That's a fine lens. I very briefly considered it over the much less
expensive 70-300 ED. I wouldn't have missed very much the last 100mm
that the 70-300 offers, and would have loved to have the VR and the
speed of that bad boy. But ultimately, I wasn't willing to schlep
around a lens with that much bulk to it and wasn't in the mood to lay
down that much dinero either. But this new 18-200 hits a sweet spot
for me. Perfect walkaround range, high quality, reasonably compact,
and a reasonable price point between the budget-priced 70-300 ED and
the $1,000+ higher end lenses. It's not blazing fast, but with VR and
the D70's ability to shoot well at higher ISO ratings, it's fast
enough. Nikon's gonna sell a boatload of them.

"RG" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a fine lens. I very briefly considered it over the much less
expensive 70-300 ED. I wouldn't have missed very much the last 100mm
that the 70-300 offers, and would have loved to have the VR and the
speed of that bad boy. But ultimately, I wasn't willing to schlep
around a lens with that much bulk to it and wasn't in the mood to lay
down that much dinero either. But this new 18-200 hits a sweet spot
for me. Perfect walkaround range, high quality, reasonably compact,
and a reasonable price point between the budget-priced 70-300 ED and
the $1,000+ higher end lenses. It's not blazing fast, but with VR and
the D70's ability to shoot well at higher ISO ratings, it's fast
enough. Nikon's gonna sell a boatload of them.


I am happy with the compact high quality point and shoot digitals these
days. I remember years ago, when I had long lens, heavy camera's and did my
own development. Maybe age has something to do with it. If I was a
professional photog, making money with the camera, then I would be inclined
to go for the bigger, heavier units, but for self satisfaction and memory
refreshers, I love the digitals. And a carrying a 6 oz. camera though a
jungle or on a long day touring a city, sure beats a 20# bag and camera

It's quite amazing how good of a digital camera $200 will buy these
days. I started shooting 35mm film in high school, and progressed
through various 35mm camera systems over the years. I was a fairly
early adopter to digital. I bought one of the very first Olympus
C3030's to hit my town in the spring of 2000. $1000 for a 3mp point
and shoot. Holy crap. But that little camera completely renewed a
waning interest in photography for me. The key for me is what can be
done with modest skills and inexpensive software in digital post
processing. It's just so easy to make a marginal photograph decent and
a good photograph outstanding.

But I never liked handling the point and shoot. I missed the feel,
intuitive controls, and responsiveness of my 35mm film cameras. So
earlier this year I bought two new cameras. I bought another Olympus
point and shoot and a Nikon D70 DSLR. The Oly is a 4mp water resistant
model I purchased at Costco for $200. I bought it simply to always
have in the boat bag. It's small, lightweight, water resistant, and
takes amazingly good pictures. But I hate shooting with it. It just
doesn't act, feel, or respond like a real camera to me. The controls
are diminuitive and the menus are illogical to me. The Nikon on the
other hand, felt like an old friend the first time I held it in my
hands. Completely intuitive and instantly responsive. Therefore, I've
shot thousands of shots with the Nikon compared to maybe several
hundred with the Oly this year. But there's been times I've gotten
great shots simply because the Oly was in proximity while the Nikon was
at home, so having both seems to work well for me.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 22:38:44 GMT, "Bill McKee" wrote:


"RG" wrote in message
roups.com...
That's a fine lens. I very briefly considered it over the much less
expensive 70-300 ED. I wouldn't have missed very much the last 100mm
that the 70-300 offers, and would have loved to have the VR and the
speed of that bad boy. But ultimately, I wasn't willing to schlep
around a lens with that much bulk to it and wasn't in the mood to lay
down that much dinero either. But this new 18-200 hits a sweet spot
for me. Perfect walkaround range, high quality, reasonably compact,
and a reasonable price point between the budget-priced 70-300 ED and
the $1,000+ higher end lenses. It's not blazing fast, but with VR and
the D70's ability to shoot well at higher ISO ratings, it's fast
enough. Nikon's gonna sell a boatload of them.


I am happy with the compact high quality point and shoot digitals these
days. I remember years ago, when I had long lens, heavy camera's and did my
own development. Maybe age has something to do with it. If I was a
professional photog, making money with the camera, then I would be inclined
to go for the bigger, heavier units, but for self satisfaction and memory
refreshers, I love the digitals. And a carrying a 6 oz. camera though a
jungle or on a long day touring a city, sure beats a 20# bag and camera


I had the Nikon 5700, a good little point and shoot. What drove me up the wall,
continuously, was the shutter lag. With the DSLRs, it's virtually nonexistent. There
are other advantages as well, but that one was all it took for me.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Yeah, shutter lag was a big issue, and part of what I lump into my
catch-all that I call responsiveness. In addition to shutter lag, I
missed a direct mechanical zoom ring on the lens with the point and
shoot and I never liked the rangefinder viewing mechanism for
composition, or using the LCD preview for composition for that matter.
All these things I refer to as the responsiveness of the camera, and
the point and shoots just don't get it done for me like an SLR body
does. The only annoyance I've discovered with a DSLR over a point and
shoot is the ever present issue of crud on the sensor. It took a
while, but I've finally gotten fairly competent at cleaning the sensor.
It was never an issue with 35mm film cameras or the point and shoots,
and I was taken by surprise at how much of an issue it is with DSLR's.
Have you found it to be much of an issue?

On 31 Dec 2005 16:29:49 -0800, "RG" wrote:

Yeah, shutter lag was a big issue, and part of what I lump into my
catch-all that I call responsiveness. In addition to shutter lag, I
missed a direct mechanical zoom ring on the lens with the point and
shoot and I never liked the rangefinder viewing mechanism for
composition, or using the LCD preview for composition for that matter.
All these things I refer to as the responsiveness of the camera, and
the point and shoots just don't get it done for me like an SLR body
does. The only annoyance I've discovered with a DSLR over a point and
shoot is the ever present issue of crud on the sensor. It took a
while, but I've finally gotten fairly competent at cleaning the sensor.
It was never an issue with 35mm film cameras or the point and shoots,
and I was taken by surprise at how much of an issue it is with DSLR's.
Have you found it to be much of an issue?

I concur with almost everything above! No, I've not found the crud on the sensor to
be a big issue, yet. When I sent the D70 in for repair, they cleaned it at no charge.
The D200 is clean because I only infrequently change the lens. When I do, I do it
very fast with the body lens opening held downwards. I try to let gravity be my
friend.

I gave the 5700 to my wife, and she thinks it's just great. I encourage that, 'cause
I don't want her messing with the D200!

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes