 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / April 2008Any experience with Nikon d300 (and AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens)?
I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. The d3 is entirely out of my range; even the d300 is a stretch. However, I am going to retire in August, and I want to be able to expand my horizons at that time. I remember the days when I got my first film SLR (*many* years ago), and I have really forgotten all that I knew then about making manual adjustments. I even had to use a light meter at that time! In recent years, I have done almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how to do things manually when conditions call for it. Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile. Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost factor? Advantage to the buyer? Or a design that is inherent in this type of camera? (I do realize that this question may come across sounding rather stupid. That's because I simply don't understand that part of the process, and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have not had interchangeable lenses, of course.) MaryL > I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it > will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > almost everything in automatic settings and want to get back to knowing how > to do things manually when conditions call for it. The D300 is quite expensive for a crop-sensor camera. Probably, Nikon will release an "updated D80" this year that would share some of the D300 features. But of course nobody (except Nikon) knows what features will be downgraded or left off, so speculation about whether that might meet anyone's needs is mainly futile. The D80 was "almost" a D200 - how close to being "almost" a D300 the new camera will be can only be a guess. This may not apply to you, but the lack of "scene modes" on the D300 may be a problem to some people - there's no easy fallback position (only "P" exposure mode) if you don't want to bother thinking about how you are using the camera. > Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm > f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and > I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile. Some people love this lens, others surely don't. For the zoom range of 11x, it's pretty good, and the VR feature works. It is quite slow to focus for an AFS (Nikon ring motor / USM) lens. For about the same price, you can get a Nikkor 18-70 and a 70-300VR, and go from something with barely acceptable optical performance, to something with quite good performance over the same range, with the inconvenience of having to change lenses. Even the very inexpensive 55-200VR is probably better optically. No scientific test, but if dust on the sensor is your concern, then I've now used a D300 for about 8 weeks with many lens changes, and have not had one speck of dust visible in an image. Either the sensor cleaning system works better than I thought it ever could, or I've been unbelievably lucky. I suspect the former. I don't have sensor cleaning set to be done at power on etc, just occasionally run a clean after I change a lens outdoors. With previous Nikon dslr cameras, and the way I use them, weekly cleaning by blowing dust off was about the norm, plus occasional cloning out of dust spots, and a full "wet-clean" two or three times a year. > Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image > stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have > not had interchangeable lenses, of course.) In theory, because in-lens stabilisation works better at longer focal lengths - which is where it's the most benefit. Cynics said that it was because Nikon (&Canon) would make lots of $ on sales of new lenses, but low cost VR lenses are now available, and there's no evidence that any camera makers with in-body stabilisation are offering lenses any less expensively than VR/IS equivalents from Nikon or Canon. [] > Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image > stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lenses, of course.) > MaryL Mary, In-lens probably allowed Nikon (and Canon) to bring IS/VR to the market more quickly. One important advantage of in-lens VR is that it stabilises the image in the viewfinder - and makes it easier to compose and see the shot. By providing a more stable image to the focus and exposure sensors, it allows the camera to perform better as well. Of course, if you have a bunch of existing lenses the in-body IS is cheaper than buying new lenses, and may be worth the reduced performance. Cheers, David > I am just about ready to buy a new camera. For this amount of money, it > will be an "investment" for me. I started out looking at Nikon d40x, then > moved to d80, and now I have just about settled on d300. there's quite a difference between a d40x and d300. also keep in mind that the d80 is soon to be replaced... > Have any of you had experience with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm > f/3.5-5.6G lens? If so, could you comment on the quality? Do pictures > appear sharp at both extremes? I briefly tried it and plan to go back and > look some more. I like the idea of having a fairly wide range that this > provides. Anything beyond that seemed too bulky to me for a basic lens, and > I won't be able to consider buying a separate lens for awhile. it's an excellent one-lens solution, but if you split the range into multiple lenses, you'll probably get better quality with a little less convenience. > Also: Does anyone know why Nikon has placed vibration control/image > stabilization in the lens instead of in the camera body? Is it a cost [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and my previous cameras have had built-in image stabilization -- but have > not had interchangeable lenses, of course.) nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body. > nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only > way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized > lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body. You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon want you to buy their expensive IS lenses.  SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site >> nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the >> only way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You mean it's all a legacy issue? Looks rather that Nikon and Canon > want you to buy their expensive IS lenses. .. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have IS? <G> You have a choice - if you want to see the image stabilised while you're taking the shot, you need in-lens IS, otherwise you can use in-body IS. Your money, your choice of compromise. BTW: some Nikon IS lenses are not that expensive, and are rather good value for money. David > .. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have > IS? Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses with IS? SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site > > .. as opposed to the very expensive Olympus lenses which don't even have > > IS? > > Which Olympus lenses are more expensive than equivalent Canon lenses > with IS? since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus. the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive. olympus 35-100mm f/2, $2199 <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100m m_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html> canon 70-200mm f/4, $1059 <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002_70_200m m_f_4L_IS_USM.html> canon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1699 <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200m m_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html> nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, $1624 <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_ 2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html> > since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as > noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full > frame, all things being equal. thus, the canon 70-200mm f/4 would give > the same final image, and it is about half the price of the olympus. > the f/2.8, which is effectively faster than the olympus lens given the > difference in frame size, is *still* less expensive. Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site > Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture. it's only nonsense if the sensor size is the same. since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final image is equivalent. > since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so > compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final > image is equivalent. 4/3 sensors are only a little bit smaller than APS. 15%-20% linear size difference is not much smaller. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site > > since the 4/3rds sensor is much smaller than dx and even more so > > compared with fullframe, the aperture needs to change so that the final > > image is equivalent. > > 4/3 sensors are only a little bit smaller than APS. 15%-20% linear size > difference is not much smaller. nikon dx is 17% larger in height, but due to the different aspect ratios, the width is 31% wider. >> since 4/3rds has a smaller sensor, to match depth of field as well as >> noise, an f/2 4/3rds lens is equivalent to f/2.8 on dx and f/4 on full [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Total nonsense. You have to compare lenses with the same aperture. Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the sh.t up as he goes along. > Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the sh.t > up as he goes along. if it's all made up then it should be easy for you to refute it with some facts. >> Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the >> sh.t >> up as he goes along. > > if it's all made up then it should be easy for you to refute it with > some facts. Welcome to my killfile. > >> Alfred. There's no use debating this "nospam" dude. He just make's the > >> sh.t [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Welcome to my killfile. as i expected. you don't have anything to disprove what i said, just insults. > > nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only > > way to do it with film cameras. sony and pentax never had stabilized > > lenses for film and they chose to do it in the camera body. > > You mean it's all a legacy issue? you make it sound like they should change just for the hell of it. in-lens stabilization works, and it works well. like everything else, it has its advantages and disadvantages. > Looks rather that Nikon and Canon want > you to buy their expensive IS lenses. all manufacturers want you to buy their expensive lenses, bodies and other accessories. nothing new there. and stabilized lenses are not necessarily that expensive. for example, the nikon 55-200 vr is about $50 more than the non-stabilized version ($170 versus $230, usa version, priced today at b&h). > >> nikon (and canon) put stabilization in the lens because that's the only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you to buy their expensive IS lenses. > Absolutely No. While that is the only way to get IS/VR into an existing film camera that is not the reason for the way they did it for digital cameras. Optical image stabilization / vibration reduction is superior and also work when you look through the viewfinder. When built into the camera like sony, pentax and others the image will shake in the viewfinder since the anti shake has no bearing except on the final image. Optical IS/VR is superior while more costly. The lenses are also a bit heavier. But Nikon and Canon are at the top of the digital food chain for the DSLR 35mm style camera. |
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
|
©2008 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.