D100 image capabilities against a D200 and etc.

[erickpro]

The AF on the D200 is fast, way faster, accurate and stronger than

the D100. The S/C/M Focus selector finally makes sense to me

(placement). The camera feels small in my hands, I am acostumed to

the F100 rounded grip. The viewfinder on the D200 is very very good.

The buttons overall make sense, not like the D100 where you have to

take your eyes constantly off the viewfinder.

 

I wanted to test the D100 against the D200 in respect of image

resolution and here are my samples. (the D100 images where RAW

files upsampled using Nikon Capture 4.4 to the D200 size)<div></div>

[erickpro]

Low Contrast - No Sharpen - Moderate Saturation<div></div>

[erickpro]

check highlight and detail<div></div>

[erickpro]

The D200 starts to look a lot better when a little sharpen is applied.<div></div>

[erickpro]

The D200 has better Dynamic Range but I am not very impressed of its overall resolution although I am happy to know that with little post in photoshop I can make it look way better.<div></div>

[erickpro]

If we shoot in the RAW mode with the D100, we can bring the detail back into the image that we though was lost. But this makes the entire image look darker thus more retouching is needed

(dodging)<div></div>

[erickpro]

Look at the shadow edge transfer, looks beautiful.<div></div>

[jake_cole]

All the images look too dark on my CRT.

[raymond bradlau]

Thanks for all the work, looks like the D200 is a great camera also interesting to see how

well the D100 holds up. Id love to see average sized print from each (10x15ish) I wonder

how noticeable the improvements from the D200 would be, especially if one is not using

the best printers like the Lightjets and such.

 

Thanks again for the info, I really wonder if I have the digital skill yet to even take

advantage of the newer high rez cameras, after reading through some threads here and on

Luminous Landscapes I have no doubt at all many many people could get better prints

from a D70 than I with a D2x (not taking into account AF speed and accuracy)

 

I think it time I really get of my can and get into some work shops and classes on post pro

:)

 

regards

Ray

[SCL]

Thanks for the comparison. I must say I'm underwhelmed, Your real world comparisons make me think I will probably stick with my D100 longer than I originally expected. Guess I'll keep an open eye for Leica's digital M.

[erickpro]

I must add that the shutter on the D200 is very very fast as well. Lag time is minimum. Still feels small in my hands, the F100 is better designed to my hands. When you surf the menu, the response feels slow and laggy to me.

 

Some images appear dark because the crops were taken from the shadow areas where I think is the key to find noise and impurities on the images.

 

All photos were taken in the uncompressed RAW mode and saved with no extra jpg compression.

 

I'll still keep the D100 as a backup but I doubt I'll use it often.

[msitaraman]

Thank you Calderon :-) This is a very useful hands-on report indeed.

 

Could I trouble you to expand on your remarks on the D200/D100 autofocus speed comparision, focusing ease, blackout time, visibility through viewfinder and so on? I'd be grateful...

[erickpro]

Thanks,

 

AF is fast, very fast and very accurate even in low light situations with out even the need of the AF Assist Light. I was very impressed that it focused in a room where only the TV reflected some light on my sisters face and she was far from the TV. The focusing points are very well laid out.

 

Blackout time is minimum, you will not regret having the camera in your hands unless you miss the grip from an F100 like me. The visibility is also great, very clean, very clear.

 

It also has loooots of menu items and I still get lost from time to time, I don't remember where things are in the menu.

[chris hughes]

>Thanks for the comparison. I must say I'm underwhelmed, Your real world comparisons

>make me think I will probably stick with my D100 longer than I originally expected.

Guess >I'll keep an open eye for Leica's digital M.

 

 

Interesting you should say that. To my eye there's a fair amount of difference between the

shots. It looks like there's a good deal more dynamic range in the D200 images, perhaps

as much as 2/3 of a stop. The D200 images are much sharper too, showing better detail

all around.

 

So far one of the most noticeable differences between my D200 and my D70S is how much

better the D200 handles auto white balance. The D200 is significantly more adept at

pegging correct white balance than the D70S. Since a good deal of my post process

workflow with D70S RAW files is tied up with correcting for muxed white values, this

should make editing quicker. At the moment though I'm shooting JPEG (until Adobe

updates ACR) so I can't really speak to the out-of-camera "readiness" of the D200's RAW

files.

[erickpro]

I downsized the D200 RAW image to fit the D100 size. I also applied one step more than moderate sharpen and a 88% sharpen mask - 1.3 - 1 to both images.

 

I can prove here that even if you make 4x6 prints, if you use more mega pixels, you get more detail.

 

The same applies when you shoot with 4x6 film and make 5x6 prints.<div></div>

[ky2]

Dunno.

[briany]

Calderon, thanks for the comparisons -- very interesting. About your post directly above though, you're kidding, right? Yeah, on the screen image that you're showing, there's a difference. But your methodology has almost nothing to do with making a 4x6 print. A 4x6 print of a D70 image is 500 pixels/inch. A 4x6 from a D200 image is 645 PPI. Yeah, there's a difference, but most people can't notice an improvement over 300ppi from what I've read. I wonder how much resolution can be seen with a magnifying glass from common photo printers and inkjets... their lens resolutions aren't infinite and inkjets need to lay down multiple ink drops of different colors to resproduce one pixel. Regardless, I'd be Very surprised if anyone could see the difference btw 500 and 645 PPI and I wouldn't be shocked if a machine couldn't tell b/c it's beyond the printer's capabilities. Regardless, I can guarantee it wouldn't look anything like what you posted above.

[chris hughes]

You guys are missing a key point. 300dpi is 300dpi. It doesn't matter if your image is 72ppi

or 1,000ppi if you print at a fixed size like 8x10. The printer will down-sample or up-sample

as needed to achieve the 300dpi that it's set to. That's why we try to print 1:1 screen pixels

to printer dots. Using less than 1:1 means that the printer will use more dots to represent

each pixel. Using more than 1:1 means that the printer will throw out pixels because it isn't

set to resolve that finely.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Brian - Why would you buy a D200 to print 4x6? Any 4 MP digicam can give you adaquate resolution for 4x6. Granted, it's hard to control DOF with a digicam's small sensor and wide lenses, but you do get enough DPI.

 

Robert

[ber1]

Hi Erick

 

"I downsized the D200 RAW image to fit the D100 size. I also

applied one step more than moderate sharpen and a 88%

sharpen mask - 1.3 - 1 to both images. "

 

Sorry, but shouldn't you enlarge the d100 image to the size of the

d200 image, so you don't lose detail inside the d200 sample? It

seems to me that if you downsize the bigger d200 pic, you lose

small detail, which is one of the main advantages of having

more resolution.

 

Ber

[EricM]

" I can prove here that even if you make 4x6 prints, if you use more mega pixels, you get more detail."

 

"The same applies when you shoot with 4x6 film and make 5x6 prints."

 

No. This is flat out wrong and incorrect.

[erickpro]

here's your bottle.

[EricM]

Robert 04:57 a.m. "Brian - Why would you buy a D200 to print 4x6? Any 4 MP digicam can give you adaquate resolution for 4x6. Granted, it's hard to control DOF with a digicam's small sensor and wide lenses, but you do get enough DPI."

 

Robert, it's not a matter of the sensor capturing too much info that we don't need and throwing it away to make 4x6's. The more pixels you have, the less noise and smoother tonal gradations, that's all.

[erickpro]

"but most people can't notice an improvement over 300ppi from what I've read"

 

 

It dones't matter if your printer cant print at over "300dpi" because you captured more detail in the image. If you do not believe what I say, why don't you take the same image with a D100 and a D200 and make the 4x6 yourself and then compare.

 

Ber, I enlarged the D100 image to fit the D200 in Nikon Capture indeed. There is only one image above in which I downsized the D200's image.

[EricM]

Why do keep insulting/flaming me? This is the fourth thread in a matter of weeks.