Digital cameras have limitations, just like film and any other product.
There are limitations inherent in the medium; then there are
defects which have little to do with those inherent limitations, but rather results from poor engineering or implementation.
That's silly. I've never asserted anything of the sort. Proper
exposures on the average d200, don't produce banding, even on
cameras that don't pass the torture test.
Again, I'm
not talking about D200s that
are not affected by banding. I'm talking about - as I have been from the beginning - those cameras that
ARE affected.
Is the distinction really so hard to make?
There are also a great many indications that, for a majority of
Nikon D200 users, some level of banding is perfectly acceptable or
that they've never even bothered to examine their images for it -
you know, the old "head in the sand" mentality. Thus, how much can
be attributed to "lots of reports of complete fixes" when so many
are willing (even desperately wanting ) to overlook the defect
altogether?
heh. I see no reason to believe that it is the "HIS" mentality, as
you assert. The majority of d200 users are happy with the camera
because they have cameras that don't produce banding in their daily
use. If it's not a problem, why insist otherwise?
I've never asserted that what would certainly be a problem for me (or those potential D200 buyers expecting their images to be free of banding or any other such systematic flaws) is a problem for those who either consider banding of minor concern or simply do not care to know. Again, you have a problem distinguishing your knee-jerk reaction to a perceived assault on your own right to be happy with your chosen gear from what was actually said and to whom. Not
once , except in response to your veering diatribes, directed a post
TO YOU because, in the interest of having a level-headed discussion it would be rather pointless to do so.
Why would you insist that the d200 be anything? You don't own one.
Why do you hold the 5d to a less than 100% standard?
Because I have some Nikkor lenses that I'd like to use on a Nikon digital body. Last one I had, the D70, was pretty pathetic for image quality, and I was/am hoping the D200 will (eventually) pan out to be worthy of an investment. THAT'S why I'm on this forum, THAT'S why I place no less of a demand on the D200 than I would my 5D, and THAT'S why - to your apparent disdain - I will continue to follow and comment upon developments in its regard.
LOL, that's what is so funny about your nonsense. You don't own the
camera. I do and, like the majority of owners, don't find banding
in my photos. If I did, I'd have it repaired. That's life.
On the day of its release, I shot with a D200, courtesy of my local camera store in Bellevue, WA. From that, I learned all I need to know: while theoretically, it's capable of excellent results in most circumstances - very nice colors, accurate white balance, low noise from ISO 100 to 400 - BUT, the unit I tested showed mild banding in all the shots I took, some more prominently than others. I've also downloaded NEF files from various sources on the web (Uwe Steinmeuller, most significantly:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/nikon_d200/Nikon_d200_review.html ) and found them, too, to be plagued with banding to one degree or another. Luckily for me, I don't need to spend $1700 and a month shooting with a camera to determine whether or not it meets my needs. Currently, the D200 does not. When Nikon finally ramps up production, hopefully also working out the causes of the banding, I'll test another D200 and if I find it to be totally free of banding, I'll buy one to use with my Nikkor lenses.
Luckily, I don't need your or anyone else's permission to either do this or not.
Both canon and nikon make excellent cameras, but there isn't a
perfect camera out there.
On this, at least, we are in agreement.
Unlike you, I don't go to other forums and play fanboy with
missives on cameras that I don't own. For some reason, I have this
silly idea that people who own a camera that I don't own, probably
have a much better idea as to the strengths and weaknesses of the
camera than I do.
Indeed, and I am resolutely unapologetic about having the gall to formulate my own ideas based on my own experiences, however limited, and in light of my own particular needs, rather than deferring to the notions of other people. I
do know what I need from a camera and don't find it too much of a burden to find out firsthand if it meets my needs. THAT gives me license to post, based on my firsthand experience, on any forum I see fit, regardless of whether or not I own the equipment myself.
If that continues to ruffle your features...too bad.
--
Garland Cary
But, they didn't and the 10d wasn't worth $500 more. Canon probably missed out on a lot of customers back then.