Think of the price: I got a D200 with a super clean sensor and shutter count under 10K for $60 at the time of writing this. Much less than what I paid when it came out (just to resell it to get the D2Xs a few months later).
For 60 bucks, it IS a hell of a camera in 2019. Much better than any smartphone camera for sure. Actually, an entry level Nikon DSLRs like the D3500 still borrow the D200's AF engine.
The big obvious difference with modern cameras is resolution: 10MP vs 24MP for an entry level Nikon: that means you will not be much cropping. It also means you will have to ACTUALLY put some effort in framing...
Printing up to 11x14 is not an issue. Well, if you publish for the web only, you can actually crop a little bit or even a lot.
Recent cameras have obviously better dynamic range and ISO noise. I don't care. ISO noise nowadays is so easily fixed with DxO Prime and Topaz Denoise AI: not an issue anymore whatever the camera is. The maximum ISOs on the D200 is 1600 ( and 3200 Hi setting). The noise on this camera is very "film-like". It has a strange quality, reminding me of the high sensitivity Tmax film. I even shot the milky way at 3200isos with a D200. Not a problem.
Dynamic range? Most of the time, it only allows lazy photographers to shoot without paying attention to exposure, and fix it in post... The D200's DR was good in 2005 (actually even better than the D2X flagship of the time), it is still good enough today. If you want two more stops of DR, you'll have to spend a little more money than 60 bucks...
Anyway, even with an old dynamic range, the D200 can shoot HDR like/ish landscapes.
The D200 has environmental sealing (or at least used to... not sure if it is still reliable 14 years later), rugged body, lots of controls, the maximum shutter Speed is 1\/8000s, there is a top LCD, it communicates perfectly with any modern flash (unlike the D3400 as an exemple, that can't talk to my SB700), it has a nice bright pentaprism viewfinder and an AF motor to control screwdriver lenses. 
The battery life is good: I can shoot more than 2000 photos with a brand new aftermarket battery. The frame rate is 5fps, nothing to be ashamed of.
I just loved that camera, and I still do. It feels great in my hands, handles great, can take a beating without it being an issue since I can find a new one for dirt cheap. It's a perfect snapshot camera with the Nikkor 18-135, as long as you don't plan HUGE prints, insane crops, or very low light action photography. Is it perfect? far from it, but for the price you can buy it now? It's really hard to beat.
Oh, I almost forgot it: I didn't talk about the CCD sensor color rendition...Even if I shoot a lot of black and white, the CCD color rendition legend is definitely a fact. Simply shoot the same scene with the D200 and any other CMOS camera, with the exact same settings and same lens in raw: you'll notice a very obvious difference in the unedited raw in you image processor. I personally like it a lot. Some don't. Matter of taste. Some say it's in my head...
 Seriously, if you want a good rugged camera with a lot of controls, and have very little money to spend? Just get a D200.

You may also like

Shooting the Nikon D2Xs in 2022
During summer 2005, after a very long wait, the Nikon D2X was released. At the time my go to camera was the Minolta 7D that replaced my Nikon film cameras for my digital needs. I also shot the Nikon D70 but I prefered the Minolta. Both cameras were quite slow, and 6MP only. I wasn't really convinced by the Nikon D1/x/h/d2h. Soon after buying the D70, the D2X was announced, making me question that early GAS compulsive buy.
Nikkor Plastic 70-300 F/4-5.6 AF-D ED
This Nikkor 70-300 has been one of the most poorly reviewed Nikkor lens ever.
Nikon N50 / F50 shooting Kodak UltraMax 400
I didn't shoot film for years. Didn't really plan to. Not that I don't like it, because I love film, but I just didn't have an opportunity to do so. When I saw that Nikon F50 with a 35-80 for 20 bucks, I just bought it. Ordered a new battery on amazon and a couple rolls of Kodak Ultramax 400
Birding with a cheap Sigma 135-400?
When it comes to birding, the common advice is to get a camera with low noise, fast AF, fast burst, big buffer and some long lens, preferably a super fast telephoto. It is indeed good advice, but you'll have to pay thousands of dollars to buy that gear, even on the used market. What if you want to shoot birds on a super tight budget? You'll still need some camera and lens. Maybe consider buying some older inexpensive gear?
Can you take any photo with an outdated crappy camera?
A short essay I wrote back in 2019.
Improving cheap flatbed scans
I still shoot film from time to time, not enough to invest in am excellent neg scanner or bother trying to shoot my negs with a camera. I tried that, don't like it. I love the scanning - editing process.
Shooting the Olympus OM-D E-M1 in 2023, 2024 and later.
One month ago, I was fed up with travelling with camera gear. Air travel became a miserable experience: arguing with check-in people, Unpack all that expensive shit at security, having gear damaged in the plane when frantic fellow passengers trow their hard cases in the overhead bins. I want to travel light: then a classified caught my eye: EM1, grip, charger, 2 batteries and 45-150 for 300.
Shooting the Sony A77 in 2022
If you have some A-mount lenses and want an APSC DSLR that can take them natively, you don’t have many options. Especially if you can’t / don’t want to spend a lot of money.
Sony RX100 m3: all you need from 24 to 70mm
I got this little camera for $200 a couple years ago and didn't write about it yet.
Shooting the Sony Alpha 700 in 2022
I really never was really interested in Sony after they bought Minolta and started their "own" line of DSLRs. 15 years later, I buy a pristine Alpha A700 for peanuts and I quite like the Minolta DNA.
Back to Top