Reading mode: Light Dark

Off topic and not, D200

Go to last post
Yes, £1 is a lot if you don't have it. Maybe you should stick with the Kodak for now. Remember, the look of a file at actual pixels is irrelevant when you have 14MP...
Flick said:
DMillier said:
The price of the 5D is £1800 at warehouseexpress and canon are
running a post purchase rebate worth £200 so the real cost is
currently £1600.
Click to expand...
Still too much. I don't have an income till i start to earn with my
camera, and i don't have savings or anything left to sell, other
than the Kodak. That extra £400 might as well be £4000.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
I see the chicken and egg here, you need the camera to earn the cash and you need the cash to get the right camera. May I cheekily suggest that if Dave is right about the stock library resolution requirements often being 11mp no upres, then you might consider selling the beloved Olly too? Here's an additional idea: I got a Photobook back recently from .Mac and out of 60 odd shots in it, about five or six were taken with a Canon g4. Most of the rest were with the Kodak. Without exception, people who look at the book are attracted to the G4 shots immediately. I really couldn't say why but I do know that what I'm going to do now is use the G4 like you use your Olly, as a really good, light carry around.

I bet you could get one for less than £200! And here's a down-resed shot from the camera. I have an up-resed at A3 which is very nice indeed.



This way, by selling the Kodak and the Olly, you could probably get a G4 and a 5D with twp or three great lenses and no ambiguity about whether the agencies would accept the SLR shots...

--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/
 
Hi Flick,

I hear what everyone says about the Kodak, and no doubt the Canon 5D is a good camera but...

First, think about Silkypix for the 14nx. Honestly, it will transform the camera. Its a lot cheaper than a new camera.

I use my 14nx for stock and its great. Getting a new camera is not I think the solution, tempting though it is to buy one's way out of trouble. The Kodak still rocks.

Second, remember what Jono has said about his D200. He loves it. I have also read just about every review of it and it is a superb tool. If you must sell the Kodak, then the D200 allows you to keep your current lenses. The 5D costs more than the D200 because full frame sensors are more expensive to produce.

Finally, for stock, there is not problem with a good 6mp image being uprezzed for Alamy. Its different with the microstocks, where uprezzing is not allowed and bigger file sizes count for more (so again a reason to stick with the Kodak).

My advice would be to keep the Kodak and buy Silkypix to decode your raw files, but if you must sell, then get the D200.
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
 
I admit I haven't read all the previous messages in this thread, but I assume another data point or two won't hurt.

My 60mm Micro is plenty sharp enough for use on a D2X, so it should be more than adequate on a D200.

My 35-70 AF Nikkor has visible longitudinal (not transverse, as with most wide-angles) chromatic aberration on the D2X but not on the 14n. The LCA might also be visible on the D200. I don't know whether there is any software available for correcting LCA, so you might have some retouching to do.

Of course, your particular lenses might be different.
 
DMillier said:
Now, now Flick!

Those comments were just a lead up to saying that if you are
shooting from a tripod, losing AF is not a big deal so switching to
canon would be feasible - which you would have realised if you had
read my post through before leaping on a tall horse. Try and not be
quite so sensitive, I'm only trying to be helpful ;-)
Click to expand...
Not sensitive, just frustrated. You are young with good vision (at least good enought o focus without AF). I canot now rely on manual focus in any situation, through any viewfinder. Why i'm not sure, since my optition says my eyes are exceptionally good for my age (only 1.5 dioptres of long sightedness), but I simply can't accomodate. Using a tripod is worse, unless the area of focus is in the cente of the frame. A focusing rail or multi area AF would be a godsend for me. Even with glasses, i can't rely on manual focus. Macro is a nightmare now.
 
Hi Tim, chicken and egg is about right, LOL. BTW, regarding no up res, I don't see how they can ask for that as even the Kodak files have to be rsized to be big enouhg, unless I've misunderstood and they don't want 8bit. Quentin sent me loads of info, and he sells to several stock agencies, and he seemed to think my S2 files would do, and that's in effect only a 6MP camera.

i don't think it;s worth trying to sell the E1 as they're now practically giving them away.
Lovely pic, thanks.

What i'll probably do is give the Kodak yet another chance, but I have to say that even recent shots are sometimes prone to noise in shadow areas, properly exposed and at base ISO.
tashley said:
I see the chicken and egg here, you need the camera to earn the
cash and you need the cash to get the right camera. May I cheekily
suggest that if Dave is right about the stock library resolution
requirements often being 11mp no upres, then you might consider
selling the beloved Olly too? Here's an additional idea: I got a
Photobook back recently from .Mac and out of 60 odd shots in it,
about five or six were taken with a Canon g4. Most of the rest were
with the Kodak. Without exception, people who look at the book are
attracted to the G4 shots immediately. I really couldn't say why
but I do know that what I'm going to do now is use the G4 like you
use your Olly, as a really good, light carry around.

I bet you could get one for less than £200! And here's a down-resed
shot from the camera. I have an up-resed at A3 which is very nice
indeed.



This way, by selling the Kodak and the Olly, you could probably get
a G4 and a 5D with twp or three great lenses and no ambiguity about
whether the agencies would accept the SLR shots...

--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/
Click to expand...
 
DMillier said:
Yes, £1 is a lot if you don't have it. Maybe you should stick with
the Kodak for now. Remember, the look of a file at actual pixels is
irrelevant when you have 14MP...
Click to expand...
sorry, can you explain what you mean. The look of the file is very relevant when they're blowing it up to 100% to check it for technical merit. noise is the main problem.
 
.
the signatory said:
Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that if you are shooting events or
weddings. However, I can't imagine you will need to mass/batch
process those kind of numbers just for some stock?

--

Hmm, i've just spent the best party of a week trying to get about 15 files looking right. Images that are fine for every other use suddenly become critical for stock (see Petes' message). I've tried other converters than ACR and Lightroom, Silkypix among them, and have found that ACR and CS2 still give as good a result as anything.
Click to expand...
Aagh, i know you're all trying to be helpful, but it's vey frustrating!
 
At last, someone who isn't trying to lure me to Canon - save me, brother, save me ;-)
Quentin (UK) said:
Hi Flick,

I hear what everyone says about the Kodak, and no doubt the Canon
5D is a good camera but...

First, think about Silkypix for the 14nx. Honestly, it will
transform the camera. Its a lot cheaper than a new camera.
Click to expand...
I tried it but to be honest, with the noise issue, noise reduction in CS2 did as good a job as anythiug. I have silkypix trial on my machine and will give it another go, but it doesn't kind of fit the way i work. I didn't like the results any better than what i was getting already. Too many choices for one thing. But i guess i need to give it more chance when i'm not working under stress.
Quentin (UK) said:
I use my 14nx for stock and its great. Getting a new camera is not
I think the solution, tempting though it is to buy one's way out of
trouble. The Kodak still rocks.
Click to expand...
LOL. ok, you've got me. I think (and I'd forgotten this in my panic) I possibly need to do a long format on all my cards and see if my images are cleaner - thoygh i havn't reall taken much since the sensor upgrade. If only the Oly had more MP, because the images are beautiful and clean as a whistle.
Quentin (UK) said:
Second, remember what Jono has said about his D200. He loves it.
I have also read just about every review of it and it is a superb
tool. If you must sell the Kodak, then the D200 allows you to keep
your current lenses. The 5D costs more than the D200 because full
frame sensors are more expensive to produce.
Click to expand...
At last the voice of reason. Maybe if I start to earn a resonable ammount, I'll keep the Kodak and buy the D200 as well.
Quentin (UK) said:
Finally, for stock, there is not problem with a good 6mp image
being uprezzed for Alamy. Its different with the microstocks,
where uprezzing is not allowed and bigger file sizes count for more
(so again a reason to stick with the Kodak).

My advice would be to keep the Kodak and buy Silkypix to decode
your raw files, but if you must sell, then get the D200.
--
Click to expand...
Thanks Quentin. May I email you later to check I've understood everthing alamy wants? I've registered and now have to try to stop agonising over which files to send.
 
Thanks Warren.
Warren Sarle said:
I admit I haven't read all the previous messages in this thread,
but I assume another data point or two won't hurt.

My 60mm Micro is plenty sharp enough for use on a D2X, so it should
be more than adequate on a D200.

My 35-70 AF Nikkor has visible longitudinal (not transverse, as
with most wide-angles) chromatic aberration on the D2X but not on
the 14n. The LCA might also be visible on the D200. I don't know
whether there is any software available for correcting LCA, so you
might have some retouching to do.

Of course, your particular lenses might be different.
Click to expand...
 
That's very kind of you but I'm not that young (43)!

My eyesight is still better than 20/20 but I can feel the beginnings of close up deterioration - I used to easily focus about 4 inches closer than I can these days. But I appreciate your point - everyone has to make a decision on what equipment suits them according to their needs and circumstances.
Flick said:
DMillier said:
Now, now Flick!

Those comments were just a lead up to saying that if you are
shooting from a tripod, losing AF is not a big deal so switching to
canon would be feasible - which you would have realised if you had
read my post through before leaping on a tall horse. Try and not be
quite so sensitive, I'm only trying to be helpful ;-)
Click to expand...
Not sensitive, just frustrated. You are young with good vision (at
least good enought o focus without AF). I canot now rely on manual
focus in any situation, through any viewfinder. Why i'm not sure,
since my optition says my eyes are exceptionally good for my age
(only 1.5 dioptres of long sightedness), but I simply can't
accomodate. Using a tripod is worse, unless the area of focus is in
the cente of the frame. A focusing rail or multi area AF would be a
godsend for me. Even with glasses, i can't rely on manual focus.
Macro is a nightmare now.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
Pardon, but what are you doing? Is this the direction you want photography to take you? I don't know you, but from your posts would say photography has been an emotional uplift for you in the past. It doesn't seem like your still on that path. Frustrated to the point you are selling your equipmen in search of the "perfect" tool... Zooming to 200% looking for every imperfection...

For what? So someone who looks at thousands of images every day can evaluate your work against them all?

I don't know Flick. How long before photography is no longer the joyful exression it has been. By the looks of the posts here, it's not far off.

Best of luck to you. Older lenses work fine on my D200. My 35-70 2.8 and my non-D 80-200, & 300 f4 very sharp. Let me know if you want some posts of any of them.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
 
I know where you are coming from.

I looked at a number of stock agencies and I thought "So if I want to make some money out of photography, I have to take 15,000 pictures a year of computer keyboards, pocket calculators, wall calendars, balls of string, people in white coats holding testtubes of green liquid, desks and pens, clocks showing different times of the the day, taps, people in suits holding brief cases, sitting on briefcases, standing on briefcases, throwing briefcases, people waiting in queues at counters, trains in stations etc etc"

Hmmm...
LVPG said:
Pardon, but what are you doing? Is this the direction you want
photography to take you? I don't know you, but from your posts
would say photography has been an emotional uplift for you in the
past. It doesn't seem like your still on that path. Frustrated to
the point you are selling your equipmen in search of the "perfect"
tool... Zooming to 200% looking for every imperfection...

For what? So someone who looks at thousands of images every day
can evaluate your work against them all?

I don't know Flick. How long before photography is no longer the
joyful exression it has been. By the looks of the posts here, it's
not far off.

Best of luck to you. Older lenses work fine on my D200. My 35-70
2.8 and my non-D 80-200, & 300 f4 very sharp. Let me know if you
want some posts of any of them.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
Sorry to crush your perception of my idealism Rick, but the bald truth is that i have an outstanding mortgage of £39, 000, I currently have no income, I'm 59 years old so not a good employment prospect for anything except stacking shelves (not having had the benefit of a university education or any kind of training other than art and photography). I would love not to be viewing images at 100%, but since i need to earn some money urgently if I'm to survive and not lose my home, I have to prepare images for stock (this is the most likely initial form of income, small though it may be), and if I don't go through my pics with a fine tooth comb and miss something, the';ll turn down the whole batch. This is not pie in the sky or neurosis, this is cold, hard fact. I no longer have the luxury of taking photos for fun, though zooming to 200% would be counterproductive, don't you think, since there's not much point looking at pixellated images.

Now if you can't get a handle on this, sorry, but possibly you need to go and niggle someone else. Pity really, as i thought we'd begun to establish some sort of rapport - your private emails to me have been helpful, friendly and not full of your usual nonsense.

Funny really, i asked simply about lenses on the D200 and Warren and Quentin appear to be the only people able to give me a straight answer wihtout prevaricating or running to advice that is outside my financial scope.
LVPG said:
Pardon, but what are you doing? Is this the direction you want
photography to take you? I don't know you, but from your posts
would say photography has been an emotional uplift for you in the
past. It doesn't seem like your still on that path. Frustrated to
the point you are selling your equipmen in search of the "perfect"
tool... Zooming to 200% looking for every imperfection...

For what? So someone who looks at thousands of images every day
can evaluate your work against them all?

I don't know Flick. How long before photography is no longer the
joyful exression it has been. By the looks of the posts here, it's
not far off.

Best of luck to you. Older lenses work fine on my D200. My 35-70
2.8 and my non-D 80-200, & 300 f4 very sharp. Let me know if you
want some posts of any of them.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
Click to expand...
 
You really should take a look matnQuentin's contributions to alamy - perfectly within my scope, not at all boring, and he's selling them,
DMillier said:
I know where you are coming from.

I looked at a number of stock agencies and I thought "So if I want
to make some money out of photography, I have to take 15,000
pictures a year of computer keyboards, pocket calculators, wall
calendars, balls of string, people in white coats holding testtubes
of green liquid, desks and pens, clocks showing different times of
the the day, taps, people in suits holding brief cases, sitting on
briefcases, standing on briefcases, throwing briefcases, people
waiting in queues at counters, trains in stations etc etc"

Hmmm...

L
Click to expand...
 
Hi Flick

I sympathasise with your predicament, I really so. Embarking on a new career is exhilarating and terrifying in equal measure and combining that with precarious finances must be immensely stressfull.

Having said that, people are not always in a position to give the advice that someone needs and their best attempts won't always be that useful. Sorry about that but not sure how else to respond.

One thing that occurs to me following up on Quentin's suggestion about sticking with the Kodak for now - how you tried downsizing the files at all? Sometimes that is effective at reducing noise and artifacts and the results from the Kodaks will still be very sharp.

D
Flick said:
LVPG said:
Pardon, but what are you doing? Is this the direction you want
photography to take you? I don't know you, but from your posts
would say photography has been an emotional uplift for you in the
past. It doesn't seem like your still on that path. Frustrated to
the point you are selling your equipmen in search of the "perfect"
tool... Zooming to 200% looking for every imperfection...

For what? So someone who looks at thousands of images every day
can evaluate your work against them all?

I don't know Flick. How long before photography is no longer the
joyful exression it has been. By the looks of the posts here, it's
not far off.

Best of luck to you. Older lenses work fine on my D200. My 35-70
2.8 and my non-D 80-200, & 300 f4 very sharp. Let me know if you
want some posts of any of them.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your concern :-)

LOL, i really only wanted to know how my lenses would perform on the D200 - part of deciding what to do. But I think I'll stick with the Kodak till i've earnd some money. I'd also like to see what Olympus comes up with. The E1 makes photography a hassle free and joyful experience, but the resolution isn't enough.

I don't think it's exhilirating trying to make more of a go of earning as a photographer, just a matter of having to, and something i've been skating round since i left college in 2000 (and 1979!).

I've just had a long conversation with Quentin, who has given me a technique that has disguised the noise and emans I've been able to process that baby image in five minutes, instead of struggling for days with it.

Thanks anyway for your help and concern. And 43 is very young from where I'm standing ;-)
Flick.
DMillier said:
Hi Flick

I sympathasise with your predicament, I really so. Embarking on a
new career is exhilarating and terrifying in equal measure and
combining that with precarious finances must be immensely
stressfull.

Having said that, people are not always in a position to give the
advice that someone needs and their best attempts won't always be
that useful. Sorry about that but not sure how else to respond.

One thing that occurs to me following up on Quentin's suggestion
about sticking with the Kodak for now - how you tried downsizing
the files at all? Sometimes that is effective at reducing noise and
artifacts and the results from the Kodaks will still be very sharp.

D
Click to expand...
 
HI Flick

There's so much that I disagree with here, that I'm simply not going to go in to any details.

I don't have the same lenses as you, but in my experience the D200 is not even slightly fussy with respect to lenses - all the ones I do have focus properly and produce decent results - in fact, one of the immediate benefits of the D200 over the D2x is how much kinder it is to lenses (I suspect the mirror slap of the D2x has a lot to answer for).

Incidentally, some of the more recent reviews have the D200 providing more resolution than the 5D, and BJP certainly thought that it was a much better camera, both in terms of Image Quality, build, features and ergonomics . . . . Anders Uschold pointed out that the nice 24-105 IS lens produced 4 stops of vignetting wide open at 24mm . . .but I expect the others around here know better! (I have no clue, not having done any comparisons).

Kind Regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top