ottocrat

NX is working just fine on my Macbook Pro with 2 gigs of RAM, despite the fact that it's running under Rosetta. So far, I quite like it, though as others have said it won't replace CS2, nor iVMP. It's really just an ACR replacement and as such I think it's going to be hard to justify the price. But I'm enjoying the trial version. Apologies if I've missed it in another thread, but has anyone found a useful tutorial (i.e. better than the online help)?

Hmm, that could be the case. This is my first VR lens and I'm just getting used to it.

 

Having slept on it I'm inclined to think that I'm being a bit anal about the sharpness, after all this was shot wide open and normally I'd be shooting stopped down to f8 at least (one of the advantages of the VR).

Hashim, usually I'd be working handheld though I would certainly be using a tripod

sometimes.<br>

<br>

After 24 hours I'm pretty disenchanted with this 'wonder lens' - the stiff barrel and the

creep are one thing, the poor optical quality another. I'm not expecting miracles but I am

expecting it to be in the same ballpark as my 18-70 in terms of sharpness throughout the

frame. At large apertures the 18-200 is unacceptably blurred at the edges of the frame

(not the extreme edges either). Here is a comparison of the 18-200 at 50mm and f/5.6

with the 18-70 and the 50mm f/1.8 prime (also both at f/5.6):<br>

<br>

(1) <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/chris.kendall/.Public/18200%

20crop.jpg">18-200</a><br>

(2) <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/chris.kendall/.Public/1870%

20crop.jpg">18-70</a><br>

(3) <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/chris.kendall/.Public/50prime%

20crop.jpg">50mm prime</a><br>

<br>

These are 100% crops taken from the upper right corners, in all of them the centre was in

sharp focus. OK, obviously the prime is going to be far better than the other two, but

what I wasn't expecting was the difference in quality between the 18-70 and the 18-200.

There shouldn't be that much of a difference, should there?

Just to add that on a shoot outside with this lens over my lunch break I found myself having to recompose the shot a few times as the zoom would creep while I was adjusting the polariser. So, yeah, creep seems to be an issue.

Thanks for the reactions. I've now shown it to a couple of guys at local photo shops whom I trust, and they don't think it's anything to worry about, so I'll relax.

I finally took delivery of my new 18-200 VR lens this evening, and I've been playing with it for

a couple of hours. Everything seems to be working more or less as it should - but one thing

bothers me slightly. The zoom ring seems loose at the extremities and stiff through the

mid-range. Also, there is zoom creep throughout the range except when fully retracted at

18mm. It's almost as if the thing is spring-loaded. Is this going to settle down with use? I

don't want to exaggerate, it's just not quite the beautifully-cammed, well-damped

masterpiece that I'd been expecting...

Just for the record, Canada's not 'America'... ;)

I thought I'd share. I sent my 18-month old D70 in for a long overdue

service and sensor clean ten days ago. I was told to wait a week or

so for a quote, and then another couple of weeks for the camera to be

sent back to me.

 

Yesterday I got the serviced camera back from Nikon Canada, with a

cleaned sensor, and a replacement battery (the one I had was on

recall), and they charged me...

 

$0.0!

 

I'm very impressed. I'm also really surprised, since when is gunk on

the sensor covered under warranty? Not that I'm complaining! I was

expecting to drop a fair bit of money on this. Chalk one up to Nikon!

I'm a Mac lover but really you should steer clear of iPhoto which is a resource hog, and has issues dealing with Nikon metadata. With your spec I would advise against it, at least with a reasonably large library (which you will soon amass).

 

I ditched iPhoto and opted for iView Media Pro 2 and haven't looked back - it's a very good cataloguing tool. With a G3 and max RAM you should have no problem with IVMP2 (which also has basic image editing capabilities) and Photoshop 7 for the more serious editing work (I can't understand why you're unable to get PS7 running under that setup, it should work fine).

 

One point, though - the latest iPhoto (06) finally allows one to import an alias rather than the whole file into the library making it far more manageable. I haven't played with this new feature to any great extent yet so I don't know if this overcomes the very significant performance problems I was experiencing when I switched to IVMP.

Thanks Eric, you've put your finger on exactly why I've been hesitating over this purchase. Ken is great when you need reassurance that the expensive Nikon item which you've just bought on impulse was not a huge mistake; he's less help when you're trying to make an objective purchasing decision. The distortion is what really has me worried about the 18-200, I need to see some proper reviews before I'll jump on this bandwagon.

FWIW I grappled with the same question a couple of months back. I was all set to get the Tokina but when I looked at the prices and reviews I felt the Sigma actually worked out at better value. I don't tend to use it a lot, but when I do I'm pleased with it. The extra space at the short end really opens all sorts of possibilities - the attached was taken at 10mm and distortion corrected in PP.<div></div>

(Sorry, correction to my previous post, should of course be the 75-240 f4.5-5.6, not 70-240...)

I'm following this discussion with interest. I'm really in a quandary. Currently I have the 18-70 DX and the Nikkor 70-240 f/4.5-5.6 covering those focal lengths, and I'm very tempted to trade them both in for the 18-200 VR DX. The upsides are clear: one less lens to carry around (I always lug my Sigma 10-20, my 105mm Micro Nikkor and my 50mm f/1.8 so could really do with rationalising my kit bag) and the VR advantage. I'm trying to identify the downsides. These are all consumer lenses, I can't see that I'd be making a huge sacrifice optically. Obviously I miss out on a bit of length at the extreme. And if in the future Nikon go FF then I'll miss the 70-240 but of course it gives me an excuse to buy something better... Finally, I guess the 18-200 is a bit more bulky than the 18-70 as an 'always on' lens (haven't actually seen one in the 'flesh' yet)...

 

The fact is, I've been really happy with the 18-70 and I wouldn't want to trade it in for something that would be in any way inferior. In the experience of those who have been using both, is the 18-200 inferior to the 18-70 in any serious way?

Um... LOL? o_O

Well it looks as if you are most of the way there. With a D50, the 70-210 and the indispensible 50/1.8 you are covered for almost everything. Add in the 18-35 and you are sorted, at least for your film body - but of course 18 might not be wide enough on digital. There you really have to bite the bullet and invest in DX-only if you want that extra-wide coverage on a D50. I went for the Sigma 10-20 on my D70, I'm very happy with it so far.<div></div>

Sony have deep pockets but they don't have a Midas touch, not any more. If Nikon can compete with Canon then they sure as anything can compete with Sony. I'm not worried about more competition in this marketplace.

 

The CCD-sourcing thing is an issue. No, Sony are not going to stop selling Nikon sensors overnight - business people are hard nosed and follow the money, Microsoft has been selling MS Office on the Mac platform for years, why? Because it makes money. So Sony will keep selling sensors to Nikon as long as they make money, more money than they would by keeping their sensors for their own brand cameras.

 

However it does complicate matters and it should push Nikon to look for a source of sensors where they have rather more leverage and autonomy. If I were Nikon I would feel uncomfortable having to source the single most essential component of my SLR bodies from the competition, moreover a behemoth who's hungrily looking at your market share.

Very sad news today. My first SLR was an X-500 back in 1986 and I used that exclusively right through to 2003 when I bought a Dynax 5, wanting autofocus to catch my toddler on the move. I held out for a couple of years waiting for Minolta to bring out a DSLR but in the end I couldn't wait any longer, and made the jump to Nikon. When the Dynax 5D was announced I kicked myself, this morning I was congratulating myself. If Minolta had been quicker off the mark to compete with the D70 and the 300D, perhaps we wouldn't be reading this news today.

 

As for those who say the name doesn't matter, Sony will carry on exactly where Minolta left off... I don't buy that. My Minolta camera has lasted me twenty years - I wouldn't expect anything from Sony to last more than three. It's not a brand I trust.

Well Arnab you've put your finger on the Nikon angle, there. I don't follow industry news particularly closely, but I guess this is going to have repercussions for Nikon's forward-looking strategy as regards CCD sourcing. Are Nikon not now working more closely with Fuji?

Even so, a little bit of me died with this news. My first SLR was an X-500 many years ago, and I was holding out for a Minolta DSLR for such a long time... In the end, I couldn't wait any longer, and went with the D70.

 

So... I guess it's my fault!

 

/weeps

D50 or D200?? Why not the D70s? Seems like the perfect choice for you, if you need a camera you'll grow into - it offers a little more than the D50 in terms of bells and whistles, and is stupidly good value for money. If you have money to burn by all means get the best, but where does this line of thinking end? Will you also go and buy all the pro lenses? You will take better shots with a D50 and a few carefully chosen high quality lenses than you will with a D200 and a cheap universal zoom, for example. I know that feeling, you want to justify the more expensive purchase to yourself, we've all been there, but really, if I were starting out in the world of DSLRs I would get a D50, not a D200. The huge extra cost is not justifiable, to me. The D50/D70s take great photos. In three or four years' time you may need a new camera body, but you'll still be using the lenses you buy now in twenty years' time, touch wood.

 

Another thought: if three years from now Nikon produce a wonderful new must-have digital body, full-frame or not, you'll want it. We all will. If you have a D200 you'll find it hard to justify the upgrade, but with a D50 you can relegate it to second body and do what your heart is telling you to do...

<div></div>

<div></div>

When is the new 18-200 DX VR due to hit stores? Only it seems to me that would be an ideal solution, assuming it ends up being as good as it sounds.

ED means very little these days, though, doesn't it? Effectively it's being used as a branding element by Nikon, it was only ever important on longer telephotos and the cachet that it developed means that Nikon are using that glass in lenses where it has little practical application.

 

It was a typo presumably Michael but the 18-35 was never a kit lens on the D70 as far as I'm aware, if you mean the 18-70 DX then that has always attracted very positive reviews given its price and its 'consumer' construction. So I wouldn't draw any overly negative conclusions from the fact that it's a 'kit'.

FWIW I think it works very well as a portrait lens on digital, in dim lighting. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3486217">Here's</a> a headshot I took in a dark(ish) pub (D70, AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8).