I don't need to worry, she has a Dell. She's too busy trying to get her computer fixed to ever make her way to the Mac forums! But she's getting a Nikon L1 for Christmas, so at least she will have a reliable camera.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anybody planning on getting the Nikon D200?
- Thread starter Lacero
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
D200/D50 = 4
A D200 is 4 time better than a D50.
You heard it here first, folks.
(I wouldn't be THAT jealous of the D200 if you have a D50. The D200 is probably beyond your calibre if you bought a D50 or Canon 350D or something, so you would probably not be able to tell much of a difference anyway)
A D200 is 4 time better than a D50.
You heard it here first, folks.
(I wouldn't be THAT jealous of the D200 if you have a D50. The D200 is probably beyond your calibre if you bought a D50 or Canon 350D or something, so you would probably not be able to tell much of a difference anyway)
Abstract said:
At an average price of $540 for the D50 body and a price of $1700 for the D200, the differential is pi with 2 decimal places.
X times more expensive does not always mean X times better, although 'X times better' is a subjective assessment. For some the rugged alloy body, weather sealing, CAM 1000 autofocus system, mirror lock-up, 5 frames per second, GPS compatibility, ISO in viewfinder, large and bright viewfinder with high mag, etc. fully justifies the higher price.
My BMW would probably fetch 3.14 Toyota Camrys. Is the BMW 3.14 times better? To me it is when all factors are considered, and these include subjective factors.
Don't equate multiples of price with multiples of betterness. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It's all up to the buyer to decide.
Abstract said:
I wouldn't say that the D200 is beyond caliber of someone if they purchased a D50/350D level camera. I could easily (where easily implies slightly more work
) be using a 1dsmkII instead of my 20D, the theory is all the same, it's taking photos. What differs in a lot of cases is the performance of included features (physical materials, sealing, faster/accurate focusing, etc) which are all additions to my 20D but the camera more or less functions similarly (although obviously some added features take learning and the 'keystrokes' may be slightly different).If someone is in the market for a new Nikon dslr body right now, I'd weigh it as "economical w/ more good glass" (D50) vs. "faster/pro body w/ fewer pieces of good glass" (D200) assuming you want to spend the same $$$. Both cameras have more than enough MP to take great images, are both fast in comparison to any P&S camera, and are more rugged than any P&S camera. The step from a P&S to a dslr is amazing, regardless of which model you go to. If you are passionate about photography and know you will stick with it for a long long while, I'd honestly suggest getting the D50 w/ more good glass and save your money from the D200. Although it's one awesome body, technology changes so fast in another year the D300 (or whatever) will be out that will make this one look ancient. Glass rarely changes, if ever, so investing in quality/fast glass now will last you 5-6 body changes....
efoto said:I wouldn't say that the D200 is beyond caliber of someone if they purchased a D50/350D level camera. I could easily (where easily implies slightly more work
Exactly! Yes, someone who is just starting out with DSLR, if they've NEVER gone beyond P&S and "auto" or "program" mode before, might be a bit overwhelmed by the features on any DSLR and thus might be a little more comfy with one which has a few familiar things such as would be available in the D50 and D70/D70s, especially the "scene modes," but if they've already gone beyond the "scene modes" thing and are shooting outside that altogether, are using Aperture priority, Shutter priority, full manual.... yes, they actually could do just fine with a D200, realizing that they need to grow into it because of the added features. There are a lot of bells and whistles on the D200, but they are also quite flexible and learnable, and the user is not tied into any sort of pre-formatted "scene mode." In some ways, the more advanced cameras are actually easier if they've got specific features laid out in a better or more obvious way. IMHO on the D200 things are much better laid out than on the D70, for instance, with the placement of certain buttons, etc. However, the D200 has a learning curve which assumes that one is moving beyond an earlier DSLR such as the D50 or D70/D70s. I'd think that going from a P&S to a D200 would be a quantum leap.
efoto said:
I agree wholeheartedly with you, efoto: good glass is definitely key. Through the years you can carry on with it, regardless of whatever bodies are forthcoming and regardless of whatever bells and whistles those bodies have. It can pay off in many ways when life throws you a curveball and you have to regroup. It happens.... Way back when I bought my N90 (film camera body) I soon learned that it was better to put my money into good lenses, even though I might have fewer of them.....and when I later had a financial crisis and had to reluctantly sell both the camera body and the lenses, I at least was able to recoup some money. Fast-forwarding some years, when I got my D70, I remembered that valuable lesson and have made it a practice to buy the best lenses I could afford -- mostly the so-called "pro" lenses -- even though it might mean some gaps in my angle of view when it comes to lens ranges. As time has gone on I've been gradually able to fill in the gaps, and am continuing to do so, but more importantly, the lenses which have worked on my D70 are also working (very well!) on my D200. Five years down the road from now when there's some fantastic new body out there, I would expect that these same lenses will perform very well on it, too.
Right now there are a lot of choices for the photographer....and it is bound to be confusing to the neophyte. What to buy?
Well, if you're really only interested in shooting snapshots of the family on vacation and on holidays, a point-and-shoot will undoubtedly fit the bill. If you're interested in exploring photography beyond that, but don't really have a lot of time to get into the whole thing about f/stops and aperture priority, shutter priority, yet want those options available, and really like how some camera manufacturers have set up pre-programmed "scene modes" and you like the flexibility inherent in a camera where you have to change lenses (ie, a DSLR), look at the D50 and the D70/D70s. There are differences in those camera offerings, of course, and one key one is that the D50 accepts and works with the SD card, whereas the D70/D70s use the CF card, which has been the standard for a long time. The new D200 also uses the CF card. Someone who already has a nice collection of CF cards through the years might not be so eager to suddenly have to add SD cards to accomodate a particular camera.
Choices, choices...for each individual it is going to be a choice....
Many of us have gone through the ranks, growing through film SLRs and eventually DSLRs.... Others have never worked in film at all, are only seeing photography as expressed through digital.....
However one's path has led, I'd say that in many cases it has been beneficial to have worked up through the ranks, but that's not at all a requirement. Someone who has only shot with a P&S camera could pick up a more sophisticated one, a DSLR, and do fantastically well from the get-go. Most of photography does not depend upon the tool used (ie, the camera) but upon the creative vision of the person handling and using that camera....
OTB
LOVE my D200!
Still getting used to the huge file sizes....
It's very responsive and quick, much more so than the D70 or D70s....
Got a LOT to learn yet with this camera! In many ways it feels the same in my hands as my D70 but it is oh, so different.....
OTB
Still getting used to the huge file sizes....
It's very responsive and quick, much more so than the D70 or D70s....
Got a LOT to learn yet with this camera! In many ways it feels the same in my hands as my D70 but it is oh, so different.....
OTB
The D200 and F100 look and feel a lot alike, with the F100 being a bit heavier. The F100 has been through a lot over the last six years and has remained in perfect shape. I have the same expectation of the D200.On the Brink said:
Some brief observations:
1. Built-in flash is quite impressive with nicely diffused light -- no undue hotspoting -- and able to illuminate a completely dark room without any problem.
2. RAW (NEF) images are soft by default and need to be post-processed. If you haven't got the time, the skill or the inclination to post-process, you may not get the best results. Bibble, Raw Shooter, Adobe Camera RAW, Nikon Capture, or Aperture are essential. Note that as of now I think only Nikon Capture (4.4) and Aperture support D200 NEFs. (Microsoft RAW for Windows is fully able to open and display D200 NEFs.)
3. Default JPEGs are also a bit soft. In fact, default settings produce neutral/flat images that may seem to disappoint. Capture settings have to be adjusted (still working on that) or the image has to be post-processed.
4. Received the vertical grip (MB-D200) two days ago. It's lightweight and sturdy, takes either a set of 6 AAs or two EN-EL3e rechargeables, and brings the D200 closer to the D2X.
5. May have found a bug that prevents the LCD from turning on after taking a shot. Have to toggle power to recover. If I can reproduce it I'll post the steps and send a message to Nikon.
6. Copying images off the camera with a USB 2.0 cable is very fast, as is saving RAW images to the flash card. Of course, I have an 80x CF card.
Am I happy with the D200? You bet. Did I know it was going to take time and effort to learn to use it properly? Of course. Am I the type who likes complicated things? Absolutely positively. (And I simply love BMW iDrive...what a godsend! No sarcasm here.)
On the Brink said:
Are you buying DX lenses because if you are they won't work on a full frame camera anyway.
DX lenses are smaller and lighter, and should be less expensive. Because I haven't completely given up on film (simply because Fuji Sensia and Provia are just that good...equivalent to about 20-24 megapixels) I will be staying with FF lenses for the time being with one possible exception: the new Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR-II DX.dogbone said:
May be time to trade in my Fuji S2 Pro. I choose the Fuji over the D100 (back when it was $2400) but the D200 looks very nice. Guess I'll wait a while. Never buy revision A Macs or Nikons!
The bug I mentioned in an earlier post might not be a bug. When batteries are weak, the camera does not let you turn on the LCD after taking a shot.
I've been using my new SB-800 flash all day with surprisingly good results, particularly when aiming the flash head behind (yes behind) the camera. Lighting, color, sharpness, contrast, etc. are extremely pleasing. My older SB-27 flash does not work with the D200, but the SB-800 works very well so far.
Nikon has taken a looong time to release the D200 and that time seems to have been very well spent. There will most likely be firmware updates in the coming months simply because there is so much software running on the thing, but I haven't found anything to complain about. Some Sigma HSM lenses do not work properly, but that's due to a firmware bug on the Sigma lens (Sigma will update the firmware for you).
Buying generation A is generally something a buyer should worry about, but I think Nikon has paid due diligence in ensuring the quality of the Rev A D200.
I've been using my new SB-800 flash all day with surprisingly good results, particularly when aiming the flash head behind (yes behind) the camera. Lighting, color, sharpness, contrast, etc. are extremely pleasing. My older SB-27 flash does not work with the D200, but the SB-800 works very well so far.
Nikon has taken a looong time to release the D200 and that time seems to have been very well spent. There will most likely be firmware updates in the coming months simply because there is so much software running on the thing, but I haven't found anything to complain about. Some Sigma HSM lenses do not work properly, but that's due to a firmware bug on the Sigma lens (Sigma will update the firmware for you).
Buying generation A is generally something a buyer should worry about, but I think Nikon has paid due diligence in ensuring the quality of the Rev A D200.
Lacero said:
The 1/250 flash sync speed is a bit of a downgrade from the D70/D70s. Bummer.
The DX-sized CCD is great. There are *NO* real-life advantages to "full frame" sensors (except maybe slightly lower noise levels). Get over it! I hope Nikon continues making DX-sized DLSR in the future, and the way they're going it looks like good news for me.
Oh, and yeah, the D200 should be a great semi-pro to pro DLSR. It has a few things that almost make it worth the extra $$$ over my D70s: AF-S/AF-C swicth, time-lapse, pro-style strap attachements (the D70 hangs like crap from the cheepo attachments it has), etc.
ksz said:
Yeah, the main advantage of standalone flash units after obvious greater power, is the ability to rotate the flash head. One should *never* shoot flash strait at the subject. Yuck!
And I agree ksz, the 18-200mm looks like a great "go everywhere" lens. It'll be great decicing between that and the 80-400 (I got the 18-70 with the D70). I guess all you need really is the 12-24 and the 80-400, but the 18-200 is a good starting point (and a lot cheaper
).Nearly 100% of the pictures I took today with the flash facing backwards are keepers. I am impressed by this simple trick. I have always bounced the flash in front of the camera, but never behind. The results I got today are marvelous.whocares said:
This lens is trickling into stores now. The few pictures and owner's impressions I have seen are very encouraging, but street price at the moment is above Nikon's suggested retail. It should return to normal after a few weeks which is when I will very like buy one.And I agree ksz, the 18-200mm looks like a great "go everywhere" lens. It'll be great decicing between that and the 80-400 (I got the 18-70 with the D70). I guess all you need really is the 12-24 and the 80-400, but the 18-200 is a good starting point (and a lot cheaper
whocares said:The DX-sized CCD is great. There are *NO* real-life advantages to "full frame" sensors (except maybe slightly lower noise levels). Get over it! I hope Nikon continues making DX-sized DLSR in the future, and the way they're going it looks like good news for me.
Simply to voice devil's advocate, there are plenty of other reasons why FF sensors are useful, although perhaps not better. A FF sensor will allow actual millimeters to transfer to digital, very VERY useful for any wide angle work. I'm not sure if Nikon has a 1.25/1.3 mag sensor (similar to Canon's 1.3x) but 1.5x takes a lot out of wide angle....
While I agree the current market prices for FF sensors do not justify their upsides to a consumer, there are certainly useful reasons to have/want a FF sensor on a digital camera. If someone else is footing the bill for all of the hardware, I'd spring for a FF whenever possible...just to have the option. Tele-converters are cheaper than most fast super-wides/super-teles, and given the choice I'd rather have the wides be wide and use a TC to lengthen my tele's a bit....but again, to each his/her own.
efoto said:
Agreed! However smaller sensors makes it easier to design lenses (especially ultrawide lenses) due to the smaller image circle required to fill the frame. And the mm you loose at one end, you gain at the other. I guess it's just a matter of preference...
(and Nikon only has 1.5x sensors across the line. I see this as an advantage because all lenses work the same - and are compatible, with all Nikon DSLR. But we're taking this thread way off topic...
)
whocares said:Agreed! However smaller sensors makes it easier to design lenses (especially ultrawide lenses) due to the smaller image circle required to fill the frame. And the mm you loose at one end, you gain at the other. I guess it's just a matter of preference...
(and Nikon only has 1.5x sensors across the line. I see this as an advantage because all lenses work the same - and are compatible, with all Nikon DSLR. But we're taking this thread way off topic...
I see that smaller sensors make lens design a bit easier in some regards, but if I could afford it I'd still go FF any day. Something about it just seems better, or nicer, or something....I just like it.
1.5x across the line is nice....but I don't think Canon's 1x, 1.3x, 1.6x is THAT confusing....since (I think) all of the EF lenses work on all three and EF-S lenses work on the .x (where x?0) lenses....but again, a bit off-topic and arguably a mute point.
efoto said:
Actually the 1.3x factor from Canon is the best compromise for 35mm film shooters IMO. For those of us that want ultra wide angle, but without the corners suffering, the 1.3x is a great compromise. For those that want FF at any cost, their 1x factor is there. For the rest the 1.6x will do the job well, even though for ultra wide angle views, a new lens is needed.