Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: idenford on February 18, 2007, 06:16:01 pm
-
I was wondering if anyone out there has had experience using both cameras, and given that I am using three Nikon lenses, 50 mm 1.4, 17-55 mm 2.8, and 70-200 mm 2.8, will I notice much difference in my raw files if I upgrade to the D2sx. I am not shooting pro yet, but getting closer with the stuff I am doing. Head shots, shots for a fitness magazine, some landscape stuff. I am also in school part time so I am really going light years ahead in my technique with lights etc. I have been shooting with an slr for the past three years, but wonder if I should get the best camera. Any feedback would be helpful as it is a heavier investment. Thanks
-
I was wondering if anyone out there has had experience using both cameras, and given that I am using three Nikon lenses, 50 mm 1.4, 17-55 mm 2.8, and 70-200 mm 2.8, will I notice much difference in my raw files if I upgrade to the D2sx. I am not shooting pro yet, but getting closer with the stuff I am doing. Head shots, shots for a fitness magazine, some landscape stuff. I am also in school part time so I am really going light years ahead in my technique with lights etc. I have been shooting with an slr for the past three years, but wonder if I should get the best camera. Any feedback would be helpful as it is a heavier investment. Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would hold on to your cash or spend it on lighting or flash or a wider lense or tripods or whatever else you might want
You dont seem to have a problem that you are trying to solve !
Also there may (or may not) be a full frame nikon in the future which will make those lenses sing
If you have just spent on a D2X then you wont be able to afford it most likely
I am a pro and only got the D200 over the D80 because I was offered one second hand
D2X is faster and a bit more solid and a bit bigger file of course - not worth it in my opinion
SMM
-
You would find fairly minimal differences in the raw files between the two - a negligible increase in resolution and minor differences (not necessarily better) in noise and dynamic range. Probably the big reason to go with a D2Xs is speed of focusing and probably better automatic white balance. But if you mostly work in a studio, these won't matter much. Given the very substantial difference in cost, it doesn't sound worth it to you. I'd recommend that you continue to focus on your skills and vision and pass on the equipment lust for another year or two, when distinctly better hardware may be available.
-
You would find fairly minimal differences in the raw files between the two - a negligible increase in resolution and minor differences (not necessarily better) in noise and dynamic range. Probably the big reason to go with a D2Xs is speed of focusing and probably better automatic white balance. But if you mostly work in a studio, these won't matter much. Given the very substantial difference in cost, it doesn't sound worth it to you. I'd recommend that you continue to focus on your skills and vision and pass on the equipment lust for another year or two, when distinctly better hardware may be available.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes thanks I think more lighting and a lenses are a better investment. Any lens suggestions would be most welcome. I was thinking of the 12-24 mm to add to my three.
-
12-24
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That makes sense
-
I'd take the D200 also, grab a couple SB-800's and 600's with the saved cash for location lighting with Creative-Lighting--Commander Mode stuffs with the pop-up. Lightweight rig for quick set-up. I love it. Here's an example, SB-800 off umbrella for main, SB-600 for hair, prop-gun. Don't make fun, 'twas a quick (15 mins from setup to packup) pro bono shoot for local theatre group. Ha!
my 2 cents.
(http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j204/adamsfoto/night_mother.jpg)
cheers,
-
I'd take the D200 also, grab a couple SB-800's and 600's with the saved cash for location lighting with Creative-Lighting--Commander Mode stuffs with the pop-up. Lightweight rig for quick set-up. I love it. Here's an example, SB-800 off umbrella for main, SB-600 for hair, prop-gun. Don't make fun, 'twas a quick (15 mins from setup to packup) pro bono shoot for local theatre group. Ha!
my 2 cents.
(http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j204/adamsfoto/night_mother.jpg)
cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice work and thanks!! I am getting Alien Bees. Got the ring light and love it love it.
-
I would hold on to your cash or spend it on lighting or flash or a wider lense or tripods or whatever else you might want
You dont seem to have a problem that you are trying to solve !
Also there may (or may not) be a full frame nikon in the future which will make those lenses sing
If you have just spent on a D2X then you wont be able to afford it most likely
I am a pro and only got the D200 over the D80 because I was offered one second hand
D2X is faster and a bit more solid and a bit bigger file of course - not worth it in my opinion
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101657\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sam, I love your website and you are one hell of a photographer. Thank you for your help!!
Iden
-
Too kind
Here is one with the D200
I hate the crop factor on the digi nikons being big on my 50mm lense - I reckon a 35 1.4 is the one for my very simple look with nikon
That will be my next nikkor
SMM
-
Too kind
Here is one with the D200
I hate the crop factor on the digi nikons being big on my 50mm lense - I reckon a 35 1.4 is the one for my very simple look with nikon
That will be my next nikkor
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What kind of light? Did you use a diffuser?
Cheers
-
What kind of light? Did you use a diffuser?
Cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102200\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
QFlash T2 and 25cm 'softbox' held by other chef fired by pocket wizard manual 1/2 power or 1/4
My 'runaround lighting kit'
-
I was wondering if anyone out there has had experience using both cameras
Yes, Ken Rockwell , http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm)
Jarnon
-
The D200 is pretty damn stunning in most areas, but it isnt the best for shooting sports with. The focusing doesn't seem to track very well whilst firing of a burst.
Could also be my knackered gaffer-taped up lens cooughing & wheezing to keep up tho...!
-
The D200 is pretty damn stunning in most areas, but it isnt the best for shooting sports with. The focusing doesn't seem to track very well whilst firing of a burst.
Could also be my knackered gaffer-taped up lens cooughing & wheezing to keep up tho...!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103203\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I assume you are not the SWAMPY who I photographed in a tunnel in the early ninties !
Agreed the D2X is better for sport
But then most sport is near infinity with a long so the lense doesnt have to move much to focus
SMM
-
I have 2x D2x's and used to use a D200 as my travel/backup camera. What I found is that the D2X and D200 render images subtly different - the D200 images are identifiable immediately in post-processing - they tend to render the image with more out of camera contrast and saturation compared to the D2X. However, I find that the D2X images whilst slightly less contrasty or saturated, have more 'workability' to produce a finer final image.
This is all very subjective unfortunatly. If I hadn't been using the D2X's for so long I'd have never really noticed the differences. I wish I could be more objective in my observations but it's very subtle in my view. Ultimately I find that I can bring out more from a D2X shot than one from the D200 when I need to. I use Nikon Capture NX with identical settings in both the D200 and D2X bodies - Cloudy-3 white balance (defualt), low saturation, no in camera sharpening, etc etc.
I recently rationalized my outfit and the choice was between relinquishing one of my D2X's or selling my D200 travel body. I chose to keep the 2nd D2X for reasons of consistency but also for the slightly easier images for post-production and highter ultimate quality in final print. As I mentioned though, the differences really don't show until you've used both side by side for a while - your mileage may vary!
-
The D200 provides the internal flash with Commander mode and clean noise free images up to ISO 1250. It has only one cross-type sensor so autofocus is less consistent, and this is especially true with low light situations.
I have seen no evidence of the white balance being better in real life with the D2x over the D200. In theory the D2x should be better.
The D2x is faster to focus under any circumstance and this is especially noticeable with WA lenses like the 12-24mm f4 lens. ISO tops out at 800 and images can exhibit a lot of noise at even this setting.
D200 is a vast improvement over the D100, especially for studio use. It is the only prosumer camera I know of with a PC connection for firing off direct connected stobes or for use with Pocket Wizards. The 10 megapixels versus 12 megapixels is inconsequential.
For what you said you were pursuing with your photography the D200 will work as well as the D2x. Better to put your money into lenses and lighting equipment. For landscape photography both the 12-24mm wide angle and the Nikon PC lenses are worth considering.
-
I have been considering the d80 vs d200. I dont know much of anything about digital and have been trying to read up. I cant afford to go with the larger cameras and am just wondering what others think of these two. I am basically a nature photographer and have some pretty good lens. I just feel confused about all this.
-
I'm not going to disagree with the excellent advice you've been given. It's also my opinion that in your situation you'd be better off spending some of your money on lighting and lenses. I don't use much artificial light so I can't comment.
For you landscape work:
The Nikkor 12-24mm is pretty much the best super-wide zoom in DX format, but it's not 100% clear cut. The way a lens renders an image is very personal. You pay almost double for the extra speed, rock solid construction and Nikkor badge. If you are stopping down to f/11-or beyond it won't outperform the Sigma 10-20mm for example. The fact you have a 17-55mm makes the Sigma a logical choice for getting a nice focal length spread. Nikkor glass is lovely but it's always worth keeping an open mind based on how you will use it.
A wild-card is the 10.5mm 2.8 DX fisheye. It's not a critical lens in the kit but it's quite small and light and nice to have in the bag for a really arresting composition. You need to be careful not to overdo it but when used carefully it can produce some wonderful images. It's possible to 'defish' it in Capture and Capture NX.
For your indoor and portrait work:
Consider the 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 both are nice and fast and together with 1.5x crop produce portraits with smooth and creamy boke. The 1.8 is tremendous value for money but the 1.4 is simply stunning and like all top notch lenses the incremental performance does not come at an incremental price :-(
-
I have been considering the d80 vs d200. I dont know much of anything about digital and have been trying to read up. I cant afford to go with the larger cameras and am just wondering what others think of these two. I am basically a nature photographer and have some pretty good lens. I just feel confused about all this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The main differences when comparing the D80 to the D200 are the following:
- Faster sensor/DAC optimised for performance. It's a 4 channel CCD design. In practice the most noticeable difference is 5fps rather than 3.
- Smaller lighter body. The D80 uses some of the body components of the D50. It's smaller and lighter than the D70.
- The D80 is restricted to compressed NEF's/RAW. The D200 offers both
- The D200 has a bigger buffer meaning your get more shots in one burst. The NEFs are not the same so using Jpegs for comparison it's 23 on the D80 and 37 on the D200.
- The D200 has better support e.g. auto-focus older Nikon lenses
- Less shutter lag
- Additional auto-focus possibilities
- 1005 pixel matrix metering and variable centre weight as opposed to fixed
- No selectable scene/exposure modes like portrait, landscape and sports etc.
- Max shutter speed limited to 4000. D200's is 8000.
- No mirror lockup on the D80
- Fewer bracketed images 3 as opposed to 9 I think.
- No IR remote control on the D200.
- The D200 is environmentally sealed so should do better in harsh conditions like the high mountains, dusty and damp places. I have had mine at 4000m at -10 degs C and it performed fine.
Sorry it's a bit of a laundry list Deb. Hopefully though there is enough information there for you to decide if feature a or b is important to your kind of shooting or not. It may also point you in the direction of more specific research.
-
I had both the D2X and the D200. Of course, I had the D2X before as it has been out a couple of years longer. I only shoot indoors with flash (ISO 100), for pictures that count, and only in RAW with both cameras. I really tried to see the advantages of the D2X, seeing the cost, but I couldn't. The D200 is remarkable, so I sold my D2X and now only use the D200.
I really think the D200 is a better camera for the work I do. Maybe outdoor photographers or sports action guys would benefit from the D2X.
They are both superb cameras.
-
Not only does the D200 accept older autofocus lenses, it also works very well indeed with non-auto Nikkors (I have several AIS ones) and if losing autofocus is too much, then perhaps a less demanding, less strenuous hobby might be on the cards... Either way, the matrix metering is out of this world.
Ciao - Rob C
-
Looks like I am going to be the lone desenter on this issue. Before purchasing the D2x I was looking for a replacement for the Kodak 14n I had been using for a few years. My primary goals were image quality improvements, ease of use especially in post production, and a heavier duty camera body. I tried the D200 out and pitted it against the 14n, and was totally impressed with the D200, thinking it was truly a landmark camera for the price. I did not experience any of the banding that others have had, even photographing night scenes in city locations.
However since one of my areas of interest is in landscape photography the direct comparisons with the 14n and the D200 showed the 14n clearly winning in that regard. So as much as I was impressed with the D200 in virtually every other respect I opted out of purchasing it. Next I tried the D2x and found this camera to outperform the 14n in every aspect and in some cases by huge margins, including fine detail in landscapes. In all test I used the same lenses, all of them being pro level with ED glass, Raw files, etc. But as hard as I tried there was just nothing the 14n did that the D2x did not do much better, I bought and have never regretted or looked back.
One thing the D2x does I have yet to see in any other digicam is the natural and non plastic look of images, and it comes the closest to recreating the look of film without grain of any camera I have used or owned except for scan backs. There is quality to the images from this camera that others simply do not have. And I can think of at least three reviews done comparing the D2x with the top dog Canon from top notch reviewers. In all three reviews the D2x showed better detail than the canon, subjectively better color as well.
Taken a step further a photographer from Finland I think tested virtually every digital camera made including medium format backs using the same still live and one model throughout all of the test. It was absolutely astonishing what little difference there was between the D2x and H54 using Zeiss lenses even. I doubt I would have paid $2,000.00 for the difference let alone the 30 grand plus one would have to pay to buy into a system like that. This photographer posted all of the images free for download a year or so ago. Unfortunately I lost the link. Even pro canon shooters made remarks like, "have to take my hats off to the D2x" for its performance against the medium format backs. I downloaded and kept those images as a sober reminder everytime I get the urge to spend money on a medium format back.
I hope this helps in the discussion. The bottom line is that as great a camera as the D200 is my own experience tells me the D2x is in another league all together.
-
Routlaw
No, I don't think you are so much a dissenter as just simply willing/able to pay more bucks.
I have no doubt that all things financial being equal most would probably elect to go for the more expensive option - it's somehow reassuring to feel you have the best money can buy - that's why many of us went for the Hasselblad 500 series all those years ago until fresh blood made it plain that the cheaper Mamiya 6x7 cameras were sometimes better.
Ciao - Rob C