If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Should I spend $1,500 at B&H plus Sales Tax($1,629 and at Cameta
$1,625 or $1,765 w/ tax) for a D200 or for $1,799 and no tax order and wait for a D300 from Ritz? Given that I never bought any DX lenses and all my lenses are from my Nikon F5, would I be better off with those lenses on D300. As far as my "gray market" questions, sorry I never participated in those great answers due to family illness, However, I guess it all depends on how much you save because getting the camera back to Japan for fixing, if it needs it, is not that big a deal as compared to a large savings. If I was a Pro, then there would be no debate. I can wait a few extra weeks for a gray but only if there is a huge savings. However, now I wonder if it just pays to wait for the D300. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Alan wrote:
Should I spend $1,500 at B&H plus Sales Tax($1,629 and at Cameta $1,625 or $1,765 w/ tax) for a D200 or for $1,799 and no tax order and wait for a D300 from Ritz? Well, it's a 20% premium to get the latest technology, 20% more pixels, etc. Only you can decide if it's worth the $300 difference. Latest & greatest / newest & shiniest isn't always the best; it depends on your priorities. The D300 will get you a couple years more advanced technology, but it could have kinks and things like raw converters for 3rd-party tools may be delayed. And the $300 difference could pay for more accessories, a flash, etc. If it didn't have new features or improvements I actually needed, I'd go the cheaper route. In this case, the D300 will be worth it for me. FYI, grey market is usually only a 5% savings at a legit retailer. Not worth it to me, though I've only seen grey market lenses, not bodies. Cheers, Richard |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
I can live without "live view" Once you have owned a top quality camera (such as a DSLR) with Live View, you will wonder how you ever lived without it. All DSLR manufacturers either offer Live View or have models with the feature on the way. They would not offer the feature if they did not anticipate a very strong demand for it. That demand doesn't come only from people who are trading up from compact point and shoot digital cameras, it comes from serious photographers who, once presented with Live View, find it to be an incredibly useful and highly valuable feature. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
If you can wait there is no reason not to get the D300. I certainly would.
NX will recognize the inevitable new raw format immediately and Adobe will within a month. The live preview thing is not as valuable as it might seem for most shooting circumstances; if you have ever used a high end EVF camera you will instantly recognize the few advantages and many disadvantages of it. The limited surface area for the viewing screen is such that it will still be of very limited use for judging critical focus or details of highlight/shadow exposure, worse in sunlight. Physics is physics. Noise issues, even going back to the now ancient D70, are not very consequential for most advanced amateur users. Many if not most of the people who fret about noise on this newsgroup are technically obsessed and aesthetically challenged. Digital noise is the thing that is least wrong with most people's digital images. If you want noiseless images at high ISOs then you are SOL, digital or film. Physics is physics. Unless you routinely print at sizes larger than 8.5x11 pixel count above 6mps is not the factor it would seem to be. If you can wait 6 months longer Nikon will replace the D80 with a slightly less capable version of the D300. Hopefully with image stabilization built into the camera where it belongs. I would rather have that than live preview or a slightly larger pixel count. Sadly, for me, the D80 is the end of the upgrade cycle for awhile: for what I do only in-camera image stabilization would be a tangible improvement. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
"Scott W" wrote in message ... Tony Polson wrote: Gisle Hannemyr wrote: I can live without "live view" Once you have owned a top quality camera (such as a DSLR) with Live View, you will wonder how you ever lived without it. All DSLR manufacturers either offer Live View or have models with the feature on the way. They would not offer the feature if they did not anticipate a very strong demand for it. That demand doesn't come only from people who are trading up from compact point and shoot digital cameras, it comes from serious photographers who, once presented with Live View, find it to be an incredibly useful and highly valuable feature. If the live view comes with a screen that can swivel, then yes it is a feature that we be of great value to me. Sadly I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are adding this feature to there live views, I could be wrong about this. The Panasonic DMC-L10 seems to have this right, they should all be like this. I am willing to bet that we will see the swivel live view with in a year. as soon as one of the other does it the other will follow. so who will lead the way? for me also.. they should all be that way.. but they want you to upgrade again . JSM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Scott W wrote:
Tony Polson wrote: Gisle Hannemyr wrote: I can live without "live view" Once you have owned a top quality camera (such as a DSLR) with Live View, you will wonder how you ever lived without it. All DSLR manufacturers either offer Live View or have models with the feature on the way. They would not offer the feature if they did not anticipate a very strong demand for it. That demand doesn't come only from people who are trading up from compact point and shoot digital cameras, it comes from serious photographers who, once presented with Live View, find it to be an incredibly useful and highly valuable feature. If the live view comes with a screen that can swivel, then yes it is a feature that we be of great value to me. Sadly I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are adding this feature to there live views, I could be wrong about this. The Panasonic DMC-L10 seems to have this right, they should all be like this. One of the main uses I made of live view (on my old F828) was to hold the camera at waist height when shooting people, which often give far better perspective then shooting from eye level. But if I can't swivel the screen then this becomes much harder to do. That's true. Once significant numbers of DSLR users have learned to use and appreciate the value of Live View, the demand for tilting and swivelling screens will become impossible for manufacturers to resist. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
On Sep 1, 6:23 pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Scott W wrote: Tony Polson wrote: Gisle Hannemyr wrote: I can live without "live view" Once you have owned a top quality camera (such as a DSLR) with Live View, you will wonder how you ever lived without it. All DSLR manufacturers either offer Live View or have models with the feature on the way. They would not offer the feature if they did not anticipate a very strong demand for it. That demand doesn't come only from people who are trading up from compact point and shoot digital cameras, it comes from serious photographers who, once presented with Live View, find it to be an incredibly useful and highly valuable feature. If the live view comes with a screen that can swivel, then yes it is a feature that we be of great value to me. Sadly I don't believe either Canon or Nikon are adding this feature to there live views, I could be wrong about this. The Panasonic DMC-L10 seems to have this right, they should all be like this. One of the main uses I made of live view (on my old F828) was to hold the camera at waist height when shooting people, which often give far better perspective then shooting from eye level. But if I can't swivel the screen then this becomes much harder to do. That's true. Once significant numbers of DSLR users have learned to use and appreciate the value of Live View, the demand for tilting and swivelling screens will become impossible for manufacturers to resist. But let the luddites crow for awhile longer. They'll end up sounding just a stupid and myopic as when they dismissed dust control and lenses designed for digital sensors. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
I was under the impression that a non DX lens would give you 1.6 more
magnification than the DX lenses with the D200. So, 10mm would really be 16mm. If you have a 10mm non-DX lens on the D200, would the preview display show you what the actual picture will look like or will the picture be 60% narrower than what you see? If you do get 60% narrower with the D200 would that also be true for the D300. I don't know the difference between Full Frame and FX. I said I can live without "Live View" but I am not sure I understand what it is. On 01 Sep 2007 21:13:15 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote: Alan writes: Should I spend $1,500 at B&H plus Sales Tax($1,629 and at Cameta $1,625 or $1,765 w/ tax) for a D200 or for $1,799 and no tax order and wait for a D300 from Ritz? Given that I never bought any DX lenses and all my lenses are from my Nikon F5, would I be better off with those lenses on D300. Formatwise, no. D300 i DX format, just like D200. It is only D3 that is FX (135-format). However, now I wonder if it just pays to wait for the D300. It depends. The new AF-module looks sweet. I can live without "live view" and the extra 2 Mpx. We don't really know about the IQ and high ISO noise yet - maybe it's better, and maybe it is not. Expect discounts on the D200 to clear old stock as the launch date for the D300 approaches. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Can you explain what "Live View" is and why it is so beneficial?
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:57:17 +0100, Tony Polson wrote: Gisle Hannemyr wrote: I can live without "live view" Once you have owned a top quality camera (such as a DSLR) with Live View, you will wonder how you ever lived without it. All DSLR manufacturers either offer Live View or have models with the feature on the way. They would not offer the feature if they did not anticipate a very strong demand for it. That demand doesn't come only from people who are trading up from compact point and shoot digital cameras, it comes from serious photographers who, once presented with Live View, find it to be an incredibly useful and highly valuable feature. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Alan Calan wrote:
I was under the impression that a non DX lens would give you 1.6 more magnification than the DX lenses with the D200. The camera 'magnifies' not the lens, simply by cropping, assuming you print the same size, that looks like magnification. A DX lens doesn't cover the full sensor on a full format FX body. So, 10mm would really be 16mm. If you have a 10mm non-DX lens on the D200, would the preview display show you what the actual picture will look like or will the picture be 60% narrower than what you see? If you do get 60% narrower with the D200 would that also be true for the D300. I don't know the difference between Full Frame and FX. Same thing, very slightly smaller on FX. I said I can live without "Live View" but I am not sure I understand what it is. LV lets you see the image on the LCD in back before taking the picture. You can zoom way in to check focus and shoot from awkward angles and at night when it might be hard to see through the viewfinder. non-DSLR cameras all work this way. I like it because you can see the actual exposure, contrast & such, without having your mind reinterpret as it will do in an optical viewfinder. OTOH optical VF is clearer and provides faster autofocus and faster capture all around and lessy battery power. On 01 Sep 2007 21:13:15 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr wrote: Alan writes: Should I spend $1,500 at B&H plus Sales Tax($1,629 and at Cameta $1,625 or $1,765 w/ tax) for a D200 or for $1,799 and no tax order and wait for a D300 from Ritz? Given that I never bought any DX lenses and all my lenses are from my Nikon F5, would I be better off with those lenses on D300. Formatwise, no. D300 i DX format, just like D200. It is only D3 that is FX (135-format). However, now I wonder if it just pays to wait for the D300. It depends. The new AF-module looks sweet. I can live without "live view" and the extra 2 Mpx. We don't really know about the IQ and high ISO noise yet - maybe it's better, and maybe it is not. Expect discounts on the D200 to clear old stock as the launch date for the D300 approaches. -- Paul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
D300...maybe I can afford a D200 now | rcyoung | Digital SLR Cameras | 24 | August 26th 07 11:23 PM |
D300 & D3 from Popsci | Savageduck | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | August 24th 07 12:33 AM |
D300 & D3 from Popsci | Savageduck | Digital Photography | 1 | August 23rd 07 06:05 AM |
D300 & D3 from Popsci | Savageduck | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | August 23rd 07 06:04 AM |
NIKON D300 - FIRST LOOK | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | August 19th 07 03:23 PM |