Nikon DSLR forum

This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

Moderated by: chrisbet,

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...

D400 rumours again - Page 2

Rate Topic

Author	Post

Posted: Sat Jun 16th, 2012 02:39

11^th Post

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts:	6995
Status:	Offline

I think that having had the D200 and D300 the later model is better but not by much. I think the D300s is better than the D300 without a doubt and that they tweaked the sensor performance.

I enjoyed using the D2X in the studio but in low light the D200 beat it.

I am very pleased where I am today, as I believe I have reached the place where I was in my film days with a F3, F100, and Hasselblad 2000FCW in 1998, with my digital cameras D800, D3, D3S and D700.

Plus now I have the Fuji X100 and XPro1 it is like having a Leica M5 series camera as well these are so pocketable and low weight but high quality.

We are totally spoilt for choice these days!

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted: Sat Jun 16th, 2012 04:27

12^th Post

Eric

Joined:	Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location:	United Kingdom
Posts:	4583
Status:	Offline

richw wrote:
Eric wrote:
richw wrote: I thought the D200 was 98% of the camera that the D2x was, and possible a better model than the D2h but I think there has always been clear water between the D3 series and the D300. I have no doubt that the D300 (particularly the 's') was a big step forward over the D200.

Perhaps it's because I own a D200 and have a real soft spot for it, most of my photos where taken with it, but I never felt that the D300 was quite as good a value proposition.
I am with Tom on this one.
Yes the D200 is a nice camera and (as you say) 98% of the D2X. But I didnt think much of the D2X in the first place...it was a stop gap till Nikon got the FX sensor working....and sorted out noise!

Yes there is clear water between D3 and D300 ...but it is still a better performer than the D200 in several ways.

Its this fact that has delayed the arrival of its successor for so long.

Well I never had a D300 so that may explain some of my feeling!

No doubt the D300 is a better camera, but compared to it's peer group at the time (not just Nikon, but Canon et al) I still believe the D200 stood apart in a way the D300 didn't.

I'm not for one second saying it was a better camera but give that it was a whole generation earlier, at the time it came out I think it stood out from the crowd as a great buy in a way the 300 never managed.

But however you rate the two models I think this niche is an important one for Nikon and I hope they bring out a D400 that really knocks our socks off.

I think you are overlooking that one of the reasons the D200 and D2X were so close was they shared the same DX sensor. This wasn't the case with the D3 and D300.

The D300 DX sensor was never going to approach its FX big brother in image performance. It was the D700 that was 98% of the D3.

I was on record at the time of its launch, saying that the D300 had reached such a level that, with the advent of FX, It could be the last pro DX body for a long time.

With the tweaks of the D300S I believe that has been the case.

It remains to be seen what the D400 can bring to the image and performance party.

My fear is that its developments will be merely movie biased.

____________________
Eric

Posted: Sat Jun 16th, 2012 04:29

13^th Post

Eric

Joined:	Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location:	United Kingdom
Posts:	4583
Status:	Offline

jk wrote:
I think that having had the D200 and D300 the later model is better but not by much. I think the D300s is better than the D300 without a doubt and that they tweaked the sensor performance.

I enjoyed using the D2X in the studio but in low light the D200 beat it.

I am very pleased where I am today, as I believe I have reached the place where I was in my film days with a F3, F100, and Hasselblad 2000FCW in 1998, with my digital cameras D800, D3, D3S and D700.

Plus now I have the Fuji X100 and XPro1 it is like having a Leica M5 series camera as well these are so pocketable and low weight but high quality.

We are totally spoilt for choice these days!

Is the battery life any better with the XPro?

I find the X100 can be easily drained!

____________________
Eric

Posted: Sat Jun 16th, 2012 07:13

14^th Post

richw

Joined:	Tue Apr 10th, 2012
Location:	Melbourne, Australia
Posts:	525
Status:	Offline

Eric wrote:

I think you are overlooking that one of the reasons the D200 and D2X were so close was they shared the same DX sensor. This wasn't the case with the D3 and D300.

The D300 DX sensor was never going to approach its FX big brother in image performance. It was the D700 that was 98% of the D3

Eric, I totally agree but explaining why something is doesn't negate it. At the end of the day it's just my personal opinion, and not on anything important!

I remember your comments when the D300 came out and it certainly has been a long wait but I remain hopeful for a strong D400 offering. (not that I plan to get one, but I would like to see it regardless).

Posted: Sat Jun 16th, 2012 07:15

15^th Post

richw

Joined:	Tue Apr 10th, 2012
Location:	Melbourne, Australia
Posts:	525
Status:	Offline

Eric wrote:
jk wrote:
I think that having had the D200 and D300 the later model is better but not by much. I think the D300s is better than the D300 without a doubt and that they tweaked the sensor performance.

I enjoyed using the D2X in the studio but in low light the D200 beat it.

I am very pleased where I am today, as I believe I have reached the place where I was in my film days with a F3, F100, and Hasselblad 2000FCW in 1998, with my digital cameras D800, D3, D3S and D700.

Plus now I have the Fuji X100 and XPro1 it is like having a Leica M5 series camera as well these are so pocketable and low weight but high quality.

We are totally spoilt for choice these days!

Is the battery life any better with the XPro?

I find the X100 can be easily drained!

Me too!

Posted: Sat Jun 16th, 2012 13:41

16^th Post

Eric

Joined:	Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location:	United Kingdom
Posts:	4583
Status:	Offline

richw wrote:
Eric wrote:

I think you are overlooking that one of the reasons the D200 and D2X were so close was they shared the same DX sensor. This wasn't the case with the D3 and D300.

The D300 DX sensor was never going to approach its FX big brother in image performance. It was the D700 that was 98% of the D3

Eric, I totally agree but explaining why something is doesn't negate it. At the end of the day it's just my personal opinion, and not on anything important!

I remember your comments when the D300 came out and it certainly has been a long wait but I remain hopeful for a strong D400 offering. (not that I plan to get one, but I would like to see it regardless).

I did convert my D200 to IR rather thn the D300. Maybe that's a subliminal agreement with you :-)

____________________
Eric

Posted: Sun Jun 17th, 2012 02:44

17^th Post

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts:	6995
Status:	Offline

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted: Sun Jun 17th, 2012 02:48

18^th Post

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts:	6995
Status:	Offline

I didnt remember that the D200 and D2X shared the same sensor.
That would explain the 'strength' of the D200 as a camera.

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted: Sun Jun 17th, 2012 08:14

19^th Post

Robert

Joined:	Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location:	South Lakeland, UK
Posts:	4066
Status:	Offline

And it's weaknesses?

Although the D200 may sort of 'share' the sensor I don't think it's the exact same setup. I researched it carefully at the time I bought my D200's and I seem to remember the D200 took advantage of some (slight) advances in technology, I don't care to revisit that research! I know I was dithering between used D2x and new D200, after careful research the D200 won.

As far as I am concerned the D200 is a perfectly capable camera which may have some limitations in comparison with the current range but those limitations don't impinge too much on my photographs.

Most of my photography is done in good light and the output is destined for small prints or on screen viewing. Therefor a D1 would do 90% of what I need but the D1 is a bit limited in it's tonal range in my opinion and the D200 user interface is better.

____________________
Robert.

Posted: Sun Jun 17th, 2012 09:29

20^th Post

Eric

Joined:	Wed Apr 18th, 2012
Location:	United Kingdom
Posts:	4583
Status:	Offline

Robert wrote:
And it's weaknesses?

Although the D200 may sort of 'share' the sensor I don't think it's the exact same setup. I researched it carefully at the time I bought my D200's and I seem to remember the D200 took advantage of some (slight) advances in technology, I don't care to revisit that research! I know I was dithering between used D2x and new D200, after careful research the D200 won.

As far as I am concerned the D200 is a perfectly capable camera which may have some limitations in comparison with the current range but those limitations don't impinge too much on my photographs.

Most of my photography is done in good light and the output is destined for small prints or on screen viewing. Therefor a D1 would do 90% of what I need but the D1 is a bit limited in it's tonal range in my opinion and the D200 user interface is better.

My reference to 'same sensor' was more that they were both DX rather than they were the exact same sensor. It's by belief that coming from the same period they would be very close....certainly closer than the D3 FX sensor and the D300 DX version.

But you raise an important point. Many of the improvements over the D1 > D3 phase are of benefit to all. But if your photography doesn't require high iso, you don't print mega large formats or have no interest in movies, the D2 series are perfectly acceptable cameras.

We have said this many times of late...DSLRs have reached a development plateau in terms of mainstream photography. For many of us it's already as good as it NEEDS to get.

____________________
Eric

1st new

This is topic ID = 216 Current time is 14:33	Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > D400 rumours again	Top
Users viewing this topic