Nikon D200 vs. D80

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Cynicor wrote:

Hey, set up a web site and give *your* spin on the truth and see how
successful you are. My gut feeling is you won't even be good enough
to register a domain name. But, hey, it's easier to cut someone to
pieces without walking a mile in their shoes. Yes, you are green
with envy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Rockwell, but I see
too many people cutting him up that for some reason or another
haven't a clue to take the first steps that made him successful.

Geez, it not THAT hard to set up a domain name. Rockwell's just a
diversion. No one should ever buy a camera or lens without holding it
in their hands anyway. Of course, I'm talking out of my buttocks now
because I just buy any old crap off the Internet.

Well, there you have it! Now you have everything needed to empower you
with all tools needed to set up a successful equipment review site that
everyone is clamoring to visit instead of one of them insignificant
mindless "blog" sites that every idiot puts up thinking they have an
inkling of importance.

Oh, I set up one of those mindless "blog" sites years ago.
http://cynicor.blogspot.com. But I'm too important to update it regularly.

Bill wrote:
"James P. Clark" wrote in message
...
Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a
lot of responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your
dislike for Ken Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has
useful information.

There are bits and pieces of truly useful information, but it's tossed
in like the bacon bits in a cheap caesar salad - small and hard to
find.

:-)

I don't hate him, I just dislike his opinions, advice, and facts that
are misleading to those who wish to learn more about photography. He's
not helping a new photographer who wants to become a better
photographer.

Quite honestly, Bill, it appears to me that it is you that have been
fast and loose with the facts, giving bad advice and opintions, and
misleading others. I hate to say it, too. But if you don't like Ken
Rockwell, it appears to say volumes more about you than it does about
Rockwell.

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:38:15 -0400, Cynicor wrote:

Well, I fixed one of them. It prints out all nice now.
http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/824709/1/95607778

Nice improvement. The warmth in the clouds seems more natural or
realistic, and it helps the trees and land mass too. Also, the
water now doesn't immediately shout "Menthol!!" Surprisingly, since
the image is 1/2 the size of the previous version (55k vs. 96k), the
birds (especially the two upper, smaller ones) seem better defined.
But if it's boids ya want, you didn't have to travel that far. We've
got plenty of gulls here around the edges of the boroughs. Some
days when the weather is right, they travel several miles inland.

The actual original file, converted to JPG, shrank from 3328KB to
3236KB. Smugmug must've done the thumbnail differently or something. The
big problem was the polarizer, which made the water too blue - but was
necessary to bring out the mountain.

There's no such thing as "several miles inland" out here on the Island.
Although I did take a ton of pictures of Gulls last weekend, since my
son plays for them. http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/1907561/7/96308843
- he's the 12 year old who's bigger than you.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill wrote:

I can't find in the specs from Nikon where it says the D80 has
mirror lockup.

Look again...


Please paste a quote. I still do not see it.

Also, both the D80 and the D200 sport a 10.2MP sensor 3872x2592
pixels. Seems
the same to me.

Really? They both have a 10.2MP 3872x2592 sensor. Care to refute
that?

sigh So I still have to do your homework for you?

From Nikons site and specs, total pixels:

D80:
Image Sensor: RGB CCD, 23.6 x 15.8mm; total pixels: 10.75 million,
Nikon DX format

D200:
Image Sensor: RGB CCD, 23.6 x 15.8mm; total pixels: 10.92 million

Clearly not the same. The output channel count is also different, 4
for the D200 and 2 for the D80. See the quotes below for reference.


You are correct, I did not see the difference in sensor as opposed to image.

Eh? Looks like Nikon aggrees with our buddy and not you:

"Weight: Approximately 1 lb. 5 oz. (585g) without battery, memory
card, body
cap, or monitor cover"

Hahaha....so how is the fact that the numbers are different, but to
you they're the same? It's a small difference I agree, but that's just
one of many factual errors. Other review sites get it right, why can't
Rockwell? Could it be he doesn't know what he's talking about?


You know as well as anybody else here that Nikon's site says "approximately"
and the value that Ken gives is very close to the value that Nikon offers as
an approximate value. Your statement about the weights being different is
incorrect, just as my statement that the sensors are the same pixel count was
incorrect.

Right...believe what you want then...stick a fork in me, I'm done.


Good ...

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

If you take 5 photographers taking each 5 senics and 5 portraits using
the folowing camera:

Nikon D70s
Nikon D80
Nikon D200
Canon DRXTi
Canon 30D

and you print an 8.5x11 using OEM ink on a Canon IP5200 printer and then
mix up the results most people will not be able to tell you what print
was made with what Camera. All would be very good.

So as I see it the basic difference between the D200 and the D80 is
size, feel and balance, construction (and most will not need the better
construction if they take care of their stuff) frames per second, and
maybe a couple of other small things.

Most amateurs woudl be better off with a D80 and a couple of extra
lenses over a D200 as long as the smaller and lighter camera did not
have an impact on them.

I would rather see a comparison between the D80 and the Canon XTi. If
the dust cleaning system on the Canon works as advertised how
significant a feature is that over the Nikon. The Nikon does have a
composition grid that can be turned on in the view finder. Which
feature is more important to have. Well, if dust is a real problem then
the dust cleaning system but if it is no then so what.

I could like to see a comparison of:

the focusing systems (focus points and speed etc)
the metering systems (spot, average etc) and the significance of the
features
the feeling and balance
the choice of reasonable price lenses and how good they are (excluding
the expensive L lenses.
the LCD
other important features

Most of the camera reviews focus on a single camera with some mention of
the competition or a spreadsheet like list comparing features of
difference camera but I would really like to see comparative reviews
like in the old days when PC magazines did in depth comparistive reviews
of word processors and spreedsheets.

Bill wrote:

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
ps.com...


Bill wrote:

His so-called "review" is full of misinformation and bias.


Really? Show us one single mistake in his comparison.


Start at the top:

"D80 has the D200's 10 MP image sensor".

ACK....wrong.

"look, quality and color of the D200's images"

ACK...wrong.

Jump down to the first comparison list where he has side-by-side data
and you find more errors. Let's start at the third item in the list:

Weight 20 oz. (575g) [D80]

ACK...wrong.

Weight 29 oz. (825g) [D200]

ACK...wrong.

The rest you can find on your own...I don't time to find and
copy&paste everything that Rockwell posts incorrectly - I'd be sitting
here all week.

:-/

Ken has stated in many places on his website that many of his
conclusions are his own personal opinion. He has always state that he
prefers Nikon over Canon and that is his opinion. Recently he said that
he might even opt for Canon if he was building a new system and did not
have any lenses.

The bottom line is he does not think that one camera (brand or model)
over the other would produce any better results for him.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

James P. Clark wrote:

Wow, I came back to check this thread and I see it has generated a
lot of responses! Bill, you're certainly passionate about your
dislike for Ken Rockwell, but I still contend that the site has
useful information. I have a couple points I'd like to make:


I'm sure it's more a case of jealousy since if he could do it better he
would. Ken's successful at generating an income with whatever he writes.
This is no different than any other idiot writing a webpage or review
on the
net. Some people take his opinions at face value while others see
through
the crap. Personally, I do my research and don't take anyone's
*opinion* as
fact. This is why it's best to take the average of all the bull****
to find
a glimmer of facts.







Rita