|
Post by bpajwhite on Jul 19, 2007 15:49:03 GMT -5
Well I've been looking at them for months and i finally broke down and ordered one. I picked the Nikon D200, the 18-200mm VR lens, and a bunch of other goodies to go with it. I figured as much as I was spending I'd pay a little extra and get the 2 day shipping but the wait is still killing me. It'll be here tomorrow, I can't wait. Here's the camera and lens. (Not my pics): I also ordered the add on base, so it will look more like this: And you've gotta have a good flash right? I'll let you guys know more once I get it and shoot some. Take care, bpajwhite
|
|
|
Post by CopyCat on Jul 19, 2007 16:13:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Houston on Jul 19, 2007 17:33:56 GMT -5
Very coooooooool Mr White, very coooooooool indeed. We can't wait for its' arrival too ;D ;D Best ZIN Not usually shaken nor stirred ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by diver88 on Jul 20, 2007 0:22:26 GMT -5
i couldn't find the reply button, silly me, its waay over there.... Yes Mr White, i am very interested as well seeing that i have been shopping for a new camera also. i've gone back and forth between Nikon and Canon, DSLR, point and shoot, back and forth. what about the 200 made you pull the trigger so to speak? what lens(s) did you order with it? have you had a DSLR before? I've read reviews till i think my heads going to pop off, and one guy at the camera store says Nikon, the other says Canon... what was your thought process if you don't mind sir? diver88 ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by bpajwhite on Jul 20, 2007 3:05:01 GMT -5
Diver, Here's my thought process: Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon Nikon I'm very much a Nikon guy. My college degree was in photo, and before I joined the patrol (while still at school) I used to shoot weddings and ran a black and white darkroom for a local studio. I always used a Nikon 6006 35mm SLR. Once I got out of college I no longer had access to a good darkroom and sort of drifted away from my favorite hobby. I just didn’t get the same enjoyment out of shooting a roll and taking it to the store for someone else to develop. Since then I’ve owned two digital point-and-shoots, a Fuji Finepix 2600 and a Sony DSC-T3. Both are good cameras but lack the creative control that a SLR gives you. I think now that digital SLRs have developed and matured enough to take over the predominant role in photography, it was time for me to take the plunge. My other epiphany was that with digital I will once again have access to the darkroom…. Photoshop CS3. I found some very good training DVDs for CS3 and have started to try and learn. So, once I decided that I wanted a Digital SLR, I went straight to the Nikon USA website to see what was now available. I still have lenses that I used with my 6006 so it made sense to stay with Nikon as I can still use them. I’ve been reading the reviews and doing research for about 2 – 3 months now, I really wanted to get one before I went to England and Ireland last month, but still hadn’t made up my mind. My choices were the D40, the D40X (which is just a D40 with the sensor out of the D80), the D80, and the D200. The D40(X) is very small. From all I’ve read about it, it is a very good camera. For me and my big hands however, it’s just too tiny to hold properly. Also there is no add on base available for it. So this one was a no-go. The D80 is a very good camera and one I would have been happy with. However, I read that the light meter and auto white balance on the D80 often needed tweaking to get the desired results, but the D200 was dead-on every time. Also the D80 is a plastic camera whereas the D200 has titanium frame, rubberized grips, and is far more water and dust resistant. I decided that for such a major purchase I’d better get something that will last for a long time and was everything that I wanted. For the lens I chose the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II Autofocus Lens. It is very hard to come by and most places you have to go on a waiting list. Since I was getting a D200, I was lucky as most places will sell them together as a package. The best thing about this lens is that it is all you need for 99% of pictures. On my 6006 I had a 35-70mm and a 75-300mm and I had to carry both and change lenses all the time. Because the digital sensor in the Nikon SLRs is smaller than a 35mm piece of film, you have to multiply the focal length of the lens on a digital camera by 1.5 to get the equivalent 35mm (film camera) focal length. So a 18-200mm lens on a digital camera is equivalent to a 27-300mm lens on a 35mm film camera. That’s very wide angle to very telephoto all in one lens. Yeay! Plus it has image stabilization built into the lens. Nikon claims you can shoot 4 stops slower than you would normally be able to. That’s a huge difference! I will be testing that claim soon and let you know. My old 75-300mm now becomes a 113-450mm equivalent lens on the D200. I can’t wait. If you are considering a DSLR, the D80 with the 18-135 lens would also be a good choice for a lot less money. (But you loose the ruggedness, exposure accuracy, focal range of the lens, and the image stabilization) I realize I sound negative, but I don’t mean to. The D80 is a great camera. Sorry for prattling on for so long, bpajwhite
|
|
|
Post by diver88 on Jul 20, 2007 9:51:34 GMT -5
wow Mr White, that was a great tutorial on what to look for, thank you for prattling on.... you have a brand alegence already, i really don't. the only SLR i ever owned was a Konica TC 100 with a standard 50mm lens and i never really got into it far enough to understand what all it was capable of. one thing, the issue of macro. what makes a lens particularly a macro lens? the man at the camera store said i could take watch pictures with the 18-55mm that comes standard on most cameras i would just get further back 12" or so. will a 28-135mm lens be capable of macro? can't understand the difference in telephoto and macro??? to add a dedicated macro to the package non-IS seems to be about $450 for 100mm or 105. can the macro be used for anything other than close-up work? thanks for your input, trying to consider all options you see.. diver88 ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by CopyCat on Jul 20, 2007 10:14:20 GMT -5
wow Mr White, that was a great tutorial on what to look for, thank you for prattling on.... you have a brand alegence already, i really don't. the only SLR i ever owned was a Konica TC 100 with a standard 50mm lens and i never really got into it far enough to understand what all it was capable of. one thing, the issue of macro. what makes a lens particularly a macro lens? the man at the camera store said i could take watch pictures with the 18-55mm that comes standard on most cameras i would just get further back 12" or so. will a 28-135mm lens be capable of macro? can't understand the difference in telephoto and macro??? to add a dedicated macro to the package non-IS seems to be about $450 for 100mm or 105. can the macro be used for anything other than close-up work? thanks for your input, trying to consider all options you see.. diver88 ;D ;D ;D ;D Good questions, i'm listening in on this one ;D
|
|
|
Post by Scott D on Jul 20, 2007 16:33:02 GMT -5
Hey guys, So last November I was shopping for a new DSLR. I too didn't have a brand allegiance, and was going back & forth from Nikon to Canon. I asked for alot of input, but found out camera guys are like car guys, they're pretty set (or maybe loyal is a better word ) to their brand. In the end, I went Nikon as I liked the functions better and the camera felt better in the hand. The Nikon was a hair larger than the Cannon, but when I hold it in one hand, my fingers all rested perfectly on the camera. With the Cannon it didn't feel as natural. So for that main reason I choose the Nikon. I bought the D80 with the 18-135 that Bpajwhite mentioned, and I've LOVED it. Pretty rugged, though the 200 is more rugged (but I didn't want to spend that much). I heard the white balance issues to, but either I'm not realizing it's out or mines working pretty well. I've been VERY impressed with the battery life. I get probably about 800-900 shots or more to a charge, and I shoot on the highest MP setting!!! So all the watch pictures of mine you've seen in the past 8 months have been taken with the stock 18-135 set on macro. The camera works very well IMO on the macro setting, though I do use the manual focus. I would like to get the 105mm macro. John has highly recommended that lens not only as a macro but also a great portrait lens. I think the biggest gain you'll get is lighting as the 105 macro is a 2.8 while the 18-135 is a 3.5-5.6. Opening the aperture with the 105 lens would surely make a difference. But, the stock lens does work well. The other gain is a true macro lets you set the camera closer to the object. The closest I can put the stock lens is about 18 inches. Another option is the macro lens adapters. Far cheaper than a macro lens and they do a great job. Downsides are you sit the camera almost on the object, so lighting is hard to match and the depth of field on the focus is extremely narrow. But they get great close-ups.. All in all, I HIGHLY recommend the D80 to anyone... And for basic watch shooting, it does a great job without the added expense of the macro lens (the main reason I haven't bought the macro yet), though a macro would make it even better!
|
|
|
Post by wilson on Jul 24, 2007 2:59:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CopyCat on Jul 24, 2007 9:16:36 GMT -5
Wow, nice shots John!
|
|