Wore out my D200 shutter, apparently

Paul Furman wrote:

Dudley Hanks wrote:

Do you have a backup camera?

The 8-year old Olympus C3030 still hobbles along, and the cell phone is
not bad sometimes. I'll be fine for a couple weeks... I don't need a D3,
I don't need a D3.


But you REALLY WANT ONE!

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:

Dudley Hanks wrote:

Do you have a backup camera?

The 8-year old Olympus C3030 still hobbles along, and the cell phone is
not bad sometimes. I'll be fine for a couple weeks... I don't need a D3,
I don't need a D3.


But you REALLY WANT ONE!


I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd be so terrified about banging
the thing around , I'd spend more time with the camera in its case, and very
little actually thinking about shots.

My pics would probably take a noticeable down turn...

Take Care,
Dudley

"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
Dudley Hanks wrote:

Do you have a backup camera?

The 8-year old Olympus C3030 still hobbles along, and the cell phone is
not bad sometimes. I'll be fine for a couple weeks... I don't need a D3,
I don't need a D3.

When you find out what Nikon's service cost, and how
long it takes, a new D3 is going to look more inviting
than you imagine...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Enter the less costly point-and-shoots for less critical shots.

The sensor on my old A70 popped, and it cost less to buy a better camera
than it would have to fix the old 3 megapixel unit.

But, the image quality just isn't there for those critical, income
generating shots...

Take Care,
Dudley

On Mar 30, 1:20 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote:
89,736 shutter actuations in just under 2 years (1 year warranty) and I
apparently wore my D200 shutter out. Here's the description of the problem
I'm sending with it to Nikon for repair:

I'd love to see what a Leica or Nikon FM3 looks like after 89,000 exposures.
I'd guess that rolling 2400 rolls of film up and back would pretty much
destroy the mechanism. To say nothing of one's wallet: film + processing
costs about US$10 a roll here, but even at US$5.00, that's US$120,000.

People tended to be less wasteful of film when using it than costless
digital clicks.

Paul Furman wrote:

I'll be fine for a couple weeks... I don't need a D3,
I don't need a D3.

You could always buy a 40D or a 1D(s) Mk II/III ..., as Rita
repeats and repeats, your Nikon lenses will be just fine.
(Or you could buy some good Canon glass for it, and see for
yourself if Rita's claims have any value at all.)


-Wolf'SCNR'gang :-

Dudley Hanks wrote:
Tony Polson wrote
Paul Furman wrote:
Dudley Hanks wrote:

Do you have a backup camera?
The 8-year old Olympus C3030 still hobbles along, and the cell phone is
not bad sometimes. I'll be fine for a couple weeks... I don't need a D3,
I don't need a D3.

But you REALLY WANT ONE!


I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd be so terrified about banging
the thing around , I'd spend more time with the camera in its case, and very
little actually thinking about shots.

My pics would probably take a noticeable down turn...

I *do* really want one & wouldn't hesitate abusing it. The restraints
are that I don't like the bulky size or the big price.

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I'll be fine for a couple weeks... I don't need a D3,
I don't need a D3.

You could always buy a 40D or a 1D(s) Mk II/III ..., as Rita
repeats and repeats, your Nikon lenses will be just fine.
(Or you could buy some good Canon glass for it, and see for
yourself if Rita's claims have any value at all.)


-Wolf'SCNR'gang :-

I was a Nikon person. Until they turned my Nikon lens into non-usable
Nikon lens.
I now have no reason to think that Nikon will not do the same thing in a few
more years.. Good by Nikon -- Hello Canon 30D.
How lucky for me. The 30D is great and cost a lot less than a D200.
Even a 40D is second to a 30D.

Steve

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 08:49:55 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote:
: David J. Littleboy wrote:
:
: To some extent, it's psychological. With 6x7, I pull out the spot
: meter, look around carefully, think what's going to end up where,
: think why I'm taking the shot, and simply put a lot more effort
: and energy into each and every shot. There's no logical, physical,
: sensible reason one couldn't do that with digital. But it doesn't
: happen.
:
: Yeah, it is called "Machine Gunning" or "Spraying Lead" and praying one
: gets a keeper. It's sad that photography has come down to this hack job
: philosophy. I agree that one should use each shot like it matters,
: especially with digital.

I don't agree with you; but I can't, in all honesty, prove that you're wrong.
What I can say is that in all my 70+ years, reaching (obviously) way back into
the film days, I've never seen a professional photographer work that way.

Bob

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:46:01 GMT, JT's Ghost
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 08:49:55 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
: wrote:
: : David J. Littleboy wrote:
: :
: : To some extent, it's psychological. With 6x7, I pull out the spot
: : meter, look around carefully, think what's going to end up where,
: : think why I'm taking the shot, and simply put a lot more effort
: : and energy into each and every shot. There's no logical, physical,
: : sensible reason one couldn't do that with digital. But it doesn't
: : happen.
: :
: : Yeah, it is called "Machine Gunning" or "Spraying Lead" and praying one
: : gets a keeper. It's sad that photography has come down to this hack job
: : philosophy. I agree that one should use each shot like it matters,
: : especially with digital.
:
: I don't agree with you; but I can't, in all honesty, prove that you're wrong.
: What I can say is that in all my 70+ years, reaching (obviously) way back into
: the film days, I've never seen a professional photographer work that way.
:
: I don't think Rita's talking about "professionals." I watched a guy
: (non-professional) last summer at Boardinghouse Park in Lowell, MA use
: that very method... I chuckled to myself when he told me he already had
: 400+ shots of the sound check alone. Full Automatic mode, pop-up flash,
: what appeared to be poor shot composition choices, with a Nikon D40
: camera.
:
: - JT
: thinks image quality over quantity offers the best result

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. I can't recall ever seeing a
professional at work who *didn't* click off countless pictures. They even used
to write articles in photography magazines bragging about how many rolls of
film they shot on a given assignment. I wouldn't say that they emphasized
quantity over quality, just that they weren't about to risk failing to get
what they wanted because they passed up a given shot. It's all very well to
talk about working like Ansel Adams, part of whose mythology was that he'd
stop by the side of the road, set up his 8x10 view camera, carefully click off
one or two shots, and move on. But most modern-day photographers aren't Ansel
Adams and, more importantly, don't have to follow his example. When you work,
as Adams did, with large cut film or glass plates, you simply don't have time
to print and evaluate dozens of shots of the same subject. But only an
outright iconoclast works with such equipment today, and only an exceptionally
brave person or a fool eschews the insurance provided by taking more shots
than he thinks he needs. My point is that while some in this newsgroup loudly
trumpet the minimalist virtue of capturing only a few carefully planned
images, those whose livelihoods depend on their photographs quite generally
ignore that advice. The guy in Lowell was obviously over the top, but I submit
that his instincts were probably sound.

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
: Yeah, it is called "Machine Gunning" or "Spraying Lead" and praying one
: gets a keeper. It's sad that photography has come down to this hack job
: philosophy. I agree that one should use each shot like it matters,
: especially with digital.

I don't agree with you; but I can't, in all honesty, prove that you're wrong.
What I can say is that in all my 70+ years, reaching (obviously) way back into
the film days, I've never seen a professional photographer work that way.

You've been suckered into a line of thought that is
nonsense.

Think about photo journalism for example. Specifically
think about how professional photographers shoot a
baseball game. It takes exactly 3 innings maximum to
get a picture of each and every starting player on the
field and in the batter's box.

But have you ever heard of a pro who shoots baseball
going home after the 3rd inning?

According to the statements above it should be totally
unnecessary for a good photog to hang around just
shooting willy nilly trying to get a lucky shot (you
know, little things like game winning home runs, or
fence climbing catches...).

I hate to tell you, but every one of those photogs is
"Machine Gunning" each and every pitch or swing, and
they all are "praying one gets a keeper". That is a
simple necessity, because a typical game has about 100
pitches, and only 1 of them can possibly have a game
winning swing. And I'll bet the average photog covering
a baseball game shoots far more than even just 100
exposures. Yet how many of them publish more than 1
image per game?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)