|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Nikon D200 IS official and released as of Nov 1
DigitalCMH wrote: Good point. I brought up the "30D" as the probable successor to the 20D. Maybe they'll have to call it something else. Or maybe they figure there's enough difference between D30 and 30D that the world will figure it out. Nov 04 05 10:16 pm Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: Then why didn't they name it the D2.5x or something? Nov 04 05 10:20 pm Link I'm a big Nikon fan from back in the FM3 days! I've gone digital and love it. I shoot with the D70 and wanted to upgrade but the next step past the D70 or D70s was a few thousand dollars away! I'm glad Nikon thought about me  . I will get the D200 in the next few weeks so I will have a lot to say about it. Then you all know what the next step is....D2H BABY!! Darnell G. Nov 07 05 10:22 am Link Darnell G Photography wrote: D2X you mean... Nov 07 05 10:29 am Link Paul Ferrara wrote: I don't konw. Why is the F100 a professional camera that is a step down from the F5? Nov 07 05 11:57 am Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: My guess is the single digits on the canons denote the professional bodies, and the double digits the semi-pro and the amature ones are three digits. Nov 07 05 12:40 pm Link I'll wait until you guys tell me how great it is before I buy it. lol Most likely it won't be until August, just before football season starts. I doubt if I'll be wanting to put down my D100 before then, as it has pretty much all I'll need to take me through the next 8-10 months. But then again, if the pressure is too much, it may be sooner. Nov 07 05 11:12 pm Link are they still using sony ccds? Nov 08 05 06:31 am Link Justin N Lane wrote: Nikon uses a CCD on everthing except for the D2X and the D2H/D2Hs. Nov 08 05 10:25 am Link Karl Blessing wrote: Except while canon is flooding the market with cameras Nikon takes a little time and does it right that's the difference. I tend to notice the people who just want to fire off shots and hope they get one good one of a burst use Canon. The guys I see with Nikon take less shots and get more good results. Not to mention the photos out of the camera are great and the Canon seems to be as I said the fire it off to get the show, but than photo shop to make it pretty kind of camera. I'll take Nikon any day hands down over Canon, the Canons just don't have the vibrant and acurate color or sharpness that i see from Nikon, they just look flat in comparison. The thing that I'm waiting to see what Nikon is doing though is when they're going to go full frame, canon is supposed to change all their cameras to full frame in 06 where as Nikon has yet to put out one. Nov 18 05 11:44 pm Link My experience is just opposite. So what? Mike Byer wrote: Nov 19 05 10:05 am Link Well, I took the plunge... I've got a deposit down on the D200 from Berger Bros. If you didn't hear, they are taking pre-orders and shipping with *2* EL3e batteries... Now, all I have to do is sit around and wait until January!... anyone got a deck of cards? ;-) Nov 21 05 07:32 pm Link I just bought mine. Was told 1st week in Dec. Anyone who has ordered able to beat that? Nov 22 05 01:58 pm Link iso200_bryan wrote: Nope. Whereju order from? Nov 22 05 02:10 pm Link Cameraworld. Was a pain in the ass too. I had to call to confirm the internet order with sum call center in India. Nov 22 05 03:00 pm Link ok so i just want to add this... the real difference between nikon and canon is the LOOK of your photos. what i mean by this is simple, with film kodak 100 and fuji 100 are technically the same but clearly have different looks. when buying a camera dont worry if one has a self cleaning thingymajiger or a flux capacitor or whatever. get the camera that creates the LOOK you're after. specs mean nothing because CCD and CMOS sensors are ANALOG. the signal gets converted to digital within the processors of the camera. so even if canon and nikon made the same exact camera to spec both would have different picture qualities. while i am a canon shooter im leaning towards the nikon family because i have found that the D2X produces a very "thick"(for lack of a better term) photos while the canon look is becoming bland to me. this is due to the image processing not just the sensor. and as for the constant full frame vs crop frame sensors, canon, nikon, tamron, and sigma now offer VERY nice glass that makes up for the lack of wide angle, with that in mind the only thing to think about is if you want to keep your DOF scale the same as when you shot film, if this isnt an issue then the sensor size shouldnt really be a factor. i also like nikons "3d matrix" metering, i find this to be superior to canon. personally im excited to see the D200 the only thing that worries me is the use of a CCD vs CMOS, clearly nikon is saying CMOS is a better sensor by using it for their high end full feature camera... but in the end when all is said and done it comes down to the person using the gear. you can have all the tools in the world but if you dont know how to use them then what does it matter. ok its way too late and im just rambling. take care. Nov 23 05 03:04 am Link i'll wait on it.  Nov 23 05 03:16 am Link open aperture wrote: I think more so to keep the cost down as I've already read CMOS to be cheaper. Nov 23 05 02:54 pm Link open aperture wrote: While I agree with some of your post, you are very far off on the technical aspects. CCD and CMOS Sensors are not ANALOG in any way, shape or form. This is the very piece that coverts light to digital data. That would be like saying that the ADC chip on your sound card in your computer is ANALOG because it is what takes the analog audio and converts it to digital audio. Just not true. ALL CCD/CMOS sensors are not created equal and they have a HUGE effect on how an image is captured open aperture wrote: Sure they will process the data differently, some adding sharpening some adding noise reduction, etc. When you process in RAW mode with the camera set to not add it's own profile to the image you will essentially get very close digital negatives so to speak. Nov 23 05 03:41 pm Link from www.howstuffworks.com "The next step is to read the value (accumulated charge) of each cell in the image. In a CCD device, the charge is actually transported across the chip and read at one corner of the array. An ANALOG-to-digital converter turns each pixel's value into a digital value. In most CMOS devices, there are several transistors at each pixel that amplify and move the charge using more traditional wires. The CMOS approach is more flexible because each pixel can be read individually." forgive me i misunderstood this article the first time i read it months ago there is a conversion happening there, light is still analog. as for the look i mentioned... regardless of the chip used (im not saying all chips are equal, they most certainly are not) but for arguments sake lets just assume they are. canon has one algorithm for its sensors analog to digi conversion and so will nikon. this will lead to pictures looking different. not to mention the most minuet differences in exposure due to metering. i just feel the D2X produces a photo with more density and depth than any canon i've seen. thats just personal opinion not at all fact. sorry if it came off like that. as for cmos being cheaper... it is, but with technologies evolving at the rate they are cmos have become very clean, the finest examples of this are with both the D2X and the 5D which both produce stunning images. the 5d is especially impressive with how clean it is at iso1600. Nov 23 05 05:49 pm Link Alan from Aavian Prod wrote: I should have put the emphasis on SONY... Nov 23 05 08:46 pm Link Nov 24 05 07:09 pm Link iso200_bryan wrote: Last time I checked, India was on the world. Nov 24 05 07:12 pm Link Craig Thomson wrote: Yah me. for the past 20yrs. Nov 25 05 01:03 am Link |
