How good might the D200 actually be ?

well if you have to ask...

 

http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

Ellis, I use D40x cams (10mp) with and without that expensive blur filter (aka AA) filter. The differences are just astounding. I am yet to notice any aliasing problems without the so-called AA filter as well.

 

I wonder how lower the prices of the D40x would be if only Nikon would do away with that AA filter. The price of the D40x is already great for what it is capable of. So, no complaints about it from me.

 

I am pretty sure the effect would be similarly very noticeable in the upcoming D300.

Only as good as the person using it.

My D200 gots no HR mumbo jumbo but I still loves it:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6502257&size=lg

William and Michael, i think you're missing Ellis' point.

 

The camera manufacturers are playing it safe by having a strong AA filter to cut down on

moire problems. I'd rather have a sharper and more detailed resolution camera for the work i

do.

 

Thank you for sharing this with us Ellis. I'm considering having it done. $450 seems a bit

steep though. I'm going to have to research this more. Is it a safe procedure? Should i risk it

on the D300 when it arrives? many questions...

Also of note: I think that AA filters are getting stronger as we move along. This could make

an even greater difference on the D300 and possibly the D3.

This is being again discuss on DPR as well. Some people have posted images of just have bad it can become due to this conversion. I'm not paying $ 450.00 for this. My camera & lenses produce sharp enough shots - I'm not spending the money.

 

JMHO

 

and I saw some really scary examples today.

 

Lil

And there are people who think that there is no point in having more than 12 MP in a full-frame DSLR. I think that there is a strange group of denialists who refute any claims that cameras could be better than what is offered by Nikon at a time. They used to claim that full-frame was a bad idea. But I don't hear that now that people have seen those pictures ...

<i>They used to claim that full-frame was a bad idea.</i>

<p>

Ilkka, they would still say that now. It is different matter when it comes to the FX format though! ;)

Lil, can you link us to those scary examples?

I opened the dollar image in an image editing program and sharpened the "stock d200" part. I would not say that the two parts are now identical, but you can come quite close to the HR model.

 

There are some artifacts on the HR part of the picture, but I cannot say if these are moire patterns (they look like) or jpeg artifacts (also might be).

 

Another point is that once you have moire, you will not be able to get it out from your picture, while you can sharpen until it looks good afterwards.

 

Also, if you compare the BW photos of the guy with the cap, you can see a lots of purples coming out from the HR picture, will the stock D200 has a neutral gray. I think this is an aliasing issue.

 

I know that Leica made the choice not to have the AA filter on the M8, and people are happy with that, though. Not only everyone is saying how sharp Leica pictures are.

What if Nikon offered a non-AA version? Should be less expensive too.

This is the post I found this morning...

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=25116632

 

I don't like what I see - but maybe I'm wrong. I'd recommend reading the whole thread. Starts here.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=25100703

 

I can think of $ 450.00 I want to spend on other things - - - like another lens. ;-) etc etc etc

 

Lil

I don't really know much about it and I hadn't heard of it until I saw it here. I guess it's one of those things that you'll never know is better unless you try it.

 

I never thought about lenses much but now, from what I've learned here I can see bad examples of some. This may well be something that makes the D200 better so the next question becomes, do I need it? For me that answer is no for now.

This is the first time I've heard of this as well... I went through 5 D200 Bodies trying to fix the problem with it taking soft pictures. This makes sense and it amazes me that people have had to go to this extent to try and improve the D200 when Nikon swears they have had very few complaints about the lack of sharp pictures taken with the D200. They returned all 5 of the bodies for me however... and now I wait for the D300 and hope it's sharp...

Ryan, did you try in camera sharpening? That did it for me.

 

Lil

I agree with Lil - a little sharpening goes a long way.

When I bought my D200 back in April, I immediately tested it at our local rookery. The image below was shot on the D200 at ISO 100 with a 500mm/f4 AF-S on a sturdy Gitzo 1325 tripod. There was plenty of light so that I had the luxury to stop down to f5.6 at 1/800 sec. The original is a RAW file and I have applied no sharpening at all.

 

I am sure there are good reasons that Canon and Nikon put an anti-aliasing filter in their DSLRs. Any design is going to involve some compromises. If you have some special applications that you can benefit from removing that AA filter, do get that special treatment at a high cost. For most of us, I think the D200 is excellent as is. And at least for me, it is quite surprising that Nikon manages to produce a D300 that seems to be a lot better, at least on paper, at roughly the same cost.<div></div>

There is a difference between capturing finer details in the absence of an anti-aliasing filter and sharpening with algorithms, which can increase apparent sharpness but will not add in detail that was not captured in the first place.

Well said Michael. My thoughts exactly.

and Shun, your example is impressive and point well taken that the D200 is capable of fine

results. Even now, i am still proud to use mine almost every day.

 

But if there's one person who i would like to see test a D200 against a D200HR with no AA

filter it would be you. I am certainly curious to see the results from an unbiased viewpoint

under different situations.

oops, very sorry about that Matthew. My brain is overworked... eww, i committed a triple

post.

Its not really relevant unless you have an image of some personal interest or value, then perhaps that fact that it needs to be sharper, and sharper and sharper and sharper might be a factor, can't really say any great photographs that I know of are great because they're sharp and nothing else.

Nikon should make an AA filter fit on front of the lens to make more money. Also remove it from the camera to save money and ....

That will make everyone happy. Or come up with some on-off "switch".

Is the filter they put in instead good at blocking IR and how much does it affect image quality? A good hot mirror filter is usually a bit thick. After considering what proper sharpening can do, the difference does not really seem to be so dramatic. Sometimes I've run into some moire problems with my D70, very rare but impossible to fix satisfactorily when it happens.