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

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 ---

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 ---

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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