|
Post by kiev4a on Aug 28, 2007 16:22:49 GMT -5
The Nikon forums are abuzz now with the announcement that the company will soon introduce two new cameras. The D300 is a replacement for the D200. I believe it jumps the megapixel count to about 12 and the CCD sensor is replaced with a CMOS sensor (they seem to be more noise resistant).
The D3 will eventually replace the DX2 and is allegedly a full frame camera.
I haven't done much in depth research as, for me, the positive aspect is that when these new models hit the market, I may be able to start looking for a slightly used D200 since the prices on that "old technology" should start to fall.
I make it a point to stay at least one generation behind the curve because it saves a lot of money--just like we alway look for year-old car models that have aready taken their biggest depreciation hit. I'll let the instant gratification junkies pay the premium for being for first to own the latest camera model, car, model, computer model, or the latest Harry Potter episode. Maybe as we get older being "first" isn't as important as just "being."
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Aug 28, 2007 17:53:10 GMT -5
Sound philosophy, Wayne. I've done the same for years. I've often had the last laugh when new models get called in for 'rectification', which means that the customer is the final inspection stage, or a new 'amazing super-fast' computer won't run a lot of existing software.
When I bought a new computer a short time ago it came ready loaded with Vista. Half my peripherals wouldn't run on it because drivers weren't available and it didn't want to run some of my older software, including the PayPal shopping cart on my business website. My firewall also wasn't completely happy with it. So I ditched Vista and reloaded with Windows XP Pro. Got rid of all the problems in one go!
A Microsoft engineer told me unofficially that the full version of Vista was an advanced system and needed an advanced computer, preferably dual-core, and advanced software, to 'realise its full potential'. Trying to run it on a lot of new machines was like trying to run XP Pro on a computer built for Windows 95. Hence the cut-down version to run as OE ready-loaded on new medium-priced computers.
So why the **@@^"!! didn't Microsoft say so in the first place? If they had, I would have ordered the computer with a ready-loaded copy of Windows XP Pro instead of having to ask my son to do a low-level clean out and install it from my original disc.
I probably invalidated the warranty because I also asked him to put in an extra hard disc and a different sound card, which meant breaking the paint seal on some of the screws, but I was so fed-up I didn't give a @&**!. It runs nicely now, much faster than my old one.
I reckoned I didn't really need the warranty with a computer engineer as a son and a programmer as a son-in-law. My son is an ex-Fujitsu-Siemens engineer and my son-in-law works for an international finance company based in France. He even thinks in low-level programming language, with all sorts of safeguards to keep out hackers, and writes in C++ as a relaxation.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Aug 28, 2007 22:21:28 GMT -5
We're running into a similar problem right now on our company shopping site. It has been in operation for about 8 years--still using the original software version of the shopping program. The other day I tried to add a new book to the "store" and the information wouldn't upload. When I checked with the company who hosts the site they said their new servers don't support the software so we will have to upgrade to the new software.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Aug 28, 2007 22:24:22 GMT -5
I, too, subscribe to the last generation idea. My computer runs on Windows XP and when my Pentax *ist-DS doesn't do what I need it to do I'll consider buying a newer model. I'm hoping Pentax will see the light and market a model that will work with K-Mount lenses AND activate the auto pin on M-42 lenses. Should be workable, I'd think.
Walker
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Aug 29, 2007 10:16:59 GMT -5
Walker:
I wouldn't bet on the kmount and auto pin M42 features. These companies are in the business to make us buy NEW gear and if all our old lenses work properly we won't do that.
The main reason I would like to have a D200 is that it will meter with Nikon MF lenses.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Aug 29, 2007 11:27:38 GMT -5
Wayne, you're right of course but I can dream. Walker
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Aug 29, 2007 15:59:35 GMT -5
If I hadn't had a slew of Nikon lenses I probably whould have tried to scrounge up enough to get the Canon 30D rather than my D100.
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Aug 29, 2007 16:49:53 GMT -5
I'm still have hopes of getting one of the PENTAX models so I can use my K-Mount lenses, but I'm financially embarrassed. I guess I'll struggle on with my KODAK EASYSHARE.
|
|
|
Post by paulatukcamera on Aug 29, 2007 17:31:24 GMT -5
As most of you know from an earlier posting - I now have the digital camera that many aspire to - the Nikon D200. (You will also know that it came in exchange for three web names, so effectively it was free)
So should I be an ungrateful "*****" and look a gift horse in the mouth?
Early days, but all that glitters is not gold!
Firstly - size. Well built, undoubtedly, but dare I say it - cumbersome! Yes, I have been brought up to handle largish cameras. Topcons, Prakticas, Nikon FEs but I think this one is rather oddly shaped for convenience - the weight distribution feels strange to me.
Secondly, complexity. Oh boy is it complex! Yes, I should have read and memorised the hand book. However, as you all know, I have had a good few cameras in my time - digital as well as 35mm, but the D200 is the most complex (& confusing) I have ever met.
e.g. Flash up - fires. Flash up - doesn't fire. Why? Haven't a clue! I was down an old coal mine yesterday and in the dark altered some control so that we had this intermittent behaviour.
e.g. Flashing signal - looks like I had dialled in exposure compensation. I hadn't and the exposure compensation reading backed this up. It wasn't until I got home and read the book that I realised I had pushed the "bracket exposure" button and the indication is very similar. However it left me wondering all afternoon if I had got a collection of wrongly exposed pictures.
e.g. Four auto focus positions (switch on back) plus three additional positions (beside the lens mount). I don't know - without reading the handbook - which is the best for what type of scene. All I know is that on a lot of my pictures the focus is out! OK, with time I'll master it, but at this moment there are too many choices.
e.g. The Metering - Spot, Centre weighted and Matrix. Matrix of course - product of a thousand computer programmes to determine the exact exposure of any scene. So how come it seems to underexpose most of the time and "Ye olde" centre weighted seems a lot more accurate?
e.g. The meter reading is almost invisible in the viewfinder (I wear glasses) You have to make a very positive effort to look at it, whereas on all the FEs it is very, very visible all the time.
Does it take good pictures? Yes & No! Partly the fault of the standard zoom I have bought, but compared to the f2.8 on the Panasonic at all focal lengths (35-400mm) this one (43-120mm) comes shackled by f4.5 or thereabouts at its telephoto end.
So I find myself wondering - are the extra megapixels worth the loss of the convenience and versatility of the much abused "bridge camera?"
On the plus side the viewfinder and the rapid sequence shooting are far superior. It focuses and starts up faster too.
Now if Nikon had based a digital camera on the ergonomics of the FE2/FM3a I would not be having these "should I get rid of it" thoughts.
Most of this also applies to the Canon D30/40 range as the design of "upmarket" DSLRs seems to be based upon the philosophy of bulk + Complexity = expensive.
Perhaps Olympus have really got it right!
Paul
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Aug 29, 2007 17:51:02 GMT -5
Paul
I am heartened by the intro of a FF sensor by Nikon but not the cost. I can agree with you on most points and am in no rush to up grade from my bridge camera, a Panasonic FZ50. I am waiting for a FF sensored FM3a type camera or a range finder with FF sensor at a reasonable price. I may be dead before that happens.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Aug 29, 2007 20:14:09 GMT -5
Paul:
That's one thing that makes it easier to live with my 6.5 megapixel D100. It is smaller and lighter than the D200 and I think the D300 is even larger. Even if I acquire a later models I think I'll hand onto the D100.
|
|
|
Post by paulatukcamera on Aug 30, 2007 3:29:01 GMT -5
Wayne (& others thinking of upgrading for more "Mega-pixels") Read this (scroll to the bottom of the page) to see the optimum output at varying mega-pixels. www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page25.aspIt comes as a surprise to see that 12megs is only twice the definition of 3meg! So my 10meg Nikon D200 is not twice the definition of my 5meg Panasonic FZ20 as I initially thought! Paul
|
|
|
Post by bayoufoto on Aug 30, 2007 8:25:44 GMT -5
yep it is not linear
|
|
|
Post by herron on Aug 30, 2007 8:39:23 GMT -5
I've had the megapixel argument with some of my more "digital" friends. They didn't believe me that it took four times the mp count to double the resolution! This is a nice graphic to illustrate the point...and a convenient link that I will be (with a secret smirk ) sending to a couple of my friends, in just a moment!
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Aug 30, 2007 9:31:41 GMT -5
My primary reason for wanting a D200 isn't megapixels--it's the ability to meter with MF lenses.
|
|