A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 27th 08, 04:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
MaryL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is entirely
out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire
in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I
remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I
have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments.
I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done
almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how
to do things manually when conditions call for it.

Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and
I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.

Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather
stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)

MaryL

  #2  
Old April 27th 08, 05:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
frederick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,525
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mmf/3.5-5.6G lens)?

MaryL wrote:
I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is
entirely
out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire
in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I
remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I
have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments.
I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done
almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how
to do things manually when conditions call for it.

The D300 is quite expensive for a crop-sensor camera. Probably, Nikon
will release an "updated D80" this year that would share some of the
D300 features. But of course nobody (except Nikon) knows what features
will be downgraded or left off, so speculation about whether that might
meet anyone's needs is mainly futile.
The D80 was "almost" a D200 - how close to being "almost" a D300 the new
camera will be can only be a guess.
This may not apply to you, but the lack of "scene modes" on the D300 may
be a problem to some people - there's no easy fallback position (only
"P" exposure mode) if you don't want to bother thinking about how you
are using the camera.
Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens,
and
I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.

Some people love this lens, others surely don't. For the zoom range of
11x, it's pretty good, and the VR feature works. It is quite slow to
focus for an AFS (Nikon ring motor / USM) lens.
For about the same price, you can get a Nikkor 18-70 and a 70-300VR, and
go from something with barely acceptable optical performance, to
something with quite good performance over the same range, with the
inconvenience of having to change lenses. Even the very inexpensive
55-200VR is probably better optically.
No scientific test, but if dust on the sensor is your concern, then I've
now used a D300 for about 8 weeks with many lens changes, and have not
had one speck of dust visible in an image. Either the sensor cleaning
system works better than I thought it ever could, or I've been
unbelievably lucky. I suspect the former. I don't have sensor cleaning
set to be done at power on etc, just occasionally run a clean after I
change a lens outdoors. With previous Nikon dslr cameras, and the way I
use them, weekly cleaning by blowing dust off was about the norm, plus
occasional cloning out of dust spots, and a full "wet-clean" two or
three times a year.
Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding
rather
stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)

In theory, because in-lens stabilisation works better at longer focal
lengths - which is where it's the most benefit. Cynics said that it was
because Nikon (&Canon) would make lots of $ on sales of new lenses, but
low cost VR lenses are now available, and there's no evidence that any
camera makers with in-body stabilisation are offering lenses any less
expensively than VR/IS equivalents from Nikon or Canon.
  #3  
Old April 27th 08, 07:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 923
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

MaryL wrote:
[]
Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in
this type of camera? (I do realize that this question may come
across sounding rather stupid. That's because I simply don't
understand that part of the process, and my previous cameras have had
built-in image stabilization -- but have not had interchangeable
lenses, of course.)
MaryL



Mary,

In-lens probably allowed Nikon (and Canon) to bring IS/VR to the market
more quickly. One important advantage of in-lens VR is that it stabilises
the image in the viewfinder - and makes it easier to compose and see the
shot. By providing a more stable image to the focus and exposure sensors,
it allows the camera to perform better as well.

Of course, if you have a bunch of existing lenses the in-body IS is
cheaper than buying new lenses, and may be worth the reduced performance.

Cheers,
David


  #4  
Old April 27th 08, 10:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

In article , MaryL
-OUT-THE-LITTER wrote:

I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it
will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then
moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300.


there's quite a difference between a d40x and d300. also keep in mind
that the d80 is soon to be replaced...

Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm
f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures
appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and
look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this
provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and
I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile.


it's an excellent one-lens solution, but if you split the range into
multiple lenses, you'll probably get better quality with a little less
convenience.

Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image
stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost
factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type
of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather
stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process,
and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have
not had interchangeable lenses, of course.)


nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.
  #5  
Old April 27th 08, 06:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

In article , nospam says...

nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.


You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon want
you to buy their expensive IS lenses.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #6  
Old April 27th 08, 06:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 923
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , nospam says...

nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the
only way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had
stabilized lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera
body.


You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon
want you to buy their expensive IS lenses.


... as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
IS?

G

You have a choice - if you want to see the image stabilised while you're
taking the shot, you need in-lens IS, otherwise you can use in-body IS.
Your money, your choice of compromise. BTW: some Nikon IS lenses are not
that expensive, and are rather good value for money.

David


  #7  
Old April 27th 08, 06:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.


You mean it's all a legacy issue?


you make it sound like they should change just for the hell of it.
in-lens stabilization works, and it works well. like everything else,
it has its advantages and disadvantages.

Looks rather that Nikon and Canon want
you to buy their expensive IS lenses.


all manufacturers want you to buy their expensive lenses, bodies and
other accessories. nothing new there.

and stabilized lenses are not necessarily that expensive. for example,
the nikon 55-200 vr is about $50 more than the non-stabilized version
($170 versus $230, usa version, priced today at b&h).
  #8  
Old April 27th 08, 09:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mmf/3.5-5.6G lens)?



Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , nospam says...


nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only
way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized
lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body.


You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon want
you to buy their expensive IS lenses.

Absolutely No.

While that is the only way to get IS/VR into an existing film camera
that is not the reason for the way they did it for digital cameras.
Optical image stabilization / vibration reduction is superior and also
work when you look through the viewfinder. When built into the camera
like sony, pentax and others the image will shake in the viewfinder
since the anti shake has no bearing except on the final image.

Optical IS/VR is superior while more costly. The lenses are also a bit
heavier. But Nikon and Canon are at the top of the digital food chain
for the DSLR 35mm style camera.
  #9  
Old April 27th 08, 10:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

In article , David J
Taylor says...

.. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
IS?


Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses
with IS?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #10  
Old April 27th 08, 11:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

.. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have
IS?


Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses
with IS?


since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as
noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full
frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give
the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus.
the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the
difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive.

olympus 35-100mm f/2, $2199
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...261012_35_100m
m_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html

canon 70-200mm f/4, $1059
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...58B002_70_200m
m_f_4L_IS_USM.html

canon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1699
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...42A002_70_200m
m_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html

nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1624
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...39_70_200mm_f_
2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: 80-200mm Nikon ED Nikkor 2.8 AF 1:2.8 D zoom lens / $405 Feline Technologies General Equipment For Sale 0 July 26th 04 03:55 PM
FA: 80-200mm Nikon ED Nikkor 2.8 AF 1:2.8 D zoom lens / $405 Feline Technologies 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 July 26th 04 03:55 PM
Nikon NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8 ED D AF Zoom Lens *S*P*A*M* Jerry L. General Equipment For Sale 0 May 3rd 04 06:55 AM
For sale: NIKON NIKKOR ED 80-200mm F2.8 AF ZOOM LENS L@@k - Cheap! [email protected] General Equipment For Sale 0 October 27th 03 08:07 AM
For sale: NIKON NIKKOR ED 80-200mm F2.8 AF ZOOM LENS L@@k - Cheap! [email protected] 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 27th 03 08:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.