D200 Newbie Questions

[dan_v]

Greetings,

 

I�m considering the D200 as my first dSLR and hope you can shed some light on a

couple of issues.

 

Some time ago, I read somewhere that the D200�s file size was too small to be

acceptable to some of the stock photo houses (something about a 12MP minimum).

Any truth to this?

 

I shoot primarily scenics and close-ups; no people or wildlife. In your

opinion, what two or three Nikon lenses are the best money can buy for such

applications?

 

Thanks,

 

-Dan

[leicaglow]

Hi Dan, I can't imagine that's the case now. I think it produces 15Mb files as I recall. The lens question will cause a lot of stink here because few have used ALL the lenses or really know the difference between them.

 

If you're looking for prime lenses, my choice might be one of these 2 or 3: 20mm, 35mm, and 105 Micro. Alternatively: 20mm, 35mm and 60mm Micro.

 

For zooms, it's all over the board. Traditionally, the fixed f/2.8 glass is well known for superb quality (ala 17-35mm), but I bought a 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 that's pretty darn close. I was also impressed, and planning to buy (eventually) the 12-24mm Nikon.

 

The one thing I've found is that the new glass that replaces AI-S lenses is truly better. I replaced a 50 and 85 recently that is much better than the older versions they replace. I'm sure you'll get tons more answers with varying viewpoints.

[photo5]

The D200 produces a 28.7mb capture. The current standard for commercial images at Corbis and Getty is 50-80mb, so resizing has to be done. For editorial content, a 17mb file is currently the minimum, but many clients want a 50mb+ size file even from editorial and news content so the image may still need to be resized. This is the downfall of digital currently, and there are still many film shooters who won't switch to digital for this reason (film can be scanned to 100mb+ and look very clean, vs. a digital file being resized to 100mb with all the ugly interpolation artifacting all over the place)

 

You can shoot film and scan your images to submit to a digital stock company. Granted on average there is more post-processing necessary from a scanned piece of film vs. a digital capture.

 

Dave

[photo5]

I should also mention that most photographers on contract shoot digital with the Canon 1DS MKII, and some with the Nikon D2X. The Canon seems to be the most popular choice and in my opinion produces the cleanest file with the least amount of post-processing necessary for submission.

 

Dave

[bwcombs]

NEF (RAW) files from my D200 come in at a little over 15MB. I have had no problem with

my D200 files reproduced in pub work.

 

Lenses I would recommend from experience on the D200: 12-24mm f/4, 20mm f/2.8,

35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8 Micro, 85mm f/2.8 Micro, 105mm f/2.8 Micro,

180mm f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8.

 

For your scenics and closeup apps, I'd look at the 12-24mm, 20mm, 35mm, 60mm,

105mm. The 17-35mm is a great lens as well.

[brandonhamilton]

"Dave Lee , aug 16, 2006; 01:02 p.m.

The D200 produces a 28.7mb capture."

 

I don't think this is right. I think they are somewhere around 15MB per raw file. My D2X, which is over 12megapixels, produces just over 20MB files.

[frank_skomial]

Yes, Dan,

 

Do not let people confuse you about file size. File size and picture size are 2 different things.

 

Some stock photo houses require 12 MegaPixels picture size, or larger. In addition to picture size in megapixels requirement, there is usually additional requirement about file format and file size (in MEGABYTES).

 

D200 may not be good enough for some professional submissions. You could upsize the 10 MegaPixels to the minimum required, using Spline of other technique, but that will be obvious, and may not meet minimum pixels criteria. All depends on quality and picture selling attributes.

[briany]

Brandon, around 15MB (12 bits/pixel) per RAW file, but around double that for a 24 bit TIFF.

 

Dan, the difference between 12MP and 10MP is so negligible, it's hard to imagine they'd care, but I'm sure each service is different.

 

Dave, if you scan film to over 100MB at 24 bits (that would be 33 megapixels, or a roughly 5000x7500 pixel scan), there's no way it looks "clean." You're imaging grain at that point. Anyway, it's not really that much of a stretch from the 30MB 24 bit TIFFs the D200 produces - if you double the image dimensions through interpolation, you're at a 120MB TIFF from the D200, and if you're starting with a clean file and using good uprezzing techniques, it should look pretty good.

[ts wallace]

Dan -

 

The best D200 lenses you can get are the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom and the

70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Their quality is exceptional, and it beats lugging around multiple fixed

lenses. The 12-24 Nikkor zoom is also good if you do much wide-angle. For close-ups I've

heard really good things about the Nikkor Micro 105mm lens; it's next on my buy list. Happy

shooting!

 

- Tim

[juan_parm_nides]

Dan,

what Tim Wallace says is right. This two lens are a very very good combination of quality and coverage. Anyway, welcome to Nikon club.

[steve_larese1]

When opened in Photoshop, the D200 RAW files cover roughly 8x10 at 300 dpi. This is fine

for a full-page vertical, but no cropping and no double spreads. The D2x covers roughly

11x14 at 300 dpi. It's a great camera, but many stock houses don't want to mess with

resizing or getting a double-truck request they can't fulfill. Of course this varies company

to company. I still scan many 35mm and larger slides to hit the 11x14 at 300 dpi size in

addition to using the D2x, especially with wide-angle work.

 

Check out Corbis and other stock agencies for their requirements.

[ray_rupnow]

Dan...with the Nikon D200 you should look for the old AI/AIS lenses, especially the 180 2.8, that will take great close ups at a distance with extension tubes, or any of the micro Nikkors -55mm, 105mm or 200mm. I even use a AI converted 90-180 Vivitar Series one (photo attached).... And you can shoot in aperture priority auto or manual and meter in all modes..<div></div>

[nilesullivan]

Yes as above!

<p>

The Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

<p>

and...

<p>

the 50mm 1.8 (inexpensive, a little more speed, lightweight, sharp)

[dan_v]

Thanks to all for your quick responses and recommendations for good lenses.

 

I'm disappointed that my suspicions appear to be correct about the D200's too-small file sizes for stock house use. From everything I've read this is one sweet camera; but I may have to consider other models and makes - although I have a difficult time justifying the too-high price of the D2X or Canon's high-end model.

 

-Dan

[photo5]

Dan,

 

I wouldn't say it is too small. It's great if you're shooting for Royalty Free or Editorial usage. For high-end commercial imagery film is still king (for the reasons I laid out before).

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[photo5]

<i>Dave, if you scan film to over 100MB at 24 bits (that would be 33 megapixels, or a roughly 5000x7500 pixel scan), there's no way it looks "clean." You're imaging grain at that point. Anyway, it's not really that much of a stretch from the 30MB 24 bit TIFFs the D200 produces - if you double the image dimensions through interpolation, you're at a 120MB TIFF from the D200, and if you're starting with a clean file and using good uprezzing techniques, it should look pretty good.</i><P>

 

Brian, actually whatever size you scan film at, there is grain in the image, so what you say doesn't make sense. And 8 bit files are the standard, not 24 bit (?!). I'm talking about an 80mb 8 bit scan of a 35mm slide vs. a 28mb digital capture from a D200. I would take the scanned film for poster usage, not to mention the ability to rescan the film if cropping is needed.<P>

 

I don't know how much experience you have with interpolation, but most clients run screaming when they hear that word. It may be OK for small publications, but National Geographic *demands* a rescan when *any* interpolation is required, especially for cover usage.<P>

 

I work in the industry, and you would be shocked to hear what clients want in terms of file size. Digital just isn't there yet. And film grain is better than gross pixelization.<P>

 

Cheers,<P>

 

Dave

[savagesax]

Off the subject slightly, but is the microtek 120 film scanner good enough for medium format? It is 4000 X 4000 DPI. I have a ton of medium format nature images to transfer. Thanks!

 

Also, I heard that if you join Nikon Pro, you can pick up a reconditioned D2X for $3000, if anyone is interested. I'm not totally positive, but pretty sure about this. 3 month warranty.

[steve_larese1]

My response above isn't to say the D200 isn't a superlative camera. I use it for

assignments frequently. (Also, if you're not familiar with stock photography, check it out. I

don't know if it's the business that it used to be for photographers... .) It's great because

it's not as heavy as the D2x, and I can carry a FM2n when I need to maximize wide angle

lens or want film duplication. Best of both worlds. D200 is a professional-grade camera.

[twmeyer]

There are many inaccuracies in this thread. <p>The D200's fine jpg is 28.7 megabytes. People who say the NEF is only 12mb evidently aren't paying attention during post processing (or have never actually opened a D200 NEF), as it opens to the same size as the jpg (in 8 bit). The file, in either case, is 12.907 inches x 8.64 at 300ppi. Damn near 9x13.<p> With a decent interpolating protocol, the D200 image file is perfectly adequate for much larger reproduction, and right out of the camera is excellent for editorial and corporate work, <i>if the photographer</i> is up to the task... t

[photo5]

Tom, the D200 produces a 28mb TIFF file, which is uncompressed. There is always confusion between a compressed JPG filesize, NEF filesize, and an uncompressed TIFF filesize. When taking an image to a service bureau for printing, they want to know the uncompressed TIFF filesize as most service bureaus charge by the megabyte. The compressed JPG's from the D200 vary in size (depending on what compression level you choose, FINE, NORMAL, OR BASIC) from 1.2mb to 5mb. Also, you can tell the D200 to use size priority, or detail priority, which means the camera will compress to the same size no matter what, or compress depending on how much detail is in the image.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Dave

[steve_larese1]

"Damn near" only counts in horseshoes and hand gernades, unfortunately. It's a matter of

math, and companies don't have the time to vet out photographers to see if they're good

enough when it comes to computers. Interpolation is a dirty word in publishing, whether

you know what you're doing or not. For making breath taking fine-art prints, you bet. But

for selling to someone at a stock agency on the coast or overseas, they'll stick with the

math and go with what they know. I've heard too many times from photographers, "I've got

great, high-rez photos," and it turns out they used a cell phone or 4 MB camera. I tell

them the image won't reproduce at the size we need in the magazine, and they say, "But it

looks great when I print it out. My Mom framed a copy and hung it in the living room

because it looks so good." Apples and oranges. The D200 is a wonderful camera, I'm using

it today for a job, but there's a reason companies have laid down their law when it comes

to digital. They don't have time for all this back and forth. The equipment hits the

numbers or it doesn't. Some companies used to only accept medium format, no 35mm.

Medium format film is still very much loved in the industry, not only for its quality but

because you can hold a sheet up to your office lights and instantly see 12 images, and not

mess around opening file after file on your computer and checking the size when opened.

Today 35 mm is widely accepted, maybe in a while fewer MBs will be accepted, too. Also, a

lot of people in publishing don't know all this computer stuff, they just know if you're

using a 16 MB camera, it'll work for them. So they stick with that. Maybe it'll change...

[photo5]

Steve,

 

You speak the truth. This is a very strange industry with so many people in decision making positions who buy images don't have the slightest clue what they are ordering. And I don't feel it's my job to educate them, but in the end I always have to anyway. Argh. Take a bloomin' night class for crissake! :-)

 

Dave