Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: eagl on January 02, 2006, 08:19:02 PM
-
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.
-
havent seen it up for sale yet anywere. Suposed to be a rocking camera though.
-
(http://aldus.ru/images/d50_main.jpg)
got this a week now and its awesome
unfortunaly picturehangar doesnt accept me anymore
-
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.
-
Wait about a year, it will come down in price. Great kits lense!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:aok
-
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.
:aok
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Pls dont say im gonna take kiddie shots this summer with my D50.
because i wanna take some nice pics of flying stuff than.
:cry
-
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.
-
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.
-
I still haven't seen any claims of image quality on the 1D being better than the 5D nuke. Not a single one. Pixels don't mean much when you're using a 4:1 CCD like some of the 8 Mpixel cameras where 70% of the image is calculated, but they do mean something if they are actually getting true resolution. You can see a physical difference in pictures that are cropped between the 6 Mp Nikon and the 8 Mp D20. My friend (with the D70s) and I have done several comparisons where we've taken pictures from pretty much identical locations and then gone home and cropped them severely (as is the case with birdy pics) only to find that mine get the edge on detail.
I've heard the same is true of the 5D vs the 20D and have not heard a whisper about the 1D getting better clarity than the 5D. Frame strength, frame rate, and maybe a few other things... but nothing revolving around image quality at all. The 5D rules the roost below $5k.
Though... between the D50, D70 and 20D we're looking $700, $900, $1500 (though I've seen the 20D on sale once for $1099). The real question is if it's worth the $200 to go with the D70 over the D50. IMO it is. The idea of buying a "starter camera" is great, but it equates to a $500 write off within a couple of years.
Though, once again, the D50 will do anything that pocket cameras can do (except fit in your pocket) and it will do it better.
-
I got the camera for 599 euros.
it seems when u look very deep in the pic the D70 got a slight edge in crispness
but the D50 beats it in noise, there seems less noise when shooting nightshots.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I still haven't seen any claims of image quality on the 1D being better than the 5D nuke. Not a single one. Pixels don't mean much when you're using a 4:1 CCD like some of the 8 Mpixel cameras where 70% of the image is calculated, but they do mean something if they are actually getting true resolution. You can see a physical difference in pictures that are cropped between the 6 Mp Nikon and the 8 Mp D20. My friend (with the D70s) and I have done several comparisons where we've taken pictures from pretty much identical locations and then gone home and cropped them severely (as is the case with birdy pics) only to find that mine get the edge on detail.
I've heard the same is true of the 5D vs the 20D and have not heard a whisper about the 1D getting better clarity than the 5D. Frame strength, frame rate, and maybe a few other things... but nothing revolving around image quality at all. The 5D rules the roost below $5k.
Though... between the D50, D70 and 20D we're looking $700, $900, $1500 (though I've seen the 20D on sale once for $1099). The real question is if it's worth the $200 to go with the D70 over the D50. IMO it is. The idea of buying a "starter camera" is great, but it equates to a $500 write off within a couple of years.
Though, once again, the D50 will do anything that pocket cameras can do (except fit in your pocket) and it will do it better.
I'm not trying to be anal about it.... what you are saying is true. I have not seen how the 1D has any better image quality than the 5D either. That's one reason why I would go with the 1D. The 1D is weather sealed, the 5D is not. The 1D also accepts more Canon lenses, has a much higher burst rate and more. The 1D is just a better camera.
I have been reading some Canon forums. The people who have 1D's pretty much will not "upgrade" to the 5D, for many reasons.
Actually, since I have a pretty good camera and some great lenses, I will probably wait to see what Canon comes up with this year before upgrading. I'm not a pro, but I print large format images of my company's work. I need to shoot wide angle shots more often than not, so a 1:1 is of interest.
Also, you can order a 20D without the lens for 999.00. I bought mine with the lens and that was stupid, since the lens that comes with it is worth about $50.00 and is pretty much just a throw away.
What camera do you have? I seem to remember a Nikon.
Like someone said, post processing is a factor too. I shoot in RAW and have Photoshop CS. There is a lot of control over the image.
-
I have a 20D and a 300D.
I don't know of anyone that would trade a 1D in on a 5D either... but in converse, I don't know of anyone that wishes they'd bought a 1D instead of a 5D. There are tradeoffs... 1:1 and 12mpixel means you're getting better images with the 20D. This is fundamental and not subjective. The non-image edge definately goes to the 1D.
I'm not eyeballing the 5D nor 1D right now. They just aren't enough of a bump over my 20D. I'm interested in seeing what the 30D has to offer, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to end up with a 1:1 sensor if I'm going to upgrade.
-
The comparison shouldn't be between the D50/D70 and 20D anymore... The D200 is the Nikon to compare to the Canon 20D and whatever replaces the 20D in the next few months.
I'm eager to see a good matchup especially after nikon figures out the banding problem with the D200s.
For most people though, the fact that you can get a D50 plus a very good lense and flash for the price of just the 20D or D200 body, makes the D50 a better option.
-
I think comparing the 20D to the D200 is like comparing the D70 to the 20D. Canon does have a better camera out there, but the D200 does an excellent job of filling the gap at a relatively excellent price.
-
I am just a Canon guy. In highschool, I had a Canon AE-1 and a my own dark room (black &white) at home.
I am biased towards Canon, but for good reasons. Nikon seems like they are always second.
-
That depends on what sites u read about it nikon is a pure camera builder no commercials.
I gues both are top notch.
But im very statisfied with nikon well im just a green guy.
But i like to go out and play with my new baby.
I went out at dark in the middle of the woods.
This time i got a camera mount with me got it on P with iso 400
standard lens.
This camera sees far more stars than i did and more after downloading the photos i retouched em with D-Lighting and the results are amazing(to me).
Here some of the JPEGS i made
Im very statisfied with my low entry dslr the low entry canons just look to plastic to me and they are a bit to small in ur hands i also like that lcd display on top better.
And of course the black colour.
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/BUG322/DSC_0018.jpg)
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/BUG322/DSC_0010.jpg)
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/BUG322/DSC_0021.jpg)
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/BUG322/DSC_0019.jpg)
only with the city shot i didnt do D-lighting
the star shots where much darker the d- lighting gives it a bit dough.
hell last shot from raw to jpeg and no d- lighting just original
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/BUG322/DSC_0022.jpg)
-
Those pics are pretty nice. Looks like you're off and running :)
-
I have a degree in photography but have not been able to afford a digital SLR. I did a lot of research before I bought my second digital pocket camera (Canon S400). It’s been a great camera and still works, but I really miss the control that I had with my Minolta 35mm equipment. I always considered Nikon top notch and Canon a slight step down and Minolta and Olympus a step down from Canon. With digital I’ve got the impression that Canon has slightly surpassed Nikon in quality, but that’s just based on hunch from reading. I’m not loyal to any brand, but would like a basic level digital SLR. I’ve only been looking a Canon stuff and just can’t bring myself to pay more for a camera and lens than I did for my car. Does Nikon or any other brands offer a decent basic SLR that is closer to $600 than the Rebel XT?
Also, what is RAW? I know that it basically has not been processed by the camera, but is it a JPEG or BMP or?
Lastly, I think that I’ll probably end up getting a Canon S80. $440 is still stretching my means and it has some awesome movie modes to boot. Anyone ever had or used the S80?
I was looking at MiniDV camcorders and came to the conclusion that their 320 x 480 resolutions suck too much when you consider that for the same price you can get a pocket camera that can take 640 x 480 (and some even 1024 x 768) resolution clips. They fill up cards pretty quickly but I wouldn’t shoot more than a couple of minutes at a time anyway. Any believers on this theory?
-
Cool how that bottom pic in bug's post shows Betelgeuse in a different color. Very nice.
-
eskimo,
Bug's D50 looks pretty sweet. Might want to see if you can fit that into your budget. Get the kit with lense now, and buy a better lense when you can afford it.
As for camcorders, I'd wait. There are already a couple HD camcorders on the market but they cost over $1500. That should drop in the next year or so, and they should just keep getting better and better.
RAW formats are proprietary formats that have zero compression and extra information in the image format, such as camera settings. Each manufacturer deliberately makes their formats incompatible from the others so you are forced to use their software or software made by companies that pay royalty fees so they can use the format.
For example, Nikon cameras come with image editing software that works with their RAW image formats, but the software is somewhat limited and not super easy to use. Of course, Nikon will happily sell you their improved image editing software for more money. Or you can buy something like adobe photoshop for hundreds of dollars, because adobe pays nikon a fee for the rights to use nikon's RAW format. Adobe pays pretty much every camera manufacturer a fee so photoshop can work with almost any image type taken from any camera. That's one reason why photoshop costs so much.
Yea, it's a conspiracy but from what I've seen, professional photographers are too defensive and proud of the gear they use, so they'll never band together and force the camera companies to come up with a single standard RAW format. The companies make more money that way and if the customers don't make it worth it to set a standard, they'll keep gouging the customers with the proprietary formats. Of course, they market their own incompatible (and copyrighted/patented) standards as "features", but it's really just a way to get more money out of us.
Heck, it seems like the pro photographers WANT to get gouged, because it makes them feel like they're getting the best. All the non-pros use the standard software that comes with the camera, but a REAL PRO spends the money for the premium software. Seems stupid to me, but then my life doesn't depend on me selling photos on the basis that they're better than everyone elses so I don't have to try to convince anyone that I'm some 1337 camera-dude by spending money for no reason other than the camera manufacturer tweaked the RAW format again and my older perfectly good software, doesn't work anymore.
-
RAW format contains a lot of the camera's settings. For example, Canon's RAW information contains exposure, white balance, saturation, curves, contrast, temperature, sharpness, luminance, chromatic abberation, vignetting, camera profiles, and more.
It's compatible with Photoshop CS.
Basically, you can adjust most of the camera's original shot settings after the fact in post production.
-
Close on the RAWs eagl... but not quite.
They are uncompressed images broken down in 3 colors (on the canons at least). They also contain a bit of historisis in that you can adjust the exposure within reason after the image is taken. They are about 17meg files for a 6mpixel camera.
On the Canon, at least, all of the images are saved with the photo conditions.
Save this photo and click on properties/summary/advanced for an example (http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com/images/MiniD/2005-09-09-1430-1690.jpg)
Of course, the editor you use might strip them, but photoshop does not. Also, with Canon, the RAWS are importable into photoshop (Need CS2 for the D5 though).
-
Also, there are specialized RAW conversion/editing software available, such as RawShooter (http://www.pixmantec.com/) Essentials and Premium. I've been using the Premium for a couple of months and it does the basic image manipulation (white balance, exposure comp, curves, noise reduction and sharpening) pretty well. Also, the Essentials is free.
With RAW you can get most out of the camera, since it is possible to recover many shots that would have been underexposed or way off the white balance if shot with JPG. Downside is, that for example the newest Canon RAWs (350D, 5D) are supported only by a few applications.
I was looking at MiniDV camcorders and came to the conclusion that their 320 x 480 resolutions suck too much when you consider that for the same price you can get a pocket camera that can take 640 x 480 (and some even 1024 x 768) resolution clips. They fill up cards pretty quickly but I wouldn’t shoot more than a couple of minutes at a time anyway. Any believers on this theory?
Sanyo is bringing out HD1 (http://www.sanyodigital.com/HD1/), which records 1280x720 video and has 5.1 mpix still camera. That seems to be an interesting combined device, price was quoted to be $799.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Wait about a year, it will come down in price. Great kits lense!
$1250.00. :) Got it right before vacation with a new Lowepro Super trekker 2 camera backpack. Now I can get all 3 D-SLR's and all my lenses, tripods, monopods, gear into one bag, albeit heavier than a MF.
Woot!
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/256445597.jpg)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/256445606.jpg)
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/259173898.jpg)
-
Originally posted by eagl
The comparison shouldn't be between the D50/D70 and 20D anymore... The D200 is the Nikon to compare to the Canon 20D and whatever replaces the 20D in the next few months.
I'm eager to see a good matchup especially after nikon figures out the banding problem with the D200s.
For most people though, the fact that you can get a D50 plus a very good lense and flash for the price of just the 20D or D200 body, makes the D50 a better option.
Get D80 and 18-200 VR2, thats more then you need add SB 800 or SB 600 and you are good for another 5 years, of course if you like nikon.
D50 is really starter camera(too much limitations), D70s is better (both are too old now)
Forget about D40 and D40x unless you look for compact DSLR. D40x got nice 10.2 MP sensor, but its more point and shoot to me.
you should consider 30D is in your price range, nice camera, very comfortable in use, fit perfect and canon make stabilized lens for it.
there is rule, get best lens you can afford and second body from the line
Im under process of choosing next camera, D200 is too expencive
So im thinking 30D or D80 if ii have more money i will choose 30D, if less D80
One worry, 30D design is almost 3 years old.
RIps , i think you could do better pictures of your equipment, shame on you
-
and btw, DON'T buy tamron lenses, stick to Nikon, Canon or sigma
-
Originally posted by ramzey
RIps , i think you could do better pictures of your equipment, shame on you
What can I say, I used the wifes S40 :D
I think your decision of Nikon or Canon should be based on what lenses you currently have. If you have neither, then it really doesn't matter where you start. I've heard that Nikon lenses will run slightly more than Canon, but I don't know that first hand. You can't go wrong with either one.
Oh, and I have to agree with Tamron. Besides, if you ever upgrade your lenses, the resale value is very good for Canon and Nikon products.
-
Drop check...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/drop-test.htm