Anybody tried the Nikon D200?
| | Post Reply |
01-02-2006, 8:21 PM
| #2 |
| Prominent Member  |
I got one just before Xmas (paid £1199 from AJ Purdy) and it's an absolute beast. Ultra well-built, image quality to die for, CAM1000 is excellent, 5fps RAW burst rate, three kings selection, double scroll wheels, fantastic LCD, huge viewfinder. I just love it. I've since bought a battery grip for it (makes it even better), and a Nikkor 70-200mm VR. Took these with it and the Sigma 30mm    |
| Quote |
|
04-02-2006, 6:58 PM
| #7 |
| Senior Member |
yeah thats one of the beauties of the nikon, so much cheaper! yeah it doesnt have full frame but cant say im overly fussed about that... still gonna have to wait till next year though  |
| Quote |
|
07-02-2006, 2:04 PM
| #8 | |
| Member  | Quote:
 .Without the full frame sensor the D200 cannot realistically compete with the 5D and it is priced far too low to do so. My 5D came in at £1,800 for body only and the 5d is 12Mp rather than 10. I would guess that they are tring to push in another stage just above the 20D but still on the aps sensor size. The 20D has been around for a while and if / when Canon get around to bringing out a replacement I would expect it to be much closer to the D200's specs. RB | |
| Quote |
|
07-02-2006, 2:09 PM
| #9 | |
| Prominent Member | Quote:
| |
| Quote |
|
07-02-2006, 3:06 PM
| #12 | |
| Member | Quote:
I am not sure they have overpriced it. It seems like a pretty good policy from Canons point of view. Half the price of the 1dmk2 and twice the price of the 20D. Seems to fill a center point between to two with better specs than the cut down 1dmk2's. Wireless flash is def a bonus. Don't get me wrong, for what it is I think it is very good but for me the comparison just doesn't stand against the 5D. They are both intended for different markets and tasks. Like comparing a mini and a lotus. The mini is great and just what some people want. The lotus is for someone who wants something a little different for other uses. They are both very good for what they are designed for but it is hard to directly compare. If I were to choose to buy again now then I would still go for the 5D just because it offers me what the D200 cannot. If that was not a requirement and I didn't have a number of Canon lenses then I would have probably have gone for the D200. Horses for courses.........  RB | |
| Quote |
|
07-02-2006, 10:15 PM
| #13 |
| Moderator |
RB, For the ("younger" ie non 5 D  ) Canons DSLrs, using the Speedlite 580 Flash gun does act as a master ( and slave) for wireless flash photography ( does it not ?) .I am saving up for one. I saw wireless flash and transfer of images ( to a remote "server") at Eurodisney via the D70 Do you know how this is achieved?However I would be interseted in your comments on This Article in the light of your preference for full or almost full frame sensors. I am also curious as to why for digital a full frame ( 1Dmk 2 ) is considered almost equivalent to the medium format film cameras which seem to be getting extinct . Lastly reggarding the pixel count isnt everything debate ,If 2 cameras have near identical lenses and image processing surely a few more captured pixels is desireable. Last edited by senu; 07-02-2006 at 10:19 PM. |
| Quote |
|
08-02-2006, 9:20 AM
| #15 | |
| Member | Quote:
Yes as Richard has said the 580EX works as a master flash and will trigger slaves if connected directly to the camera. This can be in the cameras hot shoe or via an offboard adaptor and a PC cable. Having a 580 and a couple of 430s makes a pretty portable (if battery hungry) flash setup. I use studio flash and have contented myself with the PC link but have been playing with the idea of a wireless trigger as the cable can be a PITA sometimes. The wire is also not the best fit on the camera end. The options I have looked at are the 580EX but after buying the 420EX it seemed a large amount of money for a lot of stuff I really am not going to be using. There is the infared remote trigger but again it seems very expensive for what is just an infrared flash or a wireless (radio) trigger which sounds the best option although I already have a wireless network at home and a set of video senders and fear that they are all going to start causing problems for each other (mind you I am unlikely to be using the internet and watching tv in the back room while taking photos ).I would guess that the D70 wireless transfer is via WiFi. There is an adapter for Canon cameras but the cost is higher than that of buying a laptop. Stupid money for what is essentially a Wifi adapter and inbedded file server. i believe some of the new Nikkon cameras have this function built in now but I could be wrong as I don't usually read up on them. I think Canon have really blown a chance here. Even some of the compacts have the function. I really have not ventured into the realms of medum format cameras as it is the lack of external processing and wastage for digital that has attracted me. SLR's tend to be more portable and cheaper at a digital level. To be honest the quality I am getting with the 5D is enough for me. If I was to go into this as an occupation then maybe I would look again but not at this stage. I would tend to agree about pixels and the more the better but as Radiohead mentions, the more pixels just equates to a larger picture not a more detailed picture. When you start talking about 10 vs 12 the size starts to become minimal as the volume of pixels needed to give an extra inch in size becomes much greater. Saying that, as every guy (and girl) knows, an extra inch can be desirable every now and then  For me the biggest difference I saw when starting out was when I got the external flash unit. This made a much bigger impact that a new lens (or reasonable cost) and I would recommend it as a first though when getting a new camera. I was using the flash for fill when in Thailand on bright sunny beaches and although I felt a little silly the resuilts were noticably better. I'll have a quick look at that link you posted as I have not had the chance this morning... work is getting in the way again  RB | |
| Quote |
|
09-02-2006, 1:47 PM
| #16 |
| Member |
Ok, after reading the link supplied. The guy has a passion for not wanting full frame sensors and that is fine as we are all entitled to our own views. Unfortunately he also blows a number of his arguments out of the water by linking to the Canon site explaining the advantage of a full frame sensor here. No need to go over what is there as you can all read it for yourselves if interested. The whole tone of the article starts very negatively with the expressions of 'oversize' and 'double size' being banded about for full frame sensors. Full frame sensors are just the standard size compared to film frame and therefore allow the user to use standard film SLR lenses and get the focal lengths they are rated at. The point is made that there are now ultra wide lenses that allow better range at the low end for smaller sensor but put them on a full frame camera and you still go down further. The only place this is not true with Canon camera's is when the lens is an EF-S which cannot be used on a full frame camera. Looking at the EF-S range though, how many are there currently and more importantly how many of the pro L series are EF-S ?. The size and weight tends not to be a difference in if the lens is designed for a EF-S lens mount but more about the quality of construction and the target price range it is aimed at. Build an EF and an EF-S L series lens to the same manufacturing spec and I would imagine the weight and probably the size would be pretty much comparable. The claims that 35mm sensors are worse, more expensive and slower are a little misleading. Worse I find very hard to understand. He has already linked to the site that explains the advantages over the smaller sensors. Less noise, cheaper to manufacture as the components are better spaced so making it much easier to build. Less heat build-up from crushing all the components into such a small space. The advantage of the smaller sensor is the speed but at this level I see no advantage a few ns will give. Smaller package sure but then people are saying that they find the 350D a little small so why would anyone want the camera smaller. Sure cost will stay the same for the size of manufacture but what he is failing to grasp is that if more functions are being crammed into smaller sensors why can more functions not be put into larger sensors. After all the larger sensors have more room to potentially cram the components in at a cheaper cost. The comment that things have improved in computers and technology due to chips sizes shrinking is just not true. The movements have come from the improvement in what can be 'shoe horned' into a specific size of chip. Putting more components closer together has allowed the chip size to decrease allowing for a wider range of applications. Reduction in chip size does have disadvantages like heat and, in photography, image noise. Of course the advantage is lower power consumption. The 5D is rated at around 600 shots per battery pack. Life of the battery at this point seems not to be an issue. At the end of the article again he states that there are no advantages to the full frame sensor but the link he supplied and the review on the site of the 5D that he has produced states that one of the main advantages is the reduction in noise due to greater receptor spacing and thus allowing higher iso settings. Consistency across the site seems a bit hit and miss on this subject. One are he also does not look at is the established market and user base with equipment that will either have to be replaced or the user will have to put up with the fact that they have lost some of their short end with the new camera and their existing lenses. The lens is seen as an investment that will far outlast (if properly cared for) the camera body. To completely change the system and force people to change the system for lenses they use will have a massive impact on the established user base. One thing it is worth noting though is that the guy is generally referring to Nikon cameras against Canon full frame sensors. The one point that does make me laugh though is comparing a £4,000 Canon 1DsMKII to a £1,000 Nikon. Can the Nikon do all the things the Canon can do as fast and with the same or better results..... of course not. Is it fully weatherproof ? etc...... I think it would be a lot more credible if he made the point that would the average user notice so much of a difference to the tune of £3000 and the chances are that most people wouldn't notice that much of a difference. Again like comparing a mini and a lotus. Both do roughly the same thing, just that one does so with better (faster / more fun / better head turning) results and for that it costs more money. Personally I just believe that they are for different users and for slightly different tasks. Each have advantages and dissadvantages but I don't suggest getting rid of one or the other. The guy does have some very nice photos though .Cheers RB |
| Quote |
| Thanks from: | senu (09-02-2006) |
|
10-02-2006, 9:24 AM
| #18 | ||
| Member | Quote:
 Quote:
RB | ||
| Quote |
| Post Reply |
Thread information and display options
E. & O.E.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
