PDA

View Full Version : Nikon D80 vs. D200, the differences?



pyro
03-26-2007, 08:22 PM
There's some price difference, less plastic and more magnesium, of course. What else is there to gain, feature-wise? Anything useful?

Scream And Fly
03-26-2007, 11:21 PM
Chad, off the top of my head:
D200 is magnesium-alloy, D80 is polycarbonate
D200 is weather sealed, the D80 is not
D200 has 4-channel output and shoots at 5.5 FPS, D80 has 2-channel output and shoots at 3 (with noise reduction off)
D200 can meter AI/AIS (old, non-CPU) lenses, D80 cannot
D200 has better metering capability - 1005 segment meter on the D200 vs. 420 segment meter on the D80
D200 has wide-area selectable auto focus with selectable focus priority, D80 does not
D200 top shutter speed of 1/8000 sec., D80 top shutter speed of 1/4000 sec.
D200 has Kelvin white balance override, D80 does not
D200 flash sync at 1/250 sec., D80 flash sync at 1/200 sec.
D200 displays more data in the viewfinder (exposure, ISO)
D200 has a GPS option, D80 does not
D200 has a Wi-Fi option, D80 does not
D200 has custom shooting banks, D80 does not
D200 has true mirror lock-up, D80 does not
D200 can perform time-lapse exposures, D80 cannot
D200 has a larger image buffer than the D80
D80 has "scene mode" auto modes, D200 does not
D200 has separate, programmable AF-ON and AE-lock
D200 uses CF cards (at least an Ultra II is needed), D80 uses SD cards
Other minor differencesMost of what is said above will not matter for most people. The D200 does not have the auto modes that the D80 does. They both produce the same image quality. Some feel that the D80's processing engine delivers better JPEG images out-of-camera. The D200 has the same controls and menus as the D2Xs, the D80's controls are similar to those on the D70/D50. The D200 is larger and much heavier.

I use a D200 most of the time - even more than the D2Xs. If I had a D80, I would produce the same exact result as I do with the D200 or D2Xs. I prefer the D200 over the D80 because it is slightly faster, has more "hot" buttons, and is more programmable. I like it more than the D2Xs because it's lighter with the same controls. Heck, give me a D40 and one of my lenses and I'll produce the same result as well. :)

If you're on a budget, the spending priority should be the lens, not the body, unless the body has something you specifically need.

Greg

pyro
03-27-2007, 06:33 AM
Thanks. I did some more searching, and found some more comparisons too.

hsbob
03-27-2007, 01:13 PM
its a little faster as well. you can also use a lot of the professional assessories. one that i use is the added battery pack for the flash attachment. i can take over 100 flash shots with no wait time. its heavy but when uou put a large lens there no warpage in the frame........

its really worth the extra price.

Scream And Fly
03-27-2007, 05:43 PM
Yes, the D200 has less shutter lag and a shorter mirror blackout time. But the average user will never notice the difference - we're talking milliseconds here. I would shoot an assignment with a D80 and be just as comfortable with it as with my D200 or D2Xs.

There is a battery pack available for the D80 - the Nikon MB-D80 (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=258&productNr=25345). Which flash attachment are you referring to? Both the D80 and D200 can use Nikon speedlights (SB400, SB600, SB800, and remote trigger). They are also both capable of operating in flash commander mode. :)

Yes, the mag-allow lens mount is stronger on the D200, but I never heard of any warping on a D50, D70, or D80. Proper precautions must be observed with any camera body with a heavy lens mounted. Of course, if you drop a plastic camera with a very heavy lens on it, it could break the mounting ring off the body. In that case, it might be blessing, since it can save the (usually more expensive) lens from getting damaged.

Hottrucks
03-27-2007, 07:01 PM
Hey Greg I need to buy a digital camera I want to spend a couple of hundred $$$. What i have learned is I want at least a 10X optical zoom ( learned that at the Romp it's hard to get close at speed) a good battery life and nothing to big or it's a pain to carry around....... I would love some guidance
Thanx
Jeff

Oh and I want to do so movie stuff too

Scream And Fly
03-27-2007, 08:49 PM
Jeff, are you looking for a digital SLR or point and shoot?

hsbob
03-28-2007, 10:55 AM
for speed i was referring to the write speed to memory more than the picture speed whick is minmiumal. the d100 i picked up was dead slow as compared to my d1x and d200. it was mainly the write speed.


i have a battery pack that holds 10 AA batteries. it plugs directly in to the off camera falsh and also plugs into the cameras flash connector. it directly charges the capacitor in the flash unit [s?-80]. may even work on the 80, but i dont think so.

jphii
03-28-2007, 12:06 PM
Hey Greg, when you set my camera up at RRII it was workin great. Of course, the other day I was screwin with it and changed it. How should it be set for shootin boats?

Hottrucks
03-28-2007, 03:31 PM
Jeff, are you looking for a digital SLR or point and shoot?

Point and shoot digital
thanx

Scream And Fly
03-29-2007, 01:26 AM
Joe, the camera settings will depend on the lighting conditions and other things. But for shooting action, set the focus on AF-C, and shoot in "P" mode for now, locking the center focus point.

Jeff,

There are some pretty good "superzoom" models out now - right now I think one of the better models in your price range is the Canon Powershot S3 IS. (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/)

It has a 12X zoom and and an optical image stabilizer. For its price (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16830120043&ATT=30-120-043&CMP=OTC-C173T), it can't be beat.

Greg

STV_Keith
03-29-2007, 03:01 AM
Hottrucks, I will also suggest something in the Panasonic Lumix lineup. I bought a DMC-FZ7 for shooting stills at work and I'm quite impressed with the quality of the pictures for a relatively inexpensive camera. I believe we paid around $400 shipped for the camera, extra mem card, extra battery, extra charger, case, UV filters, etc. One thing I really like is the shutter release time. Even on my (now older) Nikon 5700, the time from when you depress the shutter release until the shutter actually takes the picture is a little long...the Panasonic is very quick.

Here's a review of it over here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz7/

It's a year or two old now, so I'm sure there is a more up-to-date model, but I'm very pleased with what it does.

Fish
03-29-2007, 07:42 AM
I am no expert, but at river ranch I stood next to Greg with my d80 after he helped set my camera up for the conditions. We shot many of the same shots, and my shots cannot compare with his shots even though they are essentially the same pics. Granted, Greg is a great photographer (I am not), greg has really good lenses (I do not) etc, but it was really discouraging. I am also sure he could have gotten much better pics with my camera had we swapped.

you might want to check out this too:

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=281&forum=DCForumID236

hsbob
03-29-2007, 10:53 AM
olymous just released a 18x super zoom. i have a 10x PnS and several other olympus cameras that are very good as well. goto the dpreview about if info.

STV_Keith
03-29-2007, 11:19 AM
Here's another page you can check out reviews from: http://dpreview.com/reviews/

Hottrucks
03-29-2007, 12:25 PM
So far I think that the powershot S3 maybe the best bet I'm not real sure but I like the image stablizer ( if it does what I think ) with the rocking and banging off waves I think when the boss is snapping pics off they may come out better....I know jack ( Daniels maybe) about these things like I said before I know optical is better than digital Zoom.... and thats about it. we are looking for something simple that will allow us pics that I/we can post clearly and is smaller in size so we can carry it ( I found if it's to big we cann't be bothered to lug it around there for NO pics)

keep the ideas coming but the S3 seems to be leading
thanx Jeff

Scream And Fly
03-29-2007, 04:42 PM
Jody, give me that D80 at the next event for 15 minutes and I'll show you what it's capable of. I can produce the same exact result with that camera as I could with a D200 or D2xs. Without question. Don't buy into the posts you read on Nikonians and DPreview about the so-called "meter inconsistency" of the D80. That's total nonsense. I find it all too common that people want to blame the camera.

There's a lot more to taking photos than camera settings. When I see you at the next event, we can go over more details. You can get it though, don't get discouraged. :)

Greg



I am no expert, but at river ranch I stood next to Greg with my d80 after he helped set my camera up for the conditions. We shot many of the same shots, and my shots cannot compare with his shots even though they are essentially the same pics. Granted, Greg is a great photographer (I am not), greg has really good lenses (I do not) etc, but it was really discouraging. I am also sure he could have gotten much better pics with my camera had we swapped.

you might want to check out this too:

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=281&forum=DCForumID236

Scream And Fly
03-29-2007, 06:25 PM
Here's a quick size comparison. I just pulled these three out for a quick photo. Sorry for the bad photos - I just used a small point and shoot really quick. For reference, the D50 and D80 are almost exactly the same size. So, from left to right:


Nikon D50/Nikon 12-24 F4 DX
Nikon D70/Nikon 18-70 DX
Nikon D200/Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9397/cameras003zz7.jpg

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1981/cameras008gb6.jpg


And again, order reversed:
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7311/cameras014ua5.jpg

Rich Owen
03-30-2007, 03:45 AM
Can you say BLING , I have lens envy ! :)

Casey
03-30-2007, 08:57 AM
late last year I was in the same dilemma. I went with the D80 over the D200 to save a few $$$ and have had no regrets. just use the saved money for a better lens

Hottrucks
03-30-2007, 12:03 PM
this seems to be the deal on the S3 it comes with a starter kit to????

http://www.fotoconnection.com/viewitem.php?IndexID=34709&RefTag=adwords&002=1039037&004=422343917&005=2941889777&006=835334897&007=Search&008=&gclid=CLys6pvvnIsCFRssVAodGDowWQ


I hate internet buying

FotoConnection
P.O. Box 300425
Midwood, NY 11230 anybody heard of them???

Casey
03-30-2007, 03:31 PM
be careful

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/FotoConnection_1

i've had great luck with buydig

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=CNPSS3

Hottrucks
03-30-2007, 03:56 PM
Thanx Casey I had a fuzzy feeling about them ther prices are good but it ain't worth it.......I would rather spend the Extra and buy it at Wally World if theres an issue they ussually will take it back....either way the customer service will suck

pyro
03-30-2007, 05:01 PM
www.bhphotovideo.com is well-known.

Scream And Fly
04-02-2007, 02:36 PM
Can you say BLING , I have lens envy ! :)

Thanks Rich, those lenses are my favorite for boating events. I have a 17-55 2.8, but it's just too large for what it does, and the 18-70 is an amazing little lens for carrying around at events and shows. The 70-200 is my workhorse though, I shoot all running boats with it. It's fast fast fast!



late last year I was in the same dilemma. I went with the D80 over the D200 to save a few $$$ and have had no regrets. just use the saved money for a better lens

That's a very smart move, and I agree with that strategy totally. I would much rather have a D80 with good glass, than a D200 with substandard lenses. The D80 will smoke the D200 with better lenses, all else being equal (and the proper technique, of course).



Thanx Casey I had a fuzzy feeling about them ther prices are good but it ain't worth it.......I would rather spend the Extra and buy it at Wally World if theres an issue they ussually will take it back....either way the customer service will suck

Yes, beware of 'too good to be true' prices. Always check resellerratings.com before you buy. I buy from B&H, Ritz, and Buydig.com (which is Beach Camera).

Greg

Hottrucks
04-08-2007, 10:01 AM
Hey Greg I went out to look at the S3 at best buy ( because they have them in stock and I could feel it) and there was a Kodak next to it seem to have about the same features ( 12 X zoom and stablizer ) BUt the thing was Half the money???? I don't mind spending the $$$ ( ok a little) but will the Cannon take better pics than the Kodak...Keep in mind there's an Idiot behind the lens and all I use it for is at the shows and a on a few trips????

pyro
04-08-2007, 10:05 AM
Is the lens in the D200 package deal any good?
(18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor)

I know Greg has praised the 18-70 that used to come with the D70 package, is the 18-135 as worthy of praise?

Scream And Fly
04-08-2007, 01:32 PM
Hey Greg I went out to look at the S3 at best buy ( because they have them in stock and I could feel it) and there was a Kodak next to it seem to have about the same features ( 12 X zoom and stablizer ) BUt the thing was Half the money???? I don't mind spending the $$$ ( ok a little) but will the Cannon take better pics than the Kodak...Keep in mind there's an Idiot behind the lens and all I use it for is at the shows and a on a few trips????

Myself, I wouldn't get the Kodak. Not sure how good it is, but I prefer the Canon. You may be able to find comparisons online though.



Is the lens in the D200 package deal any good?
(18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor)

I know Greg has praised the 18-70 that used to come with the D70 package, is the 18-135 as worthy of praise?

Chad, the 18-135 is a very sharp lens. It does have some chromatic aberration issues when shooting into very bright scenes, but that's not really an issue at all. It's very light and made of plastic, so don't expect a pro build on that one. Even the lens mount is plastic. But, the images it produces are fantastic. It's a sharper lens than the 18-200, which is considered the 18-135's 'bigger brother.' Overall it has less geometric distortion than the 18-200 and I believe about the same as the 18-70 on the wide end, which is fine for general photography. You can find a good review of that lens (and many others) here (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18135_3556/index.htm).

I think the 18-135 comes as a kit with the D80 as well.

Fish
04-08-2007, 08:59 PM
just wanted to say thanks for the advice greg. I after making the menu changes you recommended, I am much happier with the pics I am taking with my d80.

thanks,

fish

Scream And Fly
04-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Glad to help Jody. We're enrolling you into "Nikon DSLR photography school" at the River Ranch. We'll make a Jedi out of you yet. :D

pyro
04-11-2007, 11:06 PM
What's this all about?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=290103116300

This is more than I can really afford, but it's exactly what I want in a "dream kit", piece for piece. a heck of a good deal. Is this seller any good?

Scream And Fly
04-11-2007, 11:58 PM
I don't know the seller, so no comment on them, but I would really only buy expensive equipment from places like B&H. The "wide angle" lens they are including looks like giveaway junk, as do the filters. Other than that, a D200 and those lenses would be a great system.

Greg

pyro
04-12-2007, 07:42 AM
The red velvet lining, stain/varnish box, and simple brass latch yell CHINA. I'm not surprised. The wide angle is kind of a bonus item. Even if you add up everything without the wide, from any other store, it's over $4000 pretty quickly before you get finished with everything.

Filters, hmmm.... So, a less-than-the-best polarizer won't polarize "as good" or as much or what?

The D200 isn't offered with the 18-70 anywhere else in a package deal, and this package happens to include some extras that I would be likely to buy anyway in time, particularly the VR. I would have to forfeit next Christmas and piss away my entire tax refund to get this whole setup. Dream, dream, dream...

Scream And Fly
04-12-2007, 04:50 PM
Chad, a lot of this depends on what your goals are. :)

pyro
04-12-2007, 04:59 PM
A very "strong" hobby level.

Mostly sunrises, sunsets and nature scenes, but I would shoot more wildlife if I had the glass to reach it. Boating pictures are a given, but once again, I won't immediately need the zoom.

Maybe I should just get a D80 with the 18-70, and save the money for a better bag, tripod, flash, and filters...

Scream And Fly
04-12-2007, 05:25 PM
I was just going to say, you do not need a D200 - not by a longshot. The D80 and even a D40 or D40x will do everything that the D200 will do for your needs. No need to spend the extra money. :)

Scream And Fly
04-13-2007, 02:37 AM
Chad, also wanted to add that I used a D50 to cover the Miami Boat show and the Sarasota Poker Run. I had my Nikon 12-24 F4 on the D50 the whole time, and it produced great results. I would easily use that little D50 to cover any boating event and feel just as comfortable with it. The lenses matter much more than the body.

Greg

pyro
04-13-2007, 06:32 AM
:D thanks Greg. I'm resisting the impulse while I weigh my options.

hsbob
04-13-2007, 10:46 AM
go the 80 route, but get the 18-200 [vr if you can afford it]. the less lens changing you can do the better. it adds dust to the ccd each time you change lens. im using the sigma 18-200 which is almost a good as the nikon but less$$$. i have a 50-500 sigma, but it needs a bright day.

pyro
04-13-2007, 10:49 AM
I'll definitely go for the 18-70 for now, maybe getting the 70-200 VR when the desire overcomes me. I won't be buying any small, light-hungry telephoto lenses though.

Scream And Fly
04-13-2007, 03:15 PM
I'll definitely go for the 18-70 for now, maybe getting the 70-200 VR when the desire overcomes me. I won't be buying any small, light-hungry telephoto lenses though.

Chad, if you need a telephoto lens right now, the new Nikon 55-200 AF-S VR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=486717&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) is an amazing buy at around $250. It's small and light, and absolutely cannot be beat for the price.

I'm going to disagree with hsbob on the 18-200. I think that lens is terrible - and for the price, I would go for the professional Nikon 80-200 2.8 instead any day. The 18-200 is a good 'all in one' lens, but it does nothing particularly well other than covering a very broad range. Its alright for general photography, but if you're serious about image quality, pass on that. I much prefer the (although cheaper and more plastic, and without VR) 18-135, which has much better image quality.

The Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=124669&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) is an amazing lens that has the same image quality as the 70-200 VR for about half the price. It does not have VR, but I never use VR when shooting boats anyway. It's a heavy, built-like-a-tank lens that is as good as it gets regarding image quality.

Greg

hsbob
04-13-2007, 04:50 PM
your basicly right greg. that why i keep the 70-200 2.8 and the othe 2.8 as well always loaded on the d1x. but for general photos that most people take the long zooms ar just ok. and it keeps them form cleaning the ccd and messing up the camera.

pyro
04-16-2007, 06:27 PM
Still seeing these great package deals on Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130101496213

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110113618506 Same package, but more memory :confused:

...but can't find a similar package anywhere else in the same price range with this lens. Usually the body and lens alone with no memory is already over $1300. Bag is good, hardcase is a useful bonus, the flash is a throw-away, big deal. The only negatives or neutral feedbacks from buyers seem to be from impatient idiots, and complaints of the typical upselling on the phone.

Any thoughts?

Scream And Fly
04-16-2007, 06:49 PM
My thoughts:

Stay away from "too good to be true" deals - especially from the Brooklyn-based stores. "Sunshine Electric" only offers an 'artist rendition' of their store and not an actual photo.

Click here: http://www.newyork.bbb.org/reports/businessreports.aspx?pid=44&page=1&id=8222

From the Better Business Bureau on Sunshine Electric:
Complaints filed with the BBB state that Sunshine Electronics charges consumers' credit cards even though the item being purchased may be out of stock. Consumers allege that delivery can take up to one month and contacting a representative to help them can be extremely difficult. Other consumer concerns include trouble obtaining a refund, orders being sent and charged for after the order has been cancelled, and being pressured into purchasing. Consumers also reported that orders arrived missing or broken and they had trouble obtaining a replacement.


Buy from a reputable vendor.

Greg

pyro
04-16-2007, 07:20 PM
As for the other listing, it seems to be a different seller.
I Googled their phone number, 1-718-434-5934, the same number also appears in a camera auction listing on www.bid4assets.com :confused: http://www.bid4assets.com/auction/index.cfm?auctionid=303725
Hey look, a familiar name appears, SUNSHINE. Wow, they've been breaking the Ebay rules for a while, multiple seller profiles The similar package items and graphic work should have been a clue.

pyro
04-16-2007, 07:58 PM
Is there any real difference between the USA and the Thai lenses?

Scream And Fly
04-17-2007, 05:12 AM
Is there any real difference between the USA and the Thai lenses?

Chad, no Nikon lenses are made in the USA, nor are any Canon lenses either. :) Generally, Nikon's professional lenses are made in Japan, and some of their consumer models are made in Thailand. Nikon has a new facility there - no worries on quality control, there are no bad reports to suggest that. The 18-55, 18-70, 18-135, and 18-200 are newer [consumer] lenses, and are made there.

Like I said, get the D80 and 18-135 and you'll be set with an awesome kit that won't cost you a ton. You can expand it from there if needed.

Greg

pyro
04-17-2007, 06:57 AM
I thought most of the pro stuff was Japan, that makes sense.

B&H shows the 18-70 as two choices, "USA", or "imported." The USA part shows a higher price, and is out of stock.

Scream And Fly
04-17-2007, 04:20 PM
I thought most of the pro stuff was Japan, that makes sense.

B&H shows the 18-70 as two choices, "USA", or "imported." The USA part shows a higher price, and is out of stock.

The "Imported" stuff B&H sells is just gray market, with an international warranty. It's usually better to get the USA market stuff.

pyro
04-26-2007, 07:24 AM
I got the D80 with the 18-135, it arrived early this week. I haven't played with it much yet. I have been reading through the manual, and I like what I see so far...

Fish
04-26-2007, 08:03 AM
Congrats Chad. I am sure you will be really happy with it.

OLD BOB
04-26-2007, 09:02 AM
Greg, thanks for writing about DP. I bet that you don't realize how many of us that you help with your knowledge. I started to think about updating my 35mm stuff to digital and came across this thread about the time it started. It has been very helpful in my decision on what to buy. Although I have taken thousands of photos in my work with a quality point and shoot digital, I had very little knowledge of SLR digital cameras.
Again thanks for sharing your knowledge with all of us.
Old Bob

Scream And Fly
04-26-2007, 05:10 PM
Chad, that's great news. Now set that camera to Color Mode IIIa and turn auto ISO OFF. Now you have to post some photos too!

Bob, glad to help out. I'll be posting an article (long overdue) on taking photos at boat events very soon. :)

Greg

jphii
04-26-2007, 08:19 PM
Chad, that's great news. Now set that camera to Color Mode IIIa and turn auto ISO OFF. Now you have to post some photos too!

Bob, glad to help out. I'll be posting an article (long overdue) on taking photos at boat events very soon. :)

Greg

Finally.:eek:

pyro
04-26-2007, 10:22 PM
OK, I set it to color mode IIIa. Leave the other custom optimization settings at auto?

I shot with it in JPG "fine", and this results in images that Photoshop cannot seem to reasonably compress to reduce file size. (below, re-sized very small with compression at almost 50%, and still almost 100K) I assume the images would handle easier and smaller with little quality reduction if I returned it to JPG "normal"?

Scream And Fly
04-26-2007, 11:58 PM
No, always always always shoot in "fine" or "raw" mode (raw for advanced editing). You can always reduce images in size in Photoshop or any other image editor. You just have to use the right amount of compression. What version of Photoshop are you using?

The D2xs and D200 do not have the auto modes that the D80 has, and I never use them on the D50 or D70 either. If possible, stay away from those auto modes like "sports", etc.

It all depends on how much image processing you want to do once the image is out of the camera. Myself, I keep everything set to 0 or flat, and do all my processing in Photoshop. But, if you want 'point and shoot like' images out of the camera, set as follows:

Color Mode IIIa
Image Optimization: Vivid
Sharpening: +2

hsbob
04-27-2007, 03:10 PM
dont use the compression to treduce the file size. go into image resize. set the window to 640 and 480 in pixels inplace of inches. then save using a different file name. i should be good for posting then. or down load the converter form the xp window advance feacher web site.

pyro
04-27-2007, 03:28 PM
Bob, I know how to re-size images. I know how to set compression. I also understand that images with more fine details and less uniform background areas will have larger file size. You guys are missing my point.

JPG images that come from this camera, even after re-sizing to 640 X 480 in PSE, and setting compression just shy of where it starts to look like sh**, STILL are over 150K. Normally, images that are handled in the same way and saved to this same size, with the same amount of compression or less, will come out to under 60K. I've done this thousands of times, and this is odd. Did you see the picture I posted above? It's smaller than 500 px square, and it's still 100KB! Most photos of this size from my old camera that I resized to this size would come out to about 40K.

Scream And Fly
04-27-2007, 05:06 PM
Chad, I'm not missing your point at all - trust me on this one. :)

You just need to set your size and compression options accordingly. The more color information and pixels in the image, the greater its byte size. Here's an image, resized to 800 pixels wide using 50% JPEG compression, and it's 85KB. Yes, there is a loss in image quality - it's an expected trade off, but the image is still fine for web viewing.

Shoot all images at maximum resolution, and resize a copy for posting. Always keep your digital negative untouched. I'll go over this in more detail in my article, but what are you using to resize images?

Greg

pyro
04-27-2007, 06:24 PM
I just tried the same image again using JASC PSP at my workplace, and I was able to get the results I expected, this one came out to 63 KB . I'll have to check my PSE settings tonight when I get home. Something must have been screwed up last night. OK, here's some sample photos:

1. Beat-up Hydrostream crammed in a 20' x 22' garage :rolleyes:
2. Trashed, ripped-up 18 yeal old interior :p
3. 30p Lab Cleaver :D

Notice how the cleaver was 500 X 500 at 99KB before, and now it's 800 X 800 and much smaller. (yes, I used the original to make both)

Scream And Fly
04-27-2007, 06:30 PM
Chad, the Force is strong with you. :)

See, not that hard :)

pyro
04-27-2007, 09:50 PM
OK, for those who don't believe me, here's a screenshot from Photoshop on my computer at home. (major compression added here on purpose) Notice the "50%" (640 x 480) image on the left. Notice how the compression slider is set to "sh**" quality, and it's still prepared to save it as a 100K file. I never had this problem before. Photos edited with either PSE or JASC PSP would usually come out to 50K - 80K depending on detail, with either program. Odd...

Scream And Fly
04-27-2007, 10:01 PM
Chad, I don't use Photoshop Elements, but it should have an option for "Save for Web". Use that instead of "Save As...". Choose "JPEG" and set your compression level there. :)

Casey
04-28-2007, 09:09 AM
It all depends on how much image processing you want to do once the image is out of the camera. Myself, I keep everything set to 0 or flat, and do all my processing in Photoshop. But, if you want 'point and shoot like' images out of the camera, set as follows:

Color Mode IIIa
Image Optimization: Vivid
Sharpening: +2


Greg I hate post processing and rarely do any at all. I normally just upload my pics (large, fine jpegs) directly to smugmug. they look pretty good, but they do seem a little soft. I have always just left my camera set to normal (optimize image), but are you saying that I might be better off to set it to vivid mode? or are you saying to set it to custom mode and bump the sharpening to +2 and color mode IIIa? and leave everything else as default?

pyro
04-28-2007, 09:55 AM
Chad, I don't use Photoshop Elements, but it should have an option for "Save for Web". Use that instead of "Save As...". Choose "JPEG" and set your compression level there. :)

Thanks, for some reason, this method worked. I got a fairly normal filesize. Does the "save for web..." option reduce color count/depth?

Fish
04-28-2007, 12:14 PM
Chad (or anyone else), here is one of the few microsoft applications that I really like. It is an extremely small application, very easy to use and best of all free.

It is microsoft picture resizer. Once installed, just right click on any picture . The usual grey microsoft edit box will open. Scroll down to resize picture and left click. It will give you 4 default choices (as well as custom sizes under custom). The smallest size is 640x480. It saves a copy of your original picture Ex. dsc0001.jpg will be saved next to the original as dsc0001(small).jpg so you do not change your original file. That is perfect for web upload.

basically 2 clicks and you are good to go... and it is free!

Here it is: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

Scroll down the right side of the page to "Image Resizer," click, and install. That is it.

pyro
04-28-2007, 01:03 PM
That Microsoft "toy" resizer is neat, quick and easy, I have it installed on my computer, but I don't use it, because it absolutely slaughters image quality. Much better results from doing it with Photoshop or JASC.

Scream And Fly
04-28-2007, 02:45 PM
Greg I hate post processing and rarely do any at all. I normally just upload my pics (large, fine jpegs) directly to smugmug. they look pretty good, but they do seem a little soft. I have always just left my camera set to normal (optimize image), but are you saying that I might be better off to set it to vivid mode? or are you saying to set it to custom mode and bump the sharpening to +2 and color mode IIIa? and leave everything else as default?

Casey, if you don't want to perform any post processing or keep that to a minimum, then yes. I would set to Vivid, Color Mode IIIa, and Sharpening value of +2. Those settings will give very nice photos right out of the camera without any extra processing.




Thanks, for some reason, this method worked. I got a fairly normal filesize. Does the "save for web..." option reduce color count/depth?

Chad, "Save for Web" will optimize the image based on many variables, but in essence - yes, it does perform extra optimization to reduce image size. For example, if I'm sending a JPEG out to print, I will never use that option.

jphii
05-03-2007, 11:30 AM
Chad, if you need a telephoto lens right now, the new Nikon 55-200 AF-S VR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=486717&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) is an amazing buy at around $250. It's small and light, and absolutely cannot be beat for the price.

I'm going to disagree with hsbob on the 18-200. I think that lens is terrible - and for the price, I would go for the professional Nikon 80-200 2.8 instead any day. The 18-200 is a good 'all in one' lens, but it does nothing particularly well other than covering a very broad range. Its alright for general photography, but if you're serious about image quality, pass on that. I much prefer the (although cheaper and more plastic, and without VR) 18-135, which has much better image quality.

The Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=124669&is=USA&addedTroughType=search) is an amazing lens that has the same image quality as the 70-200 VR for about half the price. It does not have VR, but I never use VR when shooting boats anyway. It's a heavy, built-like-a-tank lens that is as good as it gets regarding image quality.

Greg

Greg,

I've been looking for one of the 80-200 and it seems like there were about 5 versions of it. Which one is the best? I see the ED ones seem to be more available.

hsbob
05-03-2007, 01:30 PM
it really is determined by lens quality and your pocket. i believe greg uses the nikon 2.8 lens and their very, very good but there's a price that goes with it. i have a sigma 70-200 2.8 which is a very good lens [ note the single very]. it was about 2/3 to 3/4 the price of the nikon. since im not a pro and cannot buy lens against a business, i elected to go with a lower priced lens good quality lens. you can not just go by brand. i have several web sites that measure the actual lens sharpness and quality. i research and then deside what is best for "ME".

it is my opinion that most of the SnF members would be farther ahead to consider the 18-200 lens. this cover a lagre range of photo needs without changing lens. with SLRs every time you change the lens there's a possibility of getting dust on you ccd. so the fewer time you change the better. if you can spring for the vr lens[stablized] thats a positive in low light, but not a cure all. my nieces wedding photo person used a canon stablized lens in the church. it did a great job in the static items, but the people would be blured from movement. these long zooms are usually adique for our non-professional needs

Scream And Fly
05-03-2007, 02:19 PM
Greg,

I've been looking for one of the 80-200 and it seems like there were about 5 versions of it. Which one is the best? I see the ED ones seem to be more available.

Joe, I believe all versions of the 80-200 use ED glass, but there was an AF-S version of the 80-200 which would likely be the fastest. The AF-S version was discontinued in favor of the 70-200 VR AF-S. The current 80-200 is extremely fast and built like a tank. It has about the same image quality of the 70-200. It's the best deal there is in Nikon pro lenses. Get them while you can - I don't think the 80-200 will be around much longer.

Greg

pyro
05-26-2007, 04:07 PM
How's this look?

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/5720/dsc0031bej8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

1BadAction
05-26-2007, 04:13 PM
nice man, not bad for a rookie :D you have a fullsize of that?

Scream And Fly
05-26-2007, 04:48 PM
That's a great photo Chad.

pyro
05-26-2007, 04:51 PM
Oh yeah, and about 100 variations of it I shot over the course of a half-hour last night. Sunrises, sunsets, outdoor scenes and storms are my true photographic passions.

Most of the stuff that people display and sell at the Ann Arbor Art Fair is weak, in my opinion. Photo prints like this regularly fetch some good coin at the shows.

pyro
05-26-2007, 04:56 PM
Here's another, a few minutes later...

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/2816/dsc0052bnp0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Scream And Fly
05-26-2007, 05:17 PM
I was actually using my D200 today, which is odd since I never use my SLR cameras unless I'm at an event.

MN4V
07-08-2007, 01:00 PM
I've been thinking about getting a good digital camera to replace my Canon A1 from the late 70's. I had a 80 - 200 zoom and I found that at some boat races the 200mm zoom was not large enough. The boats were just to far away to get good shots. I like being able to zoom during the race, so -- what do you think of this Nikon lens. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207360-USA/Nikon_1996_80_400mm_f_4_5_5_6D_ED_AF.html
Mark

pyro
07-08-2007, 01:22 PM
Remember though, a Nikon semi-pro SLR has a 1.5x zoom factor because of the image sensor being smaller than 35mm film. A 200mm lens is like a 300 on your old camera.

The lens in question is decent, but it's out of stock forever, like all of Nikon's good lenses.

MN4V
07-08-2007, 02:10 PM
Remember though, a Nikon semi-pro SLR has a 1.5x zoom factor because of the image sensor being smaller than 35mm film. A 200mm lens is like a 300 on your old camera.

The lens in question is decent, but it's out of stock forever, like all of Nikon's good lenses.

Does it get real grainy from zooming from the camera? Or is it zooming in the camera? A 300 would be just about right for most boat races.
Mark

Scream And Fly
07-08-2007, 02:37 PM
The Nikon 80-400 is too slow for sports/action photography - both in raw focus speed and aperture. It will be decent with a D2H/D2Hs or D2x/D2xs since those cameras have much more powerful focus motors (the 80-400 is not an AF-S lens).

Chad, the 1.5x crop factor is the field of view - not an actual magnification. Currently, all Nikon digital SLR cameras use the DX-size sensor (1.5x). :)

Mark, I'm not sure what you mean about it getting grainy, but I think you're referring to the results you get on a point-and-shoot camera with digital zoom. In this case, the answer is no.

Also, if you need more than 200mm for shooting boats, you should consider getting closer to the action rather than a longer lens. If you're going to be shooting at more than 200mm, a monopod is something you'll want for more consistent results. The new 70-300 AF-S VR is a good consumer lens that's much faster at focusing than the 80-400.

Greg

MN4V
07-08-2007, 02:57 PM
Thanks Greg
Some times it's not possible to get any closer. Most times I pick a spot for a heat race and move as the race progresses. Depending on what is happening. What do you think of the fixed focal length 300 or 400mm lenses?
I'm not sure I need auto focus but it looks like alot come with it now. Are there any lenses with just manual focus that would work on the D80?
Mark

Scream And Fly
07-08-2007, 04:20 PM
What do you think of the fixed focal length 300 or 400mm lenses?
I'm not sure I need auto focus but it looks like alot come with it now. Are there any lenses with just manual focus that would work on the D80?
Mark

I would not use a prime lens for shooting boat races. Just too many variables where a prime just won't work. It all depends on the venue and your vantage point though. Myself, I don't use them, especially when Nikon's pro zoom lenses deliver the same image quality and speed as the primes.

Just about all telephoto lenses are autofocus. In the case of Nikon and Canon, they all are. You can manually focus any lens on any Nikon camera body - just switch autofocus off, or in the case of pro AF-S lenses, you won't even have to do that.