Bob Whitmire wrote:
> The topic of new E-Thingies has quieted down recently, probably for the best
> considering the various levels of frustration expressed here. That said, it
> has remained on my back burner, and while I have been of a mind of wait and
> see what's forthcoming from Olympus, I also have opened myself to other
> systems and what they may have to offer. And, having opened myself, I find
> more and more the vacant spots of my musings are being filled by the Nikon
> D200. Most of what I've read about this relatively new offering suggests it
> is worth every penny charged, and in fact is practically indistinguishable,
> imagewise, from its legendary big brother, the D2X. Except, of course, the
> D2X can substitute for a sledge hammer if needs be, while the D200 isn't
> built quite that tough.
>
In addition to toughness, the D2x is about speed, with 5 fps, and even 8
fps at reduced resolution. Aimed solidly at sports photography.
Like the 5D, the D200 is about high image quality without paying for the
ruggedness, sealing and high frame rates of the pro bodies. "Pro" is
interesting in this context, as many pro uses will be just as well done
with the less expensive bodies.
You posted about this before, and I neglected to respond. Your need to
make enlargement prints for sale at 16x20 and larger does raise extra
questions. Dpreview shows that the 5D does have a real resolution edge
over the D200, as well as an edge over it in higher iso noise. Noise on
either camera isn't an issue at smaller print sizes, but may turn out to
be at bigger print sizes.
So, for shots of natural subjects like yours, where light isn't always
ideal, and with considerable enlargement, the 200D might just be less
effective than the 5D. The edges are real, but small. Whether they would
be noticeable in your prints is impossible to say from secondary research.
In your shoes, what I would do is to make some test prints. There are
lots of full size samples shot with both cameras available on the web,
starting with dpreview, steve's digicams and other review sites. It
should be relatively easy to download a few full size files and print
smaller sections of them at the same enlargement as printing them at
16x20. Steve should even have some almost identical subjects shot with
both at various isos. That way, you don't spend a fortune on paper and
ink, but can see if there is any real difference at the size you plan to
print. This seems to me to be the only way to get past all the words and
variables and uncertainties to see how it would work with your printing
equipment and needs.
This being a livelihood issue, I would think actual results should
outweigh any brand loyalty or prejudice.
> Also finding its way into consciousness is what appears to be an excellent
> wide zoom from Tokina, the 12-24mm f/4, which the likes of Ken Rockwell says
> pretty much stands up well to anything Nikkor has out there, and for half
> the money.
>
PopPhoto has tested all the wide zooms for APS size sensors
<http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2766/bargain-ultrawide-camera-lenses.html>.
http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/PP0405_TokinaLensTest.pdf
http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/0404_Sigma12-24mm.pdf
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2235/canon-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-ef-s.html
I would swear they also tested the Nikkor 12-24, but it doesn't seem to
be on the web site. I know Tom Scales went Nikon in part just for the
Nikkor and expressed his satisfaction with very large prints from it.
You can also see the Nikkor vs. the Tokina done with the same equipment
at photozone <http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html>.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|