FS: Nikon D200, lenses
Andrew Cleland
in Cambridge is interested in any/all of the following:
Nikon D200 body. Three years old, good condition, works perfectly, comes
with fast SanDisk 1GB and 4GB CF cards, battery, charger, strap. Boxed
with paperwork & PDF of Thom Hogan's book on the D200. �400
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor. Good condition, 18 months old. Comes
with hood, Nikon soft case (more like bag) and Hoya 72mm polariser
(never been off the lens). Paperwork but no box, as I bought this while
travelling. �600
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC. Good condition, 2 years old. Comes with
hood, Sigma soft case and Hoya polariser. Should be able to find
paperwork and box (unless I've thrown them out in occasional tidy-up)...
�250
All the prices are at the low-end of recent completed listings on ebay,
to reflect the saving in hassle of not shipping and not paying ebay
commission. I also have a nasty Tamron wide-tele zoom that I'll throw-in
with the body. Would also knock-off 10% for the bundle, i.e. �1,125.00.
The Natural Philosopher
> Before I head-off in the direction of ebay, I thought I'd see if anyone
> in Cambridge is interested in any/all of the following:
>
> Nikon D200 body. Three years old, good condition, works perfectly, comes
> with fast SanDisk 1GB and 4GB CF cards, battery, charger, strap. Boxed
> with paperwork & PDF of Thom Hogan's book on the D200. £400
>
Damn..a bit late for me..
> Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor. Good condition, 18 months old. Comes
> with hood, Nikon soft case (more like bag) and Hoya 72mm polariser
> (never been off the lens). Paperwork but no box, as I bought this while
> travelling. £600
>
Pricey . Superb glass tho. I'd be dead interested at a fair bit
less.could use a slightly longer lens too..simply dont have that budget
> Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC. Good condition, 2 years old. Comes with
> hood, Sigma soft case and Hoya polariser. Should be able to find
> paperwork and box (unless I've thrown them out in occasional tidy-up)...
> £250
Pass!
S H-R
Hello Andrew
I am very interested in your camera gear. Especially in the D200. I am
still using my old D100 and i could do with an upgrade.
Is it still available?
kind regards
Simon
jeanlucb
> > with the body. Would also knock-off 10% for the bundle, i.e. £1,125.00.
Hi Andrew
What kind of nasty telephoto is that !?
300mm ?
Let me know and what kind of price you hoped for it.
Cheers
Jean-Luc
Andrew Cleland
Hello,
I've decided on 2nd thoughts to keep the D200 and lenses. I'd bought a
Lumix GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7 as a more compact alternative to a
full-size DSLR but after a week of playing with it, whilst it's a very
nice camera, I don't feel it's quite good enough to replace a DSLR (even
a 3 year old D200).
Cheers,
Andrew.
Andrew Cleland
Hi Jean-Luc,
Nowhere near that useful I'm afraid, it's something like 28-80mm f/4-5.6
or similar. It's a really nasty plasticky lens which I just got to
keep me going when I bought the D200 until I could afford the 17-55mm.
It's still yours if you want it though.
AC.
Brian L Johnson
> I've decided on 2nd thoughts to keep the D200 and lenses. I'd bought a
> Lumix GF1 with the 20mm f/1.7 as a more compact alternative to a
> full-size DSLR but after a week of playing with it, whilst it's a very
> nice camera, I don't feel it's quite good enough to replace a DSLR (even
> a 3 year old D200).
I'm thinking of buying a GF1. Was there any specific reason why you
thought it wasn't quite right?
--
brianlj
The Natural Philosopher
a camera.
I can let it do the techy part, *or* take complete control.
My only beef is there is no cable shutter release. So my rifle mount
doesn't work.
Andrew Cleland
Basically I think it's a really nice camera (and was I rich, I'd have
kept it alongside the D200).
The issues I had are:
Size - it's neither one or the other. Too small for all the important
controls (aperture, shutter, AF, metering, etc.) to be individual
decent-sized buttons but on the other hand too big to just pocket as you
would a compact camera.
Lack of viewfinder - I think this is probably just me, as I've always
used a viewfinder on a camera, I find it hard to compose the photo
without one. It was also quite tricky to see the screen in bright sun on
New Year's Day. There is an optional viewfinder available, but it
doesn't get good write-ups (too low res).
AF - it's certainly quick for a compact, but it's noticably slower than
my D200. I didn't think this would be a problem but some attempts at
taking photos of our swiftly-crawling 1 year old weren't hugely
succesful. This is partly down to the 20mm lens which I was using, which
doesn't support continuous AF (unlike most of the other micro 4/3
lenses) - however I don't need to use continuous AF on the D200 to get
accurate focusing on the boy, basically because (particularly with the
17-55mm f/2.8) it can focus in AF-S mode quickly enough.
This sounds more damning that it ought to! The main thing for me is that
since I first picked up the D200 to this day, it immediately 'feels
right' in my hands, whereas the GF1 didn't. If you haven't already done
so, I'd spend some time handling the GF1 before you buy - I didn't do
this but because I bought mail-order I had the benefits of the Distance
Selling Regs to send it back for a full-refund (from Mathers of
Lancashire - top service, good price, recommended).
AC.
P.S. If you do get one with the 20mm lens, I have a 46mm 1A protective
filter that's no longer any use to me, which you can have.
Brian L Johnson
Thanks for that comprehensive 'review'. :)
I think lack of a decent VF will end up being the main issue for me. An
LCD panel is an asset if it's swivelable, but for most other things it's
nowhere near as good as a decent VF. Shame.
Size (or, rather, lack of individual controls) is not so much of a problem
for me: I'm used to hunting through menus for some things. Just a matter
of getting used to another menu system.
Thanks, again. It's pretty much confirmed my major concern.
--
brianlj
Andrew Cleland
No problem. It's worth noting that at least one person on the Flickr
group for the GF1 says the EVF is actually not bad. The problem is
no-one seems to have them available to try.
AC.
RobertL
wrote:> >> I've decided on 2nd thoughts to keep the D200 and lenses.....
>
> My only beef is there is no cable shutter release.
I was so amazed at this statement that I went to check on the Nikon
website. Sure enough, it seems that none of the Nikon digital SLRs
have a socket to screw a cable release into.
What do you do if you have the camera mounted on a tripod and you want
to fire the shutter without disturbing the camera? Has a cable
release been replaced by a radio link?
Robert
Duncan Wood
Andrew Cleland
Exactly - Remote Shutter Release is what they're called and all DSLRs
use them nowadays. The shutter release button is just a switch, so it
makes sense for the remote release to be electronic as well. 3rd party
ones cost no more than a cable release did.
AC.
Andrew Cleland
Yup, my trial with the GF1 made me realise what a good camera the D200
is, even if it is over 4 years old now.
Thomas Womack
RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 12:00=A0pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
Little IR widget, costs about a tenner on ebay: point it at the camera
and press the button.
(I tend just to use the two-second self-timer and press the button
myself; on the other hand I'm basically interested in taking photos of
the stars, which don't move much in two seconds)
Tom
Andrew May
> Little IR widget, costs about a tenner on ebay: point it at the camera
> and press the button.
>
> Tom
I don't know about the D200 but the D70 IR shutter release is a pain
because you have to be in front of the camera. Ideal for self-portraits
but not so good it you want to be behind the camera and out of the way a
bit. RF would be far better in that particular instance.
Andrew
RobertL
So that would solve a problem I have with film cameras. I often use
two cameras to take stereo pairs and it is hard to synchronise them,
particularly if they are on "timer". A single radio pulse that would
fire both would be great.
With a RSR there is presumably a way to tie the radio device to the
camera, ortherwise you could fire other people's cameras on a whim..
Robert
zulu
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hi1u09$86f$1...@news.albasani.net...
The lack of a cable release facility on (most) digital cameras is something
that makes no sense.
...yes, I know you can set the timer, but but.....
Why on earth can't they have a remote control release?
It seems such an obvious thing to do.
--
�zulu� VIP
--
�zulu� VIP
snowy
> The lack of a cable release facility on (most) digital cameras is something
> that makes no sense.
> ...yes, I know you can set the timer, but but.....
> Why on earth can't they have a remote control release?
> It seems such an obvious thing to do.
There *is* a remote release available for nearly every DSLR, it's just
that it's an electronic rather than mechanical switch, so people can't
use their 30-year-old cable release and have to buy a new one. I've
never understood why people bitch so much about this when there's a
simple solution...
The Natural Philosopher
In my case, simply because I have a rifle mount that comes with a cable
release..and a trigger
zulu
"snowy" <simon....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b015b067-d53f-44ce...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Ok....
I have a Fuji Finepix SD6500fd
Where is this *simple solution* (please)
--
�zulu� VIP
The Natural Philosopher
release..that cost a bomb..and it no longer works.
Whatever
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:05fbk5p923tgk1kmk...@4ax.com...
> snowy <simon....@gmail.com> considered Thu, 7 Jan 2010 01:32:07
> be used by accessories such as rifle mounts, time lapse attachments,
> add-on self-timers, or even lens stop-down (cable went via the lens).
> The new ones are all proprietary designs, and none of those
> accessories (which used to be universal) fits.
> It's like having each manufacturer suddenly decide to use a different
> tripod mount method.
>
> BTW, when Fuji released the S602zoom a few years ago, they were
> (rightly) castigated for the lack of a cable release, and fitted one
> to the pro version which came out about a year later.
Indeed, and charged somewhat more than the cost of a modern wireless remote
for the privelege, not to mention that there were no wireless remotes
available for the s602 at the time so the complaint was a bit more justified
IMHO.
Whatever
"zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6Rq1n.23276$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
That is not a *dslr* (thanks).
Whatever
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Shame you chose the wrong camp lol, Canon T3 cable adapter would be your
friend else.
Can't see a Nikon equivalent though sorry :(
Might be worth a hunt around....
The Natural Philosopher
to fit a hand carved mahogany stock..;-)
Whatever
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Pics please should you do so lol.
zulu
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Yep!
Pre digital camera days, I made an adaptor for my Pentax P30 which locked
into the flash shoe.
The cable release srewed into a (2BA, IIRC) nut which was *hovered* over the
button.
It worked a treat.
There is nowhere on My Fuji to do this trick though, as it has a pop up
flash. :-(
--
�zulu� VIP
zulu
"Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> wrote in message
news:nr-dnTWMre6q79vW...@brightview.co.uk...
So what?
It still needs a remote release of some sort...
--
�zulu� VIP
snowy
> "Whatever" <whate...@whatever.whatever> wrote in message
>
> news:nr-dnTWMre6q79vW...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "zulu" <zulu.romeotangoho...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:6Rq1n.23276$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> >> "snowy" <simon.ogil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:b015b067-d53f-44ce...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 6 Jan, 16:27, "zulu" <zulu.romeotangoho...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> The lack of a cable release facility on (most) digital cameras is
> >>> something
> >>> that makes no sense.
> >>> ...yes, I know you can set the timer, but but.....
> >>> Why on earth can't they have a remote control release?
> >>> It seems such an obvious thing to do.
>
> >> There *is* a remote release available for nearly every DSLR, it's just
> >> that it's an electronic rather than mechanical switch, so people can't
> >> use their 30-year-old cable release and have to buy a new one. I've
> >> never understood why people bitch so much about this when there's a
> >> simple solution...
>
> >> Ok....
> >> I have a Fuji Finepix SD6500fd
> >> Where is this *simple solution* (please)
>
> > That is not a *dslr* (thanks).
>
> So what?
> It still needs a remote release of some sort...
>
Well, the simple solution in that case is to buy a different camera!
If a remote release of some sort is an important part of the spec, do
some research before buying the camera...
Whatever
Tick v good ;)
Whatever
Thats what :)
> It still needs a remote release of some sort...
>
Then research and buy the suitable camera at the time, you may feel at times
you need the features of an Aston Martin but Ford only sold you a Mondeo,
hey ho.
Whatever
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
> "Whatever" <what...@whatever.whatever> considered Thu, 7 Jan 2010
> There is nothing in the description "Digital Single Lens Reflex" that
> requires the lens to be removable by the user.
> And if the shot is composed and recorded through the same lens, it
> meets the definition.
> </pedant>
<pedant>
Who mentioned the lens being removeable?
It also has a digital viewfinder not optical through the lens as per most
slr definitions I know of, oh and lastly Fuji themselves claim it to be a
'Bridge' camera rather than slr d or not.
By your definition any compact without an eyepice viewfinder has become an
slr ;)
Must make my lx3 better than I thought lol
</pedant>
The Natural Philosopher
single lens reflex means that there is a mirror that focusses onto a
screen, which is viewed through a viewfinder.
Not a digital view finder.
Roland Perry
2010, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>> <pedant>
>>> There is nothing in the description "Digital Single Lens Reflex" that
>>> requires the lens to be removable by the user.
>>> And if the shot is composed and recorded through the same lens, it
>>> meets the definition.
>>> </pedant>
>> <pedant>
>> Who mentioned the lens being removeable?
>> It also has a digital viewfinder not optical through the lens as per
>>most slr definitions I know of,
>
>single lens reflex means that there is a mirror that focusses onto a
>screen, which is viewed through a viewfinder.
>
>Not a digital view finder.
Welcome to the wonderful world where conventional terminology doesn't
always map exactly onto digital technology.
I don't think I've ever seen a conventional SLR without the ability to
interchange lenses. That probably arises because of a perceived need to
be able to access the mirror/screen, so you might as well do that by
unscrewing the lens, and then you might as well offer different types of
lens.
As applied to Digital Cameras the term SLR normally seems to imply
"changeable lenses", although it's possible that in the early days that
all such cameras also had an "eyepiece" viewfinder (rather than a
separate optical one, or a screen on the back of the camera).
--
Roland Perry
The Natural Philosopher
> In message <hi9amf$c51$2...@news.albasani.net>, at 07:19:43 on Sat, 9 Jan
> 2010, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>>>> <pedant>
>>>> There is nothing in the description "Digital Single Lens Reflex" that
>>>> requires the lens to be removable by the user.
>>>> And if the shot is composed and recorded through the same lens, it
>>>> meets the definition.
>>>> </pedant>
>>> <pedant>
>>> Who mentioned the lens being removeable?
>>> It also has a digital viewfinder not optical through the lens as per
>>> most slr definitions I know of,
>>
>> single lens reflex means that there is a mirror that focusses onto a
>> screen, which is viewed through a viewfinder.
>>
>> Not a digital view finder.
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world where conventional terminology doesn't
> always map exactly onto digital technology.
>
> I don't think I've ever seen a conventional SLR without the ability to
> interchange lenses. That probably arises because of a perceived need to
> be able to access the mirror/screen, so you might as well do that by
> unscrewing the lens, and then you might as well offer different types of
> lens.
I think its more likely that the only decent way to make a view finder
FOR interchangeable lenses is to use the lens itself to define the
viewfinder.
Hence the single lens reflex, with no parallax, and the correct size of
picture in the viewfinder
>
> As applied to Digital Cameras the term SLR normally seems to imply
> "changeable lenses", although it's possible that in the early days that
> all such cameras also had an "eyepiece" viewfinder (rather than a
> separate optical one, or a screen on the back of the camera).
well there is nothing about reflex in no mirror setup is there?
Roland Perry
>> I don't think I've ever seen a conventional SLR without the ability
>>to interchange lenses. That probably arises because of a perceived
>>need to be able to access the mirror/screen, so you might as well do
>>that by unscrewing the lens, and then you might as well offer
>>different types of lens.
>
>I think its more likely that the only decent way to make a view finder
>FOR interchangeable lenses is to use the lens itself to define the
>viewfinder.
>
>Hence the single lens reflex, with no parallax, and the correct size of
>picture in the viewfinder
When I used one, the major advantage was being able to see (rather than
guess) whether the picture was in focus, and what the depth of field
was. To achieve that, you have to be viewing through the real lens.
>> As applied to Digital Cameras the term SLR normally seems to imply
>>"changeable lenses", although it's possible that in the early days
>>that all such cameras also had an "eyepiece" viewfinder (rather than
>>a separate optical one, or a screen on the back of the camera).
>
>well there is nothing about reflex in no mirror setup is there?
I wonder if there have ever been digital cameras with a mirror and
optical viewfinder, the CCD merely replacing the film, rather than also
being the source of the preview image in the viewfinder?
--
Roland Perry
The Natural Philosopher
Er, that is what the Nikon D200 *IS* mate. Or any DSLR
If it isn't that, it aint a DSLR in my book.
Mine is switched off. I even removed the battery. Still focusses fine on
the manual lens its attached to.
Only reason I got it is that it is 'just' a digital film - in other ways
its a traditional SLR in every respect.
And will run all my manual Nikon lenses.
Whatever
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Isn't that what i said??
Whatever
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Exactly, which is why I took umbridge at the claim that a simple solution
should be available for a Fuji 6500 since simple solutions were posited for
dslr, the 6500 is not a dslr.
snowy
>
> Exactly, which is why I took umbridge at the claim that a simple solution
> should be available for a Fuji 6500 since simple solutions were posited for
> dslr, the 6500 is not a dslr.
<sigh>
You might also like to note that I used the word "most" to qualify my
original statement about SLRs ;)
Whatever
<sigh>
You might also like to note that my comment was about the post by Zulu, not
you, as would be suggested by my quoting of his text, not yours. ;)
If you bothered to read my post you should see my umbridge was directed at
his suggestion that he should have a simple solution available for his (non)
dslr based on your post suggesting that it may be the case for most dslrs,
my point was, and still is, that his camera is not a dslr and therefore does
not come under your suggestion, jesus it's no wonder there is so much
misinformation when people don't bother reading properly. ;)
FAOD Your pointing out that you meant "most" slrs still does not make his
6500 an slr ;)
snowy
> <sigh>
> You might also like to note that my comment was about the post by Zulu, not
> you, as would be suggested by my quoting of his text, not yours. ;)
>
> If you bothered to read my post you should see my umbridge was directed at
> his suggestion that he should have a simple solution available for his (non)
> dslr based on your post suggesting that it may be the case for most dslrs,
> my point was, and still is, that his camera is not a dslr and therefore does
> not come under your suggestion, jesus it's no wonder there is so much
> misinformation when people don't bother reading properly. ;)
>
> FAOD Your pointing out that you meant "most" slrs still does not make his
> 6500 an slr ;)
I did read your post - sorry if I wasn't clear that my <sigh> was not
directed at you but at the protracted conversation that ensued after
the original question about the 6500 :) I misdirected the "you" in my
reply.
zulu
> On 11 Jan, 22:53, "Whatever" <whate...@whatever.whatever> wrote:
>> <sigh>
>>>>>>>>> snip argument.>>>>>>>>>>>
<sigh>
It doesn't matter to me whether my camera (Fuji S6500fd) is a boat or a
ship...
Which acronym it hides under is unimportant (to me...).
It still does not have a cable release socket.
Apart from that, it is everything I want in a camera, which is why I bought
it in the first place.
Having got that out of the way. I would still like to find an alternative
way to remotely release the shutter!
--
�zulu� VIP
snowy
> I would still like to find an alternative
> way to remotely release the shutter!
Employ an assistant? ;)
zulu
What for?
To hold my white stick for me?
....but I use that for a monopod!
--
�zulu� VIP