Pixalo Photography Community

Go Back   Pixalo Photography Community > Photography Forums > General photography questions and answers

General photography questions and answers: Discuss Nikon D200?...New Nikon rumours abound.... SPECIFICATIONS 12.4 megapixels, Same as D2X: 4,288 x 2,848 pixels as well as 3,216 x 2,136-pixels ...
Welcome to the Pixalo Photography Community. As a Guest you are free to browse the site, but see what extras you get as a Member here.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2005, 22:03   #1 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: kings hill
Posts: 4,636
Matty is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Nikon D200?

New Nikon rumours abound....









SPECIFICATIONS
12.4 megapixels, Same as D2X: 4,288 x 2,848 pixels as well as 3,216 x 2,136-pixels and 2,144 x 1,424 pixels. Automatic rotation of vertical shots.

CMOS sensor, standard DX size. (23.7 x 15.7 mm)

Frame Rate: 3 FPS at 12.4 megapixels for up to 10 consecutive NEFs. Bizarre high speed crop (like the D2X): 5 FPS at 6.8 MP for up to 18 NEFs. Image sizes are 3,216 x 2,136, 2,400 x 1,600 or 1,600 x 1,064 pixels when cropped.

Shutter and Flash Sync: Only 1/250 with flash. Bad, this is worse than the D50/D70/D70s and the same as D2X. Up to 1/8,000 without flash.

Flash: i-TTL. Works with SB-600 and SB-800. No rumors of a built-in, which is a big defect and another reason I love the D70s. You can do wireless flash control for free with the D70/D70s, but will need to buy a second SB-800 just to control a remote flash from the D200. I have an article here on using the free wireless flash control.

AF Zones: 11. Only 9 are sensitive to both vertical and horizontal, similar to D2X

ISO: 100 to 800. Too bad; I love the extra sharpness I get from my one-stop faster D70. Likewise, the D70s and D50 also are twice as fast (ISO 200 - 1,600) and the Canon 20D goes to ISO 3,200 and looks great doing it.

Memory: Compact Flash Type I and II and Microdrives

LCD monitor: 2.5" 235,000 dots. White LED backlight like all the other Nikons.

Metering: 1,005-pixel RGB Matrix, center-weighted and spot, just like the D2X and D70s etc. Also has an ambient light sensor for better auto white balance like the D2X but missing from the D70s.

Exposure Modes: Program, Shutter priority, Aperture priority and Manual

USB 2.0. Who cares? I plug my cards into a reader. Studio shooters will love this for tethered shooting.

Battery: EN-EL3a, just like D70s and compatible with D50, D70 and D100. Includes MH-18a Quick Charger. The EH-5 AC Adapter and MB-D200 Multi-Function Battery Pack are optional.

Size: 6.2" wide, 4.8" high and 3.4" deep. (158 x 121 x 88 mm). A little bigger than D70 (5.5" wide, 4.4" high, 3.1" deep). Smaller than D2X (6.2" wide, 5.9" tall, 3.4" deep). The biggest difference between them is the height.

Weight: 29 ounces (810g) empty. Magnesium body. Heavier than D70s' 21 ounces and much less than D2X' 38 ounces.

Miscellaneous:

Two new Adobe RGB and sYCC color spaces

Goofy effects of Image Overlay and Multiple Exposure

World time clock

found this here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200.htm


Matty is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 22:17   #2 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
It looks the business from the picture, the specs are slightly disapointing in some areas though. I guess if the rumours are true then the deciding factor will be the price..any ideas on that?
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 22:23   #3 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: kings hill
Posts: 4,636
Matty is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
apparently around $1500 - $1800 DOLLARS, so about that much in pounds too(rip off Britain etc)
Matty is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 22:25   #4 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
If it comes in at that price, even with rip off UK its still a strong package. Is it full frame?
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 22:26   #5 (permalink)
CT
Feet under the table
 
CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Mids UK
Posts: 3,368
CT is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
You gotta love that 'chunky' look Nikons have.
CT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 22:30   #6 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
The built in "battery grip" is a great thing..Canon should offer two models of every camera, one with and one without. For the one without they could still offer an addon unit so as not to alienate the users who couldn't afford the grip at the beginning or limit their upgrade path.
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 22:48   #7 (permalink)
CT
Feet under the table
 
CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Mids UK
Posts: 3,368
CT is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
It's not a full frame sensor and I don't think Nikon have any plans to get into that size at all.

There's an interesting view on it all from Ken Rockwell here..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm
CT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 22:59   #8 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Very interesting read that CT and certainly a take on the subject that I had not considered. Cheers for the link
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 23:02   #9 (permalink)
CT
Feet under the table
 
CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Mids UK
Posts: 3,368
CT is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
It made me think too I must admit.
CT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 23:21   #10 (permalink)
Quite Chatty
 
Pink Fairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Watford, England
Posts: 81
Pink Fairy is an unknown quantity at this point
User's Gallery
Remember that this is Ken Rockwell looking in his crystal ball and NOT factual specs. The image is also likely to be the result of someones imagination and photoshop work.
Pink Fairy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2005, 23:30   #11 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Yes it is just rumour currently and should not be taken as anything other than that but out of that runour I have learned something tonight
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 00:06   #12 (permalink)
Quite Chatty
 
Pink Fairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Watford, England
Posts: 81
Pink Fairy is an unknown quantity at this point
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
Yes it is just rumour currently and should not be taken as anything other than that but out of that runour I have learned something tonight
Ah, you mean the myth that 'full frame sensor' means anything significant in this day and age.
Pink Fairy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 00:19   #13 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Well yes and no, I understand the ins and outs of full frame vs crop factors and that it doesn't really magnify anything, but I had not thought about it in the way Ken has outlined and uses to explain Nikons position.

He may or may not be correct but his reasoning offers another perspective that I had not previously considered.
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 08:51   #14 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
SammyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,466
SammyC is on a distinguished roadSammyC is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Sliiiiigtly skewed perspective there but based in facts.

Used to develop the machines that produce computer chips and his arguments about yields going down as the chip size increases is true. But it's not true that chips that size are rare and would get 'laughed out of the wafer fab'. Plenty of applications use chips like these, it's just that they cost a lot to make because the yields are so low.

The real reason why Nikon won't go for full frame is that they can't make CCDs that size work around the problems with CCDs whereas Canon can make CMOS sensors work at that size. Different technologies.
__________________
Canon 350D
Canon 18-55 kit lens
Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon 50 1.8 Mk 1
Sigma 70-300 APO Macro DG
Kenko extension tubes

My photographs
SammyC is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 08:54   #15 (permalink)
Quite Chatty
 
Pink Fairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Watford, England
Posts: 81
Pink Fairy is an unknown quantity at this point
User's Gallery
BTW, the Nikon D200 photo is a Fuji S3 + photoshop... apparantly it's been floating around on the web for months.
Pink Fairy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 09:41   #16 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
dazzajl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 316
dazzajl is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
There are some interesting points in there but it seems he's all to happy to mention half a point when it suits and leave out the rest. Like this bit..

Quote:
Today the current 16 x 24 mm size sensors are ideal and have many advantages over using the dinosaur size of 35mm still film. Among these are deeper depth of field leading to sharper pictures since the focal lengths are shorter
Sure if you are using a shorter focal length the DoF (or area of acceptable focus if your being a little more precise) will increase in the file but what about printing. To make a print at a given size you have to enlarge more from a smaller capture than a larger one, so you lose your gain.

We all know that the bigger the format the bigger the prints you can make from it, that principle may be slightly different in digital capture due to pixel size on the chip but it essentially reamains true.
__________________
"objects become distinctly less photogenic when they are over 500 yards from the car"
dazzajl is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 09:43   #17 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyC
Sliiiiigtly skewed perspective there but based in facts.

Used to develop the machines that produce computer chips and his arguments about yields going down as the chip size increases is true. But it's not true that chips that size are rare and would get 'laughed out of the wafer fab'. Plenty of applications use chips like these, it's just that they cost a lot to make because the yields are so low.

The real reason why Nikon won't go for full frame is that they can't make CCDs that size work around the problems with CCDs whereas Canon can make CMOS sensors work at that size. Different technologies.
Cheers for that Sammy, again I learn something new everyday

The problem is that instead of making it more transparrent it just serves to muddy the whole subject with respect to the REAL reason that Nikon have yet to adopt full frame. In the end I guess only Nikon have that answer and I doubt we will hear it from their camp.

Very interesting topic this
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 09:46   #18 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzajl
There are some interesting points in there but it seems he's all to happy to mention half a point when it suits and leave out the rest. Like this bit..



Sure if you are using a shorter focal length the DoF (or area of acceptable focus if your being a little more precise) will increase in the file but what about printing. To make a print at a given size you have to enlarge more from a smaller capture than a larger one, so you lose your gain.

We all know that the bigger the format the bigger the prints you can make from it, that principle may be slightly different in digital capture due to pixel size on the chip but it essentially reamains true.
Not quite, you are mixing up the difference between sensor size/pixel density and full frame/sensor crop You can have a large sensor that is still not full frame and is capable of producing images of a large enough file size to print for most people (inc professionals), we are now talking about pixel density - again thats only my understanding of it.
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 10:00   #19 (permalink)
Been here a while
 
dazzajl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 316
dazzajl is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
I see where you're going with that Steve and I probably haven't explained myself too well there. The main reason I can see for a camera to have a bigger chip is to allow for more pixels rather than just cram them into a smaller capture.

Take the EOS 1Ds II and the 5D, I can see the point of the 1DS as it has a full frame chip to allow for a 16MP capture which will give real gains over the 5D's.

I agree with the article in as much as there is no point in just enlarging the sensor to full frame if you're only going to get the same number of pixels on it as 1.3 or 1.6 crop version.........

.... but if Nikon want to take on the high end pro market they will need to offer a camera that can compete with the 1DS II. This is the camera that is getting pros away from medium and large format film and into digi SLRs.
dazzajl is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 10:45   #20 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 19,250
Steve is just really nice
Steve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really niceSteve is just really nice

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzajl
I see where you're going with that Steve and I probably haven't explained myself too well there. The main reason I can see for a camera to have a bigger chip is to allow for more pixels rather than just cram them into a smaller capture.
I am not too sure I follow that or that the manufacturers do either? Take the Canon 10D and 20D, both have the same size chip with the same crop factor however the 10D is 6mp and the 20D 8mp (rounded figures), the difference is in the pixel density. Canon have clearly demonstrated that they can manufacture much bigger sizes both in terms of physical and pixel ratings so I am still missing your point, sorry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzajl
Take the EOS 1Ds II and the 5D, I can see the point of the 1DS as it has a full frame chip to allow for a 16MP capture which will give real gains over the 5D's.
Again here we disagree, both the 1Ds II and the 5D are full frame and I would suggest that they would both appeal to the same market if the cost issue was removed. The 1Ds II is a completely different animal as afar as construction and weather sealing. Their main feature is large (albeit different Mpixel count) full frame sensors and that attracts the same customer if funds are not an issue. How many times have we heard people say I want full frame but canít afford 1Ds II prices, Canon have now offered a option to those people and it will sell very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzajl
.... but if Nikon want to take on the high end pro market they will need to offer a camera that can compete with the 1DS II. This is the camera that is getting pros away from medium and large format film and into digi SLRs.
I couldnít agree with you more on that, itís definitely the benchmark camera at the moment although the Nikon D2x is not a million miles away in terms of technology and results. It demonstrates that Nikon can and do make excellent kit but Canon has a faster upgrade program which offers newer technology to the market at a quicker rate than Nikon. That has its good points and bad, its good if you want and can afford all the latest cutting edge technology but bad if you are ďnormalĒ person with a budget, you save up and buy your pride and joy only to have it replaced and devalued in under 12 months by the latest all singing and dancing model at a cheaper price. Itís a vicious circle
__________________
I can count all the way up to Potato.
Steve is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2005, 11:05   #21 (permalink)
Quite Chatty
 
Pink Fairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Watford, England
Posts: 81
Pink Fairy is an unknown quantity at this point
User's Gallery
Oddly enough I recently heard a couple of Canon pro bird photographers contemplating changing back to Nikon for the 1.5 crop @ 12.8mp .. bit extreme, and not a wise choice imho until there's 500 & 600mm primes with VR/IS but it shows that Nikon can offer some pro photographers a benefit over Canon and at this moment in time, there's less distance between Canon and Nikon than there has for a long time.
Pink Fairy is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D200, MB-D200 + Extra EN-EL3e Chez Photography Classified Adverts 4 20-08-2007 15:58
Which camera should I buy Nikon D80 or Nikon D200 PDONSHIK@SNET.NET Which Camera Should I Buy? 6 03-02-2007 18:15
Nikon d200? Jonny Cameras, Lenses and Accessories 44 29-11-2005 09:32


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50.


vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ReviewPost & PhotoPost vB3 Enhanced, Copyright 2003-2014 All Enthusiast, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright © 2006 - 2017 Pixalo.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196