Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Nikon released the D200

Nikon released the D200
Thread Tools
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 07:52 AM
 
Finally, after so many years, they released a successor to the D100. 10.29 MP sensor, 5 fps, and all the spiffy buzzwords you come to expect from an `almost'-D2X. Check it out here.

I would even say that this might be the best camera in Nikon's line-up right now, and it costs half of a Canon EOS-5D. Nice job, Nikon

I wish I could (i) justify an upgrade and (ii) come up with the cash.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 08:10 AM
 
Wow. Very nice.
Droolworthy even - the first Nikon in a long time I would consider over a Canon.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 08:23 AM
 
Very nice, but I'll hold off, my D70s is a nice performer and right now I'd rather get some quality glass, over a camera body.

Just my $.02 plus I'd hold off a while to make sure that there's no Rev A issues. The early D70 suffered from BGLOD so after spending that much money, I'd wait and see how it holds up.

Mike
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 08:23 AM
 
Ok. I want one.

Don't try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 08:28 AM
 
What is BGLOD?

I think my next camera is either a Nikon D70s or a used Olympus E-1 (once its successor is released). I don't like Canon's UI.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 08:34 AM
 
BGLOD : blinking green light of death

this means that the memory door LED blinks on a 1hz cycle and the camera will not work - Nikon put out a service advisory on the D70 for this issue last month and is repairing the issue for free (regardless of warranty status). I had to send mine in with BGLOD and while Nikon itself was nice and fast about fixing it, I got cosmically buggered by UPS (two ****ing weeks to ship a camera from Kentucky to Massachusetts...).

Don't try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 08:39 AM
 
I see, never heard of it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 08:41 AM
 
I'll admit that Nikon has made some tempting strides in the past year but they held on to a sinking ship for far too long and caused many shooters, myself included, to either dump their Nikon glass and switch or start with Canon glass from the ground up. I have waaaaaaay too much money invested in L glass right now to even consider switching UNLESS Nikon were to pull out something REALLY remarkable. This unit? 1.5 crop factor, 250 max sync and (as with the D70) no available grip? I'll stick with my plan to upgrade to a Canon 1 series early next year.
people ruin everything....
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
I'll admit that Nikon has made some tempting strides in the past year but they held on to a sinking ship for far too long and caused many shooters, myself included, to either dump their Nikon glass and switch or start with Canon glass from the ground up. I have waaaaaaay too much money invested in L glass right now to even consider switching UNLESS Nikon were to pull out something REALLY remarkable. This unit? 1.5 crop factor, 250 max sync and (as with the D70) no available grip? I'll stick with my plan to upgrade to a Canon 1 series early next year.
A Canon EOS 1D (insert model of choice) is an entirely different beast. Its competitor is the D2X/D2H and not the D200.

Also, I think the decision to stay with an APS-C crop factor across the line has its advantages. Canon has cameras with quite a few different crop factors: 1.6, 1.5, 1.3 and 1. So your lenses will have a very different viewing angle on an EOS-20D than on an EOS-1Ds Mark II.

You can see the difference in price: the D200's competitor costs a lot more.

Edit: I checked the brochure, Nikon clearly offers a grip (it's on page 3), the MB-D200.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Nov 1, 2005 at 11:45 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
and (as with the D70) no available grip?
The D200 has a grip available, called the MB-D200. It takes 2 batteries.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
This unit? 1.5 crop factor, 250 max sync and (as with the D70) no available grip? I'll stick with my plan to upgrade to a Canon 1 series early next year.
To each his own, I think the fervor between Nikon and Canon is on the same religious level of Mac vs. PC. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

When searching for a DSLR, I found the D70 to feel better and the controls where placed better then Canon. I also like the quality of Nikon Glass. That's not to say Canon isn't good, it just that Nikon fit my needs better.

As for the grip, your wrong, the D200 takes one, the specs are impressive if you read through them. If I had the cash, I'd opt for the D2X but I don't, and the D200 while nice just doesn't fit in my budget, I'd rather dedicate the money to better lenses.

Nikon for the time being is dedicated to the DX format and for me that's no big deal. I myself don't see a benefit of a full frame sensor.

I know of a few photographers who jumped ship because of the long delay between the D100 and the D200 plus pricing the D2x in the stratosphere didn't help. Its a costly choice especially if you have a lot of lenses. I myself am not a frustrated by Nikon and the images coming from the D70 have been awesome.

Mike
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 12:04 PM
 
I like the rotatable screen on the 8700, but no SLR seems to have this. Why should I get an SLR then? There seems to be no advantage except of 2 Megapixel which should be hardly noticeable.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 12:52 PM
 
SLRs have a superior AF and the way you use it is very, very different. I almost exclusively shoot in A, if I give it to friends, I switch to P, but other than that, I choose the settings. The build quality is way beyond the 8700. All larger cameras have a metal frame and use polycarbonate plastics. The D200 has a full-metal body. The more expensive the more metal is used. I've had a bike accident with my Olympus E-20 in my backpack. I needed surgery, my camera just worked

The imaging sensor is larger and thus is less noisy. The range of colors is larger. It's simply a different beast.

Anyway, I think almost nobody with an SLR needs a rotatable screen.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 12:53 PM
 
Digital SLR's have a larger sensor, have more advanced metering, more flexible control over the various aspects to the controls, including white balance, aperture, shutter speed. The lens/mirror arraingment is such that you look through the eyepiece and see what your shooting, i.e., your looking through the lens not just a view finder or an lcd screen.

And the biggest reason Lenses.

Point and Shoot digital camera's have one small lens, while a DSLR can have a macro lens for close of photography of flowers and such (I mean like 2 inches close), it can have a 50mm f1.4 lens that's capable of shooting in doors with out a flash but produce wonderful images. A 300mm lens that can capture sports and the list goes on. Basically if gives you superior lenses with a wide variety of lens choice.

If your happy with the 8700 then stick with it, The same goes with what works best, a Nikon D70, D200 or D2x, if the D70 works why upgrade (which is my case).

Mike
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I think almost nobody with an SLR needs a rotatable screen.
I would disagree. The rotatable screen gives you much more freedom to shoot at "unusual" angles. The fixed at the back screen or viewfinder leads to boring always at eyesight shot pictures (or a wrenched photographer).

Certainly a rotatable screen wouldn't harm since you can put it at the back and keep it there.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 01:05 PM
 
Droolworthy to say the least...
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
I would disagree. The rotatable screen gives you much more freedom to shoot at "unusual" angles.
The display on a DSLR does not work as you seem to think; it's not possible to preview images or to use the display to compose an image. Images only appear on the display after the image is captured.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn
To each his own, I think the fervor between Nikon and Canon is on the same religious level of Mac vs. PC. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

When searching for a DSLR, I found the D70 to feel better and the controls where placed better then Canon. I also like the quality of Nikon Glass. That's not to say Canon isn't good, it just that Nikon fit my needs better.

As for the grip, your wrong, the D200 takes one, the specs are impressive if you read through them. If I had the cash, I'd opt for the D2X but I don't, and the D200 while nice just doesn't fit in my budget, I'd rather dedicate the money to better lenses.

Nikon for the time being is dedicated to the DX format and for me that's no big deal. I myself don't see a benefit of a full frame sensor.

I know of a few photographers who jumped ship because of the long delay between the D100 and the D200 plus pricing the D2x in the stratosphere didn't help. Its a costly choice especially if you have a lot of lenses. I myself am not a frustrated by Nikon and the images coming from the D70 have been awesome.

Mike
Full frame sensors allow users to get the most out of their lenses, for landscape work this is invaluable. The drawback is that with FF sensors the weakness of cheaper lenses will be dramatically amplified, so there is a definate cost issue involved with going FF because to take full advantage of the system you need to have top quality glass.

As far as jumping ship goes, I work with several seasoned Nikon shooters who jumped ship on principle after someone at Nikon corporate decided it would be a bright idea to encrpyt the white balance data produced on the D2X.
people ruin everything....
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
I would disagree. The rotatable screen gives you much more freedom to shoot at "unusual" angles. The fixed at the back screen or viewfinder leads to boring always at eyesight shot pictures (or a wrenched photographer).

Certainly a rotatable screen wouldn't harm since you can put it at the back and keep it there.
With almost no exception, there is no dslr who can use the lcd as a viewfinder. (Mine can actually do that, but I rarely use it.)

There are solutions to that, though, periscope-type viewfinders.

As I said, the way you use them is different.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
Full frame sensors allow users to get the most out of their lenses, for landscape work this is invaluable. The drawback is that with FF sensors the weakness of cheaper lenses will be dramatically amplified, so there is a definate cost issue involved with going FF because to take full advantage of the system you need to have top quality glass.

As far as jumping ship goes, I work with several seasoned Nikon shooters who jumped ship on principle after someone at Nikon corporate decided it would be a bright idea to encrpyt the white balance data produced on the D2X.
A fullframe sensor is not necessary anymore to use wide-angle lenses.

Also EF-S lenses are incompatible to the larger cameras (EOS 5D, EOS 1D family).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Vente: Achat
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 02:57 PM
 
HOLY CRAP!!!

I was JUST in B&H Photo yesterday with my uncle who decided to buy a d70s - his FIRST digital slr back. I'm not sure whether I should mention it to him or not. So far he loves the d70s, but if he could choose again, I'm positive he would wait and get a d200. I'm not sure he wants to have to go back and return everything though.

When are the d200's going to be in stores?

edit: talked to B&H, looks like it's coming out in December. Maybe someone will buy me one for Christmas...drool...
( Last edited by paul w; Nov 1, 2005 at 03:06 PM. )
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
A fullframe sensor is not necessary anymore to use wide-angle lenses.

Also EF-S lenses are incompatible to the larger cameras (EOS 5D, EOS 1D family).

Nobody said it was necessary, but 16mm is NOT 16mm on a 1.5 crop sensor. It is only 16mm on a FF sensor. And who cares about EF-S lenses? EF-S lenses were designed to be incompatible with 1 series and other full frame sensors because they are Short Back Focus lenses only covering a small area of the sensor.
people ruin everything....
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
Nobody said it was necessary, but 16mm is NOT 16mm on a 1.5 crop sensor. It is only 16mm on a FF sensor. And who cares about EF-S lenses? EF-S lenses were designed to be incompatible with 1 series and other full frame sensors because they are Short Back Focus lenses only covering a small area of the sensor.
I'm aware of that. But the manufacturers reacted and you can buy a superb 12-24 mm zoom by Tokina (which is more than a match for the original manufacturers' lenses) for instance. Nikon (and other companies, including Canon) offer 28-80 mm equivalents for their cameras.

So the proper lenses are available, that's all I meant to say.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 05:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I'm aware of that. But the manufacturers reacted and you can buy a superb 12-24 mm zoom by Tokina (which is more than a match for the original manufacturers' lenses) for instance. Nikon (and other companies, including Canon) offer 28-80 mm equivalents for their cameras.

So the proper lenses are available, that's all I meant to say.
Gotcha
people ruin everything....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 05:29 PM
 
You can not get a low depth of sharpness (for example for portrait fotos) with small sensors and therefore wider angle lenses. That requires a small picture or medium format camera.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
Gotcha
Didn't want to sound evangelical about it, both make good cameras and good lenses.
Now you can pretty much freely choose according to your personal preference without any limitations

Originally Posted by TETENAL
You can not get a low depth of sharpness (for example for portrait fotos) with small sensors and therefore wider angle lenses. That requires a small picture or medium format camera.
True. It's a bit of a downside of my current camera as well.

And I'm pretty sure if financially feasible, Nikon and Canon would use fullframe sensors in their whole line-up. But you can see the price Canon pays (or rather Canon's customers have to pay) when they go for a ff sensor camera: The 5D is roughly twice as expensive as the D200 which are more or less comparable in terms of features and robustness.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
You can not get a low depth of sharpness (for example for portrait fotos) with small sensors and therefore wider angle lenses. That requires a small picture or medium format camera.
I'm assuming you are referring to "depth of field" and the sensor size has nothing to do with it. Depth of Field is a limitation of the lens, not the sensor. A lens with an aperture of 1.4 has the same DOF on a 1.5 sensor as it does on a FF sensor.
people ruin everything....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 06:27 PM
 
I'm partial to Canon myself, but the D200 at $1700 should make the Nikon types happy. It seems from the specs that it's going to be a very capable camera.

I doubt the D200's image noise will be as low as the Canon 5D's, but then again, it's a heluvalot cheaper than the Canon 5D. The D200 has at least one major feature advantage over the 5D too, that being the 5 fps shooting. The D200 also competes against the Canon 20D, but competes very favourably in terms of specs, albeit at a much higher street price.

BTW, I suspect Canon is set to release a 20D replacement (probably also a 1.6X crop camera) sometime next year.

Competition is good.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
I'm assuming you are referring to "depth of field" and the sensor size has nothing to do with it. Depth of Field is a limitation of the lens, not the sensor. A lens with an aperture of 1.4 has the same DOF on a 1.5 sensor as it does on a FF sensor.
It is a function of the aperture and the focal length. For a low depth of sharpness you want a highly opened lens with a high focal length where 100 to 135 mm lenses are a good compromise of. But with a small sensor such a lens is a high tele lens, so it's not suited for portrait photography. Small sensors require wider angle lenses and wide angle lenses have a high depth of sharpness.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
I'm assuming you are referring to "depth of field" and the sensor size has nothing to do with it. Depth of Field is a limitation of the lens, not the sensor. A lens with an aperture of 1.4 has the same DOF on a 1.5 sensor as it does on a FF sensor.
This is not quite correct. Depth of field is related to focal length and focal length only. So technically the same lens with the same aperture has the same depth of field, the viewing angle is quite different.

Medium format cameras' standard lens is 80 mm, for 35 mm/fullframe sensors it's 50, for APS-C sized sensors it's roughly 35 mm. Although these lenses have comparable viewing angles (which is important for the impression and the effect you would like), the field of depth is larger with a 35 mm lense.

So the depth of field of an equivalent lens is different.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
I'm partial to Canon myself, but the D200 at $1700 should make the Nikon types happy. It seems from the specs that it's going to be a very capable camera.

I doubt the D200's image noise will be as low as the Canon 5D's, but then again, it's a heluvalot cheaper than the Canon 5D. The D200 has at least one major feature advantage over the 5D too, that being the 5 fps shooting. The D200 also competes against the Canon 20D, but competes very favourably in terms of specs, albeit at a much higher street price.

BTW, I suspect Canon is set to release a 20D replacement (probably also a 1.6X crop camera) sometime next year.

Competition is good.
I noticed this `offset', too. The D70s is in between the 350D (Rebel XT) and the 20D, the D200 is positioned clearly above the 20D. Price-wise the D200 and the 20D are very close, but feature-wise it's closer to the 5D.

Do you have any idea what Canon will release? I guess if they position it too close to the 5D (think of a 5D with an APS-C-sized sensor), they would cannibalize sales on the EOS 5D, wouldn't they?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I noticed this `offset', too. The D70s is in between the 350D (Rebel XT) and the 20D, the D200 is positioned clearly above the 20D. Price-wise the D200 and the 20D are very close, but feature-wise it's closer to the 5D.

Do you have any idea what Canon will release? I guess if they position it too close to the 5D (think of a 5D with an APS-C-sized sensor), they would cannibalize sales on the EOS 5D, wouldn't they?
Like you, I'm just guessing, but my guesstimate is that Canon will standardize on two sensor sizes: Full frame and 1.6X crop. With the release of the 5D, the 1.3X crop cameras have effectively been EOL'd. However, 1.6X is still going strong, with Apple releasing the XT recently, as well as excellent EF-S crop lenses, including a prime macro lens, which by all accounts is of stellar quality.

I believe Canon will continue with a product mix containing two lower end cameras, including a Rebel level camera and a 20D replacement. I suspect the latter will be a little bit of a boost compared to the 20D, but won't really encroach on the 5D too much for a couple of reasons:

1) After the 5D was released, a lot of the pro Canon types are already refusing to consider anything associated with cropped sensors. Canon has hyped it up, and many on the Canon side are just lapping it up.

2) The 5D, despite it's drawbacks, has other advantages besides those associated with the sensor itself. For one, it has significantly better focus tracking, much better viewfinder, and stuff like that, which can be pretty important differentiators from a lower end camera.

3) I doubt Canon will ever release an EF-S L pro lens. While lenses like the 10-22 EF-S are pretty nice and contain aspherical and UD lens elements they are still labelled as consumer lenses, and in truth are not quite up to the usual pro L standards (although they are pretty damn good). Of course, you can always buy L lenses anyway, but it can be harder to get the same short DOF (with L level boke) that 35mm film shooters are used to when you're buying lenses built for full frame to use on a crop camera.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Upwind from Quebec...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2005, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
This is not quite correct. Depth of field is related to focal length and focal length only. So technically the same lens with the same aperture has the same depth of field, the viewing angle is quite different.

Medium format cameras' standard lens is 80 mm, for 35 mm/fullframe sensors it's 50, for APS-C sized sensors it's roughly 35 mm. Although these lenses have comparable viewing angles (which is important for the impression and the effect you would like), the field of depth is larger with a 35 mm lense.

So the depth of field of an equivalent lens is different.
ummmmm, actually it is quite right, DOF is a factor of both focal length AND aperture. The smaller the aperture, the deeper the depth of field. For example, if the lens focal length and the shooting distance stay the same, the depth of field is much deeper at f/16 than at f/1.4.

Originally Posted by TETENAL
For a low depth of sharpness you want a highly opened lens with a high focal length where 100 to 135 mm lenses are a good compromise of.
dude, what your describing is depth of field.
people ruin everything....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 02:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
With almost no exception, there is no dslr who can use the lcd as a viewfinder. (Mine can actually do that, but I rarely use it.)
Fuji S3
iamwhor3hay
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 02:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
It is a function of the aperture and the focal length. For a low depth of sharpness you want a highly opened lens with a high focal length where 100 to 135 mm lenses are a good compromise of. But with a small sensor such a lens is a high tele lens, so it's not suited for portrait photography. Small sensors require wider angle lenses and wide angle lenses have a high depth of sharpness.
my favorite portrait lens just happens to be a 100mm (35mm equivalent) F/1.8
iamwhor3hay
     
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 03:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by MrForgetable
Fuji S3
Originally Posted by DP Review
No other digital SLR has ever been able to provide a live view on the LCD monitor, until now. The S3 Pro has a unique (if slightly pointless) feature. You can switch to a 'Live Image' mode which provides a video-like B&W live view feed direct from the sensor to the LCD monitor (just like a consumer digital camera). In this mode you can also magnify the center portion of the frame. The important limitations however are: (a) its for display only, you can not trigger the shutter release in this mode, (b) the viewfinder is blacked out because the mirror must swing up and shutter open, (c) the display is in black and white, (d) the display can only be provided for a maximum of 30 seconds. All in all this mode seems to be more of a technology stunt than a useful feature.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page8.asp

Seems kind of pointless to me, and nothing like using the LCD as a viewfinder on a P&S.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 04:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by acadian
ummmmm, actually it is quite right, DOF is a factor of both focal length AND aperture. The smaller the aperture, the deeper the depth of field. For example, if the lens focal length and the shooting distance stay the same, the depth of field is much deeper at f/16 than at f/1.4.
You apparently missed the words `equivalent lenses'. If you want to compose a photo what matters is the viewing angle and not the focal length. I wrote `Same lens, same aperture, same dof.' And yes, I think I'm aware that the depth of field increases if I close the aperture

Since the equivalence relation among lenses is the viewing angle and not the focal length, a 100 mm-equivalent lens has a smaller DOF on a smaller sensor than on a fullframe sensor.

Originally Posted by MrForgetable
Fuji S3
My E-20 can do it, too. But still, AFAIK most dslrs can't use the lcd for a picture preview.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 05:02 AM
 
I'll consider a D200 if they fix the bloody viewfinder.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 06:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
I'll consider a D200 if they fix the bloody viewfinder.
What do you mean?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 06:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Like you, I'm just guessing, but my guesstimate is that Canon will standardize on two sensor sizes: Full frame and 1.6X crop. With the release of the 5D, the 1.3X crop cameras have effectively been EOL'd. However, 1.6X is still going strong, with Apple releasing the XT recently, as well as excellent EF-S crop lenses, including a prime macro lens, which by all accounts is of stellar quality.

I believe Canon will continue with a product mix containing two lower end cameras, including a Rebel level camera and a 20D replacement. I suspect the latter will be a little bit of a boost compared to the 20D, but won't really encroach on the 5D too much for a couple of reasons:

1) After the 5D was released, a lot of the pro Canon types are already refusing to consider anything associated with cropped sensors. Canon has hyped it up, and many on the Canon side are just lapping it up.

2) The 5D, despite it's drawbacks, has other advantages besides those associated with the sensor itself. For one, it has significantly better focus tracking, much better viewfinder, and stuff like that, which can be pretty important differentiators from a lower end camera.

3) I doubt Canon will ever release an EF-S L pro lens. While lenses like the 10-22 EF-S are pretty nice and contain aspherical and UD lens elements they are still labelled as consumer lenses, and in truth are not quite up to the usual pro L standards (although they are pretty damn good). Of course, you can always buy L lenses anyway, but it can be harder to get the same short DOF (with L level boke) that 35mm film shooters are used to when you're buying lenses built for full frame to use on a crop camera.
Yeah, I think so, too, it makes sense. Now pros can pretty much stay fullframe if they want (I have to ask my cousin if he has two EOS-1s or also a smaller body), which they couldn't before. So I think they can use that to effectively differentiate the two. This would also mean that EF-S lenses top out, or as you say, there isn't going to be an EF-S L series.

In the long run, Canon's strategy might work out as ff sensor prices decrease with volume. Once the prices are comparable, Canon has a technological advantage (that people can afford).

BTW Tokina has released excellent 12-24 mm lenses which -- in the reviews I've read -- more than surpassed both Nikon and Canon lenses, even though it is cheaper.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ferndale, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 06:49 AM
 
Bah. Gimme a K1000.

     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 07:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
What do you mean?
The D70's viewfinder is a pinhole compared to my F5 and it's relatively dark. Not to mention the non-100% view you get, what's up with that ? I've got problems composing an image in a small viewfinder, maybe I'm spoiled because I've always owned pro cameras but the viewfinder is one of the most important things on a camera for me. All the technical gizmos come second.

I've read that the D200 has a .94x or .96x magnification in the viewfinder so that could help. And I really hope it does because the camera looks awesome otherwise.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by screamingFit
Bah. Gimme a K1000.


iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL
You can not get a low depth of sharpness (for example for portrait fotos) with small sensors and therefore wider angle lenses. That requires a small picture or medium format camera.
I disagree, I just picked up a 50mm f1.4 for my d70 and that baby has a razor thin DOF, my 60mm macro lens' DOF is also wicked thin

As the others had posted the sensor has nothing to do with the Depth of Field so why won't belabor why its the lens and not the sensor.

Mike
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Maflynn
my 60mm macro lens' DOF is also wicked thin
Yes, you have a small depth of sharpness in macro photography, but unless you are a dermatologist you don't shoot portraits that way.
Originally Posted by Maflynn
I disagree, I just picked up a 50mm f1.4 for my d70 and that baby has a razor thin DOF
I sort of doubt it's "razor thin".
Originally Posted by Maflynn
As the others had posted the sensor has nothing to do with the Depth of Field so why won't belabor why its the lens and not the sensor.
Yes, it's the lens, but with smaller sensors you need lenses with shorter focal length. And with shorter focal length you get a larger depth of sharpness. Therefore the size of the sensor matters.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by screamingFit
Bah. Gimme a K1000.

I have one to sell--how much you willing to go?
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
The D70's viewfinder is a pinhole compared to my F5 and it's relatively dark. Not to mention the non-100% view you get, what's up with that ? I've got problems composing an image in a small viewfinder, maybe I'm spoiled because I've always owned pro cameras but the viewfinder is one of the most important things on a camera for me. All the technical gizmos come second.

I've read that the D200 has a .94x or .96x magnification in the viewfinder so that could help. And I really hope it does because the camera looks awesome otherwise.
You know what I think? You're just spoiled!
The viewfinder is also a reason why I won't buy an Olympus E-500. I've read the viewfinder is small, and judgin
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 06:27 PM
 
Nikon put this body exactly where it needed to be, with the right price, and features. I for one am very happy they went with a CCD. You can have a much weaker AA filter on a CCD. That was always my beef with CMOS when I shot with my 20D. Hours upon hours of PP to sharpen the image and loose the "silky smooth BS."

Going back to Nikon was like coming home. Nikon has always been about the image. Canon is more like consumer electronics that record images.

If I like the images I see from the D200 my D70 is gone. I've been waiting a long time for this. Holding off for a few months will be a real test.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
Sun Tzu
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ferndale, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
I have one to sell--how much you willing to go?
Well, I've got three already so I don't need another. Too bad - the K1000's freakin' rock! Wonder if anyone makes a digital back for them??
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2005, 08:26 PM
 
What an awesome camera! It seems to make so much sense from a photographer's persective (from what I've read). I'm sick of poorly designed interfaces, tiny viewfinders, bad histograms, etc. Now we have to see how the AF performs and what the images look like.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2