I've never owned a DSLR. After two years of making do with the family camera (a Canon Powershot G2), I decided that all or some of the $2500 sitting in my savings account is going to pay for an excellent camera.
My father has been an amateur photographer for 40 years, and he's a Nikon guy through and through. That puts Canon out of the question for me, because the F Mount will support all his old lenses... or so I thought. I called Nikon, and they told me that while any Nikon camera can mount his lenses, only the d200 will give any metering.
How important is this? I don't trust Ken Rockwell at all (he spewed something like "heck you may as well use a '50's era flash meter!"), and I'm not sure I even need everything the D200 has to offer. White balance is important, as is the superb button layout and rugged magnesium-alloy body (I hate plastic). Like I said, I have $2500 to spend but if the D70s or D50 has everything I need with a few concessions (e.g. plastic frame, a few megapixels), I'll just go with something lower.
Goldfly $2500 is a lot of money and the conservative , less impulsive , side of me will tell you not to touch that savings account. You never know when you will need that money for something that will seem much more important at the time you need it, than having a camera. That's just me though.
While the D70 is plastic, it sure feels sturdy in my hands, and as far as white balance is concerned, I always shoot in RAW anyhow, so it's never an issue as I can just change is in Nikon Capture. If I were in your shoes I would rent a D70(s) and try it with all your lens'. If they work then you are out $800 for body only and you still have $1700 in savings. This way you get your new toy (yippee) and peace of mind that you still have some savings.
Ah, I should've clarified. The savings account is a seperate one; this is money from a few years back that I put aside for buying "something expensive" I might want someday. Originally, a nice electric guitar was in mind, but acoustic has suited me just fine over the years and I've never seen the need.
Also, I just found out that these lenses aren't as spectacular as I thought them to be- the Kiron telephoto (70-210, f/4) goes for a mere $90 bucks at B&H. All but one of them are manual focus only, too.
I plan on taking the lenses with me when the ma&pop camera store tells me my d200 has arrived. I'll take a look at both cameras, then decide.
Thanks for the advice, Esoterra. Besides the megapixel jump and better continuous shooting, is there anything else about the d200 that might make that price jump worthwile for me (the AF system, maybe)?
I've never owned a DSLR. After two years of making do with the family camera (a Canon Powershot G2), I decided that all or some of the $2500 sitting in my savings account is going to pay for an excellent camera.
My father has been an amateur photographer for 40 years, and he's a Nikon guy through and through. That puts Canon out of the question for me, because the F Mount will support all his old lenses... or so I thought. I called Nikon, and they told me that while any Nikon camera can mount his lenses, only the d200 will give any metering.
How important is this? I don't trust Ken Rockwell at all (he spewed something like "heck you may as well use a '50's era flash meter!"), and I'm not sure I even need everything the D200 has to offer. White balance is important, as is the superb button layout and rugged magnesium-alloy body (I hate plastic). Like I said, I have $2500 to spend but if the D70s or D50 has everything I need with a few concessions (e.g. plastic frame, a few megapixels), I'll just go with something lower.
Any thoughts? Does anyone even have a D200 yet??
The D200 may be overkill, but if you want the best of the current crop of prosumer dSLR's, and AI and AI-S lens compatibility, this appears to be the one. I suggest that maybe you try the D50 first, as it may be what you really need, and spend the extra on decent pro grade Nikkor lenses, like the AF-S 17-55 f/2.8 DX, which will retain most of their value and give the D50 some added punch, for about the same price as the D200 body alone. There is little value added to the D70s over the D50. A good dSLR and a great lens would serve you better than a great camera and a mediocre lens.
I have a tendancy to agree with the idea that manual focus lenses are interesting but waste most of the capability of newer AF cameras.
__________________
Once you go dSLR you'll never go back
...and spend the extra on decent pro grade Nikkor lenses, like the AF-S 17-55 f/2.8 DX, which will retain most of their value and give the D50 some added punch, for about the same price as the D200 body alone. There is little value added to the D70s over the D50. A good dSLR and a great lens would serve you better than a great camera and a mediocre lens.
From what I've heard here and what I've seen of Nikon's lens catalog, it seems like a much better idea to forget the D200 and get the D50 or D70s and spend money on a few great lenses. I shoot mostly outdoor and portrait photography; I probably don't need anything in the telephoto department. Any ideas for a good wide angle?
Nikon's lens website gives the "DX Nikkor" line an entirely different section- what's special about the "DX?" If these lenses are made for Nikon's DSLRs, is there anything they can do that the other Nikkor (/Sigma, Kiron, etc.) lenses can't? It seems that this line has everything I could want, just more expensive.
" The resolution difference isn't important. What is important is that the D200 offers numerous little improvements in convenience, speed and ease of use, like more buttons dedicated to individual functions. For instance, the Three Kings, which serious photographers reset almost shot-to-shot, QUAL, WB and ISO, now have dedicated new buttons on top (see photo below) instead of being shared with playback buttons on the back as they are on the D70s. New from the D70 is that the ISO shows all the time in the finder..."
and...
"The quality of your photos will be the same from the D200 as any other DSLR. It's you, not the camera, who makes the pictures. I have a page here about that. If you're dissatisfied with your photos then your money is better spent on becoming a better photographer or traveling to exotic locales than on more cameras. I've seen 3 x 4 foot prints made from a D50 and they look great. If you can't get sharp results with what you have, then a new camera probably won't fix it. The technical image quality differences are so minute among cameras that only the very top virtuoso photographers are good enough to discern the differences in real photography of anything other than test charts. Of course people trying to sell you cameras will say otherwise, and if you have the money then by all means get the best."
Seeing that there is some skepticism about Ken, I would only take what makes sense to you. Here is the site
From what I've heard here and what I've seen of Nikon's lens catalog, it seems like a much better idea to forget the D200 and get the D50 or D70s and spend money on a few great lenses. I shoot mostly outdoor and portrait photography; I probably don't need anything in the telephoto department. Any ideas for a good wide angle?
Nikon's lens website gives the "DX Nikkor" line an entirely different section- what's special about the "DX?" If these lenses are made for Nikon's DSLRs, is there anything they can do that the other Nikkor (/Sigma, Kiron, etc.) lenses can't? It seems that this line has everything I could want, just more expensive.
Thanks for all your help, George & everyone.
The DX indicates lenses designed for Nikon digital cameras which use an APS-C size sensor (Nikon calls this sensor DX) that is smaller than a 35mm frame by a factor of 1.5. this is called a crop factor and is treated like a multiplier where lens focal lengths are concened. A 35mm frame is about 36mm x 24mm and APS-C is about 24mm x 16mm (or equivalent to cropping the 35mm frame by 1.5X).
This size difference allows lens designers to make smaller and lighter lenses of equivalent or better quality, for less money, but limits the use of these lenses for 35mm film cameras and possible future full-frame image sensors (Canon 1Ds MarkII and 5D dSLR's are the only remaining full frame digital sensors currently available).
Smaller APS-C sized sensors are also much cheaper to make which is why we enjoy dSLR's in the $600 price range, while the lowest cost full-frame dSLR (Canon 5D) is around $3300 (body only).
The effect of digital only lenses is that if you have a Nikon F100 and a D70 the DX lens will cause vignetting (darkening of corners similar to shooting through binoculars or tunnel vision) on the F100 due to the design for a smaller target. If you use a non-DX lens it will work on both.
One of the drawbacks to non-DX lenses, for digital use, is that their focal length is designed for full frame targets (sensors or film) so that 28-70 is now equivalent to 42-105. Terrific for telephoto shooting, but at the loss of wide-angle. That's why you see many of the DX lenses with a range starting at 17mm or 18mm as these are actually the equivalent of around a 25-27mm field of view on a 35mm frame.
The flip (good) side of that is that you are only using the center portion of the lens, so it's like using a smaller aperture without the loss of light. Conventional lenses that had sharp centers and soft edges/corners wide open are now sharp wide open because in escence we have cropped the corners and edges of the target by about 30%.
I think that on the whole you will find DX lenses to be lower cost, for equivalent quality/performance, than their non-DX equivalents. The pro versions will always command a premium price, but the consumer grade lenses like the 18-70 DX are pretty reasonable.
__________________
Once you go dSLR you'll never go back
My father has been an amateur photographer for 40 years, and he's a Nikon guy through and through. That puts Canon out of the question for me, because the F Mount will support all his old lenses... or so I thought.
If the majority of the reason you decided on Nikon was your old lenses, Now that you found out the lenses are cheap, would you consider Canon?
The reason I ask this is because the Canon 20d is Magnesium Alloy, is very well rated and for $2500 you could get a Great package. If you were to go with Canon I would suggest the following:
Canon 20d --------- $1300
Canon 24-70L ----- $1200
Canon 70-200L f/4 - $590
Tripple Rebate --($510)
Sandisk Ultra II 1gb CF Card $90
Total---------$2670
The only reason I went over your $2500 budget is because you will only be paying $370 more than without, for a $600 Lens (70-200 f/4)
Add Some shipping in there and you will probably pay $2700 for the entire package (only $200 more than your budget). If you didn't get the 70-200 f/4 the package (including rebates & CF Card) would run $2300. That is a great package.
D70s vs. D200
Linear Mode
