Nikon SLR Camera Upgrade Question
 

I have been in Norfolk Cameras today and had to keep hands in pockets well apart from a play.

I have a D100, and squinting through its viewfinder in room light conditions for manual focus, is driving me mad. With a more resonsive A/F system I could at least use the focus confirmation light. Having looked at the D200 and D2X, I have come down on the side of the D2 series. Viewfinder ( D200 great screen brightness, but as I wear glasses there is not enough eye relief ), A/F, D-TTL flash compatable with my existing kit.

I have a number of quality M/F Nikkors but other than my 80-200 my A/F lenses are mid range. 18-35ED f3.5-4.5 and the swiss army lens 28-105 f3.5-4.5. On a 6mp D100 these are fine, but would the 12mp of the D2X be too much resolution for them. I generally fill the frame so although more resolution than the D100 would be nice it is not an essential. As I will probably have to make a sale to aquire the camera I will not be able to upgrade the A/F lenses in the foreseeable future.

D2X - 12mp or D2Hs - 4mp.

Don

Hi Don

Where do you get the idea that a digital camera will have too much resolution for a Nikkor lens? To my mind you can never have too much resolution, even Velvia 50 can't resolve the full resolution of a Nikkor lens.

You can find out what sort of resolution figures you get for many lenses on a Nikon D200 by visiting www.PhotoZone.de. You need to go to the reviews section. I suspect your lenses will perform on a par with the best when stopped down to F8 and F11. I find the eye relief on the D200 fine and I wear eyeglasses. You might want to consider changing your eyeglasses to a pair with frames that sit closer to your face. That would be cheaper than a D2x...

Leif

Nirofo,

I have no question in regard to my M/F Nikkors in respect of the D2X resolution. I have used them with Tech Pan film so I know how good they are. It is only the two mid priced A/F lenses. From what I have read the X's high sensor resolution will show up faults not evident on a 6mp sensor, hence the question.

Don

I my opinion Nikkor lenses are great however some better than others. I extensively used two lenses on my Fuji S2, 24-120VR and 80-400VR. Both lenses produced sharp usable images on my former camera but when I switched to D2X, I expected super clear sharp large images but they were no better than S2. After reading forums and racking my brain in disappointment I braved a pro lens (200-400VR). I became real happy with my new lens and body combination and surpassed my expectations. I have replaced all lenses with a pro set and all give splendid large images and only little USM is required on the final resized version. I understand Don's query and all I can advise is try it!

Go back to Norfolk cameras and try your lenses on both D2 bodies and look carefully at the images back home.

Leif,

Thanks for the link usefull reading.

Don

Stephen,

Very useful post thank you. S2 similar to D100 so I can check 24-120VR on Leifs link as my lenses don't appear.

Unfortunately Norfolk cameras do not have the ' Hs ' or it would be easy. I guess the market for that is more limited so they have no demand or reason to stock it.

Might have to think about using an ' X ' with M/F lenses as an option. My main subjects are not fast moving - 10mph or less. :D

Don

Quite, I have a feeling D2H and D2Hs are not good sellers but owners swear they are as good as higher resolution sensor models, D200 included.

As you know I fancy a D2Hs but am waiting for price reductions or a used unit to come along.

Stephen,

I have the feeling that the ' Hs ' may well better my D100 due to the clean image. Never seen a comparison though.

Lower price of an ' Hs ' would allow scope for a bit of nice A/F glass. :)

Don

I am curious about this. Are you referring to the 80-400 when used wide open, or at all apertures, compared to the 200-400 F4? I would have thought that the 80-400 would be indistinguisable on A4 prints at F11 and maybe F8. But that's just a guess.

I have a 24-85 AFS lens that cost a pittance (£150) and is as sharp as more expensive lenses and a prime at 24mm below F5.6. I have always understood pro lenses to give a) better build and sealing b) better edge performance wide open and stopped down 1 stop and c) a faster maximum aperture. Mid-range lenses are usually decent enough, but the latest cheap Nikkors are a bit iffy.

Leif

Don, I really cannot understand why you would even consider a D2H over a D200. It seems to me there is no contest and the D200 should be the natural progression for you. IMO it would be an even better proposition than the D2x. The cost saving alone will make the purchase of a new Pro lens an option :)

Don. I have heard and read on BF that there could be a problem with blurred images with the d200.
Keith Reader has had two bodies and they are both the same, also they are not supposed to be very good in low light. I would do a review search before taking the plunge.

Christine,

I think the blurred images is more to do with technique. A move up from 6mp to 10mp requires better technique/support or higher shutter speed to account for the greater resolution of the sensor.

I would have no worries about the D200s capability to produce sharp quality images. Leifs Pasque Flower in the gallery is a good example of that. http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...puser=956&sl=l

The low light bit may be the Auto Focus module sensitivity. I have to admit to being a bit surprised that Nikon did not use the MULTI cam1300 from the D1 series, but went for the MULTI cam1000 which although better than the MULTI cam900 on the D100,D70,D50 is not that great a step up. D2 series use MULTI cam 2000 so they are a lot more sensitive. Still I guess that is marketing. There has to be some space in spec terms between the D200 and D2 series to account for the price difference. :) Its a lot more than pixel count.

Don

Since Don has mentioned me, I'll add a comment. I upgraded from a D70 to a D200, and whilst the D70 is very capable, the D200 is much better in all respects. I can't comment on auto-focus as I never use it. In manual and aperture priority mode with manual focus it works fine and is capable of sharp results.

To get the sharpest results you need decent lenses, typically stopped down to F8 or F11, and with the camera mounted on a tripod. In my experience the limitation is not so much the resolution of the sensor or the lens, but the depth of field, and that requires accurate focussing.

I suspect the D2x will give a noticeable improvement in sharpness at A3 prints. But it is so big, and expensive that I would not consider it.

Leif

Absolutely not the case - you've been listening to too many Nikon Cult fanboys if you blindly accept that issues with the D200 are invariably user error (and - as an aside - I'm getting a bit sick of people blaming the photographer for problems caused by stupid design decisions by a manufacturer).

The facts are:

The D200 has "biggest ever" AF sensors. Great for some shooting situations, but a terrible design feature for bird photography, because the sensors will routinely overlap the intended subject and acquire focus on something else instead.

The "overloading" of the DX-sized sensor with more mps than it can realistically handle means that each individual photosite on the sensor is less able to capture light because it's so much smaller than say, the photosites on a 6mp sensor of the same physical proportions.

Nikon's "management" of the physics of this approach results in the native signal from the sensor having to be excessively amplified to make up for the lack of signal at the natice sensitivity of the sensor.

This guarantees noise.

To deal with the noise, Nikon have implemented a "blunt instrument" in-camera NR process which knocks the crap out of detail.

This throws away any notional resolution advantage from the extra megapixels on the D200 sensor.

Once BF is back up, I'll link you to a selection of images which can be explained in no other way than this - I'd advise you to take a long hard look at them before buying into the fanboy nonsense that the D200 is perfect except in the hands of incompetent photographers...

This misses the point entirely.

Where the intended subject takes up the biggest part of the scene, there are no real focussing isses - the AF sensor can hardly get it wrong (though I'd advise you to do a search for "D200" in the BF gallery - there are many OOF, smeared, low-detail images in there which are typical of the poor performance of the D200) - but the point at which the AF module can be fooled is easily reached and is impossible to predict.

Even Nikon admit that the size of the AF sensors can be a real issue, and have provided the following "useful" advice:

"use manual focus"

"shoot images with bigger targets and/or higher areas of contrast".

In summary then: no, the problems I've had with the D200 are sweet FA to do with user error, and before you blindly accept the fanboy rhetoric, you might want to talk to people like me who have been using the D200 for a while in real world situations where it has singularly failed to perform.

I'm pleased for Leif that he finds the D200 to be superior to his D70: but in every single way that is relevant to me (ie in terms of image quality), the D200 is a complete abortion.

Maybe I'm misreading the post but something tells me that Keith might not be 100% pleased with his D200.

Anyway, I cannot comment on the AF since as I have already said I do not use it. I'll leave it to someone else to agree or disagree.

I routinely use the D200 at ISO 100 and there is no noise. I've used the D200 at ISO 400 and the results were fine with insignificant noise. I find ISO 1600 a bit noisy, but I would be happy to use ISO 1600 for things such as concert shots were that my interest. The noise resembles film grain and is mostly luninance noise rather than chroma noise. Noise processing software can largely remove the noise at the cost of some detail.

By all accounts the D200 has less noise than the D2x, which is not surprising given the lower pixel count and slightly more recent technology. And from what I have seen it has similar noise to the Canon 20D (despite what some Canon users say). I have noticed that although from a technical perspective comparable Canon cameras generally have less noise than Nikon ones, in practice the nature of the noise in Canon cameras means that it is more noticeable than the measurements would suggest i.e. more chroma noise.

In terms of sharpness, well I have similar pictures of Windsor castle (I used to live down the road) taken with Fuji Provia 100F (35mm), a D70 and a D200. The D200 clearly shows more detail than the D70. And I did not use mirror lock up with the D200 - having no remote release - which might have caused some image softening.

The D200 is not perfect. If lower noise is critical to you, then buy a Canon 5D. That camera is also more suited to wide angle lenses than the D200, or any APS sensor camera. I did not buy one as it cost over £2000. At the current price of £1600 it is very tempting and by all accounts it is a marvelous toy, err, I mean a marvelous tool for the serious pastime of photography.

BTW I'm no Nikon fan boy. If you want a tirade critical of Nikon, I can give you one. Don't start me on the availability of accessories, or I'll fill the server hard disk with rant.

Leif

In view of my ealier comment on the D200 A/F system I have just found this link which really shows the complexity of the D200 A/F system. Not having a D200 to check it out, I thought it worth posting for those members that do.
http://www.planetnikon.com/index.php?showtopic=699

Don

Can we assume from this then that you feel more confident about a D200 as an upgrade Don.

Stephen,

Waiting for tomorrows anouncement from Nikon.

Don

PS Unless there is a leak before then. ;)

And .... :D

With no immediate D2X bargains on the horizon I have decided on the upgrade path.

I will get a 17-55 f2.8 lens and that will give an immediate improvement to the D100 screen brightness ( for manual focus ) and therefore improved A/F response. This lens decision will also answer any future resolution questions with a 10 or 12 mp sensor as mentioned by NFB. As I have a lightmeter I can still use my M/F Nikkors in the mean time.

I will then wait until Photokina and see if anything interesting is announced. By then the ' Xs ' will have been on the market for a bit, and after the initial flurry I would think ' Xs ' prices will stabalise at a lower level than the currently quoted estimated manufacturer recommended price.
There should be one or two ' X ' appearing on the secondhand market. Prices for these should be lower than those on the market today, and going for the ' X ' will give me the viewfinder eye relief and general spec sufficient to last me as far into the future as I can see.

To go the D200 route I would need the Body, Battery grip ( personal want, too used to holding cameras with motor drive attatched ) and SB800 flash as D200 is not compatible with SB80-DX in D-TTL mode. New best prices for that £1560 excluding postage and I would still have an eye relief problem.

Don

I heard recently that someone was offered £1600 by Grays of Westminster for a 3 month old D2x. (They asked out of curiosity.) And I have seen nearly new ones advertised by dealers for about £2,000. So you might get one privately for less than £2,000. But as you say, prices should drop a bit.

Leif

Well I changed my mind again. Spent my time away from the forum looking at Airy Diffraction and sensor resolution, loads of lens reviews. Did airy difraction tests on the D100 and generally drove myself round in circles. Downloaded NEF's for D70, D100, D2Hs and D2X and by midnight Sunday a D2Hs was firmly on the cards.

As a new lens was going to eat a big hole in the budget I finally decided to bite the bullet and get a D2X now as Nikon publicity shots were at f13 which is beyond the diffraction limit so figured I could handle that as I might get further down without too much image degradation. The D100 having shown distinct degredation at f16 when compared to its diffraction limit of f11.

Today has been spent proving that my lenses are up to the sensor resolution and rehoning my technique. Having read posts on other forums of how people moving up from 6mp have problems like " why are the pics from my new D200 soft " , I was not going to fall into that trap.

Pic attached of my set up. Memories of Duncans thread re focal length and min shutter speed. When I started with lens at 50mm I was only getting sharp pics at 1/125 sec and above. I have managed to drive that down to a fairly regular sharp at 1/80 sec. I will practice more, but the setup has certainly proved its worth.

The camera ...... what can I say that others that have one have not already said. The viewfinder is a revalation. With M/F lenses on I have the equivalent of a digital F3HP with similar eye relief. Performance - stunning. I have been doing some tests and recognising that some people think it noisy above ISO 400 so I attach a pic taken at ISO800 1/30 sec @ f11, NEF straight conversion to TIFF then smart sharpen and save for web. I am impressed as this image had compression set to 66 to reach this file size. The origional TIFF is 69.99mb.

I have got to sort out converting images to post while retaining EXIF info. Up to now I processed TIFF's in CS and converted to JPEG in Paint Shop Pro 8. ( Something for Stephen to laugh at :D ) but it worked. PSP8 does not deal well with converting the now larger TIFF's and so I did a save for web in CS but think the EXIF has gone.

Don

Congratulations a fine choice Don, a fine choice.

Don, first of all congrats on the new camera. The deed is done so there is no more to say on that. Suffice to say its a fine camera, and as you are a committed Nikon man, its about as good as you can get. I would say that its spec will probably far exceed the needs of your photography :)

As for the Exif data, the Save for Web function strips out all the Exif info and optimises for the web. If you don't want tolose the data then you will have to use the regular Save As function.

For me, I always use Save for Web if posting an image on the net. I'm not too fussed about saving this data frankly. Other than a general interest in seeing what gear was used the camera settings are of little value so far as I can see. They always used to say that Rolls Royce's attitude to questions about engine and performance was that its Adequate. For me the same applies to the camera settings ;)

Don: I'm sure there's more than a few of us turning green with envy. Leif

There I was, reading post number #21 and thinking "what a wonderfully sensible thought process", and then the D2H's secret, undocumented feature, the invisible attractor ray, was activated. These are remotely controlled from Nikon HQ in Japan. Teams of Nikon employees scour the forums, looking for people who are clearly lusting after new Nikon products. By interrogation these forum viewer's I.P. address, they can activate the attractor ray in the nearest Nikon D2H body. The buyer has no hope from this point on. :D

Congratulations on the new camera Don, I'm sure you will enjoy it. I'm dead impressed by the ISO800 pic.

Duncan,

I have not laughed so much for ages, especially in view of the e-mail I recieved from Calumet after my posts on this thread. :D :D :D

Thanks for that.

Don