Ok for those who are new to DSLR photography, you can shoot with this camera like a P&S but you probably are going to wish you had started on another body. This is a very dynamic and robust machine that has a learning curve. Shooting entirely on PROGRAM mode with everything automatic is like spending $200 for a leatherman and only using it as a pair of pliers. The added resolution is not significant enough for the hobbyist to pass up a D50 or D70.
Those that are using a D1X or D70 will still have years of usability with their bodies and there is no reason to think that you are not getting a very marketable and high quality images from those machines.
So why get the D200? Well there are lots of reason, and the most important of these is ISO quality. The camera is as good at ISO 1600 as the D1X is at ISO 640. I could find some fancy charts for you, but I will just provide the tests I shot on my own and you can see for yourself. (I say, if you can't see the difference then who cares really).
In this thread I will put the camera through different situations and let you judge for yourself the results.
For example, the D1X still makes amazing images, but no one tests the D1X against the D200, so how can you really make a comparison without running it through its paces.
Another situation I see in the reviews is how tests are done. As a wedding photographer, I want to see what low incandescent difficult lighting is going to look like at high ISO, not perfect lighting situations, because there is more noise in those situations and often post-production noise that must be accounted for.
In sports, I want to know how well that dynamic continuous focusing works for the professional and the semi-pro. (I will tell you it has one of the best dynamic focus engines, but you need to practice with it a LOT).
For portaits, I want to see how glass is effected by the extra pixel. Is there really a need to ensure you have better glass because lens flaws are more evident.
So, here we go.
1. FILE SIZE
I was impressed at the file sizes.
The D1X JPEG FINE were about 3MB, while the D200 was in the 4MB range
The file sizes for RAW were 5-7MB for the D1X and D70 while the D200 was in the 15MB range.
When you shoot a D1X at JPEG fine you get an image that is 6.5x10 @ 300 dpi. In contrast the D200 provides 8.6x12.9 @300 dpi.
This isn't a significant difference when printing anything under 16x20 for resolution, but it does offer more detail in shooting "loose" and you crop alot. I don't think this is brought up often in reviews, but you have to look at the way we shoot. The 4:3 ratio is not always how we present our prints and if you shoot fast and dirty, then you will do a lot of croping. That extra detail becomes valuable.
I don't think that if you are shooting JPEG you are going to worry much about storage space, but as a RAW shooter, you will notice a HUGE difference. MY 1 gig cards used to get 110 images on the D1X in NEF, while the D200 is running about 65.
Here are some zooms
D1X 
D200 
It was mentioned was that the D1X looked a little sharper. That is true because it had less resolution and could get that little extra POP in the look. But what wasn't discussed was that the color straight out of camera was EXACT on the D200 versus the D1X.
ISO NOISE
Here is how I set things up--
Both were shot on JPEG FINE
Both were shot spot meter
Both were shot incandescent
Both were set at EV -0.3
Both were shot at Aperature priority f/1.8
Both were shot same location
Neither camera's images were edited other than to be websized and adjusted to correct the underexposure.
The historgrams are the historgrams directly from the camera exposure before correction.
No color correction was made
Neither camera had in-camera sharpening
For the ISO1600 setting on the D1X, the 1 stop over adjustment was made.
The reason the D1X images are smaller is to maintain the ratio difference in the chip MP pixel ratio. (In other words, if you made prints straight from camera, this is how much bigger the D200 image would be).
I chose the D1X because so few reviews (actually none) have a comparison between legacy gear and the newer D200/D2X models
D1X ISO500
D1X ISO800
D1X ISO1600
D200 ISO500
D200 ISO800
D200 ISO1600
The images were adjusted to correct for the under exposure, which I thought was important, because in a "gun and run" situation you may not choose the right metering and have to make those types of adjustments. ISO noise is often blamed when, in reality, the noise problems are POST PRODUCTION noise created from correcting underexposed images. So these images are more accurate to what you might see.
This is especially true with the D2H, which is always touted by the D2H-Love Association as being a great camera and the only presented perfectly exposed images. The second you make an error in exposure in the D2H you have to run to Noise Ninja to butter over the post-production noise.
AMATEUR SPORTS
Ok, it is a crappy f/5.6 cloudy (almost rainy day) in the morning with a 180mm f/2.8. I set the camera to JPEG NORM and got some smaller files that still presented really nicely.
At first I set the meter to center weight (with a 10mm range) to get the shirt exposures, because my daughter was wearing white. But the cloudy day just had me rethink the meter and set everything to matrix metering. It was a significant difference and I was glad of it.
I also decided to try out the dynamic focusing. Even on the older 180mm f/2.8 it was smooth. So smooth, you have to be very aware of where your focus point is. The camera on CONTINUOUS FOCUS in DYNAMIC FOCUS..will just silently and quickly readjust your focusing. I lost a lot of photos from a stray kid running across my focus point or even just not keeping the focus point on the subject. I kept my focus, very often, on the soccer ball and a little error found a few images focused on the grass a few feet behind. At f/2.8 those few feet are a huge difference in a focused image or not.
The color seemed a little dull, but that was the day as well. I am sure that some photoshop would pop that all right out. The metering was spot on for the photo exposures.
Being handheld with a long lens, I was fairly impressed with the sharpness of focus. The extra MP makes the lens a little more sensitive and you really have to have your camera holding techniques down. What I could get away with on the D1X did not always work on the D200. That make not make sense at first, but (again) added detail reveals added flaws (in lenses and in shooting techniques).
Some people have suggested that when you resize images to match a D1X or a D70 you won't see the difference. I haven't found this to be true. However, you CAN get away with a lot more UNMASK SHARP before you resize and be less noticeable.
These images were shot at ISO 400
Straight from camera it was shot at JPEG NORM and I adjusted it to 72dpi only
crop
Straight from camera it was shot at JPEG NORM and I adjusted it to 72dpi only
LENS TESTS
Now there has been some discussion on the need for using higher quality glass with the D200 and D2X.
Ok..just to see and judge for yourself. I set the camera to 1600 and handheld to give a very casual look at what you would get in the real world rather than a very scientific "static" test. So these are handheld with natural light.
Nikon 180mm f/2.8
f/2.8 @ 1/1500
f/4 @ 1/800
f/5.6 @ 1/320
f/8 @ 1/200
f/11 @ 1/100
f/16 @ 1/45
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
f/1.8 @ 2000
f/4 @ 1/400
f/5.6 @ 200
f/8 @ 100
f11 @ 1/50
f16 @ 1/25
Nikon 85mm f/1.8
f/1.8 @ 1/2500
f/2.8 @ 1/1250
f/4 @ 1/640
f/5.6 @ 1/320
f/8 @ 1/160
f/11 @ 1/80
f/16 @ 1/40
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8- 28mm
f/2.8 @ 1/1250
f/4 @ 1/640
f/5.6 @ 1/400
f/8 @ 1/160
f/11 @ 1/80
f/16 @ 1/40
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8- 75mm
f/2.8 @ 1/1250
f/4 @ 1/640
f/5.6 @ 1/350
f/8 @ 1/180
f/11 @ 1/90
f/16 @ 1/45
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8- MACRO
f/2.8 @ 1/1600
f/4 @ 1/1000
f/5.6 @ 1/500
f/8 @ 1/250
f/11 @ 1/125
f/16 @ 1/60
Tokina 12-24 f/4- 12mm
f/4 @ 1/800
f/5.6 @ 1/500
f/8 @ 1/250
f/11 @ 1/100
f/16 @ 1/50
Tokina 12-24 f/4- 24mm
f/4 @ 1/750
f/5.6 @ 1/400
f/8 @ 1/200
f/11 @ 1/100
f/16 @ 1/60
Linear Mode
