PDA

View Full Version : Nikon D200




Glenn Wolsey
Feb 1, 2006, 06:12 PM
I'm just about ready to purchase a new digital camera, one that will be suitable for landscape shots, close up macro shots, and the occasional aircraft and sport shots.

I have had a look at the Nikon D200 online today and it looks like a great camera. Does anyone have it, or can anyone advise me if its worth purchasing for my needs?



ksz
Feb 1, 2006, 06:44 PM
I am very very happy with my D200. See here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=167382). I haven't posted any photos yet, but will do so Real Soon Now.

Can some things be better? Sure. I would like to see RAW images come off the camera sharper than they do now, I would like to see less noise at ISO 1250 and 1600, I would like to see a viewfinder with 100% coverage instead of 95%. But these are relatively minor issues since post-processing can alleviate most of these concerns.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 1, 2006, 06:47 PM
It is a great camera, and would do any of the shots your described. But so would the D50 or D70s. Look at the reviews/previews over on DPReview to get an idea of the real differences between the cameras. Make a list of the must have features, not just the ones that sounds neat.

Over the years I have bought tons of gear that I thought I must have because of its features - and found that I seldom use it, or take advantage of those "must have features".

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 1, 2006, 07:15 PM
It's mainly the extra megapixels that make me want the D200 over the D50. Is that a viable reason to purchase the D200?

icloud
Feb 1, 2006, 07:56 PM
I wouldnt say so...spending 1000 for a a 33% larger image (or something along those lines) is not worth it considering your entering the DSLR market...

Personally, i would suggest something like a d70s or d50 and then invest in a goreous lens... which can easily be carried into the next nikon you buy...

owning th d70s...im looking to upgrade to a new camera say in some 1.5-2 years...6 mp is more then enough for the enthusiast...

that being said the d200 is no doubt a goreous camera...but megapixels are really the tip of the iceberg when looking at slr's

JDar
Feb 1, 2006, 08:07 PM
Ken Rockwell is a photographer who has written an article "The Megapixel Myth." It's worth a read for those debating whether to get that 6 MP or 8MP model digital camera. I hope someone who knows more than I do will digest this and give their opinions.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Clix Pix
Feb 1, 2006, 09:16 PM
I'm just about ready to purchase a new digital camera, one that will be suitable for landscape shots, close up macro shots, and the occasional aircraft and sport shots.

I have had a look at the Nikon D200 online today and it looks like a great camera. Does anyone have it, or can anyone advise me if its worth purchasing for my needs?

It would behoove you to actually handle the camera in a local camera shop, play with the various controls, try a couple of lenses on it, before purchasing, rather than basing your purchasing decision on features you read about online. Don't ever just order a camera blindly without ever actually handling it. Yes, the D200 is a great camera (well worth the wait that many of us had during the many months of rumors) -- but is it something you really NEED for your first DSLR? What is your photographic experience to date? Do you have lenses already or would you be starting out fresh? Landscape shots, close-up macros, aircraft and sports shots all are done best by different lenses, not just one lens.

Assuming you've got some kind of camera already, do you find that in post-processing you are doing a lot of cropping? Are you intending to make large prints, 11 x 17 or poster-sized? Shooting for commercial ventures? I ask this because that's when the extra megapixels would come in handy, but definitely 6 - 8 MP are quite sufficient in a DSLR. If you're shooting in such a way that you need to pretty heavily crop in order to get the results you want, that suggests that it's not more megapixels you need, it's more instruction in the photographic process.

Buying a camera body based on the number of megapixels it has or all the bells and whistles it offers is not the wisest thing to do. Sure, buying one camera body over another or one brand over another will offer some advantages/disadvantages, but for the most part, you can do quite nicely with any of the current DSLR camera bodies on the market today. I'll repeat: 6 - 8 megapixels are plenty.

I would venture to guess that most people who have bought or who will be buying the D200 are coming from experience with the D70 or the D100, rather than having the D200 as their first DSLR. It seems that for most people who are stepping into using a DSLR for the first time, camera bodies such as the D50, D70, D70s in the Nikon line or the Digital Rebels in the Canon line (and other models, too, but can't remember those just off the top of my head since I'm not a Canon user) are the way to go....

The lenses are far more important than the camera body. It might be a much better use of your money to first buy a D50 or D70s (possibly even be able to pick up a D70 somewhere fairly inexpensively now that they're discontinued) and then put the balance of your funds into good lenses. You want to do macro? Great, use some money to get a nice macro lens. You want to do sports photography? Then you'll be looking at plunking down big bucks for a fairly fast tele lens. In purchasing the D50 or D70s now and putting your money into good lenses to use with that camera body, you'll be investing in the future, too, as of course when you later purchase the D200 or whatever the next model out of the pipeline is, you've still got those good lenses which can be used on it.

When I bought my D70 I began to purchase and use lenses for it and now that I've got the D200, those same lenses are doing a fine job on that new camera body. Having the right lenses for specific photographic situations is far more important in the long run than how many megapixels the camera body has.

Those extra megapixels make a difference in resolution, yes, but they also mean that you are going to have signficantly larger file sizes, both on the memory card (meaning the need to purchase larger and more expensive CF cards) and in the computer. Better be sure if you do go with a D200 that you've got the space in your hard drive and that you've got a good plan for backing up the images (ie, DVDs, external hard drive, etc.).

Will you be using the camera to the extent that you can justify the costs of a D200 over a D70s or a D50? That is, are you intending to use it for fine art projects or for photojournalism projects (school newspaper), or for publication either in print or on the web?

Before making any purchase, (1) read reviews and user comments, (2) go to the local camera shop and actually handle the different camera bodies and lenses and (3) take a look at your earlier photography projects and assess how a DSLR will make a difference for you and then assess which features are the most important to you and which lenses would be the most likely to help you achieve your creative potential.

Only after all that, then fork over the money for a new camera body and lens(es)....

revfife
Feb 1, 2006, 10:56 PM
Over the years I have bought tons of gear that I thought I must have because of its features - and found that I seldom use it, or take advantage of those "must have features".

I concur, most people that I talk to at the local camera store say that no more than 10% of their customers would ever use any feature not found on the basic D50.

It is important to buy a camera that you will use, not one that you have a steep learning curve on because if it is too steep of a learning curve you end up not wanting to fool with it.

Besides right now the D50 is an excellent buy. Save the extra money and put it into nice lenses and filters. Thats where you can make a difference in your photos.

icloud
Feb 2, 2006, 01:26 AM
I concur, most people that I talk to at the local camera store say that no more than 10% of their customers would ever use any feature not found on the basic D50.

It is important to buy a camera that you will use, not one that you have a steep learning curve on because if it is too steep of a learning curve you end up not wanting to fool with it.

Besides right now the D50 is an excellent buy. Save the extra money and put it into nice lenses and filters. Thats where you can make a difference in your photos.

I agree D50 may be called a simple prosumer camera...but you really got nothing packed into d200 that d50 cannot offer...so theres not a DEDICATED 3 button Qual/ISO and Shutter button, but they still extremely easy and adjustable

oh and d50 doesnt have iso 3200...but if you using 3200...your OUT OF YOU MIND....the grain youll incur makes it almost unusable... at 5MB per RAW image via d50, theres nothing you cant really enjoy about it...

Invest in good glass

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 2, 2006, 01:37 AM
Okay, I've pretty much decided on the D50 now, with a nice memory card too take advantage of RAW.

How large are RAW files on the D50?

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 2, 2006, 06:35 AM
Okay, I've pretty much decided on the D50 now, with a nice memory card too take advantage of RAW.

How large are RAW files on the D50?

1gb SD cards will give you 120 RAW+JPEG-Basic (my preferred method of shooting).

Before you jump at the D50 (which is great camera, I bought one), just to prevent buyers remorse wait three weeks and see if the D70s gets a bump in specs at the PMA show. NO, I don't know anything special about Nikon's plans.

It will only help in that you won't feel that you "bought too soon". But at the same time you don't want to get in to a waiting game for the perfect camera, that can lead to a long wait.

icloud
Feb 2, 2006, 07:36 AM
yeah i get around 180 RAW files on D70s...mind you thats a compressed RAW while D50 uses uncompressed...but thats just raw format...i dont shoot RAW all the time because 5-6mb per picture is only worth it when it comes down to "work" (ala my porfolio photography) and not casual

you can get around 500-1500 using the different jpeg sizes as well per 1gig card...and if you really see a good moment switch to RAW format.

icloud
Feb 2, 2006, 07:40 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/cloud.e/outdoor/pictures/picture-5.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/cloud.e/outdoor/pictures/picture-3.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/cloud.e/coming/pictures/picture-22.jpg

some shots...mind you resized for web...but showing that youll still get respectable shots with any SLR...relies largely on glass and well...talent after that

(hopefull these have talent :()

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 2, 2006, 08:17 AM
[IMG]some shots...mind you resized for web...but showing that youll still get respectable shots with any SLR...relies largely on glass and well...talent after that

(hopefull these have talent :()

Thanks for sharing! Some nice images there!

numediaman
Feb 2, 2006, 09:27 AM
I must concur concerning the D200 versus the D50. I, too, would love to have the D200 but since I am not a professional photographer I don't believe the D200 would be the right camera for me.

The megapixel issue is an interesting one. As someone who has shot a lot of film and had my own working darkroom (ah, the good old days), I believe that for me the next important jump in pixels would not be from six megapixels to eight or ten -- but from six megapixels to 24 megapixels.

Looking closely at some shots I took using RAW, I really would need to see a doubling of pixels for it to make a big difference for me.

Lenses, however, are another matter. Investing in a better lens would make a huge difference versus megapixels. But for right now, being that I don't make a living off of photography, I plan on buying the inexpensive 70-300mm f/4-5.6G lens. I need something that will "reach out" -- but am not concerned about speed or VR (I use a tripod a lot). I know there are much better lenses, but economy is the most important factor in this case. My next lenses purchase will probably be to upgrade my main lenses from the one that comes with the D50 kit to the one that comes with the D70 kit -- that seems like a nice upgrade.

Any thoughts about any of this? (I don't mind being told I'm going in the wrong direction.)

By the way, iCloud, nice shots -- I'd love to see those in full resolution.

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 2, 2006, 12:08 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/cloud.e/outdoor/pictures/picture-5.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/cloud.e/outdoor/pictures/picture-3.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/cloud.e/coming/pictures/picture-22.jpg

some shots...mind you resized for web...but showing that youll still get respectable shots with any SLR...relies largely on glass and well...talent after that

(hopefull these have talent :()

Great photos, they sure do have some talent. Keep up the hard work, those are great!

icloud
Feb 2, 2006, 03:23 PM
"My next lenses purchase will probably be to upgrade my main lenses from the one that comes with the D50 kit to the one that comes with the D70 kit -- that seems like a nice upgrade.

Any thoughts about any of this? (I don't mind being told I'm going in the wrong direction.)
"

Personally...if you planning to buy the d70s kit lens...along with the 70-300mm....i would STRONGLY SUGGEST! buying the 18-200mm VR Lens. The reviews are really good...it pretty much covers your focal range and it has VR and would probably cost around 100 bucks more then the 2 lenses you got your eye on

Thanks for the comments about my pics...BTW...they were all done with the 18-70 d70 kit lens...planning on going for a new lens (the one i mentioned to you) in the near future

revfife
Feb 2, 2006, 11:16 PM
There is some speculation out and bout right now that the D70s is also receiving a "package" deal with the 18-200 lens. So I would buy D50 or D70s body-only and purchase the 18-200 lens. (Provided that they ship out or you can find them together ;) )

bousozoku
Feb 2, 2006, 11:37 PM
This is quite a change. Weren't you originally looking to spend $300?

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 2, 2006, 11:44 PM
Yeah, I have really got into photography more and more in that period, and now I want a good camera.

Clix Pix
Feb 2, 2006, 11:49 PM
There is some speculation out and bout right now that the D70s is also receiving a "package" deal with the 18-200 lens. So I would buy D50 or D70s body-only and purchase the 18-200 lens. (Provided that they ship out or you can find them together ;) )


How fascinating that there is the possibility that the D200 and/or the D70s will ship with the 18-200 VR lens as a "kit." Huh! Makes sense in a lot of ways because the 18-200 VR lens is a great lens for the traveler but also a great lens for the person coming from a Coolpix or some other P&S camera who really wants a DSLR for some of the advantages inherent in using one, but who really does NOT want to change lenses.....

There has been some speculation in the past that the CP 8800, which had a lens not unlike the 18-200 VR, was a camera meant to kind of test out the market for such a lens. That camera has many issues, the main ones being slowness (shutter lag, reading-to-memory card), so that it's not hard to imagine people going from it to the D70s or D200 and the 18-200 VR lens..... Hey, it was precisely because of my frustration with the CP 8800 that I bought a D70. I had come from a background of using SLRs in the past, though, so it felt like "coming home" to pick up a D70 and to once again change lenses..... However, I've seen comments from others who bought an SLR who were more than happy to have just one lens on the thing and that's it..... and I'm sure that Nikon has taken note of that potential market, too. For those people, it's a deal, the D70s (which would make more sense, actually, than the D200) and the 18-200 VR as it's kit lens.... a step up from using a P&S and yet not really having to deal with (unless one wanted to do so) the challenges (!?) in changing lenses and truly exploiting a DSLR....

ChrisA
Feb 3, 2006, 12:53 AM
It's mainly the extra megapixels that make me want the D200 over the D50. Is that a viable reason to purchase the D200?

Not really. You have to work it out in terms of pixels per inch not total pixels. Pixels per inch is proportional to the square root of the total pixel count. so the D50/D70 is 2446 and the D100 is 3162 or about 30% more pixels per inch or for a fixed DPI you can make prints 30% wider. Well maybe 30% is enough to make the extra cost "worth it".

If you print at 300 pixels per inch, which is a good standard then the d50/d70 can make 10 inch wide prints and the d200 can make 13 inch wide prints

If you will never make large prints or if all you work will go onto a
compter screen then the extra pixels are usless. But if it's large prints you want, you need the pixels.

But there many other reasons to prefer the d200 over the d50.

Thomas S
Feb 4, 2006, 01:24 PM
It's mainly the extra megapixels that make me want the D200 over the D50. Is that a viable reason to purchase the D200?

Not at your level. You currently use Aperture and a Canon P&S, right? ( :confused: )

Thats cool if it works for you. Now, the D200, of which I own two, is an amazing camera. Its rugged and its built like a tank. But it is a professional grade body. I sincerely doubt that you'll use it to your full advantage. Thus, nab a D70s. While its pretty much a plastic camera, it is of a good quality and will serve you well. Then spend the rest of the money you planned on spending on the D200 and purchase a decent lens or two.

The glass is what makes the image, of course next to your talent. Without talent, I could give you one of the new 36 megapixel studio backs, a Hasselblad setup, and their finest optics and you still would not have images that compare to Richard Burbridge.

Trust me - spend the money on the optics. You can always upgrade a camera body, but a pro body with low grade optics will never do the camera justice.

You're money is better spent on the D70s.

Good luck!

XIII
Feb 4, 2006, 01:28 PM
*snip*
some shots...mind you resized for web...but showing that youll still get respectable shots with any SLR...relies largely on glass and well...talent after that

(hopefull these have talent :()

Nice! Can I ask for a few of those in high res. to use as desktop pics? Or if you sell them and make money out of them, then obviously no.. :)

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 06:12 PM
There is some speculation out and bout right now that the D70s is also receiving a "package" deal with the 18-200 lens. So I would buy D50 or D70s body-only and purchase the 18-200 lens. (Provided that they ship out or you can find them together ;) )

I think that any packages with bodies other then the D200 will wait till the backorders for the D200's and the 18-200VR's are taken care of first IMO. And if I were a betting man, I think that by the end of the month we will see a D80 (or what ever they want to call it) replacement to the D70s.

The recent D50 price drop helps in separating the D50 from the D70s, but both are still too close in capabilities. I can see a D80 with 8mp, 4fps, lighter weight, EN-EL3E battery compatibility, and some smaller improvements at a $1100-1200 price point for the body only.

There has been some speculation in the past that the CP 8800, which had a lens not unlike the 18-200 VR, was a camera meant to kind of test out the market for such a lens. That camera has many issues, the main ones being slowness (shutter lag, reading-to-memory card), so that it's not hard to imagine people going from it to the D70s or D200 and the 18-200 VR lens..... Hey, it was precisely because of my frustration with the CP 8800 that I bought a D70. I had come from a background of using SLRs in the past, though, so it felt like "coming home" to pick up a D70 and to once again change lenses..... However, I've seen comments from others who bought an SLR who were more than happy to have just one lens on the thing and that's it..... and I'm sure that Nikon has taken note of that potential market, too. For those people, it's a deal, the D70s (which would make more sense, actually, than the D200) and the 18-200 VR as it's kit lens.... a step up from using a P&S and yet not really having to deal with (unless one wanted to do so) the challenges (!?) in changing lenses and truly exploiting a DSLR....

Actually it has to do with the price erosion in the digital camera market place, and the desire of manufactures wanting more to move into the DSLR market (better margins for the manufacturers). The D50 with the 18-200VR sells for about $1250. The original price of the CP8800 was like $999.

BTW, when are you coming in for your Ego? :)

whocares
Feb 4, 2006, 06:24 PM
I say go all out and get a D2X, an AF-S 12-24mm f/4G DX ED-IF, an AF-S 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6G DX IF-ED, an AF-S 200-400mm VR f/4G IF-ED, and an AF-S 600mm f/4D IF-ED.
Don't forget your Quad G5 & 2x 30" ACD for post-production, your MacBookPro for on-the-go processing, and your XServe + XRaid for backups and online store.



</sarcasm>

j/k :p :p :p

But seriously do consider the 18-200 ;)

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 4, 2006, 06:32 PM
I say go all out and get a D2X, an AF-S 12-24mm f/4G DX ED-IF, an AF-S 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6G DX IF-ED, an AF-S 200-400mm VR f/4G IF-ED, and an AF-S 600mm f/4D IF-ED.
Don't forget your Quad G5 & 2x 30" ACD for post-production, your MacBookPro for on-the-go processing, and your XServe + XRaid for backups and online store.



</sarcasm>

j/k :p :p :p

But seriously do consider the 18-200 ;)

Lol, I'm getting the top of the line PowerMac when they go Intel, and a 23" Apple Cinema Display ;)

I went down to the camera store today and had a look at the Nikon's. Very nice cameras, but i also saw a nice 8.3MP Canon one so I'm researching that camera later today.

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 06:46 PM
The recent D50 price drop helps in separating the D50 from the D70s, but both are still too close in capabilities. I can see a D80 with 8mp, 4fps, lighter weight, EN-EL3E battery compatibility, and some smaller improvements at a $1100-1200 price point for the body only.

Actually it has to do with the price erosion in the digital camera market place, and the desire of manufactures wanting more to move into the DSLR market (better margins for the manufacturers). The D50 with the 18-200VR sells for about $1250. The original price of the CP8800 was like $999.

BTW, when are you coming in for your Ego? :)

LOL! Took me a minute there....isn't my ego big enough already?! LOL! :D Ah, yep, I am definitely interested in the Ego but I'm still getting things back in order financially after major outlays for Christmas, my D200, the new lens and my trip to SF! Whew! My little ole pocketbook took quite a hit during December and January!

The other day, though, I was in some store over at Tysons and saw this neat little thing meant for putting largish candles on. It's gently curved, yet has a highly reflective aluminum surface, so I was playing around with various objects on one and trying to visualize how I would shoot a setup on it.... I really hope no one was watching me, as I'm sure I looked, uh, strange at times! Anyway, I invested all of $10 in the thing and brought it home, so, yeah, I've already got a couple of projects in mind for which the Ego would be just perfect! :)

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, Chip, about Nikon coming out with something new to move beyond the D70/D70s.... and to further separate it out from the D50 and also from the D200. I think that the D70 did a phenomenal job in drawing a lot of people into using DSLRs, a bit later the D70s smoothed out a few things here-and-there, and then the D50 came along to attract those whose feet were still firmly planted in P&S/Coolpix-land....

But the D50 still doesn't have some features which would attract some potential users and the D70/D70s have some good, some not-so-good features which could be cause for hesitation... Perhaps the D80, if there indeed is such an animal, could provide the best of both.

I think if Nikon comes out with a D80 (or whatever) and the 18-200mm lens as its "kit" lens, they'd definitely have a winner and definitely capture a large audience of those who really want to have some of the features and functionality offered by a DSLR but who really don't want to muck around with changing lenses. Personally, I can't understand that line of thinking, but I've heard too many people whose mindset this is to not discount it out of hand. Fine, they don't want to change lenses... now they won't have to do so! On the other hand, they still have the option to do so if they ever manage to overcome their fear and hesitation and are ready to try something new in their photography....

It looks as though the era of "bridge" cameras such as the CP 8800 is pretty well drawing to a close as those who purchased them realized that there were more limitations to benefits with them, long telephoto lens nothwithstanding, and that in the end one could do so much better with a DSLR.

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 06:53 PM
I say go all out and get a D2X, an AF-S 12-24mm f/4G DX ED-IF, an AF-S 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6G DX IF-ED, an AF-S 200-400mm VR f/4G IF-ED, and an AF-S 600mm f/4D IF-ED.
Don't forget your Quad G5 & 2x 30" ACD for post-production, your MacBookPro for on-the-go processing, and your XServe + XRaid for backups and online store.



</sarcasm>

j/k :p :p :p

But seriously do consider the 18-200 ;)

You forgot the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.4 and a bunch of other "must-have" lenses....

LOL!!! :D

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly on the 18-200 VR -- it's a beauty!

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 07:05 PM
Lol, I'm getting the top of the line PowerMac when they go Intel, and a 23" Apple Cinema Display ;)

I went down to the camera store today and had a look at the Nikon's. Very nice cameras, but i also saw a nice 8.3MP Canon one so I'm researching that camera later today.

Why only the 23" ACD? That really isn't going to offer much more beyond the basics as far as screen sizes go.... For optimum editing in PS or other programs, the larger the monitor, the better. Right now I'm using a Rev B iMac with a 20" screen and lusting after a 30" ACD, but at this point in time can't justify the additional expense. In a year or two, whenever things have settled down as far as this transition goes, I'll be reassessing my current setup and my current usage of that setup. If I am doing a whole lot more then than I am now as far as image processing, etc., then it might be worth the expense to go into the intel Power Mac whatever, and at that time I would also be looking at the monitor. It seems to me that if I were investing a lot in the intel PM that I also would want to have the very best monitor available at that time, too....but this is a while off yet.

Moving on to cameras here, the ones which are actually available right here and now...

I have pretty much always been a Nikon girl so I'm not all that familiar with the Canon line. That is good that you had a look at the Nikons today and that you also checked out the Canons. Again, I caution you to not just go by the number of megapixels a particular camera body offers -- do your homework and read reviews and also investigate the lenses which are available. In the end, as has been said on here before, it's really the glass, the lenses, which will be more important in the long run rather than the particular camera body.

whocares
Feb 4, 2006, 07:33 PM
Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly on the 18-200 VR -- it's a beauty!


I seriously do want one myself.
Anyone here interested in a AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.6G DX IF-ED? It's c. 3,000 shots old. :p :p

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 08:39 PM
LOL! Took me a minute there....isn't my ego big enough already?! LOL! :D Ah, yep, I am definitely interested in the Ego but I'm still getting things back in order financially after major outlays for Christmas, my D200, the new lens and my trip to SF! Whew! My little ole pocketbook took quite a hit during December and January!

Just a little fun on my part about your interest in the Lowell Ego. Glad to see that you saw the fun in my pun. :)

The other day, though, I was in some store over at Tysons and saw this neat little thing meant for putting largish candles on. It's gently curved, yet has a highly reflective aluminum surface, so I was playing around with various objects on one and trying to visualize how I would shoot a setup on it.... I really hope no one was watching me, as I'm sure I looked, uh, strange at times! Anyway, I invested all of $10 in the thing and brought it home, so, yeah, I've already got a couple of projects in mind for which the Ego would be just perfect! :)

Once you see the Ego, what you saw may be a "poor mans" option.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, Chip, about Nikon coming out with something new to move beyond the D70/D70s.... and to further separate it out from the D50 and also from the D200. I think that the D70 did a phenomenal job in drawing a lot of people into using DSLRs, a bit later the D70s smoothed out a few things here-and-there, and then the D50 came along to attract those whose feet were still firmly planted in P&S/Coolpix-land....

Keep in mind, I am a professional - so don't try this at home! :D

To be blunt, I have been around the industry long enough to see the "games" that Nikon and Canon play with each other. The D200 upped the ante with Canon. And in the end it is about price levels. Given the current 20D the D70s needs an update. And with the D200 a D70 replacement that is closer to the 20D makes sense.

But the D50 still doesn't have some features which would attract some potential users and the D70/D70s have some good, some not-so-good features which could be cause for hesitation... Perhaps the D80, if there indeed is such an animal, could provide the best of both.

Between the D50 and the D70s, the main differences as I see it is the ability to use the pop-up flash as a Commander, and better control over the WB. But how many use these features?

I went with the D50 since I am more of a minimalist as to what functions a camera has. Keep in mind my favorite 35mm camera is the Leica M6TTL.

Yes, I see the power behind the features of the D200. But as I mentioned here in MR, I bought many things in photography for the "power" it "could" give me - but never really used.

I think if Nikon comes out with a D80 (or whatever) and the 18-200mm lens as its "kit" lens, they'd definitely have a winner and definitely capture a large audience of those who really want to have some of the features and functionality offered by a DSLR but who really don't want to muck around with changing lenses. Personally, I can't understand that line of thinking, but I've heard too many people whose mindset this is to not discount it out of hand. Fine, they don't want to change lenses... now they won't have to do so! On the other hand, they still have the option to do so if they ever manage to overcome their fear and hesitation and are ready to try something new in their photography....

I see the 18-200VR "kits" as being an option for those that might want to do a 12-24 or a 200-400; as their needs require.

Keep in mind the 80/20 rule. For 80%, the 18-200VR is all that they will ever truly need. For the other 20% there are options.

It looks as though the era of "bridge" cameras such as the CP 8800 is pretty well drawing to a close as those who purchased them realized that there were more limitations to benefits with them, long telephoto lens nothwithstanding, and that in the end one could do so much better with a DSLR.

I am sadden by the possibility of the "bridge camera" being lost. The only new introduction of the bridge camera came from Sony with their new R1. But right now the remaining camera manufactures are trying to survive. And that requires them to look at ways to keep the consumer buying.

I have hesitated in saying this, but here it goes. For too long the consumer "knew" that they could get an 35mm SLR camera for about $300. Never mind that compared to 1980 that it became more plastic.

Now we have manufacturers trying to slit each others throats to have cameras in the $200 to $300 price point. But the last few years have shown us that consumers are willing to pay $300-500 for a digital P&S. And $800 to $1200 for an entry level DSLR. Are these not the "new" price points?

Darn it, I want to have a Camery type of car for under $12K US. For if we can have it for cameras, why can't we have it for everything else we buy?

njmac
Feb 4, 2006, 09:01 PM
some shots...mind you resized for web...but showing that youll still get respectable shots with any SLR...relies largely on glass and well...talent after that

(hopefull these have talent :()

icloud I've said it before on these forums, but here it is again :p

I think your work is outstanding. If you are not doing this for a living you should! You are as good, if not better than many pros out there.

If your site was set up for buying prints, I would buy a print from you for sure.

Edit: I had to do a search for your website too, why don't you link to it in your sig or profile?

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 09:07 PM
Why only the 23" ACD? That really isn't going to offer much more beyond the basics as far as screen sizes go.... For optimum editing in PS or other programs, the larger the monitor, the better.

I understand. And Apple is not the only way to go. With the Dell coupons, their monitors can offer a "best buy". IIRC I have a Dell FP2001 that is great. Swivels and all.

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 4, 2006, 09:17 PM
I understand. And Apple is not the only way to go. With the Dell coupons, their monitors can offer a "best buy". IIRC I have a Dell FP2001 that is great. Swivels and all.

When it comes to hardware, I buy nothing but Apple. The ACD look better, its simple. I know its stupid to pay extra for the Apple branding and style, but I'm looking at it for hours each day!

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 09:20 PM
icloud I've said it before on these forums, but here it is again :p

I think your work is outstanding. If you are not doing this for a living you should! You are as good, if not better than many pros out there.

If your site was set up for buying prints, I would buy a print from you for sure.

Edit: I had to do a search for your website too, why don't you link to it in your sig or profile?

I can't speak for icloud, but it is a block that some of us "artists" face. What is our work worth. And could my "art" be worth selling on the "open market". In someways it is about the ego. I have sold a few prints over the years to people that saw a piece that they truly wanted. But how could I deal with the "rejection" if I posted all my art for sale like some here in the past have done? And there were no takers.

I agree though, icloud has quite the eye when it comes to photography.

One thing that helped me when taking photo classes, was the give and take on my images and others images as we worked on an assignment.

I am wondering if it would be possible with the iPhoto 6 and the photo-casting; to set up a thread or forum that would allow us to share multiple images and have us as a group edit them down? For in my classes, my fellow students found images within images that I had missed. Two of which went on to win contests or awards.

There is a reason that publishers have photo editors on staff.....

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 09:21 PM
Just a little fun on my part about your interest in the Lowell Ego. Glad to see that you saw the fun in my pun. :)



Once you see the Ego, what you saw may be a "poor mans" option.

No, no, you misunderstood: what I want to do is to use the Ego to light the scene I've got in mind with this reflective doohickey as the base and source of interesting bounces of additional light under and around my actual subject.... I'm going to have to put it all together to see if what I'm envisoning will work out.

And with the D200 a D70 replacement that is closer to the 20D makes sense.

Between the D50 and the D70s, the main differences as I see it is the ability to use the pop-up flash as a Commander, and better control over the WB. But how many use these features?

Exactly. I suspect that many people who have bought the D70/D70s don't have a clue about the whole "commander" thing with the flash and/or if they do, they don't want to venture to try it out. Have to admit, myself as a case in point: I know what it is and I've got not one but two SB 800's but have I actually attempted working with them in conjunction with the on-board flash to take advantage of the nifty system Nikon has developed? Nooooo..... I have this aversion about using flash and I really prefer shooting in natural light, but I know intellectually that in some situations it really is better....so when I do use flash, yep, what happens is that it's just the on-board pop-up flash that is put into action and my SB 800s are still not utiized.... I KNOW, I've been schooled in this, that the on-board flash is not going to be sufficient, and yet I still have this resistance to sticking an external flash unit on top of my camera and/or another one on a lightstand to provide additional lighting..... Sigh...

It's like with the whole Raw thing, too; as much as I have learned about using Raw, I am still hesitant to actually TRY IT OUT.....


Keep in mind the 80/20 rule. For 80%, the 18-200VR is all that they will ever truly need. For the other 20% there are options.

I have to agree with you here!


Yeah, I'm afraid that the days of the "bridge camera" are quickly slipping by.... Many years ago I loved my Oly bridge camera, then eventually put it aside..... for a while during the beginnings of the digital camera revolution I tried to pretend that the various Coolpixes I was using were serving much the same purpose, but of course eventually the day came when I had to say, "wait! There's something that will really do what I want in a better way!" and set them aside when I picked up the D70......

Price points are changing, too, I agree, but on the other hand, the consumer who is plunking out a couple hundred or maybe three hundred dollars today for a digital P&S is getting a heckuva lot more for the money than I did when I bought my first Coolpix, the 900, with its whopping 1 MP and tiny memory card..... Oh, but I loved that thing and although at first I didn't trust it (shot everything witth both it and a film camera simulatenously), I used it and thought about how there would likely be improvements down the road.... which there were, of course.

It is going to be really interesting to see where the photography industry goes now that it is becoming more and more melded with the digital industry.

icloud
Feb 4, 2006, 09:34 PM
icloud I've said it before on these forums, but here it is again :p

I think your work is outstanding. If you are not doing this for a living you should! You are as good, if not better than many pros out there.

If your site was set up for buying prints, I would buy a print from you for sure.

Edit: I had to do a search for your website too, why don't you link to it in your sig or profile?


Means a lot...thank you

to date I have not sold a print but I am in the works of getting some postcard sized prints out for sale soon...


http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/5142/alley6oq.jpg


:P another picture i took today...for fun i guess


Guess what this thread has turned into is that while I would love!!! to have a d200 or d2x... a slr really becomes powerful with the passionate user... if you have aperture...iso and shutter speed, there is nothing you really cant due, and the 3000+ $ cameras just bring in more convinence and rubustness to that experience

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 09:41 PM
When it comes to hardware, I buy nothing but Apple. The ACD look better, its simple. I know its stupid to pay extra for the Apple branding and style, but I'm looking at it for hours each day!

Maybe when you're an adult and out there in the world earning your own living -- totally reliant only on your own earnings for your shelter, food and day-to-day survival, never mind "extras," you'll be able to better appreciate it when someone makes a suggestion to you that might not be what you consider optimum.

Sure, we all love Apple products -- hey, this is a Mac site, right? -- but many people here have figured out the best way for them to have solutions that work for them which may not include all Apple products. I think that's pretty neat and I've made note of some of their suggestions for use in my own life. Practicality and affordability are pretty important factors in most adults' lives. You're not yet a adult, very far from it, actually, so we do need to make allowances for that. A child's perspective is going to be very different from an adult's.

There's a guy named Abraham Maslow who put forth some pretty interesting theories about life and its hierarchies as far as what's considered really valuable. You might want to have a read to see what he's said, and then maybe you might have a better understanding as to why someone might choose to buy a Dell monitor rather than an Apple Cinema Display.....

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 09:43 PM
When it comes to hardware, I buy nothing but Apple. The ACD look better, its simple. I know its stupid to pay extra for the Apple branding and style, but I'm looking at it for hours each day!

Sorry Glenn, but you are doing yourself a disservice by not looking at other manufacturers for monitors. There is a reason that some are willing to pay the price for the Lacie Blue-eye LCD monitors, over the Apple offerings. Not just because they have money to burn.

And for the same reason many here on MR have taken advantage of the coupon savings on their FP series LCD monitors.

The reality is that there are only a few companies that make the actual LCD panels. And despite the hype from some companies that they only get the "best" of the production run, most any mainstream "name" gets the same quality. If not, their name would suffer in the end.

In the recent past (a couple years ago) I probably spent more hours in front of my PB doing page layouts for my company on my Dell FP 20" than you did in school.

And guess what? I was able to pivot the screen, something the Apple screens can't. And with calibration and profiling, what I saw on either the PB screen or the Dell screen - it was a great match!

Today. I am back to the sales floor. A product of "downsizing" and "out sourcing". My PB is used for travel. I now have a "pre-iSight" iMac. Using the spanning hack I have 20" on the iMac, and my FP2001(?) spanning. I use the XRite package for both the monitor and printer. And each of my monitors is a dead-on match for each other. And with the pivot feature of the Dell I have fewer pages when I look on the forums here. As well as giving me a better workspace between the two.

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 09:52 PM
iCloud, I'm somewhat late in coming to say anything, but, yes, your work is outstanding and it most definitely proves that in the end, it is not the equipment a photographer uses, but his own eye and talent which really show true worth....

Thanks for sharing your images with us and I hope that you will share more as time goes on!

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 10:11 PM
Exactly. I suspect that many people who have bought the D70/D70s don't have a clue about the whole "commander" thing with the flash and/or if they do, they don't want to venture to try it out. Have to admit, myself as a case in point: I know what it is and I've got not one but two SB 800's but have I actually attempted working with them in conjunction with the on-board flash to take advantage of the nifty system Nikon has developed? Nooooo..... I have this aversion about using flash and I really prefer shooting in natural light, but I know intellectually that in some situations it really is better....so when I do use flash, yep, what happens is that it's just the on-board pop-up flash that is put into action and my SB 800s are still not utiized.... I KNOW, I've been schooled in this, that the on-board flash is not going to be sufficient, and yet I still have this resistance to sticking an external flash unit on top of my camera and/or another one on a lightstand to provide additional lighting..... Sigh...

I'll offer you $200 each for those SB800's. :D

What you are saying is "the best laid intentions" for our purchases don't always work out as planned. That is the main reason that I went with the D50 over the D70s. I knew that I was more a "basic photographer". And that I still had my Canon DSLR kit to get me past the "difficult" moments.

It's like with the whole Raw thing, too; as much as I have learned about using Raw, I am still hesitant to actually TRY IT OUT.....

About RAW vs JPEG. Set your D200 to do RAW and Fine JPEG. Look at it like when you shot film. You sent the film in and got back the negs (RAW) and the the prints (JPEG). You could always have extra prints made from your prints, but they never could be as good if as if you made them from the negs.

I have to agree with you here!

Yeah, I'm afraid that the days of the "bridge camera" are quickly slipping by.... Many years ago I loved my Oly bridge camera, then eventually put it aside..... for a while during the beginnings of the digital camera revolution I tried to pretend that the various Coolpixes I was using were serving much the same purpose, but of course eventually the day came when I had to say, "wait! There's something that will really do what I want in a better way!" and set them aside when I picked up the D70......

This will change as we move forward IMO.

Price points are changing, too, I agree, but on the other hand, the consumer who is plunking out a couple hundred or maybe three hundred dollars today for a digital P&S is getting a heckuva lot more for the money than I did when I bought my first Coolpix, the 900, with its whopping 1 MP and tiny memory card..... Oh, but I loved that thing and although at first I didn't trust it (shot everything witth both it and a film camera simulatenously), I used it and thought about how there would likely be improvements down the road.... which there were, of course.

Even more so when you look at what the 35mm P&S's were able to do compared to similar digital P&S's.

It is going to be really interesting to see where the photography industry goes now that it is becoming more and more melded with the digital industry.

From the days that Kodak offered "you press the button, we do the rest" with their original Brownie camera, photography has moved towards the masses. That can be seen as good or bad.

The good (IMO) is that that anyone with a camera; whether it be a film camera, a "traditional" digital camera, or a "digital camera" built-in to the likes of cell phones, PDA's, and computers - can now capture the moment.

The bad is that with everyone nearly having a camera at their beck and call, it gets harder to have images that mean something. This can be good and bad.

The bad side is that we have seen it all, and we are left like Simon from American Idol fame - is that all you have to offer. The good is that there are those like icloud (and IIRC shard) that offered us new views on what we see around us.

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 10:21 PM
Chip (and anyone else) -- there is no need to defend oneself or one's particular equipment/lack of equipment here, especially when responding to the posts made by a 13-year-old child....

Eventually, in about seven, eight or nine years from now, Glenn will probably begin to realize the value of some of the things discussed on MR which probably don't mean a lot to him right now because he is not an adult out in the world earning his own living and depending upon only himself to provide shelter, food and basic necessities, never mind the extraneous extras (what some might term as "luxuries")....

As adults, people have so much more freedom to choose how they want to live their lives and how they want to spend the money that they've earned. Chip, you're a good case in point, inasmuch as you are planning for a trip to Iceland this month -- a trip for which you've saved through your earnngs at work and for which you've planned while not denying yourself the basic needs of life...

In my own situation, I was fortunate enough to be able to afford the trip to SF in January and to be able to purchase the D200 camera body and the 18-200 VR lens because of a death in the family and an inheritance..... had I not had this, well, I think I could have muddled on through life without these nice things....

Point being here, in Chip's situation and in my own, our basic survival needs are/were still being met. I'm sure that for both of us, being able to keep a roof over our heads and food in our mouths takes priority over anything else. Sure, while I love having high-speed internet access when I go online, if for some reason I could no longer afford tha and needed to put the money into other things, I'd do it.

While I love my 20" iMac, right now I know that for many reasons it's not practical to be thinking of going with a Quad (intel or otherwise). When and if I do, though, if I were so deeply into image manipulation that I would also be looking at adding a 30" ACD for professional reasons, I would undoubtedly wait a bit longer if need be for financial reasons.

And if I were struggling to keep everything together as far as my basic needs, well....it might be that I'd never get a Quad or a 30" ACD. And is that so bad?

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 10:42 PM
Maybe when you're an adult and out there in the world earning your own living -- totally reliant only on your own earnings for your shelter, food and day-to-day survival, never mind "extras," you'll be able to better appreciate it when someone makes a suggestion to you that might not be what you consider optimum.

Sure, we all love Apple products -- hey, this is a Mac site, right? -- but many people here have figured out the best way for them to have solutions that work for them which may not include all Apple products. I think that's pretty neat and I've made note of some of their suggestions for use in my own life. Practicality and affordability are pretty important factors in most adults' lives. You're not yet a adult, very far from it, actually, so we do need to make allowances for that. A child's perspective is going to be very different from an adult's.

There's a guy named Abraham Maslow who put forth some pretty interesting theories about life and its hierarchies as far as what's considered really valuable. You might want to have a read to see what he's said, and then maybe you might have a better understanding as to why someone might choose to buy a Dell monitor rather than an Apple Cinema Display.....

A little harsh IMO. I know that his age I wanted the Contax RTS system above all others.

Clix, I know some about you. As I think you so me. Were are of a different time. What our parents did not give us, we either found away or did without.

I respect what Glenn offered on the opinions on going with a different monitor. But in some ways is like you or I not accepting anything other than Converse tennies for gym class.

You and I might be just a generation or two past the the values that our depression era parents or grand parents went through. For Glenn's parents (not picking on you here Glenn) may have never known the sacrifices of of the Depression or the sacrifices that my parents and relatives faced during WWII.

Both the Depression and WWII taught my parents and in the end myself, that nothing is a "given". My ex taught the difference in "values" upbringing. In my family we went out to eat on special "occasions". In his they went out 2 to 4 times a week.

One has to only look at the "landmark photo" thread here on MR and see first hand what is needed to make things possible.

In defense of Glenn. I was in his position so many years ago. Learning and yearning. Grand ideas of where I wanted my life to lead.

While my parents were supportive, they were more realistic. I did not have the "net" to bug, so I talked endlessly with the shops in my area.

To Glenn, I would suggest that you post your images so that we can in the end help you to the final outcome that you hope for....

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 10:55 PM
Chip (and anyone else) -- there is no need to defend oneself or one's particular equipment/lack of equipment here, especially when responding to the posts made by a 13-year-old child....

Eventually, in about seven, eight or nine years from now, Glenn will probably begin to realize the value of some of the things discussed on MR which probably don't mean a lot to him right now because he is not an adult out in the world earning his own living and depending upon only himself to provide shelter, food and basic necessities, never mind the extraneous extras (what some might term as "luxuries")....

As adults, people have so much more freedom to choose how they want to live their lives and how they want to spend the money that they've earned. Chip, you're a good case in point, inasmuch as you are planning for a trip to Iceland this month -- a trip for which you've saved through your earnngs at work and for which you've planned while not denying yourself the basic needs of life...

In my own situation, I was fortunate enough to be able to afford the trip to SF in January and to be able to purchase the D200 camera body and the 18-200 VR lens because of a death in the family and an inheritance..... had I not had this, well, I think I could have muddled on through life without these nice things....

Point being here, in Chip's situation and in my own, our basic survival needs are/were still being met. I'm sure that for both of us, being able to keep a roof over our heads and food in our mouths takes priority over anything else. Sure, while I love having high-speed internet access when I go online, if for some reason I could no longer afford tha and needed to put the money into other things, I'd do it.

While I love my 20" iMac, right now I know that for many reasons it's not practical to be thinking of going with a Quad (intel or otherwise). When and if I do, though, if I were so deeply into image manipulation that I would also be looking at adding a 30" ACD for professional reasons, I would undoubtedly wait a bit longer if need be for financial reasons.

And if I were struggling to keep everything together as far as my basic needs, well....it might be that I'd never get a Quad or a 30" ACD. And is that so bad?

Having been interested in photography since my teens, I see a big part of my younger days in Glenn's posts. So I forgive his questions and desires.

You and I have been given a chance to do things that by chance or choice we have never been able too. Some may due to "fortune". Some may be due to realizing by our choices in life.

If I eat out once a week, that is a good thing. Though it comes with some guilt. But that comes from the "values" I was raised with, for the $10 to $20 I spent on a meal out, what could that have given me elsewhere?

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 4, 2006, 10:55 PM
Well I made this quick gallery of some recent pictures. By the way, my parents do not pay for any of my gear. I earn my gear and money by writing for Macguide Magazine, and other various small jobs for businesses in town.

Gallery:

http://web.mac.com/glenn.wolsey/iWeb/Site/Gallery.html

Glenn Wolsey
Feb 4, 2006, 10:57 PM
Chip (and anyone else) -- there is no need to defend oneself or one's particular equipment/lack of equipment here, especially when responding to the posts made by a 13-year-old child....

Eventually, in about seven, eight or nine years from now, Glenn will probably begin to realize the value of some of the things discussed on MR which probably don't mean a lot to him right now because he is not an adult out in the world earning his own living and depending upon only himself to provide shelter, food and basic necessities, never mind the extraneous extras (what some might term as "luxuries")....

As adults, people have so much more freedom to choose how they want to live their lives and how they want to spend the money that they've earned. Chip, you're a good case in point, inasmuch as you are planning for a trip to Iceland this month -- a trip for which you've saved through your earnngs at work and for which you've planned while not denying yourself the basic needs of life...

In my own situation, I was fortunate enough to be able to afford the trip to SF in January and to be able to purchase the D200 camera body and the 18-200 VR lens because of a death in the family and an inheritance..... had I not had this, well, I think I could have muddled on through life without these nice things....

Point being here, in Chip's situation and in my own, our basic survival needs are/were still being met. I'm sure that for both of us, being able to keep a roof over our heads and food in our mouths takes priority over anything else. Sure, while I love having high-speed internet access when I go online, if for some reason I could no longer afford tha and needed to put the money into other things, I'd do it.

While I love my 20" iMac, right now I know that for many reasons it's not practical to be thinking of going with a Quad (intel or otherwise). When and if I do, though, if I were so deeply into image manipulation that I would also be looking at adding a 30" ACD for professional reasons, I would undoubtedly wait a bit longer if need be for financial reasons.

And if I were struggling to keep everything together as far as my basic needs, well....it might be that I'd never get a Quad or a 30" ACD. And is that so bad?

I will also note that the PowerMac is for my next machine in 2 years time. I understand value and earning things through hard work. Trust me on that. I worked for 18 months mowing lawns, delivering papers, and weeding gardens to afford this iMac and open the gateway to a creative life.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 11:54 PM
Well I made this quick gallery of some recent pictures. By the way, my parents do not pay for any of my gear. I earn my gear and money by writing for Macguide Magazine, and other various small jobs for businesses in town.

Gallery:

http://web.mac.com/glenn.wolsey/iWeb/Site/Gallery.html

Some great images there Glenn.You and icloud deserve props IMO. Good eye there.

Keep in mind that MR is a US centric forum.

Add to that, the depth of your posts gives pause as to their sincerity.