1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Nikon D200 imminent?

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by snapperlondon, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. jchrisc

    jchrisc Well-Known Member

    Actually Clive, while pursuing your lead I found variants and developments of the software that look very helpful and I have installed a plug in called PTLens that looks as though it may solve my problem. It uses a data base for specific corrections to particular cameras and lenses (Like Dx0). It's freeware, but I have made a small donation because I want to support the development of the data base. You can find it here if you are interested.

    Thanks for the lead . . . . . :D
     
  2. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    DxO?
     
  3. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Thanks Clive - I know first order distortions can be easily corrected in software, but of course it's always better not to have them in the first place. Yes, with zoom lenses some distortion is pretty much a fact of life, but still some lenses are rather better than others. Of course, if you want lenses that offer the convenience of wide through to tele coverage, then you're always going to have to accept that there are going to be compromises.

    In that vein, I'm curious to see how the new 18-200mm VR will perform. It might be a great choice when one lens is all you want to take, albeit for a rather higher price than the 18-70mm, which does look like a remarkable bargain.
     
  4. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Heavens, Huw interested in a superzoom? The world's gone mad! ;)
     
  6. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Yes, I admit - it's a bit of a climb-down! :) But seriously - I'd never replace my primes, or even my narrower range zooms, with something like that, but it could be useful when I don't want to carry a large Billingham full of gear - especially with VR, which I've always been such an enthusiastic supporter of! ;-)
     
  7. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Actually, I agree totally. I used to use my Canon 28-135 IS an awful lot simply for the convenience of it - only one lens to carry. As an extra lens, I can really see the point.
     
  8. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    VR? Is that Virtual Reality for Nikons? Does this mean that when you look through the viewfinder you get that wonderful Canon feeling even though you're actually looking through an orrible Nikon? :D :D :D

    BigWill
     
  9. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    Thanks Nick: interesting, though I have only 3 of the lenses in the D2X list. Do you have it/Have you trialled it?
     
  10. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Bog off, or I'll smear Marmite all over your 10D! :)
     
  11. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Yes, I have it. I've been using it now since it gained RAW support, and I'm impressed with it - it'll defish my fisheye, and generally make any of my lenses appear better than they are - at the cost of not being the quickest on the block, but version 3.5 is supposed to remedy that. It's not perfect, but it is very, very good IMHO.
     
  12. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    ...to get that Virtual Reality Nikon look, I take it? ;)
     
  13. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here


    No - because 'disgusting taste' says it all, where gasfires are concerned. ;-)
     
  14. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Superzooms anyone?

    I must admit i've always been intrigued by the concept of a "superzoom" lens but the reality has always been so disappointing. Probably comes from a bad first experience with a manual focus Vivitar 28/210 I had for my OM system at the tims. Dim viewfinder, bloody awfull close focusing ability, large and expensive 72mm filters for the front element, slow maximum apertures and it wasn't exactly the lightest or smallest thing on the block either! Of course there have been quantum leaps in the technology since those dark days to the point where even I would reconsider the superzoom concept and give it a second look........................if a naturally cautious and suspicious one!

    BigWill
     
  15. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    Thanks Nick (a break in the Superzoom/VR/Marmite discussion). Is that the thing where you have to buy each lens software individually (I think I saw £90 each somewhere), and does it work if you try and use it on a lens it doesn't specify?

    I thought I would wait for the RSE you have to pay for. But I sahll keep an open mind.
     
  16. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Re: Superzooms anyone?

    I do generally agree with you, Will [I've a feeling that statement might come back to haunt me! ;-)], but I'm willing to keep an open mind on this, since I'm not really looking for something of first rate quality, but rather something that will do, in a pinch. At the moment I just don't have a single lens that would correspond to a 'standard' zoom on a DSLR - i.e. modest wide angle to short telephoto, so if I'm going to be looking to fill that gap, the new lens has to be worth a look.

    Interestingly, from the issued specifications of the Nikkor, it seems to address some of the usual complaints you list - for instance it appears to be quite compact (well, relatively - it's certainly smaller and lighter than either my Sigma 15-30mm or Tokina 28-80mm), and has close focussing to 0.5m throughout the zoom range (no - not that great at the wide end, but remarkable at the long end).

    Anyway, I'll certainly be keeping an eye out for any test reports when the lens hits these shores (supposed to be the end of December).
     
  17. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    They've changed their pricing policy - the lens modules are now free, which is why I can now recommend it thoroughly. Give it a try and see if you like it - there's a free trial offer. Might be worth waiting for version 3.5 if you do, though.
     
  18. jchrisc

    jchrisc Well-Known Member

    I have been reading reviews today that claim that PTLens is better (and it's free).
     
  19. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    It's a little while since I looked at PTLens - well, to be honest it's a long while. At the time, I certainly felt DxO had the edge, and since then DxO has developed into a fully-fledged RAW convertor (I particularly like the integrated noise reduction). I'll take another look at PTLens myself - I'm certainly not wedded to DxO!
     
  20. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the PT Lens link, Chris. I started using the Panora programme a couple of years ago having found it by googling into DPReview, and hadn't looked for updates since.
     

Share This Page