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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Alan Calan wrote:
Can you explain what "Live View" is and why it is so beneficial? It will now allow you to hold your longest telephoto at arm's length (if you can bench press 200) while you compose and take your shot! Think of the possibilities while you pan! Duck!! Talk about "feature stuffing".... egads. I'd rather have the MP3 player. -- John McWilliams |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
According to Alan Calan :
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:38:29 GMT, "Jürgen Exner" wrote: Alan Calan wrote: Can you explain what "Live View" is and why it is so beneficial? It's displaying a low-resolution picture on the LCD on the rear of the camera. I don't find it useful at all and in 99% of all cases I use the viewfinder istead to frame and compose the photo. Oh! So, Live view what all the cheaper non-SLRs have. I guess I assumed the Nikon Dnnn had that. It is quite uncommon in DSLRs -- and I personally don't see why I would want it normally -- though for special occasions it might be useful -- more so if it had a swiveling display. Must be quite a battery drain. That is one reason why it is uncommon on DSLRs. Other reasons: 2) It requires the mirror to be locked up and the shutter held open -- more drain. (This is not needed in the case of P&S cameras, because there is no mirror in the path from the lens to the sensor. 3) The extra activity in the sensor raises its temperature, thus raising the noise level. (I understand that the D300's manual even has a warning about this -- to not combine the (optional) direct view with the high ISOs, because of the elevated noise levels. 4) Adding the direct view will probably slow the shutter response of the DSLR to something similar to the typical P&S -- where you push the button, and actually photograph something a noticeable delay later. Certainly not what you want when photographing sports, candids, or active children. So -- for me, the direct view might be useful in setup of macro shots, and as a right-angle viewfinder (with a tiltable display) for shooting over crowds and around corners. For most of the shots that I take, it would only slow me down, so if I had a D300, it would be turned off. Note that this is (so far) only in the one D300 model from Nikon's line. It is *not* in the high end ones, like the new D3, nor in the entry level ones (like the D40). And I have not missed it with my D70. (I have been wanting a D200, and the announcement of the D300 has not changed my desire for the D200, which has more of what I want from a DSLR, and less of what I don't want. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
According to Alan Calan :
I was under the impression that a non DX lens would give you 1.6 more magnification than the DX lenses with the D200. Nope. For the Nikons, the scaling factor is 1.5 (1.6 is one of Canon's several scaling factors). And it is the same whether the lens is a DX or not. The only difference is that the DX lenses will not fill the frame of a full frame camera (such as the D3 or film cameras) with a quality image. The quality area is limited to the smaller sensor of these cameras. So, 10mm would really be 16mm. A 10mm lens on a typical Nikon DSLR (everything but the just announced D3) will give you an angle of coverage equal to a 15mm (not 16mm) lens on a film camera or the new D3. 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? You will see exactly what you will photograph. The finder's frame is matched to the size of the sensor, so it shows you what you will get. 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. Both the D200 and the D300 have the same scaling factor of 1.5. "Full Frame" is what you would get with a standard 35mm film camera -- or the D3 A 24x36mm image (or sensor). Nikon has apparently decided to call the Full Frame (1.0 scale factor) FX, to distinguish new *lenses* made to cover the full frame format from those designed only to cover the smaller sensor on every other Nikon DSLR (so far). I'm sure that there will be later cameras from Nikon with the full frame (DX) sensor. I said I can live without "Live View" but I am not sure I understand what it is. It is what almost every digital point and shoot camera has to slow its response down between the pressing of the shutter release button and the actual time that the image is captured. For most purposes, you don't need it or want it. I've covered what it is in a previous article in this thread, which you have not had a chance to read before posting this one to which I am currently replying. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Calan wrote: Can you explain what "Live View" is and why it is so beneficial? It will now allow you to hold your longest telephoto at arm's length (if you can bench press 200) while you compose and take your shot! Think of the possibilities while you pan! Duck!! Talk about "feature stuffing".... egads. I'd rather have the MP3 player. You just have no imagination. I plan on connecting a wireless transmitter to the output. Together with a wireless remote shutter release the shots can be captured from inside the car or house. One can record video along with photos adding to the multimedia options which is been sound on many other Nikons. The combinations and convenience is obvious. Who wants to bend over a view finder forever waiting for the right moment that might take hours? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
On Sep 2, 8:46 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
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? It depends on what you want out of your camera and the type of photography you do. If you need high ISO performance for low light I would suggest you wait a bit and get a D300. The D200 is a super camera and will exceed your expectations. If you get a D200 you should look for a dirt-cheap used one and follow the 18-month rule. There ARE none. This camera brings 80%+ of new retail when it is sold used on Ebay. It is because it is a tank, unlike other DSLRs. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
RichA wrote:
On Sep 2, 8:46 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote: 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? It depends on what you want out of your camera and the type of photography you do. If you need high ISO performance for low light I would suggest you wait a bit and get a D300. The D200 is a super camera and will exceed your expectations. If you get a D200 you should look for a dirt-cheap used one and follow the 18-month rule. There ARE none. This camera brings 80%+ of new retail when it is sold used on Ebay. It is because it is a tank, unlike other DSLRs. There are plenty now on our local equivalent to Ebay. More D200s than I've ever seen, and bids are few and far between. They are on a southbound route to a slump - going to live in Florida with the D1 and D100. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Jue,
What about the D300? You just mentioned the D3. Will you be getting that vignetting on the D300 with non-DX lenses? I think I didn't word this properly. Do the D300 and the D3 use lenses the same way? I know a 10mm lens is still a 10mm lens no matter what camera it's on but will it not give you different images on the different camera's in the Nikon DSLR family? I only used 10mm because of the easier arithmetic. If I have an F5 and a few good lenses purchased 9 years ago for that camera, would I be better off waiting for the D300, which I believe is Full Frame and does not reflect that 1.6 ratio (assuming that is true for the D300 is also Full Frame like the D3) or does it not matter if I have the D200 or a D300 with regards to the lenses. By the same token, if I will ultimately go with the D300, would I not want DX lenses? So for me, given the lenses I already have for the F5, if there is no difference between the D200 and the D300 as far as lenses, I'll try to pick up a D200 at around $1,000 when the prices come down. On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:36:50 GMT, "Jürgen Exner" wrote: 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. Nonsense. So, 10mm would really be 16mm. No, a 10mm lens (are we really talking about extreme wide angle here?) is always a 10mm lens. However because of the smaller sensor (compared to a 35mm film camera) the angle of view of a 10mm lens on a D200 (or any other of Nikon DSLR except for the new D3) will be like a 16mm lens would produce on a 35mm film camera. DX simply means that the lens is not designed to cover the whole area of a 35mm film camera, or in other words you will get serious vignetting when using a DX lens on a full frame (35mm) sensor or film. 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? The D200 does not have a preview display. 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. They are same (at least the way Full Frame is commonly used nowadays). jue |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Alan Calan wrote:
What about the D300? You just mentioned the D3. Will you be getting that vignetting on the D300 with non-DX lenses? Let's see: the D300 has a small sensor (DX-size), the non-DX lens projects a large picture, large enough to cover a full frame sensor or film. Now, do you see any gap in coverage? Actually that is the typical scenario that people with DSLRs were facing before DX-lenses. And they were pretty happy about it, because the camera would use only the center portion of the lens, i.e. that portion, that had the highest image quality. I think I didn't word this properly. You didn't word what properly? For the last 20 decades it's a proven and very useful custom on Usenet to merge new comments with the old text at the appropriate place, such that the reader can see immediately what you are responding to. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? Do the D300 and the D3 use lenses the same way? I know a 10mm lens is still a 10mm lens no matter what camera it's on but will it not give you different images on the different camera's in the Nikon DSLR family? Yes, that is what the "crop factor" is about. As I wrote earlier: quote However because of the smaller sensor (compared to a 35mm film camera) the angle of view of a 10mm lens on a D200 (or any other of Nikon DSLR except for the new D3) will be like a 16mm lens would produce on a 35mm film camera. /quote Note: as serveral people pointed out the crop factor for Nikon is actually 1.5, not 1.6. If I have an F5 and a few good lenses purchased 9 years ago for that camera, would I be better off waiting for the D300, which I believe is Full Frame The D300 is not full frame. and does not reflect that 1.6 ratio (assuming that is true for the D300 is also Full Frame like the D3) or does it not matter if I have the D200 or a D300 with regards to the lenses. D200 and D300 both have the DX-size (i.e. cropped) sensor. By the same token, if I will ultimately go with the D300, would I not want DX lenses? Maybe. DX lenses don't need to cover the whole full-frame circle, therefore they can be smaller, lighter, and built with cheaper materials and smaller (=cheaper) lenses, thus usually costing less than full-frame lenses. Their design is also new, thus typically using the latest in lens technology. OTOH they are usually consumer or prosumer level and the really great Nikkors are all full-frame to this day (at least AFAIK). So it pretty much depends on what you are looking for: price and conveniece or highest lens quality. So for me, given the lenses I already have for the F5, if there is no difference between the D200 and the D300 as far as lenses, Both cameras have the DX-sized sensor. You may want to check http://dpreview. This is an excellent resource for information about digital cameras and even offers a side-by-side comparison. On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:36:50 GMT, "Jürgen Exner" wrote: 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. Nonsense. So, 10mm would really be 16mm. No, a 10mm lens (are we really talking about extreme wide angle here?) is always a 10mm lens. However because of the smaller sensor (compared to a 35mm film camera) the angle of view of a 10mm lens on a D200 (or any other of Nikon DSLR except for the new D3) will be like a 16mm lens would produce on a 35mm film camera. DX simply means that the lens is not designed to cover the whole area of a 35mm film camera, or in other words you will get serious vignetting when using a DX lens on a full frame (35mm) sensor or film. jue |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007, Alan Calan wrote:
What about the D300? You just mentioned the D3. Will you be getting that vignetting on the D300 with non-DX lenses? No. Do the D300 and the D3 use lenses the same way? No. If I have an F5 and a few good lenses purchased 9 years ago for that camera, would I be better off waiting for the D300, which I believe is Full Frame and does not reflect that 1.6 ratio (assuming that is true for the D300 is also Full Frame like the D3) or does it not matter if I have the D200 or a D300 with regards to the lenses. The D300 is the same as the D200. Both have a 1.5 crop factor. The 1.6 crop factor is a Canon number. Only the D3 will be full frame. By the same token, if I will ultimately go with the D300, would I not want DX lenses? The only advantage is smaller and lighter weight. The down side is you can't use them with your F5, or if someday you get a full frame digital Nikon. So for me, given the lenses I already have for the F5, if there is no difference between the D200 and the D300 as far as lenses, I'll try to pick up a D200 at around $1,000 when the prices come down. There is no difference between the D200 and the D300 as far as lenses. Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom). |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
D200 or D300{ Which better for
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
RichA wrote: It depends on what you want out of your camera and the type of photography you do. If you need high ISO performance for low light I would suggest you wait a bit and get a D300. The D200 is a super camera and will exceed your expectations. If you get a D200 you should look for a dirt-cheap used one and follow the 18-month rule. There ARE none. This camera brings 80%+ of new retail when it is sold used on Ebay. It is because it is a tank, unlike other DSLRs. The used market is going to be flooded with cheap D200s once the D300 hits the streets. It's going to be such a buyer's market that the 18-month rule will need to be rewritten and extended by three days. I just saw one on craigslist for $650 but that sounds stolen to me! -- 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 |