Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

Mark Jamison Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #1 · I broke down. So I cannot find the D200 anywhere except with the 18-70mm as part of the kit. I've been agonizing for a while, until my wife asked a peritnent question: "What lens do you plan on letting me shoot on the D70 you are giving me?" I really like the copy of the 18-70mm I got for the D70, and so I realized I needed to get a lens for her anyway, and the 18-70mm is a good choice for a walk around. So I broke down and got the Kit. Should be here on Friday. On Saturday I will be out shooting waterfalls, such as they are in our current drout. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 01, 2006 at 11:02 PM

DaveLandry Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #2 · I broke down. Same thought process went thru my household... she's happy as she can be with her new D70/18-70DX. I'm happy with the 18-70DX on my D200 while I'm saving up for the 70-200VR. Enjoy your new shooter! Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13 PM

Ryder Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #3 · I broke down. Still waiting for the body Already have one of those lenses around here somewhere. Doesn't get as much use since I got the 17-55. If the D200 doesn't ge here before the D3H I'll get that! Cheers, Craig Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 01, 2006 at 11:39 PM

uccmmcpo Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #4 · I broke down. It`s my favorite. I just happen to have received another excellent new copy (I had stupidly sold off the other one) and I know it`s going to work very well for me. I didn`t want or need to spend 4 times as much to get a bit faster and marginally better IQ. (17-55) just to lug around a heavier larger lens thats a bit short on the tele end. I tried the combination of a 24-85G (very good lens) but not wide enough and I had to tote a 12-24 Tokina for the wider stuff. The 18-70 seems to work the best for my needs. I`m always amazed at how well this impressive lens handles and performs for what it cost. It`s another one of Nikon`s consumer jewels that perform to near pro expectations. John Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 01, 2006 at 11:40 PM

Justin Huffman Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #5 · I broke down. uccmmcpo wrote: . I`m always amazed at how well this impressive lens handles and performs for what it cost. It`s another one of Nikon`s consumer jewels that perform to near pro expectations. John I m beginning to agree with John - I sold my 18-70 to bellyface and what a mistake... i replaced it with a tokina 12-24 and while its plenty sharp, The 18-70 holds its own. I find myslef zooming in to 18-24 mm anyways... Perhaps I should have kept the 18-70.... Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 12:05 AM

Mark Jamison Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #6 · I broke down. uccmmcpo wrote: It`s my favorite. I just happen to have received another excellent new copy (I had stupidly sold off the other one) and I know it`s going to work very well for me. I didn`t want or need to spend 4 times as much to get a bit faster and marginally better IQ. (17-55) just to lug around a heavier larger lens thats a bit short on the tele end. I tried the combination of a 24-85G (very good lens) but not wide enough and I had to tote a 12-24 Tokina for the wider stuff. The 18-70 seems to work the best for my needs. I`m always amazed at how well this impressive lens handles and performs for what it cost. It`s another one of Nikon`s consumer jewels that perform to near pro expectations. John I know the feeling. Before I got the D-70 with the 18-70 Kit lens I had been a Canon shooter. In the Canon world the term "kit lens" is nearly synonymous with "piece of junk". The 18-70mm Nikon lens is, in Canon terms of quality, either a entry Level professional grade lens or one of the best consumer lens ever made. My favorite lens is still probabbly the 70-200mm f/2.8 ED VR, but my 18-70 is my favorite walk around lens. I should not of course that Having only gotten into WA shooting after joining the digital world the widest I've ever shot was an effective FOV of 26mm (Canon 1D with a 20mm F/2.8 mounted). The 18mm end on the zoom effectively matches that same perspective. I have considered going with the 12-24 and 24-85 combination, but ultimately decided I would rather have some more range on the tele end. So whenever I make my next lens purchase it will most likely be a 300mm F/4.0, unless someone make me an offer I can't refuse on a 300mm f/2.8 that is. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 02:50 PM

kantucky Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #7 · I broke down. it seems so wrong that these kit combos appear to be readily available now and the other kit lens will be soon and long before the body only is. Almost like Nikon is trying to force people to buy a kit set. Really doesn't seem like Nikon is being fair to their loyal customers. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 03:09 PM

chemprof Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #8 · I broke down. I think we are going to find that more people are going to buy this camera as a kit. I think this will be the camera that will get even more people (pros and semi-pros) started with digital. Nikon may be right on the mark. Gerald Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 03:20 PM

kantucky Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #9 · I broke down. ..but..why would you pro or semi-pro want this lens? They would own some nice glass if they're making their living off of photography already. The place I ordered mine off of called me this past week and asked if I'd be willing to take this kit instead of my body only that I've had ordered for several weeks. They still are listing this kit as in stock. Does, to me anyway, seem like Nikon is trying to force the very eager into purchasing something that they really don't want to buy. Granted, it's tempting. Who could deny that we're not like kids waiting for Christmas for our new cameras? To me, the UPS man has replaced Santa Claus and I think it's his sleigh when I see that big brown truck roll by my home. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 03:27 PM

chemprof Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #10 · I broke down. Many people who have film at this time may not yet have a lens wide enough for the 1.5x crop. Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with the 18-70, it's a great lens, and even high level amateurs are/will be satisfied with this lens. I'm sure that some pros would be fine with it as well. No clue about the 18-200, but I'm still a little skeptical. Gerald Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 03:34 PM

kantucky Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #11 · I broke down. but...you could save money buying the camera by it's self and the lens by it's self. At least, looking at Adorama's website that is the way it has it listed.. 349 for the lens, 1699 for the body = 2049 the kit lists for 2149 Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 03:42 PM

chemprof Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #12 · I broke down. Most of the places I've seen (B&H is accepting orders at this price) were listing the camera plus kit lens at $1999, $50 less than the camera plus the lens. Maybe Adorama is trying to capitalize on the popularity and scarcity of the D200 already and jacked up the price. Figures. Gerald Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 03:55 PM

kantucky Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #13 · I broke down. Ok, I just checked B & H and you're right...perhaps Adorama has listed it wrongly? if not, that's plain wrong. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 04:02 PM

Mark Jamison Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #14 · I broke down. kantucky wrote: ..but..why would you pro or semi-pro want this lens? They would own some nice glass if they're making their living off of photography already. Granted I may be the exception, with any sales I have had being wildlife or theatrical events, but I would guess I qualify as either an advanced amateur or a semi-pro, and quite honestly I love the 18-70mm lens. Is the 17-55 a better choice, probabbly for that extra stop alone, but I've done some very nice family portraits with the 18-70. The place I ordered mine off of called me this past week and asked if I'd be willing to take this kit instead of my body only that I've had ordered for several weeks. They still are listing this kit as in stock. They may not be for much longer, apparently people have decided that the kit lens is not so bad as to keep them waiting for the D200, and it they are being sold out as well. B&H for example has sold out on the kit, as well as everything else. Does, to me anyway, seem like Nikon is trying to force the very eager into purchasing something that they really don't want to buy. I don't think it as nefarious as all that. Nikon priced the D200 so afforadbly that they expect a lot of first time digital , and a fair number of new SLR owners, to buy the product. As a result they put out a lot of kits. What would not be surprising would be that they put out more "Body only" than kits, but still completely underestimated the number of people who either wanted a backup camera for their D2X, or wanted to upgrade their D70/D70s. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 04:40 PM

Mark Jamison Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #15 · I broke down. kantucky wrote: Ok, I just checked B & H and you're right...perhaps Adorama has listed it wrongly? if not, that's plain wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if adorama is trying to take advantage of the market right now. Meanwhile Canoga Camera's is selling the D200 Kit for less than the MSRP of $1999. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 04:41 PM

dlew308 Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #16 · I broke down. On amazon, there's 3 sellers for the D200 w/ kit lens. Altho it doesn't specify that it includes the kit lens. Adoroma, JR, and OneCall are the sellers. Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 04:46 PM

kantucky Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #17 · I broke down. I don't think it as nefarious as all that. Nikon priced the D200 sorry it took me so long to get back with you but I had to look up nefarious in the dictionary I know that Nikon is a business, and, like all businesses, their business is to make money. I disagree with you on this..but mine, like others, is just an opinion. I can't agree with you that the percentage of people who are buying this camera are just first timers entering the DSLR realm. Who knows though, you could be right..it just seems highly unlikely to me. I would think that many would be more tempted by either the D70s or even the D50 as a starter camera if they're going with Nikon. I just looked up the D50, one could get that for 670 dollars with the 18 to 70 lens. That's hard to believe Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 06:17 PM

chemprof Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #18 · I broke down. kantucky wrote: I don't think it as nefarious as all that. Nikon priced the D200 sorry it took me so long to get back with you but I had to look up nefarious in the dictionary I know that Nikon is a business, and, like all businesses, their business is to make money. I disagree with you on this..but mine, like others, is just an opinion. I can't agree with you that the percentage of people who are buying this camera are just first timers entering the DSLR realm. Who knows though, you could be right..it just seems highly unlikely to me. I would think that many would be more tempted by either the D70s or even the D50 as a starter camera if they're going with Nikon. I just looked up the D50, one could get that for 670 dollars with the 18 to 70 lens. That's hard to believe I think it will depend on the level of photographer, I think. If there's an F-100 or F-5 owner going digital, I think they'd be more likely to go for a D200, if they've been holding out for a DSLR. I believe, that in this sense, there's been a pent up demand for something like the D200. The D2's were too expensive (and the H not high enough res for some, perhaps), and the D100 was considered to "amatuerish" for some (probably inappropriately so, though...), or maybe not considered capable enough (again, perhaps inappropriately, though...). Gerald Edited on Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM Feb 02, 2006 at 06:24 PM

kantucky Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #19 · I broke down. I could have bought the D-1x when it when I got my D-100. I had the money and more importantly, my wife said I could :>) but after thinking it over..I got the D-100 and have never regretted it. I'll have the D200 and the D100 and they're still together going to be far less than I would have paid for the D-1x. Also, it's a lot harder to convince someone you need a new camera if you've spent 5000 on one than it would be if you spent 1500 a few years before. If I was a professional photographer, that would have been another story though. I'm tickled that my D100 is still going strong and I'll have two bodys too. It is true..the D100 has it's shortcomings or I wouldn't have wanted to get the D200 today. Feb 03, 2006 at 07:33 PM

	FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost password?