Getting the most out of the Nikon D200

<p>With the newer Nikon models like the D7000 and D700, one major 'improvement' I read about is the greatly improved clarity and sharpness over previous generations, particularly in high ISO and/or low light situations specifically, but in general situations as well. I am trying to 'salvage' my now antiquated D200 by using several strategies: I almost never shoot over 200 ISO, try to avoid any low light situations, and use noise reduction software 'judiciously.' (I use Neat Image.) </p>

<p>Short of buying a newer Nikon, is there anything I can do to optimize the clarity/sharpness of the camera while reducing noise so that an objective observer wouldn't notice a difference between two commensurate images shot by my old D200 and these newer ones, given the same lenses, situation, lighting, etc., and limiting my shooting to situations where these factors would be less of a liability. Note, I'm not referring to any 'creative' improvement or 'taking my photography to the next level' or any other cliche.</p>

<p>P.S. It seems to be the D40 has better clarity/resolution than the D200. Has anyone else found this to be true. If not, I'm thinking it might be that I'm more comfortable holding the D40, and that might be causing the difference.</p>

<p>Use a tripod with your D200. That will allow you to use the base ISO (200) and a shutter speed that may be in your hand-held ability.</p>

<p>[i'm not sure aging does anything to a Nikon sensor, but there are a few years between the manufacture of a Nikon D200, the D40, and the current line of DX-sensor Nikon bodies.]</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I must have missed the less clarity/sharpness memo...My d200 is pretty good at low ISO. Actually, my d70 is also pretty good at low ISO...</p>

<p>Hi Alan, <br>

I've browsed through my files after reading your post and I'm a bit puzzled. Just like with every other camera I use clarity and sharpness largely depend on focus and a good lens.<br>

I've shot over 150.000 pictures (lots of indoor-sports and events at high ISO, landscape-shots at base ISO, portraits and so on) with my old D200 and if I did my part the results are pretty good.<br>

The D700 is a better camera - no question, but I prefer a good file from the D200 over a slightly miss-focussed D700-shot by a wide margin. <br>

Sometimes I've cranked up the contrast-setting at higher ISO to get deeper shadows, but other than that I treat all hi-ISO-files the same way - a good bit of sharpening after noise reduction.</p>

 

<p> I have a D200 and have never noticed a shortage of clarity and sharpness. However I find that my images are the nicest when I have all my ducks in a row. Focus, exposure, lighting etc. A digital camera can only do what it can do however. My D200 at the base ISO of 100 is where I shoot most of the time in good light. </p>

<p>I have to assume the OP's comments about clarity and sharpness are directed at high ISO images only. High ISO JPGs from the D200 are definitely challenged with regard to quality.</p>

<p>The D200 can delivery really good ISO 1600 images and pretty good ISO 3200 images if you get the exposure right (don't underexpose), shoot RAW and use advanced software. I recommend DXO which will make ISO 1600 images look like about ISO 400 (or better). Like Georg, I shot well over 150,000 images with my D200s and relied on DXO to render great quality images regardless of the ISO.</p>

<p>Just use ISO 100 all the time, RAW, correct exposure (UniWB) and concentrate on landscapes and colors (autumn is great for that). In my opinion, this 10 MP CCD sensor blows CMOS out of the water in this use. True, newer models return the favor and destroy the CCD in low-light situations, but that's the point.</p>

<p>The CCD cameras are better for landscapes and color, the CMOS cameras for stuff which requires ISO 500 and higher.</p>

<p>As for clarity and sharpness, well, I always found the image for CMOS quite a bit muddier when handled the same in RAW, so I don't agree with that. (Again, that goes for landscapes.) CMOS needs one more generation to be equal on low ISOs in my opinion. However, when the next gen will be 24 MPix on APS-C, we're back where we've started.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>P.S. It seems to be the D40 has better clarity/resolution than the D200. Has anyone else found this to be true. If not, I'm thinking it might be that I'm more comfortable holding the D40, and that might be causing the difference.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>D40 has a very weak anti-aliasing filter, so it's true to some degree.</p>

<p>I shoot my D200s mostly at ISO 125, which is kind of where my photo brain works after all these years. No complaints here. Anything that goes wrong is my fault, the camera does it's job every time. Go back a few years and look at some of the D200 postings here in the Wednesday Pics, there are many amazing D200 shots. ISO 800 is really not bad either, but your technique has to be good. In fact, yesterday I was flipping through the George Harrison magazine that I think was put out by Time-Life, it's full of gorgeous big grainy pictures shot in exsisting light at med ISO by some of the worlds best. I bet if those guys had a D200 they would have loved it. I follow Scott Kelby's advice about using the "unsharp mask". I am completely digital stupid, so the best thing for me is to read and follow a solid source. So I use the Digital Darkroom forum here and Scott Kelby's basic Digital Photography books. I'm waiting for a D400, if and when it ever shows up.</p>

<p> If this is about high ISO then the D200 in it's native mode is good to ISO 400 consistently. A little off on the exposure and it will be fine. With more computer programs such as DXO you can shoot at higher ISO. However remember dynamic range decreases with each ISO increase. Myself I do not mind limitations and just do the best I can with what I got.</p>

<p>It's kind of a funny-reversed observation.<br>

Newer cameras possibly do better. The older models do not suddenly do worse. Your D200 is every bit as good as it was before, it did not get worse because of what the D7000 might be capable off.<br>

So I would not consider you're trying to squeeze extra life out of it. You're using a camera that always has had the same weak and strong points, still has, and hopefully enjoying it. So no need to start using it differently than you've done so far. Enjoy what it's capable of.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Newer cameras possibly do better. The older models do not suddenly do worse. Your D200 is every bit as good as it was before, it did not get worse because of what the D7000 might be capable off.<br>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

yesterday I was flipping through the George Harrison magazine that I think was put out by Time-Life, it's full of gorgeous big grainy pictures shot in exsisting light at med ISO by some of the worlds best. I bet if those guys had a D200 they would have loved it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of high-ISO capability, newer cameras not just "possibly" do better; they do far better in a very obvious fashion. That is why the standard and expections change very quickly.</p>

<p>George Harrison (I assume we are talking about the Beatles member) passed away 10 years ago in 2001. Therefore, those grainy images from the film era were of course no comparison to what a D200 can do. When I bought my D2X in 2005, I was really glad that its high-ISO capability was so much better than ISO 800 film, and the D200 beats the D2X.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, today, after using the D3/D700 and then the D3S, I can't stand high-ISO from the D2X and D200 any more. As a lot of you know, I am now playing around with a J1. Of course it is no D3S, but the J1 produces very decent ISO 3200, available-light results with its tiny 2.7x sensor. I am looking forward to seeing how Nikon applies all those new technologies to the D4 and on.</p>

<p>In other words, the world's best from back then were sure to be glad to see the D200 in 2005, but after they see the D300 and then D7000 on the DX side and the D3, D3S on the FX side, I am sure they would think differently. If you provide such grainy images today, Time-Life will certainly not accept them any more.</p>

<p>Shun, I am not arguing that newer cameras can do things better. I am only arguing about using an older camera in a different way all of a sudden, because a new camera does something better. Maximising the results of what a D200 can do does not change because of the D7000 - the D200 still does the same and is the same; to get the best results, one still needs to do the same. That was more what I was pointing at.<br>

But indeed I did not consider that others may not accept your images no more because the bar has been raised. If that's the case - well, if you need the ISO1600 performance of a D7000, a D200 will simply not going to work, also not by putting it ona tripod with ISO100....</p>

<p>D200 @ ISO 400, 50mm F1.8AF, F5.6 @ 1/30th.<br>

400 always looks good to me; very little noise.<br>

Granted, I have no other frame of reference, this is my 'newest' dSLR.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Wouter, the whole problem is precisely that the bar has been raised. When there was no D7000, D300, D3S ..., the D200 was king, and people were happy with it. Once you see something better, it is not always easy to continue to accept the older, lower standards because you know that you can do better, sometimes a lot better.</p>

<p>True, true - I've got a D300 for reasons like that. I think we're not saying that much different things actually.</p>

<p>What lenses are you using? And what are you shooting?</p>

<p>In the right hands, your D200 is capable of stunning results. Unless you are shooting right at the margins of high-end professional magazine, news and commercial imaging, there is no reason at all to yearn for more. Go out and shoot that D200, don't worry about what the camera companies want you to buy next, and have fun!</p>

<p>Alan, I, like you, still have a D200 with no replacement in my foreseeable future. I have learned a few things about my D200 and feel that I am still able to get incredible shots with it. Your question asked if you could 'tune' your D200 to match that of a D7000 or D700. The answer is, probably not. But don't buy the hype that you need one of those cameras to get great shots. A D200 is still a terrific camera. All of those of us that are contributing to your post are going to be asking a few questions of your favorite subjects or genres. We also will want to know what lenses you are currently using.</p>

<p>You can't underestimate the value of a good tripos and head. And I have learned from experience that I can't get my best shots from my D200 with my beloved MBD200 attached. Too much flex. Without a tripod, try to brace yourself.</p>

<p>For my best possible shots I shoot RAW and convert to JPEGs from View NX. The RAW converter in Adobe Photoshop Elements (it's what I use) is good but I prefer the Nikon-specific conversion I get from View NX. It's free from Nikon's web site and worth a look if you haven't tried it. If you shoot JPEG, make sure that you have selected 'Optimal Quality' from the 'JPEG Compression' menu in the Shooting Menu. And Nikon's RAWs will need sharpening. Ask about sharpening techniques and you will get plenty of usable information. My favorites are Topaz Labs' InFocus and the 'High Pass' filter technique in an 'Overlay' layer. </p>

<p>I see you haven't weighed in since your original post but I hope you will check back. The PN think tank is deep. I am embarrassed to say that while some of what I have written above seems very basic and elemental, I need to remind myself often of the basics and the need to practice them.</p>

<p>I have added a shot I took a week or so ago of my cat Sammie. I hand-held my D200 in available room light, at ISO1600 (gasp). I used my 85mm F1.8D lens (arguably the sharpest lens I have outside of my 60mm Micro Nikkor F2.8D) wide open for 1/20th of a second. The depth of field is shallow and I did use Topaz Labs' Denoise program, but ISO1600 hand-held in available light? With a D200? Not too shabby.</p>

<p>Tom </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Alan, the D200 is a great camera, fully competitive with today's cameras as low ISO. At low ISO, the only benefit of newer cameras would be better auto-focus and longer battery life. I got great pix out of my D200.</p>

<p>The OP asked the right question, i.e., how to get the most out of a piece of equipment. But he failed to provide some critical information, such as:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What lenses are you using? And what are you shooting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Without any context, the responses are at best guesses, and at worst way off track.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Just like with every other camera I use clarity and sharpness largely depend on focus and a good lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. But I have found accurate focusing with AF on my D200 very challenging, especially when the critical subject is off center and/or moving. These cameras' AF features are cleverly designed to suit many different shooting situations. But the setup for each are scattered among knobs and switches on the body and entries in the menu. While Nikon's manual describes the function of each, they do not clarify the interactions between the individual settings very well. Get one of the settings wrong, and the AF would behave in ways you don't expect.</p>

 

<p>Thom has this to say:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D200's autofocus system is actually very difficult to describe clearly. I've come up with a number of interesting observations and idiosyncrasies that are too elaborate for this review (obviously, they'll be in my eBook). Most of those derive from the fact that the AF sensors in the D200 are just much different than you'd expect from Nikon's description of them. First, there are only seven (not 11), though at least two of these apparently have multiple personalities, which is where the wide versus narrow AF area mechanism comes from. The shape of the sensing areas is also much different than you'd expect from Nikon's descriptions. This is almost certainly going to cause the all-automatic users some grief, as the AF system will do things they aren't expecting. However, once I finally tuned into the subtle differences the underlying AF part makes, I found my own focusing performance improved dramatically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps his ebook can help. Or try this link:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d200_multi-cam_af/" target="_blank">http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d200_multi-cam_af/</a></p>

<p>I have found it is impossible to accurately MF by the viewfinder on my D200. Perhaps my next body with live view and/or a better viewfinder can help.</p>

 

<p>IDK, I think the D200 focuses quite easily for me, both AF and manual. I guess it's a personal experience type thing. Shun, I think if Annie Lebowitz hands in a bunch of grainy black and white shots from film to TL, they're getting published, and called some stroke of genius 8-))</p>

 

<p>Hello from the original 'OP.' I'm not a <em>'must have the latest technology to stay in the running'</em> type of person. Actually, the main impetus for my inquiry was after reading Ken Rockwell's posting (I know some people think he's full of it--but I can't address that). In any case, he is not a technophile, it seems, but after reviewing the newer Nikons (e.g., the 7000 and 700), he placed a note on his D200 review that it is now meant purely for archival purposes, in other words, such descriptions as 'a leap forward' or 'great camera' or 'terrific features and results' were now obsolete because he was describing the camera circa 2005, and, as other posters have noted, one's perception (in both senses of the word) are modified by the current 'state of the art.' I haven't checked those comparison experiments some photographers like to do since I find them artificial in terms real life situations. BTW,<em> I use a 50mm 1.4 prime lens, the 18-55mm lens that comes with the standard Nikon packages and the Nikon 55-200 telephoto</em>. Other than the prime lens, I'm pretty certain that the other two aren't optimal, so I am thinking of upgrading one of the lenses. I'll also try the dedicated Nikon Raw converter. Nevertheless, I'm going to avoid low light conditions, and I do use a tripod when possible.</p>

<p>Alan, the fact of the matter is that the D200 is an out-of-date camera. Compared to the D7000, which sells for far less than the D200 was when it was a current model 4, 5 years ago, the D200's AF, high-ISO, and back LCD are a grade or two behind today's consumer cameras. In particular, there is no live view and video capabilities; there is also no dual memory cards and 100% viewfinder.</p>

<p>However, if you mainly capture still subjects at low ISOs and you don't need live view to tune your focus, the D200 maybe still fine.</p>

<p>I think you are much better off letting your personal experience and need determine whether the D200 is still meeting your own requirements.</p>