d200 'soft' image capture

[rachellemarshall]

i'm looking into buying a d200 and have been doing a lot of research

on it. i've have found that the images captured are not 'sharp' and

need to be edited and sharpened quite a bit in photoshop...

 

how much of a 'problem' is this? and has anyone experienced this in

their own images? and if so, do you find it problematic or hindering?

 

thanks.

[photo5]

The review in dpreview found the same thing, when comparing to Canon 30D which has a harder default sharpening setting. You can change the sharpening setting on the d200 to '+1' which will solve this. However, it is my opinion that it is better to do sharpening in post production than in camera. So I would leave it as is and do the sharpening later.

 

Shooting RAW will also allow you more control in post production. RAW+JPG is the idea way to shoot as it gives you a compact full size JPG easy to email and pop into iPhoto, and a RAW to work with for professional output.

 

Dave

[manticore]

Rachelle,

 

Yes, the D200 images do require some post-processing. You can adjust the sharpness in-camera if you're using JPEG and you'd probably be happy the results. If you use RAW for the advantages it offers then you'll definitely need to sharpen after the fact. The images it can create are amazing, and I'm only beginning to scratch the surface myself, but after I got over my initial jitters I'm finding that I really love this camera.

 

Part of my problem is just getting used to full-featured digtal, having used film for 25+- years. Have you used digital in the past?

[joseph_smith3]

I have a d 200 and have not had any problems with sharpness. I shoot in RAW and do not set any sharpness in the camera. But what do I know. I do not even own Photoshop. All of my post image processing is done in Nikon Capture. I usually set some sort of sharpening in NC as my last processing step.

 

My camera club digital projection expert has seen my images and has shown them along side of others taken with various Canon and Nikon D70 cameras. He says the image quality from the D 200 JPEG 8 bit images is outstanding. Whether it is megapixels or something else, who knows. Joe Smith

[david_h._hartman]

A weak AA filter (anti-aliasing) is poor for certain types of

photography, e.g. my D2H would not make the best camera for

fashion photography. So, what to do with a D200? Its pretty

simple: if you want sharper JPG image straight from the D200 use

in camera sharpening. You may also want to use in camera custom

curves to brighten the mid-tones or kick the mid-tone contrast

and saturation.<br>

<br>

If you shoot NEF(s) you can automate the post processing then

with special images you can do post processing manually. You can

also shoot NEF and JPG, (both at the same time).<br>

<br>

OK, so how much of a problem is this? None at all.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[rachellemarshall]

thanks guys!

 

that's put me at ease quite a bit! i think i have a very hyperactive imagination...i had this horrific image in my head that all the images would be dreadfully soft and that they would be near impossible to fix...now calm. thinking is clearer. common sense, almost back to normal.

[ilkka_nissila]

The images from the D200 are generally blindingly sharp, except with certain lenses which need more post processing. Certainly the camera itself does not produce "soft" images. Of course, if you look at actual pixel view then the images look softer than if you had looked at 6 MP files ... that's just because the lens MTF is lower at higher frequencies. There could also be the effects of antialias filtering.

[leicaglow]

I almost never sharpen the images from my D200. They're great right out of the camera, but then I use the camera for commercial work and almost always with the NEF format.

[lex_jenkins]

Yup, what Dave said. Different dSLRs have different missions. The D2H is primarily designed for photojournalists who often shoot hi rez JPEGs for immediate publication, no time for post processing. They're sharp right out of the camera.

 

Hi rez dSLRs are intended for photographers who want more control over the output. That means lots of post processing, especially when shooting RAW.

 

Welcome to the digital age. You are now the minilab that you used to hand your film to. ;>

[elliot1]

The beauty of digital photography is that you can customize the camera to your own preferences.

 

Some peoople like soft images. I prefer very sharp images. You can set the camera to record the images how you prefer, and further customize them using software like Nikon View, Photoshop, DxO, etc.

 

If you are looking for real sharp pictures, look at the lens, not the camera. I thought I was getting great images with my d200 (and previous Nikon cameras, 5 in all) until, out of necessity for event photography, I invested in the Nikon 17-55 lens. The images I thought were really good pale in comparison to what I am now getting. Same camera, different lens, superior results.

 

A friend of mine received his camera a week after I got mine (early January). I sold him my 18-200 vr lens after I noticed it did not offer any improvement in picture quality over my 24-120 vr lens (both produce excellent results, but I decided to use the money to puchase the 17-55). He has even remarked how much nicer my pictures are as of late, better colors, contrast and sharper.

 

I think a good photographer can get a great picture with good equipment. Excellent equipment makes it easier, and can give him/her the extra edge for exceptional results.

 

FYI - Almost every digital camera takes 'soft' pictures as a starting point for the photographer unless the sharpening is on and turned up 'high'.

 

I believe the d200 gives consistantly better exposures and overall results that virtually any camera on the market today.

 

Good luck (and buy from a store that offers returns just in case...

[ilkka_nissila]

Lex, the images from the D200 are not soft by any measure, and they do not require "a lot of post-processing". If you are justifying a 4 MP camera by this argument, you should try out the D200 before you make the claim. It's flat out wrong.

[manticore]

Sorry Ilkka, but according to every review I've read and even Nikon reps I've emailed back and forth with - D200 images (RAW) are intentionally not sharpened. That's why PP is needed, according to Nikon. Now, use Jpeg with +1 or +2 and you'll get sharp pics right out of the camera.

[lex_jenkins]

Ilkka, I didn't claim D200 images are soft. I'm saying that D2H images are inherently "sharper" because of the less aggressive anti-aliasing filter. Whether this is beneficial depends on the usage. D2H photos are more prone to problems with jaggies in diagonal lines and moire. So "sharper" isn't always better.

 

Keep in mind that I always use the term "sharp" rather loosely and with tongue in cheek when applying it to photography. Sharpness is an illusion, a combination of several factors including resolution, contrast, acutance, etc.

 

Even color can factor into apparent sharpness. Chromatic aberration can affect color film photos. Color fringing, due to purplish sensor-induced fringing, or lens induced chromatic aberration, can blur lines in digital captures.

 

Image processing also greatly influences apparent sharpness. RAW processors can introduce color artifacts. In-camera sharpening greatly influences JPEGs. RAW processors greatly influence other factors. For example, RawShooter's tendency toward aggressive "detail extraction" can actually create non-existent detail by introducing artifacts where there is no detail to be extracted. Irfanview's RAW converter tends toward the opposite extreme, softening certain essential details. Even RAW converters that are accepted as being among the best vary considerably in rendition of detail and color, and also vary significantly between different models of dSLRs.

 

There are far too many variables to make a specific claim that RAW files from any given digital camera are always inherently soft or sharp. Even my D2H photos vary considerably depending on how they're processed.

[ned1]

It all depends on the lens. My 50 1.2 produces sharp images even at full resolution on f2. Wierdly, my 17-55 2.8, which is supposed to be a sharp lens, is actually soft (at least compared to a good prime).

[joseph_smith3]

Here is an image taken with my d 200. No sharpening in the camera. No sharpening post processing. No post processing at all except resizing. The lens was a 20mm AF f 2.8 Nikon, camera hand held, f 11 at 1/200, ISO 100. Looks pretty sharp to me. You decide. Joe Smith.

[david_h._hartman]

Ilkka,<br>

<br>

Sharp is a relative term. Im putting a fair amount of faith

in Thoms statement below.<br>

<br>

Once again the anti-aliasing filter seems to have been

tweaked. It doesn't seem quite as relaxed as the D70 and D2h, but

it isn't as aggressive as the D1 series or D100. The D2x and D200

seem to both be smack dab in the Goldilocks spot of antialiasing:

not too much, and not too little. However, note that by not being

lax in antialiasing, <u>unsharpened D200 images will look

decidedly soft</u>. --Thom Hogan, D200 Review. (Please note

that I not Thom underline the last phrase).<br>

<br>

For someone who has just bought their first DSLR, who is looking

at images at pixel level or at 50% or 25% the images may be

surprisingly soft. Its like looking at a print with a

magnifying glass or for the reductions like looking at a print

under non-glare glass or frosted glass. On top of this the

display can be soft. Some probably dont know this but a

display card can be soft and both can have poor contrast. Someone

who has just bought a D200 and is working at the defaults or who

already owns or previously owned a D70 may well question the

sharpness of their new camera.<br>

<br>

There is plenty of flexibility for setting up these camera to ones

taste. To give myself the most to work with I do no in camera

sharpening. If I had more pixels to work with I might use normal

sharpening. If images have to be ready for use right out of the

camera Ill use whatever sharpening is best suited.<br>

<br>

In his review of the D200, Bjorn Rorslett said, The Nikon D200

gives almost the same image quality as the D2X. Given that this

is seen at one-third the price of the bigger camera, this is

really good news. Now if I had to chose between a D2H at $1,999.95

and a D200 at $1,699.95 (USD) Id have a really tough time.

Id rather have the D2H for the camera but Id sure as

hell want the image of the D200 so what I really should have is a

D2Hs, D2X and a D200 ;)<br>

<br>

Sorry, the blood sugar is low as I havent eaten for hours.

Gone to sharpen my brain...<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[rachellemarshall]

thanks everyone for the input. a lot of interesting reading has put me at ease.

[michaelchristensen]

At times, a softer image may be desireable. For those now using the D200, how does it handle skin tones? I've read the kenrockwell, the thom hogan articles which many of you are quoting, but ken's not shooting people, .. and thom's writing books .. what about you guys who are shooting portraits .. how does this camera perform in that arena .. I agree with the comment about journalists desiring the D2 -and am myself wondering .. at what point to add digital to my mix of things. Thank you.

[angel_o.]

I'd recommend using the D200 prior speculating about its sharpness. Enclosed a snap out of the box.

[angel_o.]

Here the 100% crop of the left eye (no sharpening or PS modifications).

[david_h._hartman]

This sharpness question is a typical question for new DSLR

owners. Hasnt anyone else noticed this? It has also come

from those upgrading from the D70 to the D200. Once understood its

pretty much a non-issue.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Angel O., your image looks soft to me but there is considerable

fine detail. The D200 and or software is very flexible so this

sharpness thing is a non-issue.<br>

<br>

There is more flexibility in a high MP, high resolution image

that has lower acutance than in a smaller image less detail and

higher acutance. I remember pros on another forum arguing against

10 & 12MP images. My reaction was, WHAT!? Ill take the

larger images!<br>

<br>

Joseph Smith, down sampling a high resolution image <u>is</u>

post processing. The apparent sharpness of the small JPG doesnt

surprise me. The way a subject is lit can add greatly to the

apparent sharpness of the image.<br>

<br>

If the action is fast the D2H will have a better chance of

nailing the shot compared to the D200. Journalist generally dont

want or need larger images. They are uploading by wire or air and

printing is on low quality paper or on the internet. <br>

<br>

The D2X doesnt have the frames per second of the D2H but

has the best image quality. The viewfinder and AF are identical.

As long as you dont fill the buffer the D2X will nail the

shots just as well as the D2H. Id rather have a D2X than my

D2H. The larger files would choke my 2.0 GHz, Win2000 computer

some and Id need larger CF cards. Id deal with it

gladly.<br>

<br>

For most people the D200 is the better choice compared to the D2H(s)

by a pretty wide margin and so is the D2X if they can afford it.

[angel_o.]

As said, the image is right out of the box without sharpening and any claim on perfection. This is one of the first photos while testing just the operatibility of my lenses with my new camera. The shown snap-shot was taken with the Nikkor 75-300/4.5-5.6 at 150 mm, f/5.0, T=1/60 - hand-hold (!) - So imagine the sharpness that could have turned out if the camera would have been on a steady tripod, a better lens would have been mounted on the camera, etc.

 

Regards