My D200 Diary

[nigel_danson1]

I have had my D200 for 4 days now and have been writing a diary.

 

It would be great to get some feedback from anybody that is

interested!

 

I have looked at d100 v d200 and the focusing in the D200 so far...

 

http://www.imageandlight.net/d200_diary.asp

[efusco]

Ok, my first thought was "what a wierdo" for keeping a diary. But it's more of a running review and a very well done one at that.

 

I've got a subject of about that same age around the house!

[cabophoto]

Nigel,

 

I received mine on Saturday and my first impressions are similar to yours. The one thing I like most compared to my D70's is the finder. Finally I can focus my MF lenses again (and even the meter works <g>) !

 

It would be nice if the camera was somewhat lighter (D70 is perfect, but then, it feels plasticky). The other thing I worry about is battery life. On the first charges it wasn't all that great, but it seems to get better. I'll have to wait for a real test (after I've stopped playing with the menus etc.).

 

All in all I really like the camera. When I started digital SLRs, I thought 'Why don't they make a digital F100 ?'. Well, seems like the D200 is the digital equivalent of the F100.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[arnabdas]

Nigel, thanks for posting. Very insightful.

<P>

Of particular interest to me is the comparison with D100 -- The D200 is clearly better but the D100 compares quite gracefully. I recall my comment on <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D200/index.html" target="_blank">photo.net D200 annnouncement page</a> had raised a few eyebrows ... where I made a speculative remark reg. how the D70 might compare with the D200 in terms of output quality under practical conditions.

[brad_thyroff]

Great diary! It was extremely informative and very simple to follow.

Thanks for sharing that. I also had a D100 for 3 years and my D200 is on the fed ex truck now for delivery today.

The photo of the sneaker looked very much improved with the D200.

 

Thanks again and great job! in the spirit of Ebay..A+++++++

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the portrait on your page made with the 24-85 looks great!

[georges_pelpel]

Thanks for the dairy/review. This is very informative.

[tachion]

Hey, nice work on the dairy.

 

I disagree with Brad. The sneaker is not that much better with the D200, I would say you only see a difference if you look for one.

It seems the d200 would be worth it for the better focussing, or the view finder, but not the extra pixels.

[ilkka_nissila]

Huh? On the D100 sneaker shot there is no fine detail - while there is some on the D200 shot. How could the difference between 10 and 6 mp be more obvious?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Tachion Feynmann/ Great peudonym!

 

if you aren' seeing better detail i suggest that you get a better monitor. Don't forget that

looking at images on the web are low rez jpegs.

[frank_skomial]

I must be getting blind, but I do not see that great quality improvements in sneakers photos from D200 over the 6 MP camera.

 

Funny is, that not long time ago one of you more knowledgeable on this forum was pointing out to me that in order to see significant improvement, one would need twice better resolution. And that means twice in both directions, ...so that would be a 24 megapixels.

[jon_noble]

OMG, some people obviously need new monitors

 

Look in the show strap. the textured surface is apparent in the d200 whereas the d100 is a mush of texture

[bernard_frank]

Oh, come on, guys! Look around the strap where "Lights" is written. If you don't see there

is much more detail (look at the crinkles) on the D200 photo than on the D100, then not

only do you need a new monitor, but new glasses as well.

 

Very interesting, Nigel. Thanks for the effort. The close-up of your kid at 1000 ISO is

particularly impressive. Almost wide open, slow-ish speed and no noise to speak of. Of

course, it's a high key shot, and noise is usually more present in darker areas, but still,

1000 ISO! I wonder if the D2X can do the same. I am going to try it ASAP.

 

So much for the so-called demonstration of the D200 noise someone tried to make us

swallow a couple of weeks ago.

 

And that 24-85 is surprisingly sharp, with nice colours. Which one is it?

[dan_brown14]

Here's the real problem for me. Along with the D200, I need a 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8, an

SB800, Apple Aperture, and dual processor G5 Power Mac. Oh, and more CF cards ;-)

[ilkka_nissila]

Frank, I can see a clear improvement in image quality of the D70 over the D100. Enough for me to buy the D70 but not D100. They both use a 6 MP sensor of the same size. The improvement shown in the link above in the shoe picture is akin to medium format vs. 35 mm, which is more than one would have expected based on the 6 vs. 10 MP.

 

Now, use a 105/2 DC at f/5.6 and I bet the D200 will make the D100 look like a Holga in comparison to a Rollei. :-) (The D100 is a fine camera and convinced me that 6MP DX digital indeed shows better rendering of detail than 35 mm slide film but the D70 had much better colour rendition (to my liking, that is) and a bit sharper image.)

[ronbudway]

Please don't flame me, I'm just stating my take on the shoe pictures. I have an eMac with a

CRT monitor and I can barely detect a difference. I do see the "crinkles" in the leather strap,

but it looks like the shoe on the left is slightly lighter. If I look at things like the "Clarks" logo,

or at stitching here or there, or at the fuzz of the shoe's liner I can just barely perceive a

difference.

[rob_landry]

In regards to the D100 crops, it appears that there are some interpolation artefacts. Shooting .jpg and sharpening before upsampling is not an optimum workflow. Any artefacts introduced by these destructive edits will be exagerated.

 

While, there is an increase in detail over the D100 (which has an aggressive AA filter), I don't find the difference staggering; there would likely be less of a difference between the D70 and D200. The D200 is only delivering an extra 864 pixels along the long side, hardly earth shattering (actually a 28% increase). In fact, for me, one disappointment in the D200 is that it didn't come with the D2x's 12.5 MP sensor (getting 4288 pixels on the long dimension would have been nice). Of course, with 12.5 MP, the D200 would likely not have been $1700. The D200 is definitely a usability upgrade though; MLU, build quality, better viewfinder etc.

[fourfa]

<i>In fact, for me, one disappointment in the D200 is that it didn't come with the D2x's 12.5 MP sensor</i>

<p>

agreed, if they had it would have been game set and match. Would have gone a long way towards kneecapping the 5D.

[huntrbll]

Nigel,

I agree with most of your statements, having had my D200 for about the same length of time. I haven't had the opportunity to shoot as much as you (I hate it when work interferes with play), but I would disagree on the way Nikon made the choice of shooting modes. I think pressing the mode button and simply spinning the command dial is the way to go. Most of the operations are made by simply holding one button and using the command or subcommand dial. I particularly like being able to push the FUNC button and simply dial in aperture and focal length to use my manual lenses (as I stated in a post a couple of days ago).

 

As for image quality, there is a noticeable difference. Not a huge amount, but enough that the image quality I get with the D70 at 8x10, I expect to get with the D200 at 11x14. I make that statement based on zooming in on my computer and comparing detail, not by looking at actual prints. That I plan to do on the next days off.

 

One surprise with the camera is the default setting for JPEG quality is set at makng all the photos roughly the same file size. After reading the manual I set mine for optimal quality as I usually shoot JPEG, Large, Fine, and I want the best file I can get. Just a footnote to those who have not found that out yet....

 

For those who have not had the opportunity to check one out yet, I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the viewfinder, the short "blackout" time when taking photos and just the great feel the camera has in the hand.....

[joel_berez]

Nigel said that his pictures were coming out a little underexposed, which is a common complaint with Nikons. I was impressed to see that the D200 has a fine-tuning feature that lets you permanently adjust the exposure bias to your own taste. In fact, you can set it differently for each of the three metering patterns. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, but maybe the D2X and D2H also have it.

[cabophoto]

Joel,<br><br>

>>I was impressed to see that the D200 has a fine-tuning feature <br>

>>that lets you permanently adjust the exposure bias to your <br>

>>own taste. In fact, you can set it differently for each of <br>

>>the three metering patterns.<br><br>

I didn't find this in the manual. Can you give me a hint ?<br><br>

Carsten

[joel_berez]

Custom setting b7, page 156.

[rnt]

That would be custom function b7

 

>I didn't find this in the manual. Can you give me a hint ?

 

>Carsten

[rnt]

I actually -like- to use compressed raw. It just about doubles the number of raw frames I can capture on a card and saves disk space. The problem was that with the D100 it took ~40 seconds to compress a raw shot. The D200 seems to be almost instantaneous- I haven't noticed any delay due to having raw compression enabled...

[cabophoto]

Joel & Robert,

 

many thanks ! I tried to find it in the index of the German version of the manual...

 

Carsten