Monte,

You are moving in the right direction as far as I'm concerned. Getting my Nikon D70 almost 2 years ago was the best thing photographic ever, closely followed by an IR filter. I get very impressive 13x19" photos with my 6MP Nikon D70. You can't go wrong with the D200 if you want to print 16x20" images. In terms of lenses, I would vouch for the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED lens; the extra tele range from 55 to 70mm means a lot less swapping lenses. So far, I have used this lens for all my shots, (except for close-ups) and haven't felt the need to get my 70-210mm out. An 18-200mm lens is for me too much of a compromise between convenience and image quality.

I know this must be both exciting and scary for you to consider such a big change in your photography. As one that made the switch already, I can tell you I've enjoyed every minute of it.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Thanks Frans. My hope is to still keep my Rollei but I cannot say I will. Getting the idea in my head that cameas are no longer a long term investment is hard. Wanting a M6 or 7 is a real deire for me. Problem is I cannot have it all. You would think by now I would have learned that. One think I have learned is that the glass is more important then the camera.I know the 17-55 lens is expensive but from what I have read it is good.

I will not be doing this change right away because it will take some time to put the money together, but I know I will. I thought about the D70 but feel I might be happier to get the 200 to start with. At this point I am just weighing out my options but thanks for your support. Monte.

Monte, I recommend you keep the Rollei. I think you'll find that you'll use MF and digital for different subjects.....

Monte,

I thought you were eyeing the 18-55mm DX lens that is part of the D50 kit; that's why I suggested the 18-70mm. The 17-55mm lens is quite a different animal alltogether. I too would choose the D200 over the D70 if I were to buy today.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans, I will not have one unless I have The D200. I also know I want the best lens I can afford. Bill I am not ready to give up the Rollei yet. I agree with you it serves a another place. I think digital would fill my need to shoot aspects of things I won't waste film on and still give me print quality. Now the truth is I have not sold myself on this yet because I am a die hard film person. I believe because they both serve a different purpose then I benifit from that. All I know is this is a real struggle for me because at the same time I want an M6 which is about the same cost with a 50.2 lens. I love the look of Leica glass. I also have no problem with rangefinder limits. So you see do you buy into the future or do you fill a dream of the past. Ever been there? Monte

I'll bet that one day this way of thinking will change for you. My last three film bodies are currently on eBay.

>I think digital would fill my need to shoot aspects of things I won't waste film on and still give me print quality.

You may be right.Not many years ago I had no use for a computer now it I find it hard to be without one. Even when I use film I use the computer to scan, view my images and many times improve their quality. Funny yes. Anyway Larry I am coming around slowly but I am coming around. Monte

I have a D200 and a D50, also I was a film diehard, when I got the D50 I had the same fear of the image quality, the thing of having to change the camera every couple of years. But now that II have allowed me the Digital experience I see things different. My cameras are great and THEY ARE NOT DISPOSABLE CAMERAS if they work fine 20 years from now you bet they well be with me. If you want to buy a camera every time they upgrade a pixel, fine but I don

Frans ae you saying the kit lens is good? I really have a hard time in one respect. I know the 5D does better at higher ISO settings and I cannot shake the full frame sensor, but what I read tells me the D200 has some great advanges over the 5D. Faster frame rate which is not a concern to me, beter Depth of field with the APS sensor vs full frame. So I have read anyway. Build quality is real good with the D200. I have talked to photographers who say they must admit image quality is better with the 5D but not that much as long as you are shooting below 400 ISO. One good thing is I spent some time with a photographer in town today and he shoots with a 20D. mostly with the 24-85 and 18-55. I was impresssed with his 16x20 prints. All which where portraits though. No display of Depth is needed there. What it did show me was hope. For those of you who use the D200 how is the 17-35 lens. One of my problems is I am used to fixed focal primes. Zooms have never been my thing. Normal to 35mm is what I like. Even 24 is alright. Any thoughts here? Monte.

Monte,

I'm not sure which kit lens you are talking about but assume you mean the 18-70mm that is sold as a kit with the D70 (the D200 is not sold as a kit as far as I know). And yes, I am very happy with that lens, although fully open it only gets to 1:3.5-4.5. It also has some barrel distortion; very minor and easily corrected, but it's there. Let me know if this is not the lens you are refering to.

On depth of field, the shorter the focal length the greater the depth of field, so the D200 would give you more depth of field when using the same viewing angle as compared to the 5D; however, this goes both ways; sometimes you want more and sometimes you want less.
Another point to remember is that the D200 is better sealed against moisture and dust.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

From my understanding Frans the D200 is sold with a 18-70 2000 with lens. I am pretty sure now I am going for the 200. I feel for me just a better value. I am trading my Rollei in for it. Never thought I would do that but I am. Just haven't for sure figured out what lens I want yet. I am leaning towards the 12-24. I think I can live a while with that. If you could use a any prime fixed focal lens is there one you would chose? Monte.

Monte,

I have the 50mm 1.8 and would love to have the 50mm 1.4 for low light/minimum depth of field shots. Good luck with figuring all this stuff out!

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans, I believe i am going to end up with he D200. I am guessing in the next three weeks I hope. I think I will get the 18-70 lens with it. I would like to have the 17-35 but will wait. You and others have told me the 18-70 is a good value so I think I will stick with that one for now. I have to cash in my film cameras to do this so you can see how scary this is, but I really have no other way because in time I need to spend money on a new computer. Well nothing like jummping in head first. My film friends are not too happy about this.anyway I want to thank you and others here for just supporting me in the change. I am sure in the near future I will have a lot of questions. Monte.

Friend, don

There are several things I have to look at here. First what do I feel is the best camera I can afford. Two I think it comes down to Nikon or Canon because that is where the money is put. I feel from what I have read and the ones I have talked to both cameras are great. I have never been either a Nikon or Canon ower. When using film my 35mm was a Contax and my medium format was a Rolleiflex GX and a Fuji 645. It has taken me some time but I have figured out that film and digital cannot be looked at in the same terms. I decided it is time to put all the debate to rest. If I pick at all the aspects of both cameras then I guess I will never buy one so I lose. It is time to meet the changes with an open mind and know that it will be forever changing. Monte

Banny,

I'm sorry to say so, but your "math" doesn't make any sense. A 12.8MP camera has 12.8 megapixels, no more, no less.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Monte,

Only you can evaluate which camera works best for you in terms of capabilities and cost. I agree that both Canon and Nikon are the top choices. Good luck in figuring this one out. At least I had a significant investment in Nikon glass when it came time to choose a dSLR.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans I think sometimes having lens ahead of time makes the choice easier. Monte

Monte,

FYI. Nikon is going to announce a new 10.2MP dSLR in about 2 weeks. It's supposed to be aimed at the enthusiast. It may be a lower cost D200, but who knows.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Frans sounds interesting. I like a lot of things about the D200. If it works I will have one in a weeks or so. If not then I might wait to see what this new one is like. I just know some things will be sacrficed for the lower price. Monte

Monte,

Nobody knows if this new dSLR will be lower in price than the D200 or if it even resembles the D200. The one sure thing is the 10MP.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Quote:
. I just know some things will be sacrficed for the lower price. Monte

Monte,

That assumption may have been 'common sense' and the conventional wisdom of the old analog world, but with digital technology it does not apply. I have been testing and evaluating digital photo gear like scanners for over 15 years now and the capabilities and performance has gone up on a very steep incline while the cost has gone down at an equally steep incline. The very first production 35mm scanner I worked with cost as much as a new car at the time, and now you can get the same capabilities and much improved for just a few hundred dollars.

The question really is how long do you want to wait to jump in knowing that in six months you can get better for even less money. In other words if you wait just a bit longer you will probably get something better than the 200D for even less money.

David your point is well taken. My problem is not the decision on a camera it is waiting for a friend of mine to decide if he wants to buy my fuji. I am trading my Rollei thats how certain I am about making a change. I am just about ready to borrow the rest of the money to get going. I am excited about making a change. Frans thanks for the info on the Nikon you are right I am sure it will be a good camera I just owant to have one before it comes out. I do not feel I can go wrong with the D200. I have considered the Canon 30D but for 250 more can have the Nikon. I doubt there is very much difference between image quality but I feel the Nikon D200 will work for me. I will have a camera soon. Monte.

One thing I will add is I have no perference between Nikon or Canon. I feel in todays market either will make me happy. I feel from what I have seen image quality with either company is good. The hard part for me right now is just waiting to try to avoid borrowing money. I am giving this until next week and if my friend does not buy my camera then I will seek other means. Careful planning is usually best for me. My wife she is all for it so I do not even have that in my way. I would be lying if I said there was not a strong pull towards the 5D but knowing I will be replacing my computer in the next yearI have to consider that. Like I said in the last post the D200 is a strong contender for me not because I have had any experience with Nikon systems but do trust what so many have shared with me. Monte.

May be my math don

The best camera is the one you're happiest with. Math doesn't always translate into better photographs.

Go, Monte!

Banny,

The more photosites on a sensor, the more resolution, the sharper the image details. As you put more photosites on the same size sensor, the photosite size has naturally to be smaller, which will increase the signal-to-noise ratio (noise or "grain") to some degree.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Banny's absolutely right. The physical size of the photosite is a significant contributor to the resolution of the image. But at this point in the technology, I don't believe that there's a lot of difference between the size of each pixel in the sensors; larger pixel numbers are related to the larger physical size of the sensors.

I'm certain that as technology advances that we'll have more pixels packed more densely onto sensors and that'll be the next big marketing push. When someone comes up with a new process, they'll start crowing about it and the race will be back on. Incidentally, this technology already exists in professional Astrophotography applications, but economies of scale haven't made it affordable yet.

Banny's logic seems to be "the smaller the photosite size the sharper the image", but photosite size by itself is meaningless. Image sharpness is determined by the sensor, the lens and things like aperture, shutter speed, etc. Looking at the sensor only, sharpness is determined mostly by the number of photosites, regardless of sensor size. Making the photosites smaller for a given number of photosites will result in each photosite picking up finer detail from the subject, but also means that in the empty spaces between photosites subject information is lost and because of the smaller photosite size, sensitivity decreases and noise increases.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Quote:
in the empty spaces between photosites subject information is lost and because of the smaller photosite size, sensitivity decreases and noise increases.

If manufacturers go to the trouble of making smaller photosites, it stands to reason that they would deploy them differently on the sensor so that a single square millimeter of sensor area would have more of them rather than the same number as the larger photosites. Since nobody's crowing about their brand having a higher density of photosites, it stands to reason that everyone's using roughly the same technology.

Smaller photosites aren't going to result in decreased sensitivity and increased noise. The result would be the opposite!

ChipDoc,

Every sensor chip manufacturer stuffs as many photosites on their sensor as possible and minimizes the inactive areas to get the best possible performance. And I have to disagree with you on the issue of sensitivity and noise: semiconductor physics tell us that the smaller the photosite area, the smaller the lightgathering capacity and the resulting signal and as a result, the worse the signal to noise ratio or noise. I like to hear why you think differently.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer/printer

Quote:
semiconductor physics tell us that the smaller the photosite area, the smaller the lightgathering capacity and the resulting signal and as a result, the worse the signal to noise ratio or noise. I like to hear why you think differently.

What you say is absolutely true if you think in terms of a single photosite. Yet an image is not made up of the output of a single site, but of an interpolation of many sites. If the site density per square mm is higher, then even though the signal per site is lower the overall signal per square mm of sensor area will increase.

Of course it's not wise to assume that the output of putative smaller sites will be smaller. Like everything else in the field, their materials and manufacturing technology is moving ahead too. In any case, I think it's safe to assume that the sensitivity of future sensors will rise and their noise levels will fall, whatever form the specific technology takes.