D300...maybe I can afford a D200 now

Now that the D300 has been announced, maybe the D200 will drop in
price to where I can affford it. I still like my 1/500 sync on the D70
however.

 

I don't know about new ones. They may discontinue them after the D300 is
actually shipping. But at that time used D200s should become plentiful.
There will be no shortage of D200 owners upgrading.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

 

Hope that works out for you! Unfortunately I will not be contributing
to the used D200 price crash (by putting mine on the market).

(Well, may not be *that* unfortunate; early days yet understanding the
D300 and D3, and the D3 is quite solidly out of my reach
unfortunately.)

 

If I upgrade, it will be the D3 and I'll probably want to keep my D200
for a more compact body for street shooting and telephoto range for
nature shooting when the light is good. I never would have thought about
spending that much on a camera but the fact is I paid $10,000 for my car
almost 20 years ago and it's still got another 10 years on it and
photography is pretty important to me these days. I've been collecting
old glass (and new) and it would be damn amazing to put those old f/2,
f/1.2 lenses on a full sensor with metering & spectacular high-ISO
performance. Wow, that's tempting. My only DX lens is the 10.5 fisheye
which actually is supposed to make a neat almost-circular fisheye on
full frame. I've got the Sigma 12-24 full frame, which is actually sort
of compact compared to the new 14-24 zoom.

 

If you can afford it, go for it.

12MP in FF is really sweet.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

Not much resolution gain in upgrading from 10 to 12.3 Mpix... 11%, so it
will be a while while people wait for the D300 price to settle before
they commit to it. Mpix drives most people more than the other
improvements.

 

Well I don't think the D300 is worth the upgrade. It's a neat camera,
no doubt, and better than the D200, but, besides the AF, I don't think
there's anything different that I'd particularly notice after a couple
of days. Maybe the live view if the LCD can be viewed from a large
enough angle (for shots from awkward angles).

The D3 would be nice for higher ISOs, but not at this price

 

Not for me. The pixel increase I consider a disadvantage. I now shoot at
2.5 Mp. The D300 will force me to shoot at 3 Mp. I only shoot for the web.
Large pictures are more cumbersome and gain me nothing. I want the higher
ISO, better focusing, etc.

Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).

 

I don't foresee a lot of D200 owners upgrading, quite honestly.

There is almost no difference between 10MP and 12MP. The live view and
51-point AF are impressive features, but they're not exactly must-
haves. The $1,000 or so it would cost to upgrade is probably better
spent on e.g. a good lens.

 

All the ones that crave high ISO performance of a CMOS sensor will be the
first to buy.

Where do you get the $1,000 figure? Had you followed the 18-month rule
you'd be sliding into a shiny new D300 for $400 or less.






Rita

 

Now people are starting to see the sheer stupidity of buying DX lenses.
Some are starting to sweat like Saddam Hussein at a rope tying party.






Rita

 

Well, you did say almost. You should try it on a Nikon film body before
buying a D3 in expectation of using it a lot. The effect is interesting, but
you will either like it or you won't. The main thing to not like is that the
top and bottom of the built-in hood intrude into the image (though even
without that, the image circle wouldn't quite fit into the 35mm frame).

You would also have to find out whether the D3's assumption that when you
fit a DX lens, you want to shoot in DX format, can be altered.

 

Cute line, but I love my DX lenses and will buy more as Nikon introduces new
ones.

What fraction of one percent of camera buyers are ever going to want FX
cameras?

Neil

 

I give DX five years before being totally phased out and no longer
supported. So, you will see about 6% of the dSLR population suffering with
DX because they got emotionally attached to it and kick themselves in the
ass for not following the 18-month rule.







Rita

 

I heard about people using it on a 5D and didn't notice the lens hood
issue... sounds not nice. Their purpose was creating 3D web virtual tour
images with just a couple snaps.

Yes, that would be a stinker, only for the fisheye really so probably
not possible I'm guessing without filing off a tab or something.

 

Certainly a lot less than 100%. Nikon will always want to offer a low-end
beginner's body like the D40. Now the FX could end up someday cheap enough,
but will they be able to make the camera small enough?

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).

 

That's assuming a resale value of about $800 for a used D200 and a
purchase price of $1800 for the D300.

And that's being optimistic.

 

You might be right. Suddenly there are more used D200
cameras for sale on our local auction site than I've ever
seen. Most are giving a "reason for sale" that they need the
$$ and are getting out of photography, but this doesn't tie
in with the fact that they're being sold with either no
lens, or cruddy old zooms like 28-80s salvaged for a few
bucks from an old film slr kit.
Had a quick check, and there hasn't been a bid placed on any
of them for over 24 hours. Lol - only about a month ago
Nikon were running some good specials - but auction buyers
were winding each other up and bidding higher for used D200s
than they could have bought a brand new non grey market one.

 

Or like Der Bush using makeup to hide the flop-sweat before a
press conference.

 

Timing is everything. The 18-month rule has this carefully figured in. You
buy into your first camera at a decent price point and sell it 18-months
later when your new body will be at an optimal price. Of course, if you
like to overpay for your dSLR the 18-month rule doesn't work as well. The
18-moth rules takes into account and assumes you have minimal ability to do
research and find good deals.






Rita