new d200 spec!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Usually only the ceremony for me.
And of course,it should be obvious to everyone that pictures at the ceremoony are not important.
For the few I do, I can use software to soften them up and make them look plasticy.
And again, of course, that's an acceptable workaround for poor high iso performance. Clear and unambiguous and of course you are delivering the best images possible for your clients.
To all you 5D fans. Please go and pay twice as much for a consumer grade focusing body.
It would appear that you know nothing of what you write. The focus precision of the 5D is actually quite impressive. I find it as reliable and as accurate as my D2X's.
Are you suggesting that good high iso performance is not important?
I guess I'm not surprised since you also wrote that high iso performance is
"only for the ceremony."
You can slide by for a while with 6MP images but very soon you will be put out of the market with those 6MP images by those of us who are using 12/13/14/16 and probably soon 22 mp images and we will be successful at convincing the clients that it is important. Many already know it and as time goes on they will all know that you are using the same cell phone/ or was that actually a camera/that Uncle Harry is using to shoot their wedding. All too soon your competition will in fact be, none other than, Uncle Harry. I hear Harry makes great pictures and he plans to be there shooting Dollykins wedding with you.
Tired the Lenmar version of the D1X/D1H battery? It's NiMH but with no memory effect so ya can top up the sucker any time. Cheaper than the pukka Nikon job too.
Best of luck.
I don't spend nearly as much time at the PC with the XT as I did with the D70 and the biggest reason is the noise levels above ISO 400... I had no issues with the D70 ISO 200 or ISO 400 but when you started climbing it was always selective NR in an attempt to eliminate horrible shadow and Dark channel noise...
Nikon's strength have always been in the Chroma Noise where Canon failed miserably (yet Phil seemed to always miss) and Canon's strength was typically in the Luminance Noise where Nikon always seemed to fail miserably (Phil always caught this)... Well, with the Newer Canon bodies this has all changed and Canon has addressed their issue with Chroma but has Nikon addressed their issue with Luminance?
In short, a 5D isn't going to make you spend more time at the computer and the Vignetting seems to be limited to certain lenses... The bottom line, you can do just as good if not better with a 5D as you can with a D2x if you take your time and get it right.
Usually only the ceremony for me. I use flash for the rest. And it
is much better than the old film days. Pushing 800 portra or using
that 3200tmz was not so good. For the few I do, I can use software
to soften them up and make them look plasticy.
To all you 5D fans. Please go and pay twice as much for a consumer
grade focusing body. Buy more flash cards and hard drives. Spend
more time at the computer. Buy the best, most expensive L glass to
use that marginal increase in resolution and then crop the file
down to 10mp or less to get rid of the soft corners. To each his
own. Maybe we should wait and see what actually appears. Gotta go
shoot a wedding with my lowly 6 mp cameras. I don't know if I can
face the shame though. I heard uncle Billy Bob has a wiz bang 60 mp
cell phone camera.with built in pager, mp3 player and 3 floating
head electric razor. And the heads are full frame blades. I don't
know how I can face the humility if someone else has a camera with
more mp than me. I am glad I have the choices though.
'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln
Cam 2000. (Assuming it is the full CAM 2000 [or better] and not crippled in any way)
3D Matrix Metering.
They could pull $2500 (and it will drop over time) and sell all they could make.
..people are so concerned with MP's!! Who will need more than 10
mp? Maybe a small group of commercial photographers but that's
about it. You can make decent A2 prints with 4 mp and ordinary
people still want more than 10 mp? unbelievable to me! I would
never want more than 10 mp because of the large files and the slow
I don't understand why you're concerned about it then. If you're happy with the current MP offerings, then you're set.
There's a lot of value in having as much resolution as you can get, for a lot of applications. Anything with detail that you want to show, such as landscapes, macro, still life, and a lot of other stuff benefits directly from the extra details available, including your A2 prints.
Try cropping for different sized prints with a 4mp shot and then compare it to the same shot with a crop from a 12mp shot.
If nothing else, the extra mp allow you a lot more freedom from making lens changes in the field, because you can crop without losing resolution needed to make the prints you want.
my gallery of so-so photos
Far Tang wrote:
'Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see.' Cole, the 6th sense
I have a couple of these and the biggest problem is I don't use the D1X all that much. So, the night before I have to top off three batteries with one charger because they drain all by themselves. Who carries the Lenmars?? Thanks
This sounds exactly like D2X spec, right?
Optical-type fixed eye-level pentaprism
Built-in diopter adjustment (-3 to +1m-1)
Eyepiece shutter provided
Eyepoint: 19.9 mm (at -1.0m-1)
Frame coverage 100%
Viewfinder magnification approx 0.86x with 50 mm f/1.4 lens
you think that ef-s will be always here?
they will abadon them very soon. som couple of years...
that's the strategy - bring FF to everyone.
Martin Tony Surovcek
If the specs are reasonable and the final camera is just over 10MP with a CCD rated up to 1600 (and Hi1 = 3200 and Hi2 - 6400) this sill be a superb camera for very many uses.
The interesting spec (true or false) is that it is CCD - which I strongly think is the better way, with current Nikon technology, to achieve a reasonable replacement for the D100.
The D100 is the "high ISO king of Nikon" - hopefully the D200 will be a fine replacement. I would gobble up a couple immediately!
Thank you for giving me a chuckle for my drive. My clients are more concerned with capturing the moment and the ability to stay calm and get along with the guests. Most could care less if it is 6 10 or 25 mp, as most only want/need 8x10s. occasional 11x or 16x. If the canons are all that great, why are there so many Canon guys over here in the Nikon forums. Most Nikon guys just observe in the canon forums because they realize they would be fighting a losing battle. The Canonites seem to be drum beaters over hear that have to prove how good their gear is. As I have stated many times, I believe the 10mp is a very usable size for my applications. You can do as you please and try to get the measurbater clients that I despise.
Steven Noyes wrote:
Cam 2000. (Assuming it is the full CAM 2000 [or better] and not
crippled in any way)
3D Matrix Metering.
They could pull $2500 (and it will drop over time) and sell all
they could make.
Yes, they could. There are a LOT of faithful people to Nikon, and there will still be in the future. There also are a lot of people with a lot of money invested in Nikon glass. BUT they will loose a lot of money in the long run.
Let's talk only from an honest economical point of view:
a lot of people are already switching to Canon; let's be honest, how many posts on these forum are about people switching from C to N and how many are about people switching from N to C? For that price many nikonians (esp. those who don't have many lens yet) will consider 2 times before upgrading and a lot more people than now will consider switching
the DSLR market is still increasing every day, a lot of people are jumping in every year; who has 2500$ to pay for a DSLR will also consider 5D (and 5D will most likely drop in price in the next few months, despite 200D which will most likely become available in the next few months); who has 1500$ to spend for a body will most likely jump in Canon's boat; that means Nikon will loose an important segment of the market (and most likely the most profitable), as people who are starting now aren't buying only a body, but lens too! not to mention that they will become faithful customers for many years IF you have a good market strategy;
I bet C will bring up a 20D replacement in spring which will have most likely better specs than the 200D? Drop from 2500$ to 1500$? Keep the price up at 2500$ while C offers same thing for 60% of the N's price? What credibility will they have then? Next DSLR they announce and even the faithful nikonians will wait more months for the 40% discount before upgrading.
C'mon, let's be serious: if they price it at 2500$ it will take a beating from the 5D most likely 'cause of the FF and the similar price (did I mention that 5D will surely drop in price prolly at 2999$ at the time 200D will only start shipping? :D). D200 will also take a beating from 20D (not to mention 20D replacement) 'cause of the price.
Yes, on the short run they may make more money if they price D200 at 2500$, but on the long run they will surely loose important segments of the market (again). It is a lot more important to be consistent and have a good strategy in the long run that will bring you NEW customers, while keeping as many customers in your yard, and not sending them away to the neighbour's.
You are so focused on Canon vs Nikon religious issues you continue to ignore and pretend that it does not affect your photography quality, the fact that Nikon sucks at high iso.
Goi ahead and claim that you don't need it.
You are fooling yourself and I guess for the moment you can continue to fool your clients.
Nikon has not delivered good or even acceptable performance at iso 800, iso 1600 or iso 3200 and it is an important cabability that needs to be addressed.
The issue is not Canon versus Nikon.
The issue is that Nikon, at high iso, sucks.
Your solution to diffuse and defocus is the ceremony shots, to my way of looking at it, and in my opinion, is dihonest.
Joe Hoddinott wrote:
Jono Slack wrote:
I hope you're well.
Unfortunately, it may be good for you, but it's a deal breaker for
me. I'm after something with the resolution of the D2x in a
smaller, but still well built case; it sounds like the D200 will
make it on all counts . . . . except the resolution.
I am well my friend - I hope you are too.
Great - I'm fine too - very busy though.
This looks to be the digital F100 we talked about so many years
ago. Do you think the difference between 10.4 and 12.4 will be
that much of a dealbreaker for you? It's almost certain that the
image quality will be as good as the D2x. I would guess that one
wouldn't be able to discern one camera from another without looking
at some VERY large prints.
It's for landscape it really seems to tell, and I think the D2x is really only just acceptable, the difference between 12 and 8 is really very obvious, I'm pretty sure that the difference between 10 and 12 will also be fairly (if less) obvious. The D2x has less resolution than the Kodak I was using before, and it was a reasonable exchange for all the advantages of the D2x in terms of corners and edge sharpness, but another step down really is the wrong direction.
24"X16" seems to be the point at which the D2x starts to show, I can only assume that 10mp would only really be good to about 20X13 or so.
I can get good shots from the D2x at that size, but I don't want to go smaller.
Although I agree that in general terms that the image quality will be 'as good' as the D2x, the D2x really does make the most of it's 12.4mp - look at the comparisons with the 1Ds Mk II at 16mp. I guess it's to do with a light AA filter, but I'm not sure that the D200 is going to be able to squeeze that much resolution out of a smaller sensor still.
Of course, I would be overjoyed to be proved wrong - like you, I don't need bigger files - although, looking at the trailers for Aperture, it seems to hold out hopes for much smaller storage requirements with it's 'variations' system.
I'm also quite convinced that the difference will be insignification for event and portrait work, and that the resolution obsession is only relevant in fairly limited areas (but see my beef about travel cameras in another thread).
I'm curious to hear your remarks. You always offer a very balanced
and realistic viewpoint about your desires and needs.
Purr Purr - I'm flattered! I can only return the compliment
of course, a Hassy Hd2 would be just great - but carrying all that gear around when walking is a pretty big ask.
The 12mp of the D2x is enough for most purposes, but it seems a backwards step to give us 10 with the D200, don't you think?
I guess you're a part of that small group then..=)
There are lots of photographers with the same needs - it may be that it just isn't your needs.
|Ill do anything for a nut by mountinmad|
from -Animals- (in Full Colours Only)
|Spiral Staircase by sgitlin|
from red challenge
|Panavia Tornado by jarud|
from Air Power
|Older than the Hills by knight427|
from Anything, Anytime, Anywhere