Nikon D1x vs D200

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <O%j_g.4870$3D1.3612@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> LouisB <louisREMOVEberkREMOVE2002.DeleteThis@hotmail.REMOVEcom> wrote:
>> I can put together a s/h kit from this shop that includes the D1x, a 18-35
>> AF and 70-210 AF which would give me a good basic kit. Cost of the whole kit
>> would be about GBP 200 ($400) than say a Nikon D200 with kit lens. Would I
>> be nuts to buy the D1x or should I accept that the D200 is more up to date
>> and probably the better way to go?
>
> I have a D1 and I plan to buy a D1x in the near future. At the moment I
> think that a D1x is worth around 750 euro, so that's about half of a D200.
>
> The thing is, the image quality will be less than that of the D200. You
> get 5 Mpixels (in a rather odd arrangement) on the D1x and 10 Mpixels on the
> D200. Low light performance is likely to be worse than on the D200 as well.
>
> For about the same amount as a D1x you should be able to get a D80, which
> has the same image quality as the D200 but in an even less professional
> body.
>
> If you really want a professional body, then a D1x is probably the way to go.
>
> Otherwise, the D200 makes sense, but it is also a good idea to think about
> the D80 and using the difference to buy higher quality glass.
>
> It looks like the 70-210 AF doesn't have a good reputation.
>
>
One of the reasons to buy a pro level camera is for heavy use, and
buying a second hand pro level camera may mean that you are buying
something that already has had pro level use. Even if it looks like
new, that doesn't mean that 100,000 shutter actuations have taken place,
even if in comparison some obvious ex photojournalist gear looks thrashed.
All models of 70-210 AF Nikkors are not bad - for what they are. They
are a consumer grade lens with not bad optical performance fully wide on
DX sensor cameras - especially compared with later consumer nikkors of
similar focal length range. They are quite solidly made compared to
modern consumer lenses. The 70-210 AF-"D" sells for quite high prices
(>US300) because it focuses fast and Ken Rockwell mades big noises about
it, but the early f4, and later f4-5.6 AF - non D are easy to find and
usually only around $100 or so.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

In article <1161424113.380818@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>One of the reasons to buy a pro level camera is for heavy use, and
>buying a second hand pro level camera may mean that you are buying
>something that already has had pro level use. Even if it looks like
>new, that doesn't mean that 100,000 shutter actuations have taken place,
>even if in comparison some obvious ex photojournalist gear looks thrashed.

I don't know. In general I have had no problems with 2nd hand professional
Nikon cameras. They continue to work just fine.

>All models of 70-210 AF Nikkors are not bad - for what they are. They
>are a consumer grade lens with not bad optical performance fully wide on
>DX sensor cameras - especially compared with later consumer nikkors of
>similar focal length range.

Are you saying that a 70-210 is as good or better than the 18-200?

Personally, I use just 'professional' lenses. Usually the quality difference
is well worth the price.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <1161424113.380818@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> wrote:
>> Philip Homburg wrote:
>> One of the reasons to buy a pro level camera is for heavy use, and
>> buying a second hand pro level camera may mean that you are buying
>> something that already has had pro level use. Even if it looks like
>> new, that doesn't mean that 100,000 shutter actuations have taken place,
>> even if in comparison some obvious ex photojournalist gear looks thrashed.
>
> I don't know. In general I have had no problems with 2nd hand professional
> Nikon cameras. They continue to work just fine.
>
But I'd still recommend checking shutter actuation and / or getting them
independently checked. They will be very expensive to fix, and they
won't last forever.
>
>> All models of 70-210 AF Nikkors are not bad - for what they are. They
>> are a consumer grade lens with not bad optical performance fully wide on
>> DX sensor cameras - especially compared with later consumer nikkors of
>> similar focal length range.
>
> Are you saying that a 70-210 is as good or better than the 18-200?

I was thinking more of 70-xxx lenses. You can buy perhaps 5 or more
70-210s for the price of one 18-200. On a budget, I wouldn't even
consider the 18-200.
>
> Personally, I use just 'professional' lenses. Usually the quality difference
> is well worth the price.
>
Nice if you can afford it.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> writes:
> But I'd still recommend checking shutter actuation and / or getting
> them independently checked. They will be very expensive to fix, and
> they won't last forever.

This is something I don't understand. It's basically the same shutter
found in a film camera, so why should repairing it cost more than the
same repair on the corresponding film camera?
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> writes:
>> But I'd still recommend checking shutter actuation and / or getting
>> them independently checked. They will be very expensive to fix, and
>> they won't last forever.
>
>This is something I don't understand. It's basically the same shutter
>found in a film camera, so why should repairing it cost more than the
>same repair on the corresponding film camera?

A lot of it has to do with how complex the camera is to
disassemble and how long it takes to run through all of the
verification checks and adjustments as it is re-assembled.

Older cameras (e.g., all film cameras) are less complex.

I think I've seen two quotes on what Nikon charges just to
inspect cameras. I know that a D2x is $375, and I believe
someone said either the D50 or the D70 was in the $250 range.

Regardless, purchasing used pro-models has the advantage of
getting a lower price on a more versatile camera. But I would
*not* advise picking one up, if it is your primary camera,
without knowing *positively* that it had not been subjected to
typical professional level "use and abuse".

For example, I've bought such cameras twice, one from an
acquaintance who is an "advanced amateur", who had put less wear
and on it in 4 years than I did in the first 6 months I owned
it. The other was from a well known photo journalist working
for the Washington Post, who won the camera as a prize but never
used it (the exposure counter was at 0006). (I wouldn't touch a
Canon from that person, because it would be highly suspect in
terms of rough usage and thousands upon thousand of exposures!)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <1161424113.380818@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:
> >Philip Homburg wrote:
> >One of the reasons to buy a pro level camera is for heavy use, and
> >buying a second hand pro level camera may mean that you are buying
> >something that already has had pro level use. Even if it looks like
> >new, that doesn't mean that 100,000 shutter actuations have taken place,
> >even if in comparison some obvious ex photojournalist gear looks thrashed.
>
> I don't know. In general I have had no problems with 2nd hand professional
> Nikon cameras. They continue to work just fine.
>
> >All models of 70-210 AF Nikkors are not bad - for what they are. They
> >are a consumer grade lens with not bad optical performance fully wide on
> >DX sensor cameras - especially compared with later consumer nikkors of
> >similar focal length range.
>
> Are you saying that a 70-210 is as good or better than the 18-200?
>
> Personally, I use just 'professional' lenses. Usually the quality difference
> is well worth the price.
>
>

I wouldn't call the 18-200 a pro lens either. The best copy of the
70-210s is the f4. Solid metal build not bad sharpness wise. On par
with if not a little better than the 18-200. The pro lenses for Nikon
in this range are the 80-200 f2.8 or the 70-200 f2.8 VR, both wonderful
lenses, big and heavy. I got my copy of the 70-210 f4 on Ebay for $185.

Camera wise, if money is a problem go for the D1X, but remeber, lousy
batteries, and a sensor noted as a dust magnet. Nice images and an
interpolated 10mp with Nikon Capture NX. The D200 makes more sense even
if it is just that you have a year warranty. It is not much lighter
than the D1X either. It is a good solid camera capable of making
excellent images.
Enjoy what ever you buy.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

"LouisB" <louisREMOVEberkREMOVE2002.TakeThisOut@hotmail.REMOVEcom> writes:
> I can put together a s/h kit from this shop that includes the D1x, a 18-35
> AF and 70-210 AF which would give me a good basic kit. Cost of the whole kit
> would be about GBP 200 ($400) than say a Nikon D200 with kit lens. Would I
> be nuts to buy the D1x or should I accept that the D200 is more up to date
> and probably the better way to go?

Maybe you want to look for a used D2 or D2H. It would be another pro
camera, but in the same price range as a new D200.

Philip Homburg knows what he's getting into well enough that I won't
advise him against the D1x but for someone not familiar with these
cameras, you might want to consider something more modern, in terms of
the batteries and the flash system, among other things. The D1x's
D-TTL system was a temporary stopgap kludge between the old film stuff
and the current and wonderful i-TTL system.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

In article <1161427945.189814@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> I don't know. In general I have had no problems with 2nd hand professional
>> Nikon cameras. They continue to work just fine.
> >
>But I'd still recommend checking shutter actuation and / or getting them
>independently checked. They will be very expensive to fix, and they
>won't last forever.

Fortunately it easy to check a shutter with a digital camera. I have to
admit that I have no idea how to tell if a shutter is likely to fail in
the near future.

>> Personally, I use just 'professional' lenses. Usually the quality difference
>> is well worth the price.
>>
>Nice if you can afford it.

It is mainly that I have been collecting them for quite some time (so the
cost is spread out over many years) and I don't have the latest greatest.
In fact all my lenses, except one are manual focus. And of that one lens
(the 17-35) something in autofocus system is broken, so I got a nice
additional discount


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

In article <1161449708.127608.39090 DeleteThis @m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
tomm42 <tmonego DeleteThis @wildblue.net> wrote:
>I wouldn't call the 18-200 a pro lens either.

I would not call it professional either.

>The best copy of the
>70-210s is the f4. Solid metal build not bad sharpness wise. On par
>with if not a little better than the 18-200.

It is just that two reviewers (David Ruether and Bjorn Rorslett) complain
about low constrast and softness.

The 18-200 is supposed to be better at the wide end than at the long end.
So maybe the 18-200 is not any better.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

"LouisB" <louisREMOVEberkREMOVE2002 DeleteThis @hotmail.REMOVEcom> wrote in message
news:O%j_g.4870$3D1.3612@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I've been agonising over a better digital SLR for some time and generally
> been disappointed at the look and feel of a number of Canon, Nikon and
> Lumix cameras I've tried.
>
> Yesterday, I was passing a well known s/h camera shop and noticed that
> their window was filled with Nikon D1x DSLRs. I've never tried one but the
> owner took me through one pointing out all the features. What really
> impressed me was the rock solid feel of the camera. It is the first one
> I've picked up which feels well built.
>
> I can put together a s/h kit from this shop that includes the D1x, a 18-35
> AF and 70-210 AF which would give me a good basic kit. Cost of the whole
> kit would be about GBP 200 ($400) than say a Nikon D200 with kit lens.
> Would I be nuts to buy the D1x or should I accept that the D200 is more up
> to date and probably the better way to go?
>
> LouisB
> ------
> "I'm a half-wit. I sold the other half on e-Bay"
>

I realize that you are in the U.K. so laws may vary. Here in the U.S., find
out when the camera was discontinued and add seven years to that and that
will be when the legal obligation to provide support (including parts) ends.
Considering that the D1X was discontinued at least a couple of years ago,
does the asking price make sense over the assured lifespan of the camera?
Also, Nikon in the U.S. (and other places) can be quite a pain about
supporting and repairing cameras that THEIR local distributor did not
import...do you have proof of official channel entry into your country, or
might that be a problem as well? Just a couple things to consider...I know
which way I would (and did) go and wouldn't trade my D200 for five D1X
cameras but have heard others who prefer the old D1X.

George
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

In article <7xfydhy43q.fsf DeleteThis @ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>"LouisB" <louisREMOVEberkREMOVE2002 DeleteThis @hotmail.REMOVEcom> writes:
>> I can put together a s/h kit from this shop that includes the D1x, a 18-35
>> AF and 70-210 AF which would give me a good basic kit. Cost of the whole kit
>> would be about GBP 200 ($400) than say a Nikon D200 with kit lens. Would I
>> be nuts to buy the D1x or should I accept that the D200 is more up to date
>> and probably the better way to go?
>
>Maybe you want to look for a used D2 or D2H. It would be another pro
>camera, but in the same price range as a new D200.

I've no idea what a D2 is supposed to be, but I don't think it is a good
idea to buy a 2nd hand D2H for the same amount of money as a new D200
unless you really need one.

>The D1x's
>D-TTL system was a temporary stopgap kludge between the old film stuff
>and the current and wonderful i-TTL system.

I played some time with a 28DX on a D1 and it does seem to work. I don't
know why that system got such a bad reputation. i-TTL may work better, but
then you proably want an SB-800, which is going to be a lot more expensive
than a 28DX.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

"Philip Homburg" <philip.RemoveThis@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message news:9bpvgc764qrqkjsnksv6fj9l32@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <1161449708.127608.39090.RemoveThis@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> tomm42 <tmonego.RemoveThis@wildblue.net> wrote:

>>The best copy of the
>>70-210s is the f4. Solid metal build not bad sharpness wise. On par
>>with if not a little better than the 18-200.

> It is just that two reviewers (David Ruether and Bjorn Rorslett) complain
> about low constrast and softness.

Ummmm, here is what I say about it at -
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html

"good sharpness wide open to the corners though contrast is
lower than Nikkor average; works well on TC14A; AF optics
are the same, AF focus ring at front is narrow (in common with
other early-style AF Nikkor lenses - there is a need in the
Nikkor line for a good current affordable AF 70/80-200/210mm
constant-aperture f3.5-4 zoom now that this one has been
discontinued); constant aperture with zooming"

The fact that the 70-210 f4 performs well on the TC14A
indicates that this lens is definately not soft! Images are
excellent in B&W wide open, a tad less than Nikon-normal
contrasty in color, but I would (and did) rate this lens as
good... (and I have a mint MF version FS.... Sometimes
B. R. and I disagree, but when this happens, it is most often
due to using different methods for checking lenses (also,
lenses vary by sample, and rereading B. R.'s rating on this
lens, it looks to me that his was defective (I have used
several, all good...).
--
David Ruether
DRuether.RemoveThis@twcny.rr.com
rpn1.RemoveThis@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200 

In article <d4Q_g.10150$0L1.5896@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
David Ruether <druether.DeleteThis@no-junk.twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>"Philip Homburg" <philip.DeleteThis@ue.aioy.eu> wrote in message news:9bpvgc764qrqkjsnksv6fj9l32@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>> In article <1161449708.127608.39090.DeleteThis@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> tomm42 <tmonego.DeleteThis@wildblue.net> wrote:
>
>>>The best copy of the
>>>70-210s is the f4. Solid metal build not bad sharpness wise. On par
>>>with if not a little better than the 18-200.
>
>> It is just that two reviewers (David Ruether and Bjorn Rorslett) complain
>> about low constrast and softness.
>
>Ummmm, here is what I say about it at -
>http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
>
>"good sharpness wide open to the corners though contrast is
>lower than Nikkor average;

I should have copied your and Bjorn's text. I summerized (maybe not correctly)
your remarkt as 'low contrast', but that may have been a bit too much and
the softness was taken from Bjorn's review.

But you rated the 70-210/4 lower then the 80-200/4.5 which I rate as sort
of okay. But maybe that is asking too much.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon D1x vs D200