Adjustment of a Nikon D200 camera according to KR

<p>Recently a Nikon D200 User's Guide by Ken Rockwell was read by me. Before readjust my camera according to this Guide, let me ask photo community: have anybody tested and used his recommendation, what is result?</p>

<p>Isn't that obvious from his website: he likes oversaturated "nuclear" colors and he chooses his camera settings accordingly. The native ISO on the D200 is 200 not 100, his choice can result in some dynamic range restriction and a slight increase in noise. JPEG BASIC maybe sufficient for him, I certainly see a difference to NORMAL or FINE. But then, I have stopped shooting JPEG quite some time ago. But the short answer is - try them and see if they work for you. Then change what doesn't work. If you aren't familiar with the settings, it might be a good idea to write down what your current settings are before you change them.</p>

<p>Dieter, the base ISO for the D200 is indeed ISO 100. It goes up to ISO 1600 and then Hi 1 in 1/3-stop steps. It has no "Low ISO" settings below 100.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell is not a person I respect and neither is his photography. I would recommend against following his settings.</p>

<p>Indeed Shun - base ISO is 100, just like the D80; thanks for the correction. </p>

<p>Another Ken Rockwell thread...sigh...</p>

<p>i agree with dieter in writing down the current settings of your camera before resorting to change, whether going with ken rockwell or not. i might get a beating here but why don't you try what you have read on. only you will know what you like.</p>

<p>rockwell is fun reading. didn't like his D70s setting. i liked mine better; didn't like his D200 setting. liked mine better; didn't like his D90 setting. but borrowed some from him................so it's your choice. it's your camera. do your thing.</p>

<p> and don't forget you only need a D40 :)</p>

 

<p lang="en-US">Read D200 instruction guide (eBook) written by Thom Hogan (you can order it on his web site). It will help you to understand the implications of the different settings. It's very important to make an informed decision weather to shoot raw or jpg. If you choose to shoot jpg (I don't) it's again very important to chose the right settings for the jpg. The wrong decisions have long standing implications for you because it's about throwing away forever a part of the data available to you and/or unrecoverable modification of the rest of it. </p>

<p lang="en-US">The D-200 settings recommended by Thom Hogan make much more sense to me. His recommendations are based not only on deep knowledge of photography and technology but also on knowing the needs of different types of photographers.</p>

<p lang="en-US">Beware - the recommendations of Ken Rockwell are based mostly on his own needs.<br>

Regards, Marko</p>

 

<p>Please setup your camera according to <em>your</em> needs. If you need a good guide, I highly recommend Thom Hogan's D200 guide:<br /> http://www.bythom.com/d200guide.htm<br /> Can you provide some more details on what you want to photograph and what lenses you are using?</p>

<p>I used Ken's settings as a base point for my own settings, but I think this is a matter for personal choice.<br>

Also, I shoot RAW so I can always adjust any of the settings later.<br>

I think you should experiment to find what works for you and your style best.<br>

Andy</p>

<p>Indeed. Shoot RAW, and then use Capture NX2 to see how each and every in-camera setting will impact the same image. Once you see the results you like, note the software settings, and set up the camera the same way. Then the JPGs you have the camera produce will look the same way.</p>

<p>Dear original poster</p>

<p>Please understand that photography is an artistic medium, and that there are no right or wrong settings, no right or wrong composition, no right or wrong exposure. When using a camera, you are trying to make something that will look the way YOU want it to look. So, how do you want your picture to look? Nothing wrong with Ken Rockwell's settings, but you're not Ken Rockwell, are you?</p>

<p>I remember when first getting into digital photography searching the net for reviews on bodies and lenses. Every single search had KR in the first half dozen results.<br /><br />Appealing reading at first until you start to cross-check reviews and read what he actually wrote instead of what you thought he wrote. Read between the lines - '...this lens works on every camera since 1950...', '...this lens auto-focus is as fast as my 70-210...', '...D3 is as good as the D700 is as good as the D300', '...I prefer to use my D40 to hauling around a D3x...' Honestly, how can you not laugh?<br /><br />Rather like the villagers of Aesop's Boy Who Cried Wolf story, I don't pay attention any more. Unless of course I need to know a filter ring size!!!<br /><br />KR's settings are so extreme I wondered if he had an ocular problem. Try shooting a snowy dawn or dusk scene with his settings and it looks like you were using crayola sticks.</p>

<p>Shoot RAW and use NX2 to explore what you like. Read Thom Hogan, Bjorn Rorslett, Luminous Landscape and many others, but KR is National Enquirer level reading ...</p>

<p>Ken "misses" a lot, but occasionally gets it right. But his settings do indeed produce rather garish colors. Some of his photography, however, I like a lot.</p>

<p>He sets his color way too saturated for my taste.</p>

<p>I agree, set your camera to what you prefer. Follow your own style. Books are great references, but that's all. If you want great photos, shoot RAW and never never shoot anything lower than Jpeg fine. I have 2 D200's and 1 D300. I prefer the D200. It has a CCD sensor which from my research is used for photographic images in high powered cameras. The color is so close to normal. The D300 is over saturated in jpeg so I never shoot anything with this camera other than RAW(much better). Studio work is also fine for the D300 and also low light. The D200 is fast, accurate and the best camera for the price that Nikon ever made. Everyone I know who has or had this camera loved it. Good Luck, have fun.</p>

<p>KR is very good... at getting people to talk about KR.<br>

Why, look, he did it again.</p>

Matt, your suggestion is very thoughtful. I will try that when I get some time. Thanks.

<p>KR is entitled to his opinion just as much as anyone else. Taking 'snippets' and tearing him/them apart over them is insanity.</p>

<p>While am not suggesting his site is 100% correct on everything, some of the comments being made are incomplete thereby making them somewhat incorrect or purely subjective.</p>

<p>For example: <br>

KR recommends JPG OPTIMAL QUALITY, not just JPG Basic for the D200 which, according to him... "Using the Optimal Quality option in BASIC JPG lets the file size grow to the same size as JPG NORMAL if the subject needs it, and lets the file size shrink back to JPG BASIC when it's not." </p>

<p>In my own personal testing of every Nikon P&S and DSRL body, I have yet to find a significant difference in a JPG Basic to JPG fine that would show up in an 8 x 10 (or even a bit larger) print. And even when pixel peeping, the differences are nominal.</p>

<p>A lot of people shoot JPG. So what! You don't have to shoot RAW to get a good picture. Nikon cameras are capable of producing excellent JPG files.</p>

<p><em>"He sets his color way too saturated for my taste."</em> Everyone has different preferences. That is why they make saturation and other important functions adjustable. KR should not be chastised for liking bright, vibrant, brilliant color in scenes he is shooting scenes that have bright, vibrant, brilliant color in them. Or enhancing them when they don't by cranking up the saturation.</p>

<p><em>"and don't forget you only need a D40 :)"</em> I believe his opinion about the D40 is that he prefers to carry around a D40 for casual photography rather than a large, bulky body. I believe he knows when to break out the big guns. I have a D40. And a D3. The D40 is a very capable camera! Is its low light high ISO performance as good as the D3? No. Is its AF module as good as the D3? No. The D40 is lacking in many areas when you compare it side-by-side to a D3. But it does have a big advantage in at least several areas - size, weight, flash sync speed. It certainly does not lack anything in the IQ department (at lower ISOs).</p>

<p>What possible harm could there be in following KR's settings recommendations. If a photographer doesn't like them, he can always reset the camera and start over.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"In my own personal testing of every Nikon P&S and DSRL body, I have yet to find a significant difference in a JPG Basic to JPG fine that would show up in an 8 x 10 (or even a bit larger) print. And even when pixel peeping, the differences are nominal."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's interesting. Does that include 4-6 mp cameras, 12 mp or what? I'd like to see those prints.</p>

<p>Lex, I tested that statement with my D50 and found it to be true as far as prints were concerned. </p>

<p>But... I still shoot JPG Fine + Raw.</p>

<p>Lex, I have found that typically the megapixel count of a NIKON camera makes little difference in changes in image quality when comparing identical images shot with identical setting with that camera except for changes in quality from JPG Basic, JPG Normal or JPG Fine. I am not saying there are no differences. But I have found that the differences can be hard if not almost impossible to see in regular sized prints. </p>

<p>I could be wrong but I don't believe megapixels have anything to do with image sharpness except for limitations in enlargements and/or cropping. A 6mp image and a 50mp image will render identical 4 x 6, 5 x 7 (and probably even 8 x 10) prints all other things being equal. </p>

Might I suggest some alternative sources of Nikon info?

 

Dave Black

 

Scott Kelby

 

Thom Hogan

<p>KR is indeed entitled to his own personal opinions, but "I" would disregard his words. he is in my opinion a newb trap.</p>

 

<p>With respect to the original question posed, when I bought my first capable DSLR, a D200, I downloaded KR's manual and worked through it a couple of times. I found it very useful despite the fact that some of his judgements (over-saturation + JPEG basic being the obvious candidates) were clearly opinionated and questionable. At that point I'd little for comparison having previously shot for years with an FM2n and briefly with a Canon Pro 1.</p>

<p>Compared to the Nikon manual KR's terse description of the functionality was extremely useful, if misleading in parts. Having subsequently bought Thom Hogan's D700 guides, there's no comparison of course - however the KR guide was pretty much what I needed at an early stage and wasn't my only source of information in any case. So I'd say download it and give it a read through. I assume the OP is new to DSLRs and is now warned off taking KR's judgements at face value. His descriptions of some of the <em>functionality </em>is often admirably succinct.</p>

<p>Just so there's no misunderstanding, I think the man's an a55h0le. Quite a clever business-a55h0le, without doubt, and sometimes even an amusing a55h0le. I'd strongly discourage anyone from actually sending him money for his manuals, much less a donation enabling to continue expanding his ever-expanding family.</p>

<p>On reflection, he probably IS the OP...</p>

<p>Roy</p>