I miss that, thanks. I'm glad he has good glass. But since it's a crop lens, I think it's one more reason to stick to a crop body. Otherwise he'd have to get a new (good) lens with the full frame body.
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.
Which Nikon DSLR to replace a D200?
- Thread starter sim667
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He wouldn't exactly have to get a new lens -- just use his 17-55 in crop mode. Which would sort of defeat the purpose of getting a full frame.
You WILL hav to replace that 18-55 lens if you go with an FX size sensors. None of your DX lenses will work.
One question, what specifically is wrong with the images from the D200. 10MB is more than will fat on any electronic screen. Are you making large prints?
The reason I ask for specific problems with the D200 is that you don't want to get a replacement that has the same problem or that lacks something the D200 has that you need. For example the D200 can use all of Nikon's older lenses. If you don't have any, that is no problem.
If you only lens is that one 18-55, I think you budget is better spent on upgrading the lens. In any case you will have to do that if you move to FX.
I think the D610 is Nikon's lowest price FX sensor camera body. 'd say if yu are going to spend $2K to swap dSLR bodies you have to able to know that your images will improve.
One thing to look at is video. More and more people are getting into SLR film making. If you think you might get interested is video then you have a good reason to upgrade as the D200 does not to video at all.
if you have a D200 with just a 18-55 then just go buy a 50mm f/1.8 G lens for like $200. You WILL NOTICE a difference in the images when you see them on a computer monitor. But I doubt most people would see difference between D610 vs. D200 on a computer monitor.
One question, what specifically is wrong with the images from the D200. 10MB is more than will fat on any electronic screen. Are you making large prints?
The reason I ask for specific problems with the D200 is that you don't want to get a replacement that has the same problem or that lacks something the D200 has that you need. For example the D200 can use all of Nikon's older lenses. If you don't have any, that is no problem.
If you only lens is that one 18-55, I think you budget is better spent on upgrading the lens. In any case you will have to do that if you move to FX.
I think the D610 is Nikon's lowest price FX sensor camera body. 'd say if yu are going to spend $2K to swap dSLR bodies you have to able to know that your images will improve.
One thing to look at is video. More and more people are getting into SLR film making. If you think you might get interested is video then you have a good reason to upgrade as the D200 does not to video at all.
if you have a D200 with just a 18-55 then just go buy a 50mm f/1.8 G lens for like $200. You WILL NOTICE a difference in the images when you see them on a computer monitor. But I doubt most people would see difference between D610 vs. D200 on a computer monitor.
Like you wrote, getting a full frame body to just use it with a crop lens is a waste. That's why I wrote the OP has to get a new lens even though technically, he doesn't.
Hmm, I'll have to look into that. I bought my D600 back in September and I'm having "the issue", so I'm cleaning the sensor pretty regularly. If getting the sensor replaced so that I don't have the problem is an option then I need to do that.
This is simply not true. End of story.
The Nikon D600/610/800 FX cameras (and possibly others, you'd need to check) have a DX crop mode which crops the sensor to the size of a DX sensor - you have a reduction in resolution due to the crop and the 1.5x focal length shift associated with DX lenses, but the DX lenses do work exactly as they would on a DX sensor camera.
One thing that is rarely mentioned when choosing to go to a larger sensor or not is the aesthetic difference in the resulting images. A larger sensor allows for a shallower depth of field for the same given focal length - obviously not always a bonus for landscape photographers! Far more in depth info can be found here (note the article talks about Nikon DSLRs as if they all have crop sensors, which at one point they did - obviously this isn't the case now).
----------
I doubt the actual sensor was replaced - this is an operation that is often far more expensive than buying a new camera. The person may have had a new shutter fitted or simply a professional clean of the sensor.
The D610 has the same sensor as the D600, but the shutter mechanism has been changed to solve the dust issue. For all changes between the 600 and 610, check here.
The point is I couldn't afford to get FX lenses right away, but could buy them as I save more money
However Im starting to think maybe I should trade my lens in against a d800 kit with a nice similar lens (ideally I'd like a 17-55mm f2.8 replacement).....
If I do that I might as well trade my D200 body in too, as I dont want to be buying separate lenses for seperate cameras, so it would be a bit of a pain.....
But longetivity wise maybe I should just go for a decent D800 kit, I can get it interest free if I play with me credit cards.
----------
It is indeed Hove, I live just by gatwick airport and have a lot of freinds in brighton, hove and shoreham
However Im starting to think maybe I should trade my lens in against a d800 kit with a nice similar lens (ideally I'd like a 17-55mm f2.8 replacement).....
If I do that I might as well trade my D200 body in too, as I dont want to be buying separate lenses for seperate cameras, so it would be a bit of a pain.....
But longetivity wise maybe I should just go for a decent D800 kit, I can get it interest free if I play with me credit cards.
----------
It is indeed Hove, I live just by gatwick airport and have a lot of freinds in brighton, hove and shoreham
Nikon £160 off offer until Jan 26th, Park Cameras nearly on your doorstep at Burgess Hill, you have your credit card in hand - what are you waiting for
Amazon has the D800 for a hundred quid less (and then the Nikon £160 offer off as well), but Park Cameras should price match...
The price is pretty much as good as it ever has been.
Whatever you choose to do, keep enjoying photography
Nikon £160 off offer until Jan 26th, Park Cameras nearly on your doorstep at Burgess Hill, you have your credit card in hand - what are you waiting for
Amazon has the D800 for a hundred quid less (and then the Nikon £160 offer off as well), but Park Cameras should price match...
The price is pretty much as good as it ever has been.
Whatever you choose to do, keep enjoying photography
Im just balking at paying £2000 for a camera, when the only money I actually make from photography jobs is a bit of pocket money (that said I teach and technician photography full time). I've worked out that after cashback it would cost me £2674 and at the top end of the ball park figures park would offer me for me lens and d200 body, I could knock off an extra £400.
^scrub that, Ive just realised the 7100 isn't a full frame.
I need to get a new pin number for my credit card anyway.
I can see how it's a difficult decision. I think you've estimated the price of your D200 pretty well, I sold mine (in good condition, body only and a spare battery) on eBay last summer and got £155 for it, so body plus lens may get you £400 depending on the lens. It's certainly a lot of money going up to a Nikon FX camera and beyond...
Ive actually got a battery grip and two batteries also. Ive just noticed that LCE are doing £200 extra on trade ins, so I've got them investigating whether that covers a D200 (doubtful).
My mecablitz af 58-1 I dont think ill trade in either, as its a perfectly good flash, I think what ever I buy next will be just fine with it.
Sad day when I'm thinking about selling my D200, its been all over the world with me
Wow. We must have been separated at birth. Exactly the same camera progression for me, and I'm agreement with your comments.
Best candidates look like the 610 or 800, though the 800 might be overkill, for me, in terms of pixels. I'm sure I'll get excited when I finally open a box and see some shiny new hardware...
Ever wish you had twice as much lens as you have mounted? If not, go small, otherwise, you'll find the cropping potential of the higher-resolution bodies worth a new lens. You'll easily be able to do publishable/saleable shots of 30% of the frame printed out to up to 13x19 or so.
Paul
All Nikon digital FX bodies will shoot all Nikon and 3rd party DX lenses. You have two options- One, shoot in FX mode and crop manually to fit the image circle if it doesn't cover the FX sensor in normal mode (some zooms do at some focal lengths.) Two, shoot in auto DX crop mode, and have the camera produce a DX sized file from the center of the camera.
With a high-resolution FX body, you'll get nearly the equivalent of most of Nikon's DX cameras images. For instance, auto-DX mode on the 24.5MP D3x produces a 10.5MP image and I have a very difficult time perceiving differences between that and my 12.4MP D2x images in terms of actual resolution in the file when pixel peeping.
All of the bodies being discussed have the same F-mount backwards compatibility matrix, as only some of the DX bodies at the low end add in extra Pre-AI lens compatibility.
Paul
----------
Honestly, with the shortening availability of nice emulsions in the film world, as well as the time and expense of development you should really ask yourself if you could be better-served going with a D800 if you shot more with that platform. When I last looked at shooting MF, and did all the "haul it all around" calculations, I ended up with a D3x instead- your priorities may be different- I'm mostly trying to get into galleries these days where choice of image is way more important than choice of equipment once you reach their "good enough for me to sell" threshold. I still haul 20-45lbs of gear when I go shooting, but with way more versatility and the option to easily do things like panoramas, focus stacks, exposure stacks, etc.
Paul
You need to bear in mind that I run a dark room for my day job, so developing and getting film is what I do day to day.
Whats really selling me on the D800 is that people are saying you get the quality of a medium format, and I'm all about quality.
You have many primes in Nikon?
If you do, get the Nikon D600 or D610.
If you dont have Nikon lenses, move to Canon and get the 6D. And if you have lot's of money, get the 5D mark III.
Just a quick reference:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d610.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/6d.htm
My father is pro photographer, and He is and always have been Nikon (D200, D300, D800 and now D610). And the D610 is a really good camera (1.5 years newer than the D800).
Anyway, my 6D regularly get's better results.
The photographer is not the camera.
If you do, get the Nikon D600 or D610.
If you dont have Nikon lenses, move to Canon and get the 6D. And if you have lot's of money, get the 5D mark III.
Just a quick reference:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d610.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/6d.htm
My father is pro photographer, and He is and always have been Nikon (D200, D300, D800 and now D610). And the D610 is a really good camera (1.5 years newer than the D800).
Anyway, my 6D regularly get's better results.
The photographer is not the camera.
It reads like a mental type to me (it should read »at equivalent focal length«). In any case, that's an advantage of a camera with full frame sensor and the only reason a tiny part of me wishes I had one, too.
The 24-70mm f/2,8 is a great lens but a bit pricy. If you don't want to spend that much money there's also the 24-120mm f/4G ED VR. I don't think you can find it in a kit.
Before I dumped film in the late 90's, I had my own dark room at home, and processed my own 35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 and 5x7 color slides and B&W print film and printed my print film and color Ilfochromes, so while I wasn't forced to do it as a job, I was actually processing a fair amount of film- admittedly a bit more tediously than doing it in a lab.
It's not quite the quality of if you're comparing MF digital to the D800 at least up to ISO400- it's very good, but really not quite there. If you have to shoot at ISO800+ then it's a winner, outside of that, it's probably competitive with 645, but going above that is going to be difficult to beat with a small-grained film emulsion. Even 645 film is probably going to look better side-by-side for color and tonal graduation- so the real question is will the D800 shots be "good enough," and is the difference worth the convenience? If you're developing film anyway, it may not be for you- for me, it was hands-down, the only real question for me was would a refurb Hassy digital be a better deal? Ultimately, I just couldn't see trying to shoot much wildlife on MF anymore because I don't have easy access to a spot where birds are accustomed enough to people to be able to shoot them with even a 645. If I'd been shooting more product at the time, I'd probably have done the Hassy refurb sale thing instead.
Paul
I really like shallow depth of field, really I'd like an f1 or a 1.4 .. but 2.8 will have to do
I really like shallow depth of field, really I'd like an f1 or a 1.4 .. but 2.8 will have to do
I wonder if you could focus stack but process for narrower DoF instead of wider? Might be worth trying one of the focus stacking tools to see.
Paul
You can always go with a prime lens to fit your need for f/2.8. And use the kit lens for your other needs. 24-85mm kit lens you can find used.
The D600/D610 and D7000/D7100 are really close. That's another option if you are dealing with a tight budget. D300s is still great camera. D300 is nice too but will be hard to find with low actuations.
www.fredmiranda.com
The D600/D610 and D7000/D7100 are really close. That's another option if you are dealing with a tight budget. D300s is still great camera. D300 is nice too but will be hard to find with low actuations.
www.fredmiranda.com