Nikon D200

[IBuyUFO]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05110104nikond200.asp

Product info at Nikon USA

 

[yhelothar]

Great.. now show me some impressive lenses

 

[NFS4]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1721556&enterthread=y

 

[Lucky]

TYVM. I'm stoked to see the vertical grip for this. I'll be spending quite a bit with the new wireless commander out as well.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Great.. now show me some impressive lenses

Uh, like what?

 

[Lucky]

The user interface on this looks outstanding. Too bad the old batteries are not compatible. Put a crimp in using it in conjunction with the D70. And I *love* that they've kept the built in flash. I love using the D70's in commander mode. Kudos for making the D200 capable of controlling 2 groups of flashes from the built in. The more I read, the more I want. Larger viewfinder image than the D2x at .94x vs (.86). Multiple exposure plus image overlay capability.

 

[CurtisBilly]

Lens 1
Lens 2
Lens 3

 

[Specop 007]

See sig

 

[CurtisBilly]

Seriously though...those are some world class lenses that Canon offers. The D200+18-200VR just tempted me...but Nikon's prime lenses sure could use some updates. Seems the only thing of recent vintage from Nikon is zooms and super telephoto primes.

 

[Lucky]

OK, so you've pointed out three ultra fast lenses, that on any canon body without a FF sensor are not anywhere as attractive. Nikon does have a 35/2, and if you really want it, older 35 f/1.4 lenses. They've also got a 28 1.4 that canon does not. They do have an 85 1.4, although boy do I wish it was AFS.

Nikon also got some sweet lenses canon does not. 10.5, 17-55, 12-24, 200 f2, 200-400 f4, etc.

But are you honestly saying you won't buy into Nikon because of these three lenses? What do you photograph?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: CurtisBilly
Seriously though...those are some world class lenses that Canon offers. The D200+18-200VR just tempted me...but Nikon's prime lenses sure could use some updates. Seems the only thing of recent vintage from Nikon is zooms and super telephoto primes.

Looking on their website, tons of their primes are offering single and double rebates, which historically has meant an update is coming. They have been slow to introduce AFS into their full lens lineup, perhaps that is in the works.

 

[Lucky]

"The D200+18-200VR just tempted me"

The zoom range on that lense is so nice. I've got a sigma 18-200 that I use alongside my more expensive Nikon glass on a daily basis. But the Nikon has the edge with 5.6 vs. 6.3, and VR + AFS. Depending on the price I will probably upgrade.

 

[CurtisBilly]

Those three lenses coupled with a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 make for a killer combo...I'm slowing building that kit up. I have lens 1 and 3. That said, this is a BIG day for Nikon.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: Lucky
OK, so you've pointed out three ultra fast lenses, that on any canon body without a FF sensor are not anywhere as attractive. Nikon does have a 35/2, and if you really want it, older 35 f/1.4 lenses. They've also got a 28 1.4 that canon does not. They do have an 85 1.4, although boy do I wish it was AFS.

Nikon also got some sweet lenses canon does not. 10.5, 17-55, 12-24, 200 f2, 200-400 f4, etc.

But are you honestly saying you won't buy into Nikon because of these three lenses? What do you photograph?

well for available light nighttime photography there is a major gap in the nikon lineup.

that said, those lenses would never sell and nikon is wise to stick with zooms until if ever they are number one again.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Great.. now show me some impressive lenses

17-55/2.8
#1
#2
#3
#4

85/1.4
#5
#6
#7
#8

The 70-200VR is another I'd consider but I'm holding off and saving up for the 200/2VR. Until then I'm looking around for a couple classic lenses (35/1.4, 105/1.4).

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: Lucky
OK, so you've pointed out three ultra fast lenses, that on any canon body without a FF sensor are not anywhere as attractive. Nikon does have a 35/2, and if you really want it, older 35 f/1.4 lenses. They've also got a 28 1.4 that canon does not. They do have an 85 1.4, although boy do I wish it was AFS.

Nikon also got some sweet lenses canon does not. 10.5, 17-55, 12-24, 200 f2, 200-400 f4, etc.

But are you honestly saying you won't buy into Nikon because of these three lenses? What do you photograph?

well for available light nighttime photography there is a major gap in the nikon lineup.

that said, those lenses would never sell and nikon is wise to stick with zooms until if ever they are number one again.

The 28/1.4 is a great available light lens. I'd love to get one if I could afford it.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: CurtisBilly
Seriously though...those are some world class lenses that Canon offers. The D200+18-200VR just tempted me...but Nikon's prime lenses sure could use some updates. Seems the only thing of recent vintage from Nikon is zooms and super telephoto primes.

Looking on their website, tons of their primes are offering single and double rebates, which historically has meant an update is coming. They have been slow to introduce AFS into their full lens lineup, perhaps that is in the works.

They offered the same rebates last year. I think they're just trying to get people to buy stuff for holiday season.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Interesting camera. It's $1700...and in terms performance/features is above the EOS-20D but below the Canon 5D I would say.

Too bad it didn't get the sensor and AF system everyone wanted.

 

[ProviaFan]

Finally, Nikon is offering a "digital F100" that will be a decent affordable upgrade from the D1 in some area other than resolution (and flash performance, if that matters to you). If I could ever get the money for it, I would definitely take the plunge!

 

[tami]

i think i would be able to get rid of some of my 7 lenses if i got this one instead.

i think a zoom wide-angle is perfect for those occasions when you don't know the predictability of your subjects, such as when you're at a wedding and don't know where you may end up sitting (doing a favor for friends and not being hired, after all!)

my 28-200 has been good to me, but it is a little weak, and now, when i point it downwards, gravity causes the lens to extend itself without my intervention. i guess it loosened up. then again, i inherited it; i didn't get it new (and i got it for free, so i have few complaints). the newer lens would also probably be a good substitute for my 18-70 as well.

heck, if i got that lens, i'd probably get rid of my 28-200 and 18-70 kit lens as well as my sigma 50mm macro (which i was planning on anyway) -- so i'd actually be able to afford this one. is there any reason why i should keep the aforementioned lenses? i guess i'd prefer to worry about fewer lenses, but i'm all for arguments that justify continuing to own them.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: Lucky
OK, so you've pointed out three ultra fast lenses, that on any canon body without a FF sensor are not anywhere as attractive. Nikon does have a 35/2, and if you really want it, older 35 f/1.4 lenses. They've also got a 28 1.4 that canon does not. They do have an 85 1.4, although boy do I wish it was AFS.

Nikon also got some sweet lenses canon does not. 10.5, 17-55, 12-24, 200 f2, 200-400 f4, etc.

But are you honestly saying you won't buy into Nikon because of these three lenses? What do you photograph?

well for available light nighttime photography there is a major gap in the nikon lineup.

that said, those lenses would never sell and nikon is wise to stick with zooms until if ever they are number one again.

wheres the gap, they make a 35f/2 a 85 f/1.4 and a 135 f/2 DC

that difference between their min fstops and the canons is what a 1/3 of a stop, they only think they dont have is AF-S which yes we all woudl like, other then that there is no gap

 

[compuwiz1]

Good camera and lenses, but she's not that hot Mike.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Interesting camera. It's $1700...and in terms performance/features is above the EOS-20D but below the Canon 5D I would say.

Too bad it didn't get the sensor and AF system everyone wanted.

You and I have no idea what the real world performance of this camera is. It may indeed be better, but 2mp is BLING BLING at this level. What's the noise profile like, and even more important the dynamic range?

I saw a few detailed tests of the 20D vs the 16 mp Canon offering, and in a great many situations you would be hard pressed to find much difference.

Doubling resolution requires quadrupling the pixel count. To be "twice as good" as a 20D would require a 32 mp sensor. That also assumes that dynamic range and noise are equal or better.

That said, this will probably hurt 20D sales for people with a fair chunk of change and have not been into DSLRs before. Anyone who knows anything about cameras won't be jumping ship, since these cameras appear to be virtually the same (assuming the previous caveats).

To me the greatest advantage is the rubber sealed body. That's a winner.