Can a Nikon D200 get a photojournalism student through college?

Question

I am in my second year of undergrad j-school at the Univ. of Florida. I want (and plan to do everything possible!!!) to get into Columbia Journalism. Right now my focus is photojournalism. My question refers to whether or not a Nikon D200 is advanced enough to carry a photojournalism student through (at least) undergraduate work. Incidentally, I believe that a lot of a person's success in photojournalism is creativity more predominately than the camera. Do you think this is true and that a good photographer can make a D200 work just fine, or should I spend all I have on a D300 or (a slim possibility) a D700?

Also, any thoughts on the D200/D300 vs Canon 5D?

Answer 1

I think what you're fishing for is whether or not you'd be happy with the D200. That is up for you to decide, but I must agree that the skill of the photographer determines the quality of the images produced; that, and a fast lens. I should mention, too, the D200 was considered a professional level camera before the D300, D700 or D3 came out. While this has little meaning, what it does say is that this camera satisfied professionals for a few years. Sure, the D300 and D700 would be loads better, but the D200 is completely capable. Use the money you'll save on a few choice lenses, like a 17-35mm Nikkor.

Compared to the 40D, the D200 is about the same. The 40D does, however, have live view, and cleaner images at high ISO. The d300 is even better, though. And the 5D is even better. You see, it keeps going up and up. The D200 would be the best bang for the buck.

Answer 2

From your previous question, I know you have a D40 and have started a collection of lenses for it.  With that in mind, I think you're on the right path.

A D200 can be found relatively inexpensively now, because the D300 and D700 have come out.  Does that diminish the D200?  No, it just means there are improved Nikon bodies out there.  Does the advent of Blu-ray mean that regular DVD's are obsolete?  To a technophile, perhaps.  But the vast majority of the population still finds "regular" DVD movies to be excellent and satisfactory.

I am currently using a D200 and, to be honest, wish I had a D300.  Why?  For my shooting (sports photography, mostly in low light) the D300 performs much better at higher ISO levels.  But I've found the D200 to be an excellent tool at this point in time.

For you, you're asking if a recently replaced camera will get you through the next 3 years.  Well, let me put it in perspective.  Could you get through college with a Windows XP computer?  Like the D200, Windows XP has been "upgraded" and "replaced" by Windows Vista.  And Microsoft is planning to replace Vista in the near future.  I'm typing on an XP laptop right now, just because my Vista laptop is in another room.  It does what I ask of it.  If I'm photoediting, I'm sure to go to my latest (Visa) computer.

Think of it this way.  You are currently using a D40.  Your lenses will move forward with you.  If you get a D200 at a great price, it can be replaced in a couple of years by a gently used D300 at another great price.  

I started with Nikon 35mm cameras.  I then moved up to digital with a D50 and a D70.  When the D300 came out, I got a D200 from a photographer who was upgrading.  I'll probably do the same in the future when I choose to get my D300.

Bottomline - The D200 is capable, durable, and versatile.  It was one of the highest rated cameras when it came out, earning "Camera of the Year" from several publications.  Today, a D200 is as capable as it was when it was introduced.  Chances are, you won't outshoot it for a while.