 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006The Nikon D200 DSLR is still my choice for the best Pro-Am Digital SLR camera.
I have used this camera for close to a year now and still consider it to be one of the best cameras I have ever lifted to my eye. The Nikon D200 Digital SLR is well balanced in the hand and the controls are easy to get used to. The weight is not an issue (like it is with the D2x and D2h), unless you attach the optional battery pack, but the camera has that solid feel that tells you this camera is built for professional use (or as we sometimes like to say, professional abuse). At roughly one thousand five hundred US dollars, the Nikon D200 DSLR (body only) actually seems under priced when compared to it's more expensive and less expensive siblings. The Nikon D200 DSLR sits in-between the roughly one thousand US dollar Nikon D80 DSLR and the roughly three thousand US dollar Nikon D2x DSLR. For more of this article ....... http://dpmac.com/nikon-d200/index.html >I have used this camera for close to a year now and still consider it > to be one of the best cameras I have ever lifted to my eye. The Nikon [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > For more of this article ....... http://dpmac.com/nikon-d200/index.html You wrote: "...when compared to it's more..." The possessive of it is "its"' "it's" is a contraction of "it is". If you fancy yourself a writer, you might want to learn this. >> I have used this camera for close to a year now and still consider it >> to be one of the best cameras I have ever lifted to my eye. The Nikon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The possessive of it is "its"' "it's" is a contraction of "it is". If you > fancy yourself a writer, you might want to learn this. I fancied a writer myself once, but she didn't fancy me. That learned me something. Do I have to stay after school or can I just write out the lesson a couple of hundred times at home? > >I have used this camera for close to a year now and still consider it > > to be one of the best cameras I have ever lifted to my eye. The Nikon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The possessive of it is "its"' "it's" is a contraction of "it is". If you > fancy yourself a writer, you might want to learn this. > Do I have to stay after school or can I just write out the lesson a > couple of hundred times at home? Nah. Just sound out "it is" whenever you write "it's". That'll tell you if you have got it right.  Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> Do I have to stay after school or can I just write out the lesson a >> couple of hundred times at home? > > Nah. Just sound out "it is" whenever you write "it's". That'll tell you > if you have got it right. How come 'tis doesn't have two apostrophes? Who cares? > How come 'tis doesn't have two apostrophes? > Who cares? I do. 'cause it helps to understand the language. 'tis contains only one apostrophe because only one letter is omitted: (i)tis. We don't need one to indicate the conjoining of "it" and "is" (i.e., we don't use an apostrophe to indicate the dropping of the space.) There. Feel better now. -- Jeff R. (now, don't press "Send") > > How come 'tis doesn't have two apostrophes? > > Who cares? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Jeff R. > (now, don't press "Send") Do you write 'bus when you mean "omnibus"? David > Do you write 'bus when you mean "omnibus"? > > David No. Nor do I write program''. ...and I came to terms with "disk" years ago, but never "color". -- Jeff R. (selective pedant) >>Do you write 'bus when you mean "omnibus"? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nor do I write program''. > ...and I came to terms with "disk" years ago, but never "color". It should of course be disk' as it's short for diskette :-) We were told, on the cusp of 70s (not 70's!) and 80s technology, that is was floppy disc, hard disc, and diskette - the last being a disc encased in a small hard cartridge (3.5 inch jobby). In literature we had to use disc when referring to old stuff and disk only when referring to one type of diskette. It would be sensible to replace this confusion with one spelling. How about disq? DK > How about disq? > > DK As in "disquette"? ewwwww Only in Irak. Maybe when the OED recognises "lense". (any more dead horses about?) JR >>How about disq? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (any more dead horses about?) 'Amateur Photographer' cover designers haven't managed to get lense (or aperature) past their nonexistent sub-editors, but manage at least a dozen howlers a year. Can't remember specific ones right now. My pet hate is 'hoards' which gets used nearly every time instead of 'hordes', but phrases using 'hordes' are usually clichés even without the error. Test reports including 'rafts' of features, 'hoards' of functions (almost acceptable as a correct use though unintended) etc remind me just how valid any of the opinions or comments may be. David > Test reports including 'rafts' of features, 'hoards' of functions (almost > acceptable as a correct use though unintended) etc remind me just how > valid any of the opinions or comments may be. > > David Ohhh, definately! I used to be disinterested but now I really loose my patients with all these armature writers who, for all intensive purposes, couldn't right they're whey out of a paper bag. -- Jeff R. >> Test reports including 'rafts' of features, 'hoards' of functions (almost >> acceptable as a correct use though unintended) etc remind me just how [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > patients with all these armature writers who, for all intensive purposes, > couldn't right they're whey out of a paper bag. Maybe that's why they use 'hoardes' of meaningless puffery. Now I have a deeper appreciation for the old "Garth and Wayne" skits on SNL.... They were saying: "No whey!" "Whey!" "No whey!" "Whey!" "No whey!" "Whey!" etc. etc. Signaturejohn mcwilliams http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/06/12/1bkk/index.html#07 Scroll down a bit to John Cleese's letter. > >> Test reports including 'rafts' of features, 'hoards' of functions (almost > >> acceptable as a correct use though unintended) etc remind me just how [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "No whey!" > "Whey!" etc. etc. http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/06/12/1bkk/index.html#07 Scroll down a bit to John Cleese's letter. > >> Test reports including 'rafts' of features, 'hoards' of functions (almost > >> acceptable as a correct use though unintended) etc remind me just how [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "No whey!" > "Whey!" etc. etc. > http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/06/12/1bkk/index.html#07 > > Scroll down a bit to John Cleese's letter. hehehe ...and that's only half of it. JR >>How come 'tis doesn't have two apostrophes? >>Who cares? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There. > Feel better now. Not yet, let me just try it: 't'is hmmmmm >> There. >> Feel better now. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > hmmmmm Nahhhhhhhh... >> I have used this camera for close to a year now and still consider it >> to be one of the best cameras I have ever lifted to my eye. The Nikon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The possessive of it is "its"' "it's" is a contraction of "it is". If > you fancy yourself a writer, you might want to learn this. It's common in these venues for someone of limited mental powers to boorishly correct spelling, grammar and punctuation - too bad you didn't have anything of value to say that addressed the subject at hand.... PC > I have used this camera for close to a year now and still consider it > to be one of the best cameras I have ever lifted to my eye. The Nikon > D200 Digital SLR is well balanced in the hand and the controls are easy > to get used to. One of the most shocking things is when someone goes from holding a camera like that to an entry-level plastic DSLR. Feeling a Nikon 18-70mm want to "nosedive" because a camera was just too light is disconcerting and uncomfortable. Right now, there are no cameras other than the D200 in its niche. Canon's upcoming D40 could change that, but don't count of them to provide body seals except in the most expensive gear. Meanwhile, Pentax now has them in a $900 body. Your mention of easy access to controls is one place larger bodies have it all over the small ones now being produced en masse. Controls either buried in the menus or, too easy to accidentally hit due to crowding on the too small bodies. >One of the most shocking things is when someone goes from holding a >camera like that to an entry-level plastic DSLR. Feeling a Nikon >18-70mm want to "nosedive" because a camera was just too light is >disconcerting and uncomfortable. Right now, there are no cameras other >than the D200 in its niche. Get real. Any camera (with a 35mm mount) 'nosedives' with a 70-200/2.8. With a D1, you feel the weight of a 17-35/2.8. And the D200 is too small for a 180/2.8. The only lens small enough that you can put on the original F without it falling over if you put it on a table is the 45/2.8. SLR systems are always unbalanced unless you limit yourself to tiny lenses. That's why you support the camera with one hand and the lens with the other. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.