Maybe I'm nuts but I want a D200

[ianz28]

I will have to try that but you sure have a much more compatible flash Thanks for the post...

Actually that was a picture from a simple google search.

I have made many of these diffusers though and they can be modeled for on board flash mounted to the lens like the one I linked or even cut and shaped to be mounted on a dedicated flash.

I'm glad you like the idea. They may look silly but they are actually extremely effective.

One of my favorite macro shooters is Mark from the Netherlands if I remember correctly. He uses milk jug diffusers and reversed lenses on a BR-2a reversing ring.

Amazing stuff if you'd like to have a look.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=35865393

 

[ianz28]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply. Luckily I got to try this camera before buying it and noticed these pixels. It's a shame because camera only has 6000 clicks on it. I see d200's around 400 all the time. As far as the d7000 it is way to much for me. I will wait a year or so and maybe buy one when the price is cut in half. I have my heart set on the d200 now, I just have to find one for the right price. Here is a crop of the flower pot picture it shows 5 stuck pixels on the bottom right alone...

You made the right decision. No point keeping the camera with stuck pixels. While some call it nitpicking, I call it "no way I'd pay for a faulty camera". It is possible that Nikon can fix it, but it is also possible that they cannot. In any case, let the seller pay for it, not you. I am glad you could return it and wish you good luck in the hunt for another one.

That's pretty bizarre. I haven't had any dead / stuck pixels on any of my camera's.

 

[calson]

Bad choice. The D200 is a good camera and when it sold new for $599 the last few months of its life it was a great buy as well. But it has a mediocre autofocus system with only one cross type autofocus sensor in the center of the viewfinder.

It is the autofocus system that was greatly improved with the D300 which has 15 cross type autofocus sensors and much better predictive autofocus for subjects like birds in flight.

 

[Alnitak]

So this is my d5000(phottix rechargeable battery grip) with my $15 Tamron, a dejur 2x auto TC $5, a +2 closeup filter (part of a 3.99 set). Oh and the 550 thyristor flash (for c/r) that belonged to my late father, with my coffee filter diffuser. At the same time I am learning lightroom 3 and this is my first attempt with the grasshopper. So for $25 I'm at 2:1 ratio and even with the TC and +2 lens ,this old Tammy is super sharp at least to me...





the lens in is great shape but the hood is a little grimy... So this was full manual metering...

Kris..very nice shot! The setup you have seems to be working very well!. That Tamron is a keeper (don't ever sell it...or call me first!).

You need to decide what exactly you are missing with the D5000...for YOUR style of shooting and preferences.

For example, I don't do BIF, but shoot a lot of indoor sports. The D200 is sufficient for my needs. I don't do a lot of hiking with a camera, so the size didn't bother me. These were some of my considerations...what are yours?

Look at buffer and card size, shooting conditions (low light or daylight), ease of use and/or degree of control and flexibility, need for manual lens compatibility, budget, size of prints, and a hundred other factors before you decide. The D300 has some features that are useful...like D-lighting, Exspeed2, more AF points and options (though for sports, I tend to reduce them for responsiveness sake, so not much advantage over the D200), etc. Yet, the D200 provides great performance for 99% of the population at a lower price point (and some would argue...unmatched IQ in some areas).

You know, I've had the D100, D200 and D300s, and some of the best pictures I've taken, ...still, are with the D100. The latest and greatest isn't necessarily the best.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with a Dxxx model

 

[Kris in CT]

Thank you for your very kind words and all of your input in my thread. Also thanks for sharing your images, I love the husky shot!!!. As you can tell this is all new to me but I am pretty advanced for only 3 months. I sort of went backwards and learned manual metering with the Tamron first. Honestly 2 months ago I didn't know what DOF meant or anything about exposure. I've been sober for a touch over a year and I use my camera to fill the void if that makes sense. So I'm sort of not the average beginner.

With that being said, I know I am dearly missing a focus motor, some say the d200 isn't so good for BIF but it has to be better than MF. I would love to meter with the macro lens although I have good results manually. Overall I actually think the d5000 is great! I'm also kind of weird because I don't like small cameras, hence the battery grip (my late father was an aspiring photographer and he had gripped n90s and eos 1n, so I was always around bigger cameras)...

The d200 felt great in my hands and I wouldn't be opposed to a grip on that as well. The d90 and the d7000 felt ok but just something about them compared to the d200 felt lacking. I'm hoping just the right deal comes along. When I got the deal on the d5000, the d200 was my second choice and I see sawed for a bit.. But couldn't pass on the d5000 for the price and warranty...

I know the d5000 has "scene" and video but I have never used them, so that isn't an issue... The one thing that is amazing about the d5000 that I have never seen anyone else mention is live view with a non cpu lens. In LV as I stop down the lens you actually see the DOF change...
So with all that being said I feel the d200 is calling my name...
And the d5000 would be a nice back up camera..

Kris..very nice shot! The setup you have seems to be working very well!. That Tamron is a keeper (don't ever sell it...or call me first!).

You need to decide what exactly you are missing with the D5000...for YOUR style of shooting and preferences.

For example, I don't do BIF, but shoot a lot of indoor sports. The D200 is sufficient for my needs. I don't do a lot of hiking with a camera, so the size didn't bother me. These were some of my considerations...what are yours?

Look at buffer and card size, shooting conditions (low light or daylight), ease of use and/or degree of control and flexibility, need for manual lens compatibility, budget, size of prints, and a hundred other factors before you decide. The D300 has some features that are useful...like D-lighting, Exspeed2, more AF points and options (though for sports, I tend to reduce them for responsiveness sake, so not much advantage over the D200), etc. Yet, the D200 provides great performance for 99% of the population at a lower price point (and some would argue...unmatched IQ in some areas).

You know, I've had the D100, D200 and D300s, and some of the best pictures I've taken, ...still, are with the D100. The latest and greatest isn't necessarily the best.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with a Dxxx model

 

[Tony Beach]

So with all that being said I feel the d200 is calling my name...
And the d5000 would be a nice back up camera..

I think you should sell the D5000 and stretch for a D300. Among other things the D300 has that the D200 doesn't have is Live View. The more of your posts in this thread that I read, the more convinced I am that this is your best course.

 

[Kris in CT]

Tony, thanks for taking so much time and reading and replying to my posts. I do agree a d300 would be 100% perfect for me. As far as my next deal I spend about 50% looking at d200, 45% between d300/d90 and 5% at d80's with a lot of lenses. My biggest fear is selling the d5000 for let's say 400 (optimistically) would give me the 800 I need for a used d300, however the d300 I see around 800 seem to be relatively beat up with a ton of use. This would leave me one camera and if something went wrong I would be devastated and not have the funds to have it fixed. I know about the best buy deal 2 years ago and it seems that many amateurs jumped on the deal and barely used them. Most of the cameras I have considered are less then 20K with the majority under 10K clicks... It seems most logical for me at this point to try to grab a good d200 use it for 6 months and then if I see the need, sell both and buy a d300 which hopefully will be flooding the market if Nikon ever releases the d400. As far as live view I don't really use it too often and wouldn't miss it, I've used it mostly to verify MF as I sometimes have a difficult time with the small viewfinder...

I know I'm not a camera expert (yet ) but I am a frugal crafty SOB, so I'm trying to find "the right deal" with a decent lens or at least a grip that will hold some resale value. I was watching one on fleabay that the guy has listed with a 35mm F2 but has it mislabeled as a bonus (something) lens.. But he didn't give me the nicest reply when I asked about shutter count and a battery and charger.... oh well sorry for the ramble

 

[Duncan C]

Talk about coincidence. I had posted about 3 posts above yours, and suggested that people look in my macro gallery. Then a few posts later, you post a shot of my milk-jug diffuser camera rig!

The milk-jug diffuser works quite well. These days I'm more likely to use a pop-up diffuser that I found on eBay for about $10, with shipping. It's easier to carry in my camera bag. Here's what that looks like (not my image - it's from the eBay ad)

I will have to try that but you sure have a much more compatible flash Thanks for the post...

Actually that was a picture from a simple google search.

I have made many of these diffusers though and they can be modeled for on board flash mounted to the lens like the one I linked or even cut and shaped to be mounted on a dedicated flash.

I'm glad you like the idea. They may look silly but they are actually extremely effective.

One of my favorite macro shooters is Mark from the Netherlands if I remember correctly. He uses milk jug diffusers and reversed lenses on a BR-2a reversing ring.

Amazing stuff if you'd like to have a look.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=35865393

--
Regards,

Duncan C

dpreview and PBase supporter.



http://www.pbase.com/duncanc
My macro gallery:
http://www.pbase.com/duncanc/macro_pictures&page=all

 

[Alnitak]

Talk about coincidence. I had posted about 3 posts above yours, and suggested that people look in my macro gallery. Then a few posts later, you post a shot of my milk-jug diffuser camera rig!

The milk-jug diffuser works quite well. These days I'm more likely to use a pop-up diffuser that I found on eBay for about $10, with shipping. It's easier to carry in my camera bag. Here's what that looks like (not my image - it's from the eBay ad)

Duncan...been a while since we spoke. Just wanted to chime in here that I also got that diffuser based on your recommendation. I actually found one on ebay for $3.99 + $1.50 shipping from China. Others were going for $20+!

Received it in about 1 1/2 weeks and have been very pleased with it. The elastic around the hole seems to work (no gluing on a rubber band). And funny thing...it seems the bugs aren't as intimidated by the white screen as they are by my head. Maybe their eyes can't process all that reflecting surface correctly, or there's something about a head profile...I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion!

 

[Tony Beach]

I understand you're really making a stretch here, and I would hate to see you get out on a limb and suffer as a result. I would note though that you are already there. What if your gear is stolen, or falls into a creek, or something catastrophic like that? If money is the overriding consideration, get the D200, it's still the better bargain. Insurance will cover theft or damage and when you start to get serious money tied up in your gear you should consider that, but for repairs you need a rainy day fund ($250 or so would be a good start) and you need that now unless you just want to end up with an expensive brick.

That said, the D300 isn't going to get less expensive relative to the D200, and the D300 cameras you might see on the market in the future are likely to be more beat up than the ones on the market today. If I were you, I would be thinking more about lenses right now than your next camera body, but a D200 is going to make more lenses useful to you than your D5000 or a D90. Whatever you end up doing, if I were you I would sell the D5000.

 

[ianz28]

Talk about coincidence. I had posted about 3 posts above yours, and suggested that people look in my macro gallery. Then a few posts later, you post a shot of my milk-jug diffuser camera rig!

That is funny. I just grabbed the one off google images that looked most like ones I've made.

And, I might have to give your replacement a try. Certainly looks better than a cut up milk carton.

Ian

 

[phlowtography]

Sorry to revive a month old thread, but seeing D200 threads have been popping up quite regular for some time now, I didn't want to start another one, when my question belongs here.
So here goes:

Apart from film (OM-1), I use a GF1/G1 (m4/3) and "somehow" fell in love with the Nikon D200... Can't put my finger on why, I just need to have one. Is it the CCD Sensor and its praised low ISO performance? I don't know. The fact it can be bought for a song now? Maybe. There's something appealing about it that is hard to resist, don't know...

Since I don't care about size (if I need pocketable I have an LX5), I might as well use a fully fledged dSLR instead of my G1. If... Well, if there's significant improvement in IQ. I took some nice shots (at least I am satisfied with them) with the m4/3s' sensor and was wondering how much of a gain in IQ a D200 would be, if any? I usually shoot 100-400ISO in daylight. Indoor hardly ever, and if I am asked (e.g. gatherings with family and friends) to take some snapshots for mailing and on-screen viewing - no print - I usually use flash anyway (since the 12mp Live MOS sensor struggles above 400).

Greetings

 

[Tony Beach]

Since I don't care about size (if I need pocketable I have an LX5), I might as well use a fully fledged dSLR instead of my G1. If... Well, if there's significant improvement in IQ. I took some nice shots (at least I am satisfied with them) with the m4/3s' sensor and was wondering how much of a gain in IQ a D200 would be, if any?

Marginal. Lenses would be a bigger factor than the sensor; so if you are just thinking slow zooms or otherwise don't need something else the D200 offers that you don't have, then I would just stick with what you have or consider a D90.

 

[Kris in CT]

I had to chuckle when I saw my post from 2 months ago resurface. Well looking back on this I've decided I am NUTS!!!! and I kind've um well bought 2 cameras... I got a d90 which is absolutely fantastic. I honestly can't say how amazing it is.. no complaints no looking back. But I still felt like maybe I was missing something by not having a d200. So I ended up with a "special" one. I won't go into the details, that was another thread. Because of the full spectrum/ir conversion I can't really comment on IQ because it is a whole different world. But I can comment on what a great operating camera it is. The look, the feel, all the buttons when you need them make it a true joy to shoot. I prefer bigger cameras and the d200 feels perfect in my hands. Well that's my thoughts not that it helps much...

 

[Frank C.]

you're nuits ;p

 

[bob elkind]

For macro work, don't you prefer manual focus using LiveView (zoomed in)? I would!

The D200 doesn't have LiveView, and when using manual focus you don't care about the Tamron's screw drive.

As for birding, the Tamron 90mm is the wrong lens for the job.
--
Bob Elkind

Family, mostly sports. Seriously, folks, I'm not that good. If I can do it, you can do it!
photo galleries at http://eteam.zenfolio.com
my relationship with my camera is strictly photonic

 

[Kris in CT]

I think you missed this whole conversation. I posted this 2 months ago, but someone else brought this conversation up with new questions. I sold the d5000 and got a d90 (and a d200). A 90mm would be quite an odd choice, that's why I have a 200-400(that's why I needed the screw drive) and a 70-300 for lighter work. FWIW, I actually like the viewfinder in the d90 for most of my macro stuff and only occasionally use live view as needed.

For macro work, don't you prefer manual focus using LiveView (zoomed in)? I would!

The D200 doesn't have LiveView, and when using manual focus you don't care about the Tamron's screw drive.

As for birding, the Tamron 90mm is the wrong lens for the job.
--
Bob Elkind

Family, mostly sports. Seriously, folks, I'm not that good. If I can do it, you can do it!
photo galleries at http://eteam.zenfolio.com
my relationship with my camera is strictly photonic

 

[phlowtography]

Thanks for your On-Topic reply, Tony.

To add some shooting habits I forgot to say that I prefer fast primes (28,35,50,90) and manual lenses to some degree. Also I have access to quite a few premium lenses (CV, Zeiss, Nikkor and the like- all for Nikon mount of course). I use some on my Lumix but the 2x crop factors renders many useless. D200 is 1.5x right?

I like to shoot nature (macro and landscape) and portraits, and have the feeling from what I've seen in D200 pictures that it offers a bit more DR and much better contrast than my G1.

 

[talmy]

I just saw this thread. I went from a D200 to a D300s for several reasons, but decided to keep my D200 and have it IR converted. It apparently is one of the best models for IR conversion. I seeked out your other thread. Looks like you got a real bargain!

--
Equipment in my User Profile.

 

[Karld70]

I have both, D200 & D300, kept my D200 as a backup when I upgraded to the D300 years ago. D300 has some good improvements over the D300, and I use it as my primary body. But one place the D200 does better for sure, is low noise at iso 100. Just can not be matched with the D300. As long as you are not pushing the DR limit (D300 is a little better DR). I still use the D200 for studio glamour shots over my D300.