New member with a question.

[fmw]

Hi, I'm newly registered. My photography experience goes back to the 1950's. I've done professional photography from animal portraiture to Fortune 500 commercial product photography. I left professional photography 6 years ago and sold the last of my studio and camera equipment last year except for a studio flash setup and a few tripods.

I bought a Nikon D50 to get started with digital photography and have used it almost daily to do web product shots for my e commerce web sites. It is an amazing piece of equipment for its price and puts out the goods without complaining or failing.

I'm now looking for a higher resolution camera for personal and pleasure use. Unlike the small jpegs I make with the D50, I want to be able to make larger prints. I've looked at the D200 and the new D80 and I think either one would suit the requirement just fine. I've checked out the specs and read some posts in the equipment forum. I'm wondering if someone can tell me fairly simply what the D200 provides over the D80. It is quite a bit more expensive but the specs alone don't seem to justify the differential. Comments?

 

[Iron Flatline]

I know the Canon product line quite well, but not Nikon. However, DP Review is the mothership of all information. Below is a link to a comparison of the two cameras that I set up for you:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d80%2Cnikon_d200&show=all


One comment, based on an assumption from reading your post: I encourage you to shoot and record raw files, rather than allowing your camera to compress the data into a jpeg files until you have processed them to your liking. There are a number of threads on this topic, so I won't bore you with it if you tell us that you already know the difference.

 

[fmw]

I know the Canon product line quite well, but not Nikon. However, DP Review is the mothership of all information. Below is a link to a comparison of the two cameras that I set up for you:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d80%2Cnikon_d200&show=all


One comment, based on an assumption from reading your post: I encourage you to shoot and record raw files, rather than allowing your camera to compress the data into a jpeg files until you have processed them to your liking. There are a number of threads on this topic, so I won't bore you with it if you tell us that you already know the difference.

Thanks for the link. Yes I understand your comment about data compression. Web sites need very compressed files to work efficiently and quickly. Image quality isn't the issue. The issue is giving the customer a basic idea of what the product looks like without bogging down the computer. I'll take your advice for the more creative things I expect to be doing.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I know about web site requirements. I still end up shooting raw and then converting to jpeg later. It adds another few steps, but gives me greater control - while giving me enough data if I ever wnt to print large.