Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Two more words.For doing high-quality landscape stock I'll say two words: mirrorI also shoot landscapes for stock and
have been waiting for a digicam that is competive resolution wise
without weighing and costing as much as a house (D2x 1DS mkII) at
£570 the Sony R1 looks a credible alternative to the D200 (for this
type of photography only I am not advocating a digicam over a DSLR)
but as I have said on another thread my S3 is probably still better
than both of them.
lockup. Neither the Sony nor the Fujifilm have it.
--IMO, as long as Canon isn't making lenses that can properly supportI agree with you that the D200 is targeted at the 20D contrary to
Phils statement. But if the D200 delivers in image quality I cannot
imagine what anymore could be asked of the D200 even 3 years down
the road. I think 10 MP will go a long long way into the future![]()
Considering that this camera will likely not be replaced for
another 3-4 years, I'm not sure it is enough and price wise it
needs to compete with the 20D not the 5D. My only caviat for this
statement is if the D200 turns out to have excellent ground
breaking high ISO performance (I'd be happy with a good noise free
6mp DSLR for my weddings)
I am a Nikon user and have a D70 and S3 pro kit. Being honest when
looking at the D200 other than shooting speed and iTTL I am
confident my S3 will deliver as much res and most likely more
pleasing images to the eye than the D200 and that is without
considering dynamic range. I also shoot landscapes for stock and
have been waiting for a digicam that is competive resolution wise
without weighing and costing as much as a house (D2x 1DS mkII) at
£570 the Sony R1 looks a credible alternative to the D200 (for this
type of photography only I am not advocating a digicam over a DSLR)
but as I have said on another thread my S3 is probably still better
than both of them.
8mp to 10mp is not a massive jump 8mp to 12mp is and at £1300 the
D200 looks expensive to me. The D100 was a competitor of the D60
and 10D, the D200 is a really in the same class as the 20D (and 30D
when it appears) I also predict that we will see a Canon 30D, 40D
and maybe even a 50D before we see a D300. This is not a Nikon vs
Canon thing but just something to consider for the enthusiast or
semi pro who wear out or replace bodies on a regular basis.
Don't get me wrong I may still buy one but I also may buy another
S3 instead. It's going to be an interesting few months.
IMO the only points you try to make in your post is the title: D200, too litle, too late. If you think that's a point, good for you.I don't think I'll bother posting again people like you just are
not worth the bother. I think my post has some valid points and
are remember just my opinion, I don't think there is any call for
the personal tone of your response.
You should know. Around here a troll is considered to be someone who starts a thread with the only intention to make inflamatory statements without any sense.I don't even know what a troll is!
About the R1, I agree you could consider it for landscape photography. You can consider it for much more than that, I'm sure it's a fine piece of equipment. But comparing any P&S to a DSLR in any respect, being it landscape photography or else, is simply a not very good comparison. Have you ever seen a comparison between a P&S film and a SLR? Why should digital be different?If you had taken the time to read the thread you will have seen the
context which my R1 comment was made in which was as a landscape
camera and that for other purposes a DSLR would be needed (and much
better). If I could only own one camera then it would not be the
R1. But horses for courses and as a landscape cam to take on hikes
I think it is worth a look. If you think the S3 is a 6mp piece of
slow plastic then you really have no place contributing to this
thread.
I have been objective. But I think you are not being so.I'll just let this one run it's course....... thanks to those who
have been objective in their responses.
LeeLove wrote:
This back and forth crystal ball predictions about what Canon will
come out with is a waste of time. Who cares !!!
If you are a Nikon shooter then I only care about what Nikon has to
offer me and the SYSTEM I have invested in. Everyone whined about
how long it has taken Nikon to come up with a replacement for the
D100. Now they announce yet another home run product and the trolls
come out of the woodwork to predict what Canon will do.
So if you want to go on and on about Canon then please go to that
forum and enjoy yourself. I for one could careless and I think a
lot of others here feel the same.
Lee
Dioni wrote:
You should know. Around here a troll is considered to be someone
who starts a thread with the only intention to make inflamatory
statements without any sense.
--...run for your life before it's too late! Canon will soon be
introducing the 39MP Canon chip in a FF DSLR with 14 fps, Free
Wi-Max service, Laser Sighting and a coupon for a free dozen at
Krispy Kreme.
--
A 2005 Resolution for us all:
Shoot more, type less. : )
Yes but 6 mpix with Nikons 1,5 crop gives a pixel size that is roughly the same as 5d's.The 5D is a step in the right direction. But 13mp isn't needed for
most wedding shots. 6 would be plenty. And with 6mp you could have
much lower noise at 3200 ISO than the 5D offers.
Actually it should be better than any other current camera on the market.than most cameras at 3200 ISO,
Even if the 5d would have only 6 mpix on a full frame i doubt that iso 3200 would look like todays 400.higher than it is at 400. If you could have the same noise level at
3200 as the 5D has at 400 by increasing the photosite size and
reducing the resolution to 6mp,
I'm actually not so shure about this. If you expose to the right and downsample a bit and perhaps even use a little noisereduction I think the quality would be high enough. I'm not shure but it's possible.for wedding photogs.
That's what I'm talking about. The 5D's 3200 ISO noise is way too
high for quality 8x10 prints.
----
Peter White