PDA

View Full Version : 18-200 Nikkor VR Awesome



Sambru
07-13-2007, 10:43 PM
Picked up my 18-200 Nikkor VR and I am thrilled, awesome glass well worth the money.:) I included a photo of the constuction of my house. The black shadow on the bottom right is my rear view mirror I took the shot from inside my truck it was starting to rain.

XaiLo
07-13-2007, 11:38 PM
Congrats on the lens and the house... what part of the world are you in? looks like you're going to have a great view everyday. :)

Sambru
07-14-2007, 09:20 AM
Picked up my 18-200 Nikkor VR and I am thrilled, awesome glass well worth the money.:) I included a photo of the constuction of my house. The black shadow on the bottom right is my rear view mirror I took the shot from inside my truck it was starting to rain.

Thank you, I live in British Columbia Canada, yes it's an awesome view.

XaiLo
07-14-2007, 09:23 AM
Cool, post some more pics of tht view would love to see a sunset pic.

fionndruinne
07-14-2007, 12:54 PM
BC, now that is a nice place to live. I'm south of you, in coastal Oregon. Both are great places for an 18-200mm VR, that's for certain.

Sambru
07-14-2007, 07:04 PM
Here is another of my house. This is the basement, there will be another floor on top. The Trees will also be down this Oct.

swpars
09-03-2007, 08:15 AM
That looks like it's on Okanagan lake -- maybe near Penticton?

Gintaras
09-03-2007, 01:01 PM
Sambru, nice pix. Btw I notice you got both D80 and D200 which in one way are a bit similar cameras, in the other way D200 is nicer pro I have heard, size wise both are not worlds apart either. Just curious.

Sambru
09-04-2007, 11:53 PM
Sambru, nice pix. Btw I notice you got both D80 and D200 which in one way are a bit similar cameras, in the other way D200 is nicer pro I have heard, size wise both are not worlds apart either. Just curious.

It's a long story, I had orginally bought the D80 and loved it(still do) then one day one of my clients let me use their D200 - I was hooked. I passed up the 200 at the beginng because I thought it would be too much of a learning curve(no scene modes etc) turned out I take better photos with the 200 than the D80 using Appature or manual settings. The 200 forces me to get creative, and experiment with different settings. So now I use the D80 for the times when I want to travel light and be lazy(scene modes and Auto) I take it and my 18-200 Nikkor VR and I am set.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1040/1318156042_b7360fc4a7.jpg?v=0

Another D200 -18-200 photo

jcon
09-05-2007, 12:01 AM
I had orginally bought the D80 and loved it(still do) then one day one of my clients let me use their D200 - I was hooked. I passed up the 200 at the beginng because I thought it would be too much of a learning curve(no scene modes etc) turned out I take better photos with the 200 than the D80 using Appature or manual settings.

I REALLY like this post. While I understand it to a point, when people say its the person taking the picture, not the camera, I question it. Bottom line is, if you have better equipment, your pictures WILL be better, and Sambru said it beautifully!

I hope people that have been worried the D200 would be "too much camera" get to read Sambrus post!

Also, as TNB and others have said, if you dont want to buy the D200, NEVER pick it up or touch it, you wont be able to put it back:D


Well said Sambru, well said!

K1W1
09-05-2007, 12:30 AM
I REALLY like this post. While I understand it to a point, when people say its the person taking the picture, not the camera, I question it. Bottom line is, if you have better equipment, your pictures WILL be better, and Sambru said it beautifully!

Sorry but I dispute that.
Yes equipment helps but tell me in what ways somebody like Ansel Adams for example had equipment that was in any way superior to any modern camera. If you are a person like me who does not really have a "photographers eye" it does not matter what equipment you use, your results may be slightly better in the focus or exposure departments but the actual composition of the scene isn't going to change one little bit and the composition is the real key to a great photo.

Gintaras
09-05-2007, 01:33 AM
Jcon, speaking about gear i welcome you to guess what equipment i used for these shots:confused:

rawpaw18
09-05-2007, 04:35 AM
Jcon, speaking about gear i welcome you to guess what equipment i used for these shots:confused:

I am usually pretty good at this game. Judging by color, sharpness and some characteristics of the shots all but the last two were most likely taken by the same camera. I'm guessing it was a Canon for obvious reasons, maybe the IXUS 400.
Now the last two look better so it was more likely a Nikon Probably the Nikon E885. Of course I am just guessing :D

Sambru
09-05-2007, 06:31 AM
]Here is another of my house. This is the basement, there will be another floor on top. The Trees will also be down this Oct.


Update of my House - still trying for Oct. to move in. We are at lockup right now.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1383/1329919952_65b5a25a1e.jpg?v=0

Gintaras
09-05-2007, 06:48 AM
OK Rawpar, you just PULLED my leg... i forgot i posted on dcresource those as illustration of what one can do with P&S Ixus 400 not mention feature rich old Coolpix 885 (which was my first digital cam and then CP995 and then Sony717) .:o

GaryS
09-05-2007, 08:05 AM
Gintaras... You also left the EXIF information in the photos, which makes it pretty easy to see what camera you used, plus all the settings!

erichlund
09-05-2007, 08:23 AM
Sorry but I dispute that.
Yes equipment helps but tell me in what ways somebody like Ansel Adams for example had equipment that was in any way superior to any modern camera. If you are a person like me who does not really have a "photographers eye" it does not matter what equipment you use, your results may be slightly better in the focus or exposure departments but the actual composition of the scene isn't going to change one little bit and the composition is the real key to a great photo.

I can't say for certain, because I've only seen some pictures of him with his equipment in Yosemite, so I don't know the exact details. However, as far as I can tell, the film format was superior, but only because it was so large. And, you needed 4 men and mule to carry his stuff. Other than that, it was pretty much a box to hold the film, a bellows (to position the lens), a lens and a shutter. Nothing sophisticated.

Ansel Adams was the epitomy of "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer." I think what Sambru is saying is that the Nikon D200 makes him think about how to take a particular shot rather than provide him with a bunch of modes for shot types. To my way of thinking, that's actually simpler than all those modes. After all, it just about getting the right exposure, and the D200 keeps it simple, shutter speed, aperture and framing.

Gintaras
09-05-2007, 08:47 AM
dusty, thanks, OPS... i am dumb dumb dumb... i did not think about EXIF data.:o

anyway, pix are just to show that gear matters only to some extent

rawpaw18
09-05-2007, 01:19 PM
All in fun Gintaras.

No Control
09-05-2007, 04:23 PM
Well I think it can be agreed in certain situations if you take a shot with a p+s and a dSLR that the dSLR will always come out ahead. But that's not to say it was the camera that made the image. Just looking at online galleries you can see plenty of people make spectacular shots with bottom-of-the-line gear (including p+s) as well as pro equipment producing crap. In the end it really is the photographer.

+$.02 :rolleyes:

Sambru
09-05-2007, 06:54 PM
can't say for certain, because I've only seen some pictures of him with his equipment in Yosemite, so I don't know the exact details. However, as far as I can tell, the film format was superior, but only because it was so large. And, you needed 4 men and mule to carry his stuff. Other than that, it was pretty much a box to hold the film, a bellows (to position the lens), a lens and a shutter. Nothing sophisticated.

Ansel Adams was the epitomy of "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer." I think what Sambru is saying is that the Nikon D200 makes him think about how to take a particular shot rather than provide him with a bunch of modes for shot types. To my way of thinking, that's actually simpler than all those modes. After all, it just about getting the right exposure, and the D200 keeps it simple, shutter speed, aperture and framing.

You are right! The 200 makes me think and experiment with it's functions. The D80 as I have pointed out has the "scenes and P. & a very green Auto" which is fine, however I was tending to switch to Auto or one of the scenes for 90% of my photos:eek: so learning about photography was not really there. With the 200 - I don't have any of those settings other than P and I have maybe used P once or twice otherwise it's mostly appature priority or Manual. I now can look through my viewfind and with a twirl of a wheel or a push of a button control the output of my photo. Not NIKON. Granted I could of done the same with the D80 to some level, the D200 makes it a lot easier. As for the D300 - I doubt in fact I know I will not upgrade for a long time, I don't like equipment races, and why would I give up an award winning camera for one that has not been proven yet. I am sure the 300 will be an awesome camera and will make a lot of people very happy as did the 200 for me.