D200 Vs D2X for Large Prints

[wayne_murphy8]

I have sold my D70S to buy either a D200 or a D2X. Has anyone been able

to compare them for large prints in the order of 20 x 30 inches? Will the D2X

prints be noticeably better at this size? I would like to hear from actual users.

I already know the theory, megapixel count is not everything, etc. I am

interested in best resolution and sharpness with top lenses. Thanks.

[peter_cofran]

Even though I don't own either, its pretty well established that the D2X and D200 image quality is virtually identitcal. This is based on reviews with side by side comparison of 100% crop pictures. What you pay for in the D2X is its professional build, vertical grip, button layout, better viewfinder, and faster focus. Other factors based on the glass you use and your technique will have a bigger impact on the image quality.

[mars790]

exactly what Peter said.

 

you might want to view Digital Photo Pro's excellent sep/oct 2005 article on how to "res

up" your images optimally. how and how much you sharpen, the right ppi for your output,

etc... really make a difference. any weakness post process will definitely be apparent at

such a large size.

 

that being said - my D200 is on order and i intend on challengiing the large print until i

can go no further.

[jautey]

I won't tell you about my first hand experience, because why listen to me? I'm nobody. But a source that I (and many others) do respect is www.dpreview.com and here are some pull quotes from their fairly comprehensive review of the D200.

 

"From a design, build, features and performance point of view this camera really creates its own niche, it would be a pity to label it as 'semi-pro' because in use you soon realize that it's a professional camera."

 

"I really got on with its design and ergonomics, it's small enough not to break your back yet sturdy enough to feel absolutely purposeful, solid and reliable. It fills the photographer with an air of confidence that each time they need it the camera is going to perform."

 

Is the D2X a better camera? Certainly but for a going rate of around $5000 (minus the $500 discount some places are offering) vs. $1700 for the D200 you must ask yourself what are you using the camera for. For me, the D200 was the camera I had been waiting for. And as much as like my trusty old D1X it now regulated to back-up status.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page3.asp

[patricks]

unless money is no issue you are better off getting the D200 and spending the money on a 85/1.4D, 17-55/2.8, 70-200 VR etc.

[EricM]

I have both cameras Wayne but haven't printed anything. I wouldn't bother with the D2x even if it was the same price. The images are cleaner on the D200 throughout the iso range. If you don't need a voice recorder I wouldn't bother with the D2x. The D200 has one third increments in iso up to 1600, the D2x goes 800 to 1600. Dumb. And the pop up flash and commander mode is a great thing to have on the D200 as well. The 8fps and AF on the D2x is another distinction, if you don't need them, I'd go D200. My D70 made excellent 17x25's out of raw, I have no doubts about 20x30's from the D200.

[carlos_miami]

Have you considered the full frame 14MP Kodak SLR/N? I tried one out and by the end of the day I was listing my D200 on ebay.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Nikon D2X, without doubt (12,3 vs 10,3 MP). If you want the best results see Canon EOS 5D (same 12,3 MP but in a most large and better Full Frame sensor) or the big (in all sense) 16,7 MP Canon EOS 1 Ds Mark II. I am a Nikon analogic owner, but i prefer the Canon Full Frame way for digiatl SLR photography.

Ciao

 

Vincenzo Maielli Bari Italy

[wayne_murphy8]

I really despair. I asked if users could comment and I get a bunch of non-

users who ignore my request and post tripe. Pretend experts, who read

everything and know very little. I read too. I have the 17-55 zoom and several

other top lenses. I referred to that. I also have Genuine Fractals etc, etc. I am

not looking for value for money advice, just absolute performance advice.

 

What I really want to know is if you have used bothcameras for LARGE

prints, if there is a detectable difference. That is, does the D2X deliver

sharper prints at large sizes, given that I use the same software and am

competent to use it.

 

This a genuine request for advice from people who have a view based on

actual use. Sorry if I appear rude but I try not to waste peoples' time when I

post.

[brad_vautrinot]

Perhaps this will help. From a couple of users who have both cameras:

 

"For those of you looking for reasons to keep your D2 series cameras, here are a few of my

thoughts.

I just recently came back from an assignment where I used the D200 as my only camera.

After using the camera for 6 weeks, (10 days and 1200 shots on assignmnet) and in some

tough conditions, I think it is a good camera, but no D2 series.

 

1) The viewfinder is still not as big, or as bright, nor is it 100%. The 100% thing can be

crucial if vital composition is required. The eyepoint is much lower, especially for those of

us required to wear glasses 24/7.

 

2) The AF with non-AF-S lenses is much slower, in terms of driving the lens. With AF-S

lenses, no discernable difference.

 

3) The battery life on the D2HS, and D2X, far exceed that of the D200. I found myself

charging the battery 4 times over 1200 shots (on assignment). I had a spare, but found I

was much more battery level conscious than I ever was with the D2H or D2X. I know

battery life improves, but 2-300 shots is still unacceptable.

 

4) The MSC AF switch on the front of the camera kept slipping to M, a problem I have

never had with any previous Nikon camera. F100, F6, any of my D1-D2X cameras. It

became a real pain, a few missed shots, and another thing of which I should not have to

been aware.

 

5) The ability to lock shutter speeds and aperture is something to which I have become

very accustomed. I miss that feature on the D200.

 

Notes to ponder: I never discovered any banding, high ISO including 1600 are very clean,

although not better than D2HS. Low light AF with AF-S lenses is very good, even with AF

Assist turned off. The size and weight is great, although not worth the above mentioned

problems. I am not knocking the camera, but for those with demanding needs, I hope you

find this worth a look.

 

I will be selling mine in the near future, and sticking with the D2HS, and D2X.

 

Allan, A Vancouver Island"

 

 

 

"I have both camera d2X and D200

The difference is big in everything

-costruction

- QUALITY OF PRINTS OVER A3 SIZE!

- speed

- price

 

What I want to say in my very bad english, is that for a professional is much better a D2X

but for a non professional the D200 is much than I really need!

Paolo"

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Wayne, again I'm not going to quite fill you requirement, but I do own both cameras. I have yet to order a 20 by 30 print from the d200 but have printed 13 by 19 and the results are beautiful and have little doubt that at 20 by 30 there would be no significant difference unless you're up close with a loupe.

[dean_tomasula1]

"I asked if users could comment and I get a bunch of non- users who ignore my request and post tripe. Pretend experts, who read everything and know very little."

 

Wayne, you must be new here. If you've been here for a while you'd know that anytime you ask an "is x better than y?" question, all the so-called experts come out of the woodwork with their crackpot theories and just spout what they read in other threads.

 

As someone mentioned, both the D2X and the D200 will output similar files. At 20x30, you will find little difference (with a slight edge going to the D2x in color fidelity and sharpness) but it is only noticeable if you inspect the print with a magnifying glass. At normal viewing distances you will see no difference. The lens that you use and your technique will have a greater effect on the difference in files than the camera specs. Also the expertise of the printer has a lot to do with it too, not to mention your post-processing techniques.

 

Both cameras are quite capable of giving you excellent files to work with at 20x30.

 

Sorry I didn't make your decision any easier.

[arthuryeo]

>If you don't need a voice recorder I wouldn't bother with the D2x.

 

Now, that's the way to use money: pay $4500 for a voice recorder. :)

 

Obviously, Eric, there are more than that, right, with that D2X.

[EricM]

and i think i mentioned a couple of them in the same post, Arthur, "The 8fps and AF on the D2x is another distinction"

[walter_wilson1]

I was able to get what I consider to be excellent prints at 20x30 size from a mere D70.

[wayne_murphy8]

Thanks for the replies. The reason I asked about 20x30 prints was that I

generally crop a bit to tidy up (sometimes more) and I want to be able to make

a top quality print minimum 14x20 after some cropping printed at 288 ppi

lowest. I have printed the same image at this size at both 240 and 288ppi and

there is a very noticeable quality difference. 320ppi would be even better but

upscaling might actually reduce quality. I will need to experiment.

 

Sorry for my earlier criticism

[ilkka_nissila]

The best of the modern inkjets can show visible improvements up to around 1000 ppi. This is why I almost always give the printer all I have and let it take care of its own interpolation (which it always will anyway).

[Mike D]

Wayne, I have owned the D2X for almost a year and the D200 for a couple months. I use the D200 as my backup camera (couldn't afford another D2X) and it has turned out to be a lot better camera than I thought it would be, especially in resolution, I only print 8x10's on a R-800 but the resultion is incredible on both cameras. I would not hesitate to use either camera for larger images. The real variable is the quality of the lens. For the difference in cost of the 2 camera, you can get some great optics.

[wayne_murphy8]

Thanks again.

[nathan_smith9]

Wayne, here is what you're looking for, someone who has used both, comparing image

quality: http://www.naturfotograf.com/D200_rev02.html

[EricM]

I prefer the D200 over the D2x for RAW files. Straight out of the camera and into ACR they take less tweaking and look more natural than D2x files, especially in bright mid day sun. The D2x has become a back up to my D200.

[michael_inman]

Someone wrote the comment Kodak SLR/N over the D200 (Carlos). You've got to be kidding! I've used a Kodak SLR/N everyday at work for 2 years. Only because I have to. Since day 1 I knew the thing was a piece of crap! The noise in the shadows are so huge you can play connect the dots. Even @ 160 iso (lowest setting). Thank god Kodak discontinued this pile! One thing I can say for it is it keeps working. I shoot about 100-500 shots mon-fri, 8-5 and it continues to work. DAMN! I want the company to get a new camera! Suggested the D2xs. For me I will get a D200. Carlos, you can't tell me 3 year old Kodak technology is better than todays Nikon technology. Kodak 3 year old CMOS, Nikon D200 todays CCD! C'MON, GIVE ME A BREAK! Also, very s-l-o-w- focus. No sports photography with the Kodak!

[heiko_tiemann]

Hi everyboday! I have just stumbled over this thread. The Kodak SLR/N ist not bad at all! Honestly its very good, especially with the new raw converters available (I use ACR, PD and Bibble). Noise is no longer an issue at 800 ASA and at 200 or 400 ASA print sizes up to 40x50 inch (lambda on ilfochrome) are not a problem at all. Great quality and, compared with a friend D200, higher resolution and accutance.. I did buy my Kodak for about 900 Euro and I am very happy with it. Especially the dynamic range is extraordinary! You have to use primes or very good zoom lenses though(I have a 1,4/85, 1,4/28 and a great 35-70/2,8). Such a shame Kodak left the dslr business!

Just my observations....