Nikon D200 is official

At the risk of going down in flames

Any body got a well dived 20 year old Ikelite housing ???

Just wondering what it looks like.

Actually i have one that is 10 years for my N90, good enough?

It still works, mind you the synch cord is fused to it....

I would send you pics but its in the parents in a box somewhere in Vancouver.....

I have a Ikelite F801/8008 housing that must be close to 20 years old. But it has not been heavily dived. It is still working fine and looks like it would for a long while yet. My main criticism is its ergonomics, but I think that the newer Ikelites (D70 onwards are much improved in this respect).

Alex

I would not worry much about it wearing out before you want to upgrade to the next hot camera. I think the main factor to consider are ports. I can't see getting and maintaining ports for all the combinations of lenses, teleconverters and diopters I like to use without extension rings.

I wouldn't worry about durability. If it cracks in 10-15 years it will certainly have paid for itself. My N90 housing (which is 10 years old) developed a small crack in one of the corners (I am still in contact with the guy that bought it from me). But he dives a lot, and in tough conditions, maybe half of his dives are between 40m and 55m (150 - 180ft).

As Alex, my issue with it is also ergonomics, together with size and weight. They have improved them a lot, but even the newest digital housings (D70, 20D, etc) still weigh more than my D2x housing. And as Herb, since I travel a lot (and have a lot of lenses) I also don't like the obligation of having one port for each lens.

Luiz

Is the chip in the D200 made by Sony?

Kasey, I suspect it is Sony, but Nikon hasn't disclosed this information, so nobody knows for sure.

Luiz

So here's my dilemma:

I have a housed Oly c8080 set up, strobes, dome port fisheye lens etc which is fine but lacks low light capabilities and the fast razor sharp focus which are the halmarks of a decent slr set up.

So I am looking to fall under the marketers spell and 'upgrade' to a dSLR.

I also own an eos 10 and three EF lenses which have been gathering dust in my camera bag: Vivitar series 1 - 19-35mm, Canon 28-105mm and a Tamron 28-200mm. None of these lenses are particularly wonderful but have served well on terra firma.

So d200 or 5d?

Question 1) d200 - The price is attractive as are the features, BUT will Nikon stick with the dx format sensor? I am loathed to purchase a camera and 10.5mm lenses etc only for the lenses to become obsolete in a couple of years. Anyone experiencing the same level of concern? Surely nikon can't resist a FF indefinitely...?

Question 2) Obviously the 5d makes sense as my lenses will fit BUT I am aware that FF sensors like good glass, so how bad is it going to be!? Anyone like to comment upon using suboptimal lenses on a FF sensor?

From a fellow "affluenza" sufferer.... http://www.langmaker.com/db/eng_affluenza.htm

Roger over n out

I think Nikon will stick with DX sensors for a long time. Certainly in cameras in the D200 class and below for 2 more generations. Also I hope that now the top cameras all out perform slide film that it will mean an end to the megapixel race and the feeling that your camera is obsolete.

I think what we all wish for is a level playing field between the cameras so that the difference comes down to photographer skill not which camera you own. But of course the megapixel race is in the interest of the camera companies. They want us to all feel we need their latest cameras and our current cameras are obsolete - so we keep spending. So I think Megapixels will keep rising for a while yet, not because there is any great need for more, but because the marketing departments keep telling the tech boys to do it!

Regarding full frame, the fisheyes (which we use a lot UW) don't seem to have a problem on full frame. The wide rectilinear problems aren't as bad as people say - easy to show if you want to in test shots, but less of a problem in real photography.

Alex

I don't believe that DX lenses will ever be useless. If Nikon ever switches to FF in consumer dSLRs, they will almost definitely utilize a "DX crop" option so you can continue to use your DX lenses. Besides, for the cost of a 5d you could have a D200 plus 10.5 DX with change left over. Protecting your lens investment is probably not a strong reason for buying a 5D.

I don't believe that DX lenses will ever be useless.  If Nikon ever switches to FF in consumer dSLRs, they will almost definitely utilize a "DX crop" option so you can continue to use your DX lenses.  Besides, for the cost of a 5d you could have a D200 plus 10.5 DX with change left over.  Protecting your lens investment is probably not a strong reason for buying a 5D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What ever Nikon decides, I think there will always be more APS-C/cropped/DX format cameras than full frame. I don't know if it makes any difference if they put in a "DX crop " option. You can always do that in photoshop.

In calculating the cost difference between the D5 and D200 don't forget to add the $1100 cost of the viewfinder that you'll likely need to get a view that may be comparable to the 5D viewfinder, and that will only work in the water.

The full frame versus cropped sensor comparrison seems a real talking point at present and presumably for a long time to come. It must be the affordability of the Canon 5D arousing this debate.

Something I've wondered about though is the issue of Depth of Field. I have not seen this mentioned. Would the cropped sensor in a D200 give a significant advantage over a Canon 5D in macro photogaphy. I'm not sure what gain in DOF there is in the smaller sensor. Does anyone know?

What ever Nikon decides, I think there will always be more APS-C/cropped/DX format cameras than full frame. I don't know if it makes any difference if they put in a "DX crop " option. You can always do that in photoshop.

 

In calculating the cost difference between the D5 and D200 don't forget to add the $1100 cost of the viewfinder that you'll likely need to get a view that may be comparable to the 5D viewfinder, and that will only work in the water.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) I would not consider Nikon to be continuing support for the DX format if they just said - to use your DX lenses you can crop out the black corners in photoshop Personally, I would consider that lens useless!

2) We'll have to wait and see on viewfinders, but I think it is misleading to imply that a FF viewfinder is equivalent to a DX viewfinder behind a magnifier. While I do appreciate the FF viewfinder on land, the only on-camera viewfinder that compares with a Seacam (for an example I'm familiar with) viewfinder underwater would be an optional action finder like the one on the F series cameras, and even then I prefer the seacam on the regular viewfinder. Besides, there is more to a viewfinder than size. My D2x finder is MUCH brighter than my F100 finder, which partially makes up for its size. That said, I've seen neither the D200 nor the 5D.

Herb Ko recently made an excellent comparison and explanation of why a FF camera will have a brighter viewfinder and less noise. I hope he posts it here.

Cheers

James

At the risk of going down in flames 

 

Any body got a well dived  20 year old Ikelite housing ???

 

Just wondering what it looks like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, my Ike housing is 23years old, I bought it in 1982. I am on my third dome (wide angle) and second (macro) port just because they get scratched. Keep the cover on them as much as possible. I would like to switch to digital soon but the expense is high, like about 5K which on the other hand is a nice trip. The two pics are from the liveaboard Star Dancer B) I have two strobes but one is a back up, I primarily use one strobe. In the photo it's hard to see the housing on the camera table but the DM took a pic of me with the setup underwater which it is rare for me to have a photo of myself/w camera.

Herb Ko recently made an excellent comparison and explanation of why a FF camera will have a brighter viewfinder and less noise.  I hope he posts it here.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you should say - "A FF camera SHOULD have a brighter VF"

Clearly there are other factors. My F100 viewfinder was bigger but not brighter than the D2x.

Further, I think that bigger is more accurate than brighter - using the example of the F5 vs D1x, 2 cameras based on the same body, the VF in the D1x was just masked off from the F5. Hence, the size of the VF was affected, but not the brightness of objects in the frame. Obviously, the total amount of light would be less, but not the brightness of subject.

Well, from what I've been reading for the past month, this body seems like the next logical step for me from my D100.

When I figure the expense of a D2x body and Seacam housing, it's about $9,500. If I wait a few months for Seacam to offer the D200 housing, I bet I'll save about $4,000 on the body and housing combo, which is considerable in a rapidly changing technology.

For those that can't get enough of the D200, here is a new 45 page Nikon PDF about it:

http://members.chello.se/joniz/D200.pdf

With interesting autofocus system diagrams. Slow connection warning ===> 3mb PDF file.

Something I've wondered about though is the issue of Depth of Field. I have not seen this mentioned. Would the cropped sensor in a D200 give a significant  advantage over a Canon 5D in macro photogaphy. I'm not sure what gain in DOF there is in the smaller sensor. Does anyone know?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Warning]The following is a mental exercise from an armchair underwater photographer, e.g. me trying to understand optics based on theory. It's what I do to entertain myself while preparing for the big purchase and actually getting my feet wet. I hope to also see some comments from those that speak from experience[/warning]

DOF is a property of the lens, not the sensor. You can get higher magnification by digital cropping which has the advantage of not decreasing your DOF. If you do so by simple cropping, blowing up a subsection of the image, you of course don't gain resolution. If you would do it by making the pixels smaller so you can cram more pixels in a small sensor then you may actually gain resolution and thus have a sensor that is potentially better for Macro. This may be what you were refering to. The drawback is that smaller pixels lead to more noise so you'll have to find the right balance. In addition, there is no point in making the pixels much smaller than the "optical resolution" (the smallest features in the image projected on the sensor by the lens). According to theory a pixel size half the resolution of the optical image is best. I have the feeling that for good lenses the optical resolution is typically higher than the sensor resolution so you could indeed gain something with smaller pixels. However, if camera optics works the same as microscopes, then closing the aperture should lower resolution while gaining DOF. In a recent wetpixel posting, don't remember on which topic, it was mentioned for a macro lens that image quality degraded when closing the macrolens down beyond a certain F-stop. I wonder if that is the F-stop where the optical resolution and sensor resolution are properly matched. If so, then you would have to keep your aperture further open to benefit from smaller pixels, which means you'll be loosing DOF again. It seems you can't win with macro. If you want the detail and magnification then you'll have to handle the shallow DOF.

As I will stay faithful to Nikon, I am curious about D200 vs. D2X. I can't seem to justify the extra $3000 (although that difference will be far less once the D200 is out for a while).

To my knowledge the main differences are (except for price)

Multi-Cam 1000 vs. 2000

-I guess we have to wait for results in a month or so? correct?

construction

-D200 is smaller, lighter

-D200 is more durable

megapixels

-probably not a huge difference in actual resolution of the pictures

what else?

All of these little notes are tentative statements...up for debate