Nikon SLR Camera Upgrade Question

[Stephen]

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

[Saphire]

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.

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Saphire

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

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Saphire

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.

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

[Keith Reeder]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

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.

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...

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

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.

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Keith Reeder

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.

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

[Don Hoey]

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

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

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.

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Stephen

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.

[Leif]

And ....