Nikon D200 vs Mamiya 7 !

[turgut_tarhan]

<p>After a long time of research in finding the right stuff, I've eventually

bought a Nikon D200 + 18-200mm one week ago. I'm amazed to see how its raw

conversion came close to Mamiya 7 scan (which revealed almost all the info

recorded) in terms of resolution. No need to say, it's obviously better than

20D, and much beyond my expectations.<br>

<br>

Pls. see the screenshot for comparison. No catch! FoV is about equal at

horizontal, and same areas are cropped. Mamiya is 100%, and Nikon is 125%

upressed to compare easier. Both were photographed at optimal apertures. There

are seasonal differences and minor changes in the scenery due to 3-month

lapse.<br>

<br>

Unlike Canon 20D, there is substantial difference between in-camera jpeg and

raw. Even at ISO 100, I can see little noise like fine film grain on midtones

and shadows. While converting, the camera seems to apply noise reduction to

some degree, which destroys fine detail. The application may not distinguish

noise from detail, and results in smeared off leaves, weed, rock or any other

fractal object.<br>

<br>

But, the raw converted by Nikon Capture without NR is exactly what I'd like to

see for landscapes.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.turguttarhan.com" target="_blank">Turgut Tarhan</a></p><div></div>

[ky2]

Im sorry, but that's nonsense from the school of Michael Reichmann. Get a better scanner.

 

My beat-up Pentax 6x7 trashes my D200 with my ZF lens, and I use a lowely Epson flat bed.

[mars c]

It looks close to the mamiya alright, but the color is off, I dont know which is the more accurate one , for I was not there to remember. I think it the mamiya that has more accurate colors, and even then the mamiya has more resolution .

 

Not suprisingly , you're using a mid price zoom and comparing it to mamiya with 50mm prime (I pressume).

 

It should have been compared with a nikon 50mm prime also.

[ShunCheung]

How was the Mamiya image scanned is certainly a question. And what type of film, which lens, aperture, shutter speed, and most importantly, what type of tripod did you use in each case? Please don't tell me that those are hand held.

 

At least to me, the D200 image looks overly sharpened. But in any case, we cannot compare quality details from small web images.

[lee hamiel]

After owning a Mamiya 6 with a 50mm lens which is a great lens I would prefer to see a test with even the 17-35 2.8 as I have owned this lens & also now own a D200.

 

Thanks for posting but hopefully we can get a better comparison.

 

Lastly - I'm glad you are happy as this type of thread is a tough one to give answers to.

[david carver]

Keep saying it over and over until you believe it.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Keep saying it over and over until you believe it."

 

Axe to grind?

 

My 4 MP p&s will blow away a Mamiya 7 image, too. As long as I use a junk scanner. Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanners not allowed!

 

Lots of tests done on the web. Too bad most of them are poorly conceived and executed. We need additional details to know if this "test" belongs in that category.

 

Nothing wrong with digital. I shoot a Nikon D200, too. And I shoot film. Go figure.

[michaelschrag]

"No need to say, it's obviously better than 20D, and much beyond my expectations."

 

More non-sense. I own both the D200 and the 20D. They are similar in terms of IQ and the Canon beats the D200 hands down at higher ISO. I'll post the pictures/tests to prove it when I get some time - after I get the kids in bed.

[ShunCheung]

"Nonsense" is somewhat an offensive word which frequently ignites flame wars.

 

If you want to compare results from different cameras, please post some images to back up your claim. More importantly, specify how they were shot (and scanned, if applicable) including exposure info, tripod, flash, etc. When you post images, please observe photo.net's image size requirements. To show details, make a small crop from the original (huge) image.

[nolan_ross]

My 1.3mp cell phone is better than my Kodak 110mm. I can prove it. Just kidding.....Why can't different formats just be different ....It reminds me of the Ford is better than a Chevy thing we used to do in the Army constantly back in the day.....Nolan

[michaelschrag]

OK � here is an example of the test shots between the D200 and the 20D at 200%. This is a center crop of a target 15 feet away from the tripod for the D200 and 16 ft away for the 20D. Both cameras were shot using raw and the ISO was set to 100, mirror lockup, and a Nikon 50mm AIS f/1.8 was used on both cameras (@ f8). Raw files were converted with Raw Shooter Essentials (20D) and Capture 1 (D200). Images were then sharpened slightly in Photoshop for the D200 (it is well known that the default in camera sharpening for the D200 is not aggressive). If there is a big difference, I sure can�t tell what it is. Interestingly, Dpreview had similar results: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page26.asp<div></div>

[Karim Ghantous]

Turgut, they are about even but as others have said we need more data.

 

This is a good example of how to do a MF vs. digital comparison:

 

http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/

 

BTW Michael there shouldn't be much difference between 10Mpx and 8Mpx. The difference in resolution is only about 10% (2336 vs. 2592 lines).

[turgut_tarhan]

<p>This is only a "first impression" that I wanted to share my unbiased excitement. Mamiya is Mamiya, Nikon is Nikon. Both are good for what they're intended. The color was dull because of mode I; but then mode III yielded more saturated reds & greens. Sharpening was set to max, and I haven't applied any extra usm. For the lens; sorry, I don't have any access to other Nikon lenses, except a colleague's 24-120mm which I've already run a quick comparison @ f/8 (18-200mm

was sharper except around 50mm center)<br>

<br>

The file was already from <a target="_blank" href="http://www.turguttarhan.com/mosaic/test.htm"> another test about mosaic

stitching</a>. You may find the details of testing procedure. I may try another test soon like on this page, and this time pay ~$15 & have the film scanned with a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner @ 10x mag. to stop any objections against scanning, though

knowing there won't be much difference except for amplifying

grain.</p><p>I've bought this camera mainly for mosaic stitching to obtain or

even exceed Mamiya 7 resolution, like how I did with 20D. Now, I have a feeling

that maybe I won't need that often. A single frame would even be sufficient if

stitching is not convenient. I agree D200 & 20D are on par at in-camera

jpeg; yet these raw @ ISO 100 converted by Capture v.4.4 with no NR showed a

miracle without any digital watercolor-like effect on details, but more like

film scan. That's what made me so excited. Other converters may exhibit

different results.</p

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Karim - Thanks for the link to an excellent test. I'd be content with either medium format film or a good DSLR for color work. But I don't shoot professionally and I really enjoy darkroom work.

 

Fords are better than Chevys.

[frank uhlig]

If your only aim is sharpness you might better have considered b+w only in these tests.

 

But what do you say of the color?

Color looks as different as day and night, even when comparing the full frame digital to the stitched 2x2 digital. And then the 6x7 blows them all .... away.

 

Why are you concerned about sharpness at all? Seems to be highly ingenious when trying to create art. But for police type surveillance efforts sharpness is apparently all. Your mindset is very well qualified for this TSA period ..., but what are you missing? Joy in life, art in life, creating, seeing, ... are not available through the microscope of sharpness, I am afraid.

[walterh]

.. that MF film or even larger format (where high quality scanners get more and more expensive) is inferior to a good digital camera like the D200 or D20. Then again and again we see that if you know how to select the right film, process properly and scan in adequate technique results from MF still look quite impressive.

 

Actually this is true in all areas of technology - comparing two methods performed by completely inadequate quality contzrol can give any meaningless result. It requires a good deal of technique to get the best out of MF film and of digital cameras like the D200. With increasing sophistication (like matrix metering IS AF, intelligent flash systems)user error (or inabilty) becomes of less and less importance and mediocre results from a D200 easily approach the level of mistreated MF images.

[ShunCheung]

Karim, I'd also like to thank you for providing that link. It is quite an informative article.

 

I have (or actually, I had) a similar dilimma, too. While I have pretty much given up on 35mm film, I still occasionally shoot 645 film in addition to my D2X. The largest print I can make at home is 13x19", and even at ISO 800, the D2X is giving me results that are certainly good enough.

 

I haven't done a careful comparison with 645 film. To compare, I'd need a good scanner, such as the $2000 Coolscan 9000. However, continue to shoot medium format means buying film, getting it processed, and scanning. And once we start talking about glass film holder, wed mounting ..., shooting digital seems to be far more efficient, and I already have a lot more Nikon lenses to use compared to the 2 medium-format lenses I also have.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Shun - Scanning is a hassle. That's why I use an enlarger to print B&W (a hassle for some, but I like it). But I do have a lot of older color work that I will scan once I pony up for a Nikon scanner. I already own an Epson 4990, but why put in all of that time to scan at 1200 dpi (marketing claim of 4800 dpi is absurd)?

 

I'm really happy with the results I get from 645 negs and 4x5. And my D200 produces great images, too.

 

Life is good.

[ky2]

<i>"I haven't done a careful comparison with 645 film. To compare, I'd need a good scanner, such as the $2000 Coolscan 9000. However, continue to shoot medium format means buying film, getting it processed, and scanning. And once we start talking about glass film holder, wed mounting ..., shooting digital seems to be far more efficient, and I already have a lot more Nikon lenses to use compared to the 2 medium-format lenses I also have."</i><Br><Br>

I usual scan just for web-page purposes, or to email a sample. If I want anything printed, I send my negs/chromes to a professional printer. The largest I printed so far from my P67 is 70x50", and it's far better than anything I ever shot with any DSLR.

[ShunCheung]

Yaron, first of all, I am not arguing one way or another. I merely want to get facts.

 

So have you sent your digital files from your D200 to a comparable professional printer to make large prints? If so, since we are neighbors, can we get together and compare those prints in person? If not, I would say that you have not yet made a fair comparison.

 

My point is that at least for me, the D2X, even at ISO 800, is good enough for the prints I make. Any further improvement in the still rapidly changing digital technology will be additional bonus. Whether 6x4.5 or 6x7 film is "better" is not important to me. I would rather use digital because of the convenience factor.

 

But that is just me. Your mileage may vary.

[ky2]

Shun, I actually have sent the files to that printer (West Coast Imaging) but only for three 20x30" prints. The bigger print from the P67 was still better, for chrome images.

[ky2]

There's no doubt that the D200 is good enough for 98% of what I do -- but it would be incorrect to assume it's better than a good medium format print-- done at the specs which require medium format...

 

The lens btw, was the venerable Pentax 75/4.5, the body is a beat up P67 user, and the film was Provia 100F.

[savagesax]

I have a hasselblad and a D2X. Both are great cameras. I'll take a hassy scanned neg anyday over a D2X.

[ShunCheung]

Yaron, when you are ready to show me those prints, give me a call.

 

BTW, I see a lot more claims but not a whole lot of image comparisons to back them up.

[walterh]

"BTW, I see a lot more claims but not a whole lot of image comparisons to back them up."

 

And to be close to this post the comparison should be with Mamiya and the format that is even larger than 645 :-) If I get the time tomorrow I will try to dig out something slightly smaller than what you get with the Mamiya7. It is still on my "want to buy list", especially with the famous 43mm wide angle lens. I think scanned 645 format really is a bit too close to a D200. Personally I feel 6x7 or 6x9 is the better way to complement a D200 class camera. Turgut please tell us which lens you had in mind for this comparison, but I think there is no really bad lens out there for the Mamiya 7. Unfortunately I am not alone with my thoughts as prices of used Mamiya 7 at least with the 43mm lens are not jet dumping prices. Perhaps this thread will help :-P Perhaps someone will trade his Mamiya 7 for one of my Nikon lenses to go with his D200 - would free him from a lot of hassle.