The camera can be referred to as "the business" precisely because of balance. It's a perfect camera in its sector because it has everything. It's the perfect point between an amateur and a professional who are looking for a reliable second camera. It doesn't have any particular characteristic that overshadows anything else in the market.

For me, why it is a perfect product is this balance in resolution, speed, sensitivity, mounting a CCD sensor, which for us has always been a reference in image quality. [The D200] has a balance in functionality -wireless, flash CLS- and menus.

Ormazabal smiles while holding the new D200 during the interview that he gave with QUESABESDE.COM about a week ago.

Whatsmore, we understand that the relationship between price and functionality will be exceptional. It's the business, as such, to find a product that is balanced and homogenous. We believe that in its sector the market is going to back it.

Has going for 10 megapixels been a commercial question of technological or financial limits?

Nearly everyone knows that, except in studio or certain applications, with 6 or 7 megapixels it is possible to perform 99% of tasks. It can be demonstrated, however, that 10 megapixels is the technical limit to which lenses are able to support a good level of auto focus and resolution. We're talking about medium to normal range lenses, because the top lenses evidently resist more.

Whatever the case, users are seeing that problems arise with cameras of 10 megapixels or more. The focus is more restrictive, and fails more, owing to, in part, this excessive resolution in respect to the fitted lens.

Does this mean that we will never see a Nikon with 16 or more million pixels?

10 megapixels is the technical limit that we are seeing today, but as you know this is rapidly changing. But this doesn't mean to say that we stop there, it is certain that there will be cameras with a higher resolution.

Nikon D200

The fact that it is restrictive doesn't mean that it can't be done. To put an example, not everyone can drive like Fernando Alonso: I would stall the car and he would be at 320 km/h. More resolution requires better lenses, electronics and also more work and concentration on the image by the photographer.

This is why I would say that the camera appears to be well balanced: it has a high resolution capable of completing 99% of tasks and, on the other hand, you are at a technical limit that doesn't demand a professional who is experienced to use it.

The D200 incorporates a CCD, but the D2X, the most professional of the make, uses a CMOS.

I would like this question to be completely clear. That I prefer the CCD doesn't mean that the CMOS is bad, such as diesel isn't bad just because I prefer petrol. It's a question of personal preference.

The latest CMOS, those of Nikon and other makes, are very good. But it is certain that there are differences. Specifically, in certain contexts there are users that really like CMOS more, and vice versa.

At certain resolutions it's very difficult for cameras to have determined features. The D2X offers the same speed as the D200 with 2 megapixels more and 8 frames per second with the crop function. All this is only possible with CMOS, and the image quality, right now, cannot be questioned. It is, so much as to say, a question of taste, not quality.

Nikon D2X

That it is, the D200 is the first camera on the market that with a CCD of this resolution can take 5 photos per second. Then we have the D2H, which with a sensor similar to CMOS and with 4 megapixels takes 8 frames per second. There aren't good or bad sensors; there are different applications.

In spite of this, we have always defended that, forced to choose, the CCD gives a little bit more than the CMOS.

Is the JFET-LBCAST to be separate or is it reserved for other types of cameras?

I don't have any official word on that, but I believe that it's a question of cost. Nikon have always used sensors in the market and has also developed its own.

Nikon always plan things long term. It is a project that is there, and so cannot be dismissed that that the next camera will have a JFET-LBCAST.

The sensor, therefore, wasn't built by Nikon, but being a CCD, evidently the rumour that it's the same sensor as that of the Sony cyber-shot DSC-R1 cannot be confirmed either...

I can't confirm who has made the sensor. Such as the R1, habitually, the production of elements made by third party companies for Nikon, are exclusive for a determined amount of time, regarding cameras such as this.

Can the 5 frames per second be seen as a way of facing up to the Canon EOS 5D?

The truth is that, in my opinion, the 5D hasn't got anything new. It appears to be an overhaul a la baja of the EOS-1Ds Mark II. It's more attainable, but it doesn't stop being a camera dedicated to the studio. 3 frames per second is the same as a cheap Nikon or Canon can produce.

But I don't believe that the D200 to be competition for the 5D, only being in a different range. On the other hand, the price will be comparatively a lot cheaper.

Canon EOS 5D

In respect to resolution, we already have a camera with 12 megapixels very well considered. Nikon have always said and maintain this understanding: the resolution doesn't produce a higher quality image. I don't know why it continues to be such an important parameter when defining the quality of a product. For Nikon it never has been.

Everyone is asking why it has taken so long for the D100 to be revealed.

This is all just a contradiction. On one hand, the users quickly complain about the change of models, and on the other hand, they say that we don't change quickly enough.

The D100, at this moment, continues to be a very good camera, although technologically it has advanced a lot. One thing doesn't devalue the other. It wasn't changed before because Nikon put priority in developing other products, like the DX2. We mustn't forget that the D1X stayed for six years in the market; therefore the D200 has arrived relatively quickly.

Nikon has never been one to change models so quickly, but to make cameras that last in the market and, whatsmore, are very stable. It's a camera that when it goes into the shops, is a finished product, this is why there are so few firmware updates. The market requires changes increasingly quicker, but being professional creates insecurity and worrying about things that have nothing to do with photography.

However, it seems that these politics have left Nikon in second place.

It could be that at the moment Nikon isn't number one, but apart from the other competitor [referring to Canon] there is no one else in the market. We will continue with this dichotomy. There will not be another make that will come close to putting an end to this hegemony.

Nikon D200

What I would like to say is, if Nikon think of anything, it's the professional. The product, in marketing terms, might not appear to be the best, but what the users have in their hands has always been a product designed for professionals.

The D200 will not stop being this type of product, for this we predict the same as the rest: stability, reliable contrast, compatible with everything. It is a product to have many years.

The D200, then, could be a permanent fixture in the market for the same amount of years as the D100…

I calculate that, at minimum, the same as the D100. Saying that, I don't believe that in less than two years, Nikon will be planning a replacement. And less seeing how the D200 is, because I believe that nobody can ask for more than what it is offering.

Nikon D100

This is why I insist on the idea that it is the business, because it has everything. It doesn't have the most megapixels, nor is it the quickest or biggest, nor do these things make any difference.

Is a delay expected for the supposed arrival of the D2, or will we see something new at the PMA fair?

I don't know, but the news that I have is that there will be nothing added to the professional range. Whatsmore, we have no news if whether Nikon's politics will change either. This could let a few people down, but cheer up those who have recently bought a Nikon product.

The EOS 5D has reopened the debate about 24 X 36 mm sensors. Are we not expecting any changes regarding the DX format either?

DX format forever! In principal, there are no plans to pass to go over to the complete format in the foreseeable future. At least that's what we think. This doesn't mean that Nikon won't make this change, but not short or medium term.

Whatsmore, it doesn't make sense. If we arrive stocked to the hilt in the market, producing lenses that are the best in this format, after seven years with this belief it wouldn't be impossible for someone at Nikon to decide to change, but that would be strange.

The eternal Nikon-Canon binomial appears to be continuing. Is the Four Third System by Olympus or the entrance into the reflex market by Sony and other powerful makes seen as a threat?

It could be seen as a domineering stance, but, frankly, that this won't affect us. The market decides. The Four Thirds System has been around for a few years, and independently of its quality and solutions, its growth in the professional world is very limited.

We don't believe that this will change the future, above all if Nikon and Canon continue bringing out this type of model. It's true that, probably, this could influence the amateur sector of reflex users, but not the professional.