you are getting better results from a D40 than a D200, you are simply not knowledgeable with your D200.
> 
> Look, I wish you well and hope you sell your D200 and pick up a D40. Maybe you will one day be happier... but I doubt it.
> 
> Good luck.


 You know, you really can be an idiot Jerry. He's not talking about wanting to own a D40, he's just shocked that ONE SINGLE PICTURE came out better with all similar settings between the two cameras. He's asking about the in camera processing, not if he should sell his D200 and get a D40. Stop insulting him and read what he's freaking saying man. You're the guru of Nikon cameras, you should know the answer to his actual question. And he wasn't shooting on AUTO (and stop saying that with such a snear, geez) he was on PROGRAM, but with Auto white balance, and the auto optimize image setting the D40 has. He's said it many times now, and yet you keep insulting him by saying "Buy a D40 and shoot on auto."


Panocho, I don't know if the software rendering in the two cameras in question are different. I'll ask my bosses at work tomorrow, they'll more than likely know.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Mar 17, 2009)

Some of you have really poor reading comprehension. 

Panocho-- the d40 is optimized for providing out-of-camera jpegs (aimed at the "wants better snapshots" market) , and is a year newer than the d200, so I would be willing to bet that you're right, the jpeg engine in the d40 is probably a little better than the d200's in some circumstances. The differences in color do sound like a white balance issue more than anything else, which could be explicable by simply some vagaries of the color sensors or differences in programming of the AWB settings, or it could just be bad luck. Chances are the modes of the d200 could be tweaked until you could get more or less the same image, but you'd have to play around with manual white balance or altering the jpeg parameters. 

Differences in software between camera generations means that entry level cameras can on occasion have software features that outshine older higher-end cameras in surprising ways.


----------



## panocho (Mar 17, 2009)

Both last posts: thanks! It's consoling finding people who can read, and won't just find the occasion to kind-of-supposedly-show-off-or-who-knows-what.

I did suspect something like that. The fact that Nikon had decided "save" (?) something like that on the D200 just didn't make much sense, no matter how unexpected to be used it might be.

Anyway, now I've become really curious about this, and once I have some time to do it, I'll try to compare this with some different shoots to check whether this really is an improvement on the part of the D40 or just something that may happen occasionally.


----------



## schumionbike (Mar 17, 2009)

panocho said:


> Well, I just put both cameras on AUTO white balance, and I guessed both cameras would give a similar JPG, or the D200 a better one. So be it in the white balance or in the JPG process or wherever, I do suspect there is some difference as far as software is concerned. And with this one picture in particular, my surprise was the better was the D40.


 

hmm yeah, that's really weird.  Can you just post the pictures, I like to see them.  You would think if the setting are the same on both camera, the jpeg is gonna be similar. But like others has say, the D40 might have a better processing engine gear toward a market that aren't big into photoshop so perhaps that explain it.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 17, 2009)

Tolyk said:


> You know, you really can be an idiot Jerry.


 
Edited. You are right, sometimes I can be, though I do stand by the fact that there is no circumstances where a D200 will be outshot by a D40... none, if the D200 holder knows what they are doing and in ANY mode. 

I'm out of this thread.

Apologies to the op.


----------



## panocho (Mar 17, 2009)

:lmao: You really got annoyed, didn't you? 

I wonder why in the world am I replying, but anyway...

So I am an idiot, Oh, Your Lordship!, because I am wondering about the difference there may be in the software that processes the JPGs in-camera. And for that reason I don't deserve a D200 because I have no idea how to handle it. Mmmmm... sharp reasoning, Your Lordship of the Knowledge!!

And since AF control is software operated that means that the software in a camera that has more AF points is superior in every respect to the software of the one with less AF points. Mmmmm... clever! of course it makes sense! 

Oh, and having a D200 or whichever camera doesn't allow you to question it, or to wonder how it functions. Hmm.... Or maybe you wouldn't complain at all if instead of the D40 it was the D3 which provoked the thought of in-camera software processing? Maybe the problem is simply mentioning a stupid camera for non-knowdeables like the D40!

Beware, people: if you just set your D200 in P mode one single time in your lifetime, you're immediately sentenced to be an idiot and a complete incompetent who doesn't deserve that camera. The lords of knowledge sentence you!

et cætera

OK, I am an idiot. And precisely because I am an idiot, I want to know my camera, instead of worship and idolize it. I want to use it from manual mode, spot-metering the light meticulously, manually focusing.... to occasional fast direct AF, P-mode direct JPG shots.

Does this mean I am an idiot, I don't have any idea of how to use the camera and should send it to you right away because I don't deserve it at all? It seems it does -to you. But I sincerely suggest you to reconsider. Maybe you could just start by READING this post and thinking about what you wrote in it and what the others wrote.


----------



## panocho (Mar 17, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Edited. You are right, sometimes I can be, though I do stand by the fact that there is no circumstances where a D200 will be outshot by a D40... none, if the D200 holder knows what they are doing and in ANY mode.
> 
> I'm out of this thread.
> 
> Apologies to the op.



Oh, I see you edited!

Nice.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 17, 2009)

Yeah I did. Hence the word edit. What I initialy said was wrong. I still stick to my gins about the technicalities, but that did not excuse what I wrote, so I changed it. For the record, I changed it well in advance before I read your retort... and "my lordship" thinks if one compares time stamps, it was before you completed your answer. Yup... 5:27 to your 5:49.


----------



## Ejazzle (Mar 17, 2009)

OH YEAH!! 

Kidding


----------



## panocho (Mar 18, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Yeah I did. Hence the word edit. What I initialy said was wrong. I still stick to my gins about the technicalities, but that did not excuse what I wrote, so I changed it. For the record, I changed it well in advance before I read your retort... and "my lordship" thinks if one compares time stamps, it was before you completed your answer. Yup... 5:27 to your 5:49.



True, and I just found out once I posted. When I started posting, it was in reply to your original post.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, to me. And as a side note to the question of the thread, I understand very well your point about the evident superiority of one camera to the other, but think about it: it does not mean that it has to be superior in every single feature.

The D40 is "superior" (or whatever we may call it) in being smaller and lighter. It is "superior" in having a faster flash sync. speed. These are actual facts of the cameras, and (may be some other, I did not check) of course don't make the D40 outshine the D200, but if we were talking about these things, only these things, I think it would be completely out of the point insisting in the superiority of the D200, which no one ever denied here, I believe.

And the point of the thread is trying to find out about another single thing. Alone. And that is the in-camera JPG process of the D200. The D40 was only what made me suspect and try to find out. And all that about the P mode was just a way to equal the shootings, never any claim of how to use the D200 or how I use it or anything the like. And I said it clearly more than once. But you replied that way once, twice, then continued and went further, so I tried, instead of keeping explaining (which I, along with others here, had already done repeatedly), a little sarcasm -and self-defence.

It's perfectly OK if you don't care at all about in-camera JPG process. But I do use it some times. It is a feature the camera has and I like benefitting from it now and then. I think it's legitimate to wonder about it and I think it's far from making me an idiot who don't deserve the camera. If only you had read what I wrote, you would know I shoot mainly in A mode, mostly MF lenses, and RAW files. And all I want is a digital F2! :sillysmi:


----------



## mrodgers (Mar 18, 2009)

Think of it this way, which is a fancier vehicle?  A Ferarri or a Ford Escape?  Which vehicle would take more skills to drive in a professional sense or as a hobby such as track running?  The $$$$$ Ferarri of course.  Now take that Ferarri that takes so much more skill to drive and take it down a twisty mountain road in Pennsylvania in 20 inches of snow.  Which vehicle works better now, the Ferarri or the POS Ford Escape?


----------



## JE Kay (Mar 18, 2009)

This is an amusing thread... ;-)  The D200 is not a very forgiving camera, that said it's an excellent camera ..... in some respects. It's not an easy camera to use properly and get consistent results. It was a step up for Nikon for sure, but it has issues.

The only thing I would say to the OP is learn to shoot RAW and learn how to use PS. :thumbup:

Shooting jpg's is for tourists. 

The D40 is a P/S camera, and that's the way you use it. 

Continue on...... :mrgreen:


----------



## LWW (Mar 18, 2009)

This is kind of like a base model Buick against a Corvette isn't it?

If all you want to do is set the cruise and drive 500 miles on the interstate the Buick is a better car.

If you get into a test of driver skills on a challenging road, the comparative flaws of the Buick suspension will quickly become apparent.

And, as noted, in the skills of a really god driver the Vette will make awesome time. In the hands of a teenager trying to make the same time it will end up in the ditch.

LWW


----------



## mrodgers (Mar 18, 2009)

JE Kay said:


> Shooting jpg's is for tourists.
> 
> The D40 is a P/S camera, and that's the way you use it.
> 
> Continue on...... :mrgreen:


 Very interesting.  I shoot completely in manual and don't have RAW capability.  I guess I'm just a lowly tourist.  Here I thought P&S means you just point and shoot it, not set things in manual mode just the same as you do with your "I'm a photography god because I have a D200+." 



			
				LWW said:
			
		

> This is kind of like a base model Buick against a Corvette isn't it?


What a fantastic analogy, comparing the 2 different cameras as if comparing 2 different cars.  How did you come up with such an original idea?  Did you come up with that all on your own?


----------



## tsaraleksi (Mar 18, 2009)

JE Kay said:


> Shooting jpg's is for tourists.



This is flat wrong. Every format has an application. Those that do not don't make it onto the next generation of cameras (look at the fact that most digital cameras used to give you the option to shoot tiff files in-camera. No one used it, so it's gone. )


----------



## dpolston (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm going to get in on the bandwagon too. I have friends who always jump in on me and ask me about cameras since I am the resident photographer in the bunch. I own the D200 and see the shots taken from their D60's and D80's and D40's and D50's (you get the point). Sometimes I am very envious of their photographs until I start seeing some of the "work" intended for the more beefy D200 and beyond cameras. When there are lower light situations or faster, lower light situations or frankly just the accessibility to change stuff on the fly (without going through the menu options), the D200 far surpasses the others. 

But! Technology being what it is now, the newer cameras are superior from the start. I once tried to compare what I thought would be a good buy a few months ago, the D2X or the new at the time D300. I thought the D2X would be better but technically it was inferior to the newer D300.

There's always going to be newer, faster better. Face it. The D200 is old and according to B&H, now discontinued. Economics keep me from the D3 so I look myself to the D700 and by the time I get that, they'll have a newer, faster, better consumer grade camera.


----------



## JE Kay (Mar 19, 2009)

Hmmmm..... Perhaps my _tourist_ reference was a little harsh. :hug::

If jpg is the only format your camera is capable of shooting, well then I suppose you have to work with that. However......

I have noticed a great deal of the time with people I know, and don't know as well, they complain about how their 'new' camera isn't good, or that there is something wrong because they can't get a decent image from it. I've shown a few friends the benefits of shooting raw files, everyone has been amazed at how much more control they have. That there isn't anything wrong with their camera.

I do believe that if your camera is capable of shooting raw and you aren't doing so, you're not taking advantage of it. 

Why shoot files that are degraded right out of the box? You have next to no control over it. 

JPG files are web files, that's their application. Yes you can print from JPG files, just not if you want high quality.

You grab the D40 when you want to shoot to on the fly, quickly and have fun doing so, that's how they market it...like a P/S. I know people that have one and that's how they use it. They point and shoot... It's an easy camera to use.

_I actually don't own a D200, but I've used one enough to know what it can do and can't do._


----------



## abraxas (Mar 19, 2009)

Sounds like up grading to a d300 would solve this.


----------



## cashcoach (Mar 23, 2009)

yeah i have a D200 as well.  It is a great camera but it has older technology than your D40 so it has better noise reduction and clarity, but it's a little like comparing apples to oranges.  You will love the D300.


----------

