Nikon D200 anyone?

[eagl]

Anyone see or use the new Nikon D200?  It's new and was released with a new 18-200mm nikon lense with vibration reduction.

Pricy, but... wow.  Anyone actually see one of these?  The camera body itself is about $1600-$1700, but I haven't seen a price on that particular lense yet.  It probably costs at least as much as the camera, but I haven't seen it on sale anywhere.

[Pongo]

havent seen it up for sale yet anywere. Suposed to be a rocking camera though.

[BUG_EAF322]

got this a week now and its awesome
unfortunaly picturehangar doesnt accept me anymore

[Mini D]

A friend I go out birding with has one on pre-order. I'll get to take a look at the camera next week. From the sound of things, it's the beats the $1400 20D pretty solidly... though we're talking the "top of the line" features on both of these cameras. The 5D still stomps the crap out of both of them, but it's $3k.

[Ripsnort]

Wait about a year, it will come down in price. Great kits  lense!

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Mini D
A friend I go out birding with has one on pre-order. I'll get to take a look at the camera next week. From the sound of things, it's the beats the $1400 20D pretty solidly... though we're talking the "top of the line" features on both of these cameras. The 5D still stomps the crap out of both of them, but it's $3k.

The 5d doesn't really stomp the 20d that badly. It does have a full sized sensor, but it also has slower frames per second.

The 1D is the top of the line Canon.

[Mini D]

It's a 1:1 sensor and it's 12 megapixel. It stomps it as much as the high end cameras can "stomp" each other. I've not heard that the 1D ($4k) is better than the 5D in anything except for burst capability (8 fps). It's hard to argue with 12 megapixels and the 1:1 sensor (1D has 8.3 megapixels and a 1.3:1 sensor).

The truth, as stated in the D50 thread, is that there isn't really much of a difference from the low end D50 all the way to the top end 5D in the grand scheme of things. You can create conditions where features would matter, but for the most part most people aren't going to really need them and would be better off spending the extra $$$ on decent lenses.

[eagl]

Agreed on the narrow range of features available across a huge price band.

Unfortunately, the D200 has a few features I really want, like the all-metal environmentally sealed case.  It doesn't have some features I would like such as the consumer-oriented "scene" presets that help give the auto settings some bias regarding shutter speed, depth of field, color balance, etc., but I figure if the camera doesn't offer the presets then I better learn more about how to use the camera.

It's not like a film camera where simply learning what settings do what can cost thousands of dollars in wasted shots.  Taking a few thousand practice shots with various settings using a digital camera costs nothing but time, and IMHO it'll be time worth spending if it teaches me how to be a better photographer.

But yea, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the D50 and D70...  The metal case is just one of the reasons why I think I'll hold out for the D200.  As for the Canon 5D and 1D, I just can't justify that.  For the price of just the 5D body, I can get a D200 and a pretty nice lense.  I can't quite get a D50 or D70 plus a premium lense for the cost of a D200 body, so my mental midget math tells me that the sweet spot is the D200  At least that's what I say to justify it to myself.  

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by eagl
Agreed on the narrow range of features available across a huge price band.

Unfortunately, the D200 has a few features I really want, like the all-metal environmentally sealed case.  It doesn't have some features I would like such as the consumer-oriented "scene" presets that help give the auto settings some bias regarding shutter speed, depth of field, color balance, etc., but I figure if the camera doesn't offer the presets then I better learn more about how to use the camera.

It's not like a film camera where simply learning what settings do what can cost thousands of dollars in wasted shots.  Taking a few thousand practice shots with various settings using a digital camera costs nothing but time, and IMHO it'll be time worth spending if it teaches me how to be a better photographer.

But yea, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the D50 and D70...  The metal case is just one of the reasons why I think I'll hold out for the D200.  As for the Canon 5D and 1D, I just can't justify that.  For the price of just the 5D body, I can get a D200 and a pretty nice lense.  I can't quite get a D50 or D70 plus a premium lense for the cost of a D200 body, so my mental midget math tells me that the sweet spot is the D200 At least that's what I say to justify it to myself.  

And that's what its all about, what makes you comfortable and happy.

The very worst thing you can do is under-size yourself for a camera. I learned the hard way when I bought a Canon G6 in Dec. 2004   Then I started shooting football in August 2005 and realized I was outta my league and out $700 for the money I'd wasted on the G6.  I had to go full SLR and should have gone full SLR to begin with when I made the full committment to go digital.  I have alot of 35mm Pentax stuff lying around gathering dust since going digital.

Very happy with my Nikon SLR digital camera (D70s). Still have my 2 Canons (S40 and G6) and the wife and kids like to use them.

[jigsaw]

Originally posted by eagl
Anyone see or use the new Nikon D200?  It's new and was released with a new 18-200mm nikon lense with vibration reduction.
 

Lot of D200 info here  http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/7

While returning some rental gear recently, the store manager handed a D200 to me. Had a nice feel to it.  Weather seals are the same as a D2X.
I was in a hurry, so I didn't take any shots with it.

If you're tight on cash for good lenses, start off with a Nikon 50mm 1.8. They run under $100 and are very versatile.

[eagl]

FYI, there are many reports about nasty vertical banding with the D200.  They're mostly visible in dark areas of pics that have over-exposed areas, but even something as benign as a portrait with a window somewhere in the background can cause banding artifiacts to show up in the hair or other dark areas of the photo.

There are also reports that Nikon considers this to be a defect and wants those cameras returned for repair, however it seems like a high percentage of D200 owners report seeing the banding to one degree or another.

On a better note, the new nikon 18-200 DX lense with vibration reduction appears to be a great multi-purpose lense.  It costs almost $800 but makes a good carry-around lense.

I think I'll wait to see if the D200 banding issue is resolved.  If not, I might just go for a D50 or D70 and get that new lense to go with it.  I just don't want to get a D50 or D70, try to take aviation theme photos, and be disappointed with the image sharpness.  I've seen some really nice photos taken by AH forum members in here, but a professional photographer I know here in the UK has shown me what those pics *should* look like when a really good setup is used...  Wow, night and day.  Yea the D50 and D70 take nice pics, but they're kiddie-pics compared to the shots he takes with his own professional gear.

I don't want to spend $5000-$7000 on a camera body but I also want to be able to get decent sharpness out of aviation pics.  Shooting aircraft is pretty demanding so I figure I'll shoot for the mid-range like the D200.  The Canon 5D is just a touch out of my range, and the 20D doesn't seem any better than the D50 or D70.

Of course, I'm heading to Korea for a year and might be able to find a good deal while I'm there.  I don't want a gray or black market camera but maybe I'll find a legit camera shop that also has decent prices.

[Mini D]

The 20D is a better camera than the D50 or D70. There really isn't much to debate there. The only thing the Nikon may have the advantage in is in flash control. Everything else goes to the 20D hands down. Of course... that's as hands down as stating the 3.5GHz chip is better than the 3.2GHz chip hands down.

[BUG_EAF322]

Pls dont say im gonna take kiddie shots this summer with my D50.
because i wanna take some nice pics of flying stuff than.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Mini D
It's a 1:1 sensor and it's 12 megapixel. It stomps it as much as the high end cameras can "stomp" each other. I've not heard that the 1D ($4k) is better than the 5D in anything except for burst capability (8 fps). It's hard to argue with 12 megapixels and the 1:1 sensor (1D has 8.3 megapixels and a 1.3:1 sensor).

The truth, as stated in the D50 thread, is that there isn't really much of a difference from the low end D50 all the way to the top end 5D in the grand scheme of things. You can create conditions where features would matter, but for the most part most people aren't going to really need them and would be better off spending the extra $$$ on decent lenses.

The 1D is still Canon's top of the line. The 1D is a "pro" camera, weather sealed. Megapixels are not really that great of a measurement of picture quality, after a certain level. More pixels also can mean more noise.

Still, I agree that these cameras in the top end are pretty much all good. The 1:1 sensor is a huge thing to consider, but not the only thing.

I saw some comparison pics between the 20D and the 5D, with side by side color, noise and resolution sample pics. The 5D was better, no question.

If I were to purchase a camera right now, I'd upgrade to the 1D, otherwise I would stick with my 20D over the others.

[eagl]

Bug,

You're going to get great photos as long as you use the camera right and have a good lense.  Unfortunately, if a pro photographer stood next to you and took the exact same shots with a Canon 1D or other pro camera (we're talking $7000+ cameras here), it would be clear which camera took better and sharper pictures.  It's like going from a $40k corvette (50D) to a $500k competition model porsche.  Yea the corvette is a nice car with great performance, but it's not gonna win in a real race.

That said, only someone selling their photos or an absolute perfectionist would ever really care.  Plus if you shoot in RAW format, post processing using software can dramatically improve image quality.  One big place you'll want to use post processing is chromatic abberation and fringing.  Almost all digital cameras show a purple fringe on line edges in certain circumstances.  Better cameras and better lenses have less of a problem, but they all still have fringing.  It's something you have to live with when you use a digital camera.  The good news is that you can eliminate the fringing in software by post processing.

So basically take a bazilion shots, and the ones you like, spend an hour touching them up on your computer before printing/cropping/enlarging/whatever.  That's the same whether it's a D50 or 1D.

If I needed a camera NOW, I'd probably get the D50.  It's more than good enough, is priced pretty well, and it would be a great tool to learn how to use DSLR cameras.  Then if I decided if I wanted to make a step up to a better Nikon, I could keep the lense and buy a better body like the D200 or one of their pro cameras.  But I couldn't get much use from it right now so I'm going to wait a bit I think.  Maybe they'll fix the problem with the D200 and once it's been on the market a bit, maybe the price will come down a bit too.  I read that Canon's 20D replacement is due out 2Q 2006, and that will undoubtedly give the Nikon D200 some competition.