Pete, in case you haven't heard by now. http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/nikon_11012005_d200_pr.html http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond200/ 10MP, $1600 for the body. They also announced a 18-200 f3.5-5.6 VR II lens. They claim second generation VR can gain FOUR stops!!!!!
Curious, one review said Nikon F mount AF and the other noted it had the AI apeture ring found only on the D2 series DSLRs up top this point.
Interesting that they didn't go to 12 megapixels. Let's see what the street price will be. [EDIT]: Also I believe the D100 had some cast titanium in its body, whereas the D70 is all plastic. Reviewers forget things too. I seem to remember a differentiator between the D100 and the D70--the D100 used the same titanium principles as the D2 series! That's an interesting lens 18-200?! With vibration reduction?! I think I'll wait for reviews on this one. Let's see how it performs against the 24-85 ED I have. What would I take out in the field? I currently bring these three lenses (on two bodies): 12-24 mm 24-85 mm 70-300 mm (non VR) I guess I'd substitute the 18-200 for the 24-85, if performance were comparable. Canon and Panasonic sure are driving prices down. Whoopee! [ November 07, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Pete Nolan ]
Only the reviews will tell us but if it's as good as the features described, looks like Nikon has another winner on its hands. http://www.steves-digicams.com/pr/nikon_11012005_18-200vr_pr.html It's also and ED lens with AF-S. I was just about to get a mid-range f2.8 and was leaning towards the Tamron 28-75 as it has the best reviews in that range for non-OEM manufacturers. Now with this 18-200 announcement I think I'll wait. Street price for the D200 will be $1700 for the body and the 18-200 will be $700. Since both will be in high demand, I doubt there will be any discounts in the first year they are available. Maybe in the second year but only $25-$50 off.
That's what I'm thinking too. I also think I'll hold off for the next generation--the same stuff at half the price. I've got no work projects that demand the quality of a D200 or D2X; so I think I'll hold for now. Maybe I'll invest in lenses instead. I'm really pleased with the Nikon 12-24 at the wide end; medium pleased with the 24-85 in the middle, as it is a full-frame lens; and not pleased with the 70-300. I'm looking at the VR 70-300, but that's a big chunk of change. The D70 was Nikon's biggest seller of all time--or so I'm told.
Pete, take a look at the Nikon 28-200 f3.5/5.6. It's a sleeper at $310. Many have said that it's sharper than the D70's kit lens and that's saying a lot as the 18-70 is a gem. The lens is smaller too (62mm filter size). I have one and I am very very pleased with it's output. Granted, it falls into the range of focal lens that you already have. I would get right of the 70-300 and get the 28-200 instead. Beyond 200mm (not including 1.5x factor), it's hard to hand hold unless on a bright sunny day. If I had to take one lens on a day trip, I grab the 28-200. You lose a little on the wide end when compared to the kit lens but you get so much more in versatility.
I've got a Sigma 28-200. I don't like it. 200mm is not long enough when I'm shooting wolves and grizzlies. You are absolutely right about hand holding beyond 200 (300mm equivalent). I use a monopod or tripod (or my wife's head--it works!) when I shoot telephoto. And I usually crank up the ISO despite introducing noise. This is one place where the D100 is better than the D70. I see significant noise at ISO 800 on the D70, and just a little on the D100 at the same ISO. I think most of that is due to the compressed NEF format of the D70. It's 12 bits compared to 24 bits. So, I feel the D100 is about one stop "faster" than the D70. I didn't realize the 18-70mm was held in such regard. It was not available, I think, when I bought the D100. The 12-24mm is an amazing lens, though pricey. We're going back to Alaska next summer (this summer got cancelled due to work). I'm going to get a VR lens before then. I'm thinking of the 70-300mm VR for about $1300. Any suggestions?
I've been shooting hand holding the Sigma 135-400mm, a little heavy but I really like the lense, I picked it up used on eBay for $305US. Sigma also makes a 170-500mm lense that looks kind of intertesting as well.
Wow, I've never thought of that! I'm going to have to try it but I wonder if that Bogen QR plate that I always have on the body will hurt? Yes, the 18-70 is highly regarded due to its ED elements and AF-S but more importantly it's sharpness. My pro friend said that if you stop it down to f5.6 or higher, it's "frightening sharp for a consumer lens". I've heard others say the same. The Sigma 28-200 is no where near the capability of the Nikon 28-200. Most of these ultra zooms cut corners as you have to cheat the laws of Physics to get a lens to go from 28 to 200. However, the Nikon does an excellent job in correcting all the problems inherent in an ultra zoom. As for the VR (I think you meant 70-200), that is the ULTIMATE VR lens that Nikon makes. If you need longer reach for Alaska I would also consider the 80-400 VR. Similar price to the 70-200 but it's not f2.8, f4.5-5.6 I think. Can you imagine, a 600mm with the 1.5x factor??!!!! I've been to Alaska and it's quite beautiful. If you're into the wildlife, the 80-400 might be a better bet. 200 x 1.5 is still on the short end for wildlife.
I did mean 70-200mm. Thanks for the advice on the 80-400--I think you are right. I'm just going to have to do some more research.
Hmmm... Canon just announced a 70-300 IS lens, which sounds to be the equivalent of a VR lens.... Lens envy?? Harold
LMAO! The competition benefits us all. I'm so happy that Canon and Nikon are competing at the highest levels, as it will bring only good things. I'm starting to look at the D200 at $1700 vs. the D2X at $4000. Maybe it's time to borrow my friend's D2X some comparison shots? That is, with his pro lenses and my prosumer lenses.
Hmm, another thought. I'm wondering if the 10 mpixel imager is just a crippled 12 mpixel imager. This used to happen all the time in the computer industry, where a 5 Gbyte drive was just a crippled 10 Gbyte drive (last time I was involved). I'm thinking of the Russian Hack for lower end Canons. To me, it just makes no sense to run two production lines for imagers, when the cost would be the same or greater.
Yet another thought--yes, my office is getting a little smokey. This one's about using my wife's head as a camera rest. My wife is 5'-3" tall. I'm 6'-2-7/8" tall, according to the USAF in 1966, [or 6'-1" tall according to the Army (everyone was 6'-1", 180 lbs, that day during Army pre-induction physicals, even the 6'-8" center of my high school basketball team, and the 5'-8" point guard)]. This is a perfect combination. I have a self-transporting camera rest. I don't have to carry a tripod. I carry two cameras; she carries the third. OK, I'm being silly. But instead of carrying a tripod, I'd rather stuff a camera with a long telephoto into the wedge of tree branches than suffer all day carrying just another piece of equipment. A tripod isn't that heavy, unless you're an old news cameraman with a compressed disk caused by a film or video camera on your shoulder for 12 hours a day.
