DSLRUsers.com

They are going crazy over at DPReview over the D200

Same as Fred Miranda

for those waiting for the D200 enjoy

If that is true sounds like a great camera

Yes it sounds prommising, as i had a read the other nite and looks like it could be a good thing, oh well only time will tell.

Flash sync only 1/250

Same as D2X MHD, it might have high speed flash sync, but as you probably already know if you've read Ken Rockwells speil on it then it has it's pros/cons. One of the biggest cons is the cycle times are longer and the battery consumption greater, as it has to fire the flash before the curtain is open and until it closes, if I'm not mistaken.

No more rumors! it's real and coming soon to the store near you!

How long and and an estimated price?

I think this camera will be the 1 to look at your shooting needs i guess, as to see the pros and cons of it and decide if this is ok for what you shoot.
I think if the D70's focussing was faster for me would be great and i prolly wouldnt maybe change to much,more MP and faster focus i be happy a chappy. The fact that i have to go and spend another 3 or 4,000 smacker to get this sux but yeh such is life. looking forward to it, but still looking at that D2x but this could be another alternative for others.

Glen I'd say no more than $4k body alone, hoping $3-3.5k. If it's anymore, why would you bother, you'd go a D2X and have the 5FPS at 12mp.

Out of interest, I didn't see any pictures. Does it have a vertical grip?

No vertical grip from the dimensions and 2cm by 2cm shot I saw. Sounds interesting

It's a bit of a bummer about the verti-grip. What sort of external control does it have? Purely IR like the D70 or can it accept some sort of cable triggering? Just wondered if a verti-grip might come as an option.

I'm sure that it would have a vertigrip option (working on the basis that its predecessor, the D100 had one).
However, if it doesn't then it's a dealbreaker & will have to be the D2X for me.

Hmmm... We shall have to wait and see.

I'd like to see a copy of the supposed pdf file. I find it hard to believe that NOBODY thought to grap a copy of it before Nikon yanked it...

If the specs are real, it's even better than I hoped. I remember saying to Gary some weeks ago at a mini-meet that I would be happy with a lobotomised D2X. It's all that and more. I didn't expect it to have High Speed Crop mode or (apparently) CAM2000.

Of course those juicy little extras will be reflected in the price

John, I could of lived with 6MP or 8MP and CAM2000 as I'm perfectly happy with the resolution of the D70. It's just the focussing has a bit to be desired.

I would of also been happy with the LCD being a tad bigger and having the histograms broken into RGB would of been nice too.

Somebody on dpreview said that Nikon might of been expecting to get a good price on some new sony ccds that were lower res than the d2x cmos but that fell through so they just decided to go with the cmos. Then again it's just all speculation. Nikon could be just having a gag, and it might end up being something different. Then again the D100 was a 6MP camera so it'd be stupid for them to bring out the successor with the same MP.

Talk too much here! Play real!

Hehehehehe! Have you guy got the money ready?

Order has been taken few weeks ago on this board! Don't you remember?

5 names are on pre-order list! Who else?

Sooo .... What's the (expected) price?

Hlop wrote:Sooo .... What's the (expected) price?

I need some deposit!

Birddog114 wrote:

Hlop wrote:Sooo .... What's the (expected) price?

I need some deposit!

Can I pay the deposit in non-existent money? After all the camera doesn't exist yet, so why should the money?

kipper wrote:Somebody on dpreview said that Nikon might of been expecting to get a good price on some new sony ccds that were lower res than the d2x cmos but that fell through so they just decided to go with the cmos.

Lots of things are said on DPR. Occasionally some of makes sense.

That story isn't even in the ballpark, AFAIC.

The underlying support behind a different sensor size (pixel count) would be quite significant from the firmware and supporting software side, and it really would make no commercial sense at all for Nikon.

Let's do the math - they've got a damn good sensor in the D2x, and developing that sensor was not a an inexpensive task; they need to recover that development cost. How better to achieve that goal than by running that sensor into their down market products - first up with their second string pro cam, the D200, and then into the D70 replacement.

As nobody (apart from Canon) actually makes anything in a DX size greater than the 6MP unit we see in the D70/D50, it's likely that acquiring such a sensor from any third party manufacturer would now actually be more costly than using their existing - and production ready - 12MP unit.

Anybody got a more workable idea?

Hey Gary, I whole heartedly agree with you. I've already done the maths and have thought that they might just want to capitalise on the R&D they've already done and give us a dumbed down version of the D2X. I mean not only the sensor size but the CAM2000 aswell. The guys doing the engineering must be jumping for joy, they can fall asleep on the job as I doubt there is as much engineering work in comparison to say if they had a new sensor, af system etc.

kipper wrote:Hey Gary, I whole heartedly agree with you. I've already done the maths and have thought that they might just want to capitalise on the R&D they've already done and give us a dumbed down version of the D2X. I mean not only the sensor size but the CAM2000 aswell. The guys doing the engineering must be jumping for joy, they can fall asleep on the job as I doubt there is as much engineering work in comparison to say if they had a new sensor, af system etc.

Yep. A lobotomised D2x, housed in a resurrected D100 body, is pretty much what the D200 will end being.

But the engineers do have their work cuto out : apart from lobotomising the firmware, they have to figure out how to cram all extra circuitry into a smaller body.

"hey Bobby-san, there's still a few wires stickin' out the side. What'll I do with 'em?"

They're losing a bit of space with reduced drive rate (3FPS/5PS as opposed to 5FPS/8PFS), and a reduced burst rate which probably means that they've eliminated some mem chips that they required while bursting.

All my camera goals are on hold for now. i.e. no 70-200 VR and D200

My father in-law got retrenched two days ago and is the only income earner for himself and my mother-in-law.

Can't believe the heartless nature of that company. He was made redundant effective immediately with no notice or support to find another job. The letter states dont turn up to work tomorrow.

What bad timing with the wedding coming up and all!

Sorry to hear about that Nito.

Back to the D200 though. 'WHERE'S MY FULL FRAME SENSOR?'

I guess i will be waiting for the D300.........

Will have to spend the intervening time acquiring lenses......

Steve, I doubt that Nikon will move to one for a while yet, what with the DX lenses they're bringing out that are designed to work with the sensor size they use in DSLR's.

Rumours are often fact - I will have to put the D2Hs on hold

Out of interest Chris, what made you even contemplate a D2Hs given it's price in comparison to a D2X?

I have seen the D2Hs for approx 2k under the D2X - the only major difference being the 4.1M sensor. I have in the past, as stated above, used the D1 for magazine, etc publication and this was only 2.7M so sensor size does not worry me. The D200 announcement should be coming sometime in September - so I will wait and see.

My main interest is in MLU and CAM2000

nito wrote:All my camera goals are on hold for now. i.e. no 70-200 VR and D200

My father in-law got retrenched two days ago and is the only income earner for himself and my mother-in-law.

Can't believe the heartless nature of that company. He was made redundant effective immediately with no notice or support to find another job. The letter states dont turn up to work tomorrow.


What bad timing with the wedding coming up and all!

That is awful Nito - I'm not sure that they can just say don't turn up tomorrow, is he getting a payout? Follow it up, or get him to...there are (some) laws to prevent this type of thing. Is he in a job that is unionised?

Killakoala wrote:
'WHERE'S MY FULL FRAME SENSOR?'

I know this has been discussed here and elsewhere ad naseum, but let me flog the old horse one more time..

What is full frame? The answer depends on what era you look at the question from. I know Killa is referring to 36mm x24mm (35mm). 120 years ago full frame was 8" x 10" glass plates. Since that time the "reference" frame size has shrunk in steps until it reached 35mm (of course many MF users will still dispute that 35mm is the reference size).

Why can't there be a new reference size? People complain that a DX sized sensor doesn't do wide angle or DOF as well as 35mm. Perhaps that may be true at the moment, although there are lenses on the market that pretty well negate these problems. The differences between MF and 35mm are much the same as between 35mm and DX. I feel that time and technology will eventually mean that a DX sized sensor will eventually supplant 35mm as "full frame", just like 35mm did to the formats that preceded it....

Mods,

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the General Discussion forum? See below...

krpolak wrote:I would like to aswer to you post, however since I dont have accest to this part, please allow me to do it by message.

"I feel that time and technology will eventually mean that a DX sized sensor will eventually supplant 35mm as "full frame", just like 35mm did to the formats that preceded it...."

I dont think so you are right here. As I mentioned in other thread with all other features and characteristic equal bigger sensor will give better image quality then smaller. This is with dx format, 35 format, medium format ect.

And because dslr is for profesionals or advanced amatours quality matters (for others is compact format). I recon the issue is set up. 35 will remain as a size standard. Canon goes there and will stay there. Nikon simply could not and still cannot. This is reason why they stick to dx format. Otherwise there would not be place for Nikon. And it can work for a while, till Nikon will hit limit of size of single sensor (single point). Then, to much oppononets they have to leave dx format.

Note that nobody is going to change mount size. It will stay as it is and this give room for bigger then dx size sensor. It means higher quality.

Regards,

K.Polak

Hi Krystian,

You have 68 posts, you should be able to post to all sections of the forum, please PM gstark to give you access to the "member" sections. Members access doesnt happen automatically, you have to ask for it.

In response to your reply, I agree with many of your points. I wasn't trying to say that DX was better than 35mm, just like 35mm isn't better than MF, because of course, with all other things being equal, the larger format will win out every time. The point I was trying to make is that DX size sensors may well become the "new" standard format for 90% of photographers, the exceptions being pros and high end amateurs, much like 35mm was the film used by most people prior to the introduction of DSLRs. There will always be a use for 36 x 24 as well as MF, etc, however the general consumer level cameras will probably stay with the DX (and Canon equivalent) sized sensor (at least in the short to medium term).

Nikon have stated that they believe that they can eventually get 24MP out of the DX size sensor (assumably at reasonable noise levels). I have no doubts that Nikon will eventually enter the 36x24 sensor race, if only not to lose face to Canon The F mount allows them to do that and some people will wet themselves with joy when they do, but there will still be a place for both sizes. Personally, I'm happy with the DX size as it is a cheap telephoto cheat and Nikon (and Canon) know that the majority of the customers like that feature too. After all 35mm is a 50% crop on MF, just like DX is compared to 35mm.... Which one became the "standard" = 35mm of course.

The crop factor is my consideration for waiting longer for Nikon to release a 35mm Full Frame sensor, so i can use my non-DX lenses to the extent they were meant for. I want my 50mm to be a 50mm and i want my 85mm to be an 85mm etc... I feel that using the 'normal' film lenses on a DX camera i am being ripped off by not having full use (read 35mm equivelant) of the light coming out the end of the lens.

I will wait patiently for Nikon to supply me with one and in the mean time i will continue to use my D70, crop factor limitations and all.

Sooner or later, this beautiful glass i am collecting will be even more useful and i can continue to save up for the FF camera when it arrives.

johndec wrote:Mods,
Perhaps this thread should be moved to the General Discussion forum? See below...

Is it in the humour or rumour section?

I don't really want to wade into the full frame vs. DX debate, but the smaller crop suits me fine except for the smaller viewfinder. Otherwise, I'm happy with the results from the 17-55 (as I was with the 18-70) and the use of the sweet spot for the other FF lenses.
I can see where you are coming from though Killa. If you are paying top dollar on the pro lenses for great edge to edge quality, you don't want it wasted.

Killakoala wrote: Sooner or later, this beautiful glass i am collecting will be even more useful and i can continue to save up for the FF camera when it arrives.

killakoala,
I'm with you and I'm suffered with the DX, hope more sooner I can see once again the full size thru all of my film lenses's day as 17-35, 28-70/2.8, 14/2.8/ 28/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, 58/1.2 Noct, 85.1/4, 105 DC/2, 180/2.8, 200/ 2.8 and dozen of AI-S lenses with f1.4 - 2.8.

For the wider lenses I too would rather a full frame sensor. As Killa has already said the 50MM and 85MM will be great then.

However for nature I love the 1.5 crop

kipper wrote:However for nature I love the 1.5 crop

Yep, that's where the D70 shines with my 500mm No bird is safe!!!

joolz wrote:
Is it in the humour or rumour section?

That's why I posted here

kipper wrote:For the wider lenses I too would rather a full frame sensor. As Killa has already said the 50MM and 85MM will be great then.

Anyone who was at last Saturday's minimeet and had a play with the old FA + 15mm f3.5 will understand why the DX nomenclature will never, ever, supplant full frame 35mm asthe reference point for these cameras.

DX is good, 35mm FF is better.