iso200_bryan wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond200/

Bryan

With that out of the way, now we can all turn our attention and valuable time on wondering if nikon releases the D3X by christmas 2006.

--utako

Rick Edwards wrote:
welcome to the world of digital lust
remember when you're old F body Nikon was a great camera (and still are) for like 20 years....no more.....
c'est la fotographie

I shot with a Pentax LX system for 20 years after my Nikon F2S got stolen and that was all I could afford with the insurance money.  If we still shot film and I had the eyes to focus, I would probably still have it today.

I will be buying a D200.  I have been caught in Nikon limbo for a couple of years.

But, I think we are finally getting to the point where digital cameras are getting some legs.  The problem in the past is that they just weren't good enough to completely replace film.  The D2X is certainly good enough for many shooters.  It will remain to be seen if the D200 is as well.

However, once digital cameras reach that point, it will be much like going from a Nikon F4 to a Nikon F5.  Lots of guys shooting film never stepped up.

At some point in the forseable future, we will probably be able to do our job with a camera body for some number of years, although we will always be tempted by the latest and greatest.

So who wants to buy me a D200 for Xmas?

area291 wrote:
While this new entry is fine for those stepping up from P-S, that's about all it is.  Still, at the price level and for the prosumer user this is designed for, this doesn't offer much that the Fuji S2 Pro does (with Nikon body-lens interchange ability), technology released nearly 5 years ago.  In fact this new entry even comes up short and it would be shown in a side-by-side comparison if they had the balls to show it.

Actually, when my Olympus E-10 started to get old and I decided to use my Nikon glass, the camera I wanted was the Fuji S2 rather than the Nikon D100.

I can relate, to some extent, to what you are saying although I think the D200 is a little better than you are making it out to be.  It looks to be a good camera, but I don't think this is so much about chasing its tail as it is Nikon trying to establish a line of DSLR cameras (D50-D2X) that are distinguishiable from a marketing standpoint.  Marketing is driving this, not technology.

Nikon now has its Line so I suspect that each product will make its incremental improvements.

Canon has done the same thing, they have just set different price/feature points.

Oh well, all of this big business gets too confusing to me.

C R Photography wrote:
Tax return?

Geesh!

I making plans to sell body parts.

Anybody need a spare kidney, finger, toe..?..

Yup, tax return.  They steal so much of my pittiful allowance that I usually get $1,200 back.  Cause I don't have kids or...hell...I don't have any deductions other than myself.  So that's all I get back from the thieves.

Karl Blessing wrote:
Not to say nikon isnt any good, but I always notice they play catch-up with their models when compared to canon. No doubt by the time the D200 is released the 20D will drop in price even more ( which is more true of what its competing against than the 5D), The 20D will probally be closer to a 1,000$ camera, where as the D200 when released will be close to 1700$ another win for canon unless yer already in the nikon game with their glass and such. They always seem to be behind canon, usually because it seems they have less of an R&D to work with, and have to wait for canon to release a model to see what features they need to put on their next body.

Yes but have u noticed the firmware ratio of canon/nikon?  Canon releases roughly 3-4 firmware updates to Nikon's 1.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Marketing is driving this, not technology.

And that's the shame of it.  There was a time when Nikon had an aura that distinguished itself much like Hassey and Mamiya.  Many, many in the days of old longed for stepping up to a Nikon as that denoted both quality (technology) and a feeling of arrival (marketing). 

Now the stronger direction appears to be taking on Canon at the prosumer level which (Canon) has clearly positioned itself far better in the arena through branding, equal / better technology and P-S price points.  A step up to this level is now less a matter of doing so by having a case full of embedded glass, but away from the point and shoot market ruled by Canon.  For those with existing glass or older (digital) models looking for an upgrade, this should be viewed as a great disappointment in what is being offered for the price.   

I guess I just don't see the strength in strategy.  This new entry may help fill the Nikon line, but it does nothing to substantiate what they are fast losing; the ownership of a Nikon as having superior technology in the hands.

area291 wrote:
I guess I just don't see the strength in strategy.  This new entry may help fill the Nikon line, but it does nothing to substantiate what they are fast losing; the ownership of a Nikon as having superior technology in the hands.

Well, the Canon 20D is $1,500, the D200 is $1,699, the Canon 5D $3,000, and so on with the Nikon D2X and the Canon 1DS MK II

They are distinguishing themselves in terms of price point as well.  Nikon seems to be making a statement as to price point and the market.  Again, I am not sure they are right or wrong.  They are following a different road than Canon.

I think over time, the price of Canon may come down because of it and then it will get even more confusing.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
...

Many photographers are saying "x-brand" isn't a professional camera because it only takes 3 frames per second instead of 5.   I mean... WTF???

My Mamiya C33 Professional, is a professional camera, it takes um.... however many shots I can do winding the crank and firing the shutter, probally takes 1/fps more than the old C3 Pro where you had to manually cock the shutter. hehe. Ya they dont make the digitals much like their film counterpart.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
More specifically, before the digital craze it was common to find great lenses with wide aperatures (f/ 1.8 or lower) at an affordable price.  Now, f/3.5 is considered a wide aperature on the new crop of auto-everything digitals.  Oh yeah, if you spend a few grand ya might find one or two lenses with an f/2.8 .  In portrait/ glamour photography those wide aps are probably the most important feature to have on a lens!

I'm very new to the game so I'm not sure quite sure what you mean.  The 50mm f/1.8 is $100.  The 85mm f/1.8 is under $400.  These seem affordable.  Or were they even more affordable back in the day? 

I imagine f/3.5 is easier to make and it's produced/marketed more to meet the huge demand for cameras.  May be because of the amount of cameras on the market, faster glass is just too difficult to make to pair up with all the cameras.  I dunno.  Like I said, I'm very new to the game so I don't have history/experience to back up my thoughts.

I like the D200.  I think it's a great step up from the D70 and based on the features and specs, I do believe it's worth the price of admission.

Brian Hillburn wrote:
If there was a such thing as a digital F100 I would be in photographer bliss. I'm not really happy with any of my cameras overall but each does what it does well. I have the S2 and love the image, but hate the focus speed and buffer write speed(studio). I tend to shoot with the D70 when out of the studio but don't feel it compares well with the S2 in studio. My 1 year old F100 has an unbelievable viewfinder, and feel. However, I can't get the hang of how to use my coolscan V, and hate the time,expense. Considering it's just a hobby, I can't justify any new purchases. Still, I drool over the thought of the D200 specs, at a fraction of the D2X cost.

I agree with you, I still love to shoot my F90X in large part due to the huge and wonderful viewfinder.  When did it become acceptable to make such tiny viewfinders on such expensive cameras.  Nonetheless film is a real pain when one gets used to using digital and the d200 looks like a great digital.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
More specifically, before the digital craze it was common to find great lenses with wide aperatures (f/ 1.8 or lower) at an affordable price.  Now, f/3.5 is considered a wide aperature on the new crop of auto-everything digitals.  Oh yeah, if you spend a few grand ya might find one or two lenses with an f/2.8 .

I picked up a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L lens for $1100.   Very good lens.
I got the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS for $1700.  Another great lens, and you can get the non-IS version for about $1100-1200.   

Neither one is cheap, but neither one costs 'a few grand'.  Also, good glass has ALWAYS cost money - they never have given that stuff away.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
In portrait/ glamour photography those wide aps are probably the most important feature to have on a lens!

Similarly, the other day when I was trying some of the new cameras and would touch the focus or zoom ring, the entire view shifted when my hand made contact with the lens.  For the most part, the new lenses are the flimsiest pieces of $hit made.  Only a few years ago the manufacturers of these lenses would have been laughed out of the business for creating such monstrosities.  Now, the new breed of photographers find such crap totally acceptable.

Like anything else, you get what you pay for.  I've found that, especially shooting digitally, nothing Canon sells is as sharp as 'L' glass, so I got rid of my non-L lenses and ponied up for the good stuff.  In terms of image quality, it's money well spent.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
The controls on the new digital cameras are also way out of line.  Often, a person must go through a barrage of menus and button pushing in hopes of changing one simple setting, such as shutter speed or checking depth of field (especially important because lenses no longer have d.o.f. markings on them).

I don't know what cameras you're talking about, but with the 10D and 20D I have to spin one control wheel 1 click to change shutter speed - very similar in action to a film camera.  They both also have external DOF preview buttons near the lens mount, so that is also very easy.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
Many photographers are saying "x-brand" isn't a professional camera because it only takes 3 frames per second instead of 5.   I mean... WTF???

I've never been a 'hold the shutter down and let the motor drive catch it' kind of guy, so the only thing I can offer here is that maybe some sports guys feel this way.  For fashion, I would think that 3 fps would be fine.

MikeyBoy wrote:
.... released today... available in stores in 6 months

Wrong!  By Christmas.  U really think they'd miss that marketing date?  That means 2 months max!  not bad.

Playful Media wrote:
Just when I had my mind made up to get the Canon 5D.....

So let me ask all of you - if the price tag was the same or price wasn't a factor on deciding between this new Nikon and the 5D which would you get?

I've always been a cinematographer first and a still photographer second. I've rencently been having to shoot HD instead of 35 and 16 mm film and have to say that I love it and hate it as the same time. One thing I've always known was that when shooting for TV I could get away with lower quality lenses than when putting something on the big screen. With HD good glass is very important as the higher resolution really shows the flaws of bad lenses. Now that I'm ready to upgrade my still camera to Digital I'm facing cost ratio/quality of the body + lens.

Since there was some talk about high speed lenses here, I've always loved them fast, but film stocks have become so good latetly I could get the same quality out of a f4 lens and 400 film than I use to get out of f2.5 and 100 asa. Have you noticed the noise levels of digital getting good enough the lens speed is not so crucial?

So what I've noticed while researching a new digital still camera is that people care about bells and whistles and megapixels and then get cheap on the lens. The one thing that I'm really stuck on is going Full Frame sensor. Maybe if I've always had crop I wouldn't care but coming from traditional 35mm motion picture and still photography I really hate the idea of my lens not being all it can be.

So? D200 or 5D? Full Frame? CMOS or CCD? I hoping some of your opinions on thse questions will help me to decide.

I'm going to guess that this should be a seperate thread.  Pepsi/Coke? Ford/Chevy? PC/Mac?  But for the short, if your stuck on FF then go with the 5D. I think you would have regrets otherwise.

bgcfoto wrote:
I'm going to guess that this should be a seperate thread.  Pepsi/Coke? Ford/Chevy? PC/Mac?  But for the short, if your stuck on FF then go with the 5D. I think you would have regrets otherwise.

Last time I looked 5D and D200 are two totally seperate markets. the D200 more suited to compete with the 20D than it is the 5D. Though theres a rumor, although cannot be 100% certain until some real reviews come out of the D200, but that the smaller 1.5x crop sensor is supposed to produce similar sharpness and quality at 10Mpixel than some cameras like the 5D can do at full frame. Will be interesting to see.

5D seems more oriented to strobebased studio setup and possible landscape photography, or other applications where the need of a wide angle lens is present. Where as the D200 is for the same kind of market the Canon 20D is for.

Karl Blessing wrote:
Last time I looked 5D and D200 are two totally seperate markets.

I agree entirely.

Playful Media wrote:
Just when I had my mind made up to get the Canon 5D.....

So let me ask all of you - if the price tag was the same or price wasn't a factor on deciding between this new Nikon and the 5D which would you get?

IMHO, 5D.  But that's just me.  Full frame, 12.8 MP.  One thing though - the 5D isn't weather sealed the way the 1D series is, but I think the D200 is made the same as the D2X.  So, if weather is a concern.......

I sometimes shoot interiors and dealing with that whole 1.5x (or in the 20D's case, 1.6) FOV crop is kind of a pain - that's why I'm salivating over the whole full frame thing.   I know I can just get one of those ridiculously short lenses, but I'm not sure how sharp they are.

Karl Blessing wrote:
Last time I looked 5D and D200 are two totally seperate markets. the D200 more suited to compete with the 20D than it is the 5D. Though theres a rumor, although cannot be 100% certain until some real reviews come out of the D200, but that the smaller 1.5x crop sensor is supposed to produce similar sharpness and quality at 10Mpixel than some cameras like the 5D can do at full frame. Will be interesting to see.

5D seems more oriented to strobebased studio setup and possible landscape photography, or other applications where the need of a wide angle lens is present. Where as the D200 is for the same kind of market the Canon 20D is for.

That's interesting because I am reading the online reviews of both cameras just the opposite of you.  From what I can see, the 5D is a targeted as an upgrade to the 20D.  It is a high end prosumer camera (although I can see how a pro could use it).

DPreview, had some particularly prophetic comments (and you need to look at the quotes of some of the Nikon employees).  DPreview found the D200 to be a fully adequate camera for most pros.

I personally think what Nikon has done is to create a relationship between the D2X and the D200 which was the same as the F5 (now F6) and the F100. Both were professional cameras, but the F100 had a smaller feature set.  One of my close friends won a Grammy award and shot with the F100, telling me that there was nothing he needed to cause him to step up to the F5.

Nikon, for example, has put in Wi-Fi capability in the D200, clearly a professional feature.  They added 11 segment focusing, again a professional feature.  The list goes on.

But the problem is that it is too early to know.  The real proof will be six months from now.  Will pros be using D200 as their back-up and primary bodies.

I myself am starting to see this as a price-war.  Canon took the edge for a while and drove the market with technology and set the price point.  If a person was starting from scratch and wanted professional equipment, A D2X -vs- a 1DS MKIi, in terms of price leans towards Nikon.  If one were to look at a D200 -vs- a 5D, again, the Nikon is cheaper for a similar camera.

I don't know what it means and I have no idea where Nikon will end up in the market.  Canon has a strong line right now.  But I think that Nikon is positioning the D200 to be their low end professional camera, not their high end prosumer one.

Select Models wrote:
Wow... I find this amazing... all this discussion of 8, 10 & 12 megapixel Nikons and Canons... the images captured by these 'upscale' cameras in even the 'standard or fine jpg' mode (to say nothing monsterous RAW files) have to be resampled (reduced in size) anywhere from 10 to 30 times before they can be uploaded to a site like model mayhem.  If I was Nikon, and I REALLY wanted to sell some lenses and flashes, I'd come out with something like a 'D-30' DSLR.  It would be something around 4 megapixels, JPG only, egonomical and user friendly yet assessory packed, with the size of the D-50 and the features of the D-70, selling for around $400.  It would shoot 'web-ready' images in various file sizes that would require little or no resampling straight off the media card, making image editing unnecessary or a no brainer.  Then Nikon would see millions of 'point and shoot' jamokes jump on the Nikon bandwagon, all the while buying up LOADS of their assessories.  This in turn would supply LOTS of extra cash for their R&D.  Just a thought...

PS:  I shoot with a D-70s and love it, but I would definitely by a D-30 for web use if one was available, and at 4 megapixels, it would still make great quality 8x10's...

Why not just shoot at Basic?  all the features and power of the D70 at a lower resolution.

DigitalCMH wrote:

Why not just shoot at Basic?  all the features and power of the D70 at a lower resolution.

Dude... you missed the point... that so-called D-30 price break of $400 is what its all about... shooting a D-70 on 'basic setting' is like driving around a Ferrari in first gear... getting fresh blood into the Nikon ranks would be the primary motive here.