Nikon D200?

Matt

Matt

TPer Emeritus
Messages
22,999
Name
matt
Edit My Images
Yes
New Nikon rumours abound....



[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=+1]
d200.jpg
​




[/size][/font][/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font][/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=+1]SPECIFICATIONS[/size][/font][/font]
[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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. [/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]CMOS sensor, standard DX size. (23.7 x 15.7 mm)[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Frame Rate: 3 FPS at 12.4 megapixels for up to 10 consecutive NEFs. [/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Bizarre[/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif] 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.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]AF Zones: 11. Only 9 are sensitive to both vertical and horizontal, similar to D2X[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Memory: Compact Flash Type I and II and Microdrives[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]LCD monitor: 2.5" 235,000 dots. White LED backlight like all the other Nikons.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Exposure Modes: Program, Shutter priority, Aperture priority and Manual[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]USB 2.0. Who cares? I plug my cards into a reader. Studio shooters will love this for tethered shooting.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]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.[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Weight: 29 ounces (810g) empty. Magnesium body. Heavier than D70s' 21 ounces and much less than D2X' 38 ounces. [/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Miscellaneous:[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Two new Adobe RGB and sYCC color spaces[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Goofy effects of Image Overlay and Multiple Exposure[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]World time clock[/font]

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


​
 
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?
 
apparently around $1500 - $1800 DOLLARS, so about that much in pounds too(rip off Britain etc)
 
If it comes in at that price, even with rip off UK its still a strong package. Is it full frame?
 
You gotta love that 'chunky' look Nikons have.
 
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.
 
Very interesting read that CT and certainly a take on the subject that I had not considered. Cheers for the link :)
 
It made me think too I must admit.
 
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.
 
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 said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

Ah, you mean the myth that 'full frame sensor' means anything significant in this day and age.
 
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.
 
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.
:)
 
BTW, the Nikon D200 photo is a Fuji S3 + photoshop... apparantly it's been floating around on the web for months.
 
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..

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
SammyC said:
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.
:)
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Sammy, again I learn something new everyday :thumb:

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 :)
 
dazzajl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

dazzajl said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 can’t afford 1Ds II prices, Canon have now offered a option to those people and it will sell very well.

dazzajl said:
.... 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.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t agree with you more on that, it’s 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 “normal” 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. It’s a vicious circle ;)
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top