Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon D2sx vs D200  (Read 10633 times)
idenford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« on: February 18, 2007, 05:16:01 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2007, 09:40:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
grepmat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2007, 10:59:11 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
idenford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2007, 04:36:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2007, 10:24:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
12-24
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=101743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That makes sense
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
adamsfoto_CPC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2007, 06:16:11 PM »
ReplyReply

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.



cheers,
Logged

Paul Adams
Certified Photographic Consultant
Porter's Camera Stores
 
email: paul9@porters.com
web:  http://www.porters.com

"f/8 and be there"  Alfred Eisenstaedt

"If your pictures aren't good enough,
you're not close enough"
                            Kamikaze Cappa

http://myspace.com/adamsfoto
idenford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2007, 08:55:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.



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.
Logged
idenford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2007, 09:23:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2007, 04:10:48 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
idenford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2007, 04:20:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2007, 04:30:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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'
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
jarnon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2007, 06:42:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was wondering if anyone out there has had experience using both cameras

Yes, Ken Rockwell  , http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
Jarnon
Logged
Swampy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2007, 06:29:38 AM »
ReplyReply

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...!
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2007, 11:06:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2007, 12:37:58 PM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged

Graham
elkhornsun
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2007, 04:47:33 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Deb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2007, 08:55:19 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 08:57:35 AM by Deb » Logged
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2007, 05:58:44 PM »
ReplyReply

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 :-(
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 05:02:55 PM by GregW » Logged
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2007, 06:16:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged
Raw shooter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2007, 09:19:48 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad