d200 better in sharpness than d7000

[deutsh_nehmman]

<p>Hi evrey one I want to explain something :I have nikon d200 and d7000 + nokkor 16-85mm vr .<br>

when I use this lens with d200, the image better in sharpness than d7000 ,inspite of the to pictures taken with same iso,aprture,shutter speed ,and of course the same focus point.<br>

note :d200 older than d7000 but the image of d200 is better .... wwwwhhhhyyyyyy.<br>

did d200 or d300 are better than d3100,d5000,d7000 ? or what?<br>

with thanks.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I would check the in camera settings for sharpness. All things being equal, you should not be able to tell one from the other, on sharpness. Once you start zooming in and cropping, the D7000 has more pixels to play with, so it would win in that category.</p>

[nathansanborn]

<p>I would say it's due to pixel peeping. Just keep shooting it, and don't view your pictures on a pixel level. When you get a shot that you think looks good, print it huge. </p>

<p>When I first got my 16mp D7000, I felt the same way comparing images to my 6mp D50 (not realizing how much closer in I was looking at 100% with so many more pixels)... I just kept shooting, and after I printed a shot 24x36... wow! I can stick my nose into the print and it is still sharp and full of detail. But on my computer I can zoom in on the same photo until it looks soft..</p>

[james_lai]

<p>If the results from your D7000 are consistently unsharp, you may need to fine tune the AF for that lens. I had to adjust my D7000 to -3 with my 18-70mm, which I had thought was fine with my older cameras. Before you do that though, you'll have to do some focus testing (Google that if you don't know how) to see if your camera and lens combo is consistently focussing in front or behind where it should be.</p>

[gary_monkman1]

<p>another situation could be that your d7000 needs focus fine tuning to get optimal results.<br>

I have two d7000 bodies and each have different focus settings for the same lens.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>That horse has been beaten till death. Apply correct amount of sharpening in post processing, be happy ever after.<br>

<a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00b5H9">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00b5H9</a></p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Just keep shooting it, and don't view your pictures on a pixel level.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm going with this too: judge your files at the <em>image</em> level, not the <em>pixel</em> level.</p>

[phule]

<p>Apparently I responded to the wrong post. :)<br>

http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00baOw</p>

 

[James G. Dainis]

The OP, deutsh nehmman, posted this same question twice. This was Rob's response to the other post which has now been deleted:

 

"I'm guessing you're trying to make a comparison by looking at 100% views of images from both cameras?

 

"Try reading this first:

 

http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/05/01/why-your-21mp-file-looks-softer-than-your-12mp-image-at-100

[James G. Dainis]

The graphic that is shown in that link to G Dan Mitchell's web page had me a bit confused at first. I think it would have been better to show actual 100% page views side by side. Then the viewer could have more easily seen that the chair of the 21MP image is almost twice the size of the chair of the 12MP image at 100% view.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>There's a difference between sharpness and actual detail captured with captured data being far more important than default sharpness appearance in a 100% view of the file.</p>

<p>All digital images need to be sharpened by some extent some more than others. It's the amount of distinction established by HOW MANY PIXELS are available to render the finest bit of detail given subject to lens distance which can vary. Shooting Nyquist MTF test charts shot just feet away from the lens ain't gonna tell you jack squat how much detail your camera will capture shooting landscapes that will be "brought out" applying sharpening in post.</p>

<p>The PN thread linked below of the Nikon D800 shows this number of pixels devoted to making up detail distinction according to lens distance to subject in order to know if sharpening is going to show this detail. Look at the brick detail in the Smart Sharpen 300% view screengrab I posted in the linked thread below and notice how many pixels are left to render the nicks, nooks and crannies that make up the mortar and brick detail and compare to the other 100% view screengrab comparing it to the same bricks rendered by the Canon 7D. Sharpening isn't going to bring out any more detail in the 7D because it didn't capture it.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bYr8</p>

<p>What's captured in the file that can be brought out by sharpening IS MORE IMPORTANT than default sharpness appearance of the image.</p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>What's captured in the file that can be brought out by sharpening IS MORE IMPORTANT than default sharpness appearance of the image.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'll say.</p>

<p>I've used this example before (Canon 7D, sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS, Sigma 2x TC, handheld, 600mm) and I think it demonstrates the point really well:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/greylag_marden_unprocessed.jpg">Off the camera</a>.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/600mm_sigma/greylag_marden_1.jpg">Processed</a>.</p>

<p><em>Big</em> difference.</p>

<p>I still think it most likely that the OP's comparison methodology might need to be revisited, though.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Damn good demo, Keith.</p>

<p>Now, how about a 100% cropped view section of the sharpest point on both before and after. I saw your other images demonstrating the 2x TC and lens combo and was blown away by the fine detail I can't even get on my 6MP Pentax DSLR and kit lens shooting just feet away from similar birds.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I might continue, Tim - if Deutsh decides to come back to the thread and contribute to it.</p>

[deutsh_nehmman]

<p>hello everyone sory for late cause busy. anyway,I Thanks for all , about your respons i think its (D200 sharper than D7000) because of three things 1-the CCD sensor is best than CMOS sensor, and 2-some lens have to cailbrate a AF fine tune.and 3-the D200 maybe don't have antialaising filter. thats what I think .<br>

with thanks</p>

 

[phule]

<p>Yep. Didn't read a thing offered here. Nice.</p>

[deutsh_nehmman]

Rob bernhard i read the thing

offerd here.thus i reach this

suggestions.thanks

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>3-the D200 maybe don't have antialaising filter. thats what I think.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob bernhard i read the thing offerd here.thus i reach this suggestions.thanks</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you didn't read what was offered here if the AA filter is what you think because no one offered it here as a possible cause for lack of sharpness. Type of sensor doesn't affect sharpness either. And AF calibration is rarely required on the majority of DSLR's out on the market today.</p>

<p>Even my 7 year old Pentax K100D is still sharp using the kit lens and it doesn't even have an AF calibration feature.</p>

[deutsh_nehmman]

Tim .i write about anti alaising

filter cause i read some where

about same think D800E vs D800.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Tim .i write about anti alaising filter cause i read some where about same think D800E vs D800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Far different cameras than your D200 and D7000 which this topic is about. You're making assumptions that don't help you in any way with regard to why you started this thread.</p>

<p>Stick to the facts or else start another thread that would serve you better because the answers given in this thread didn't seem to put you in the right direction if you're going off investigating other cameras that aren't related.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

You never said how you are comparing the images from the two cameras. How are you doing that? Let us look at the maximum resolution on each:

 

Nikon D200 = 3872 x 2592 pixels wide by high

 

 

Nikon D7000 = 4928 x 3264 pixels wide by high

 

At 100% on a 1200 pixel wide monitor screen the D200 image would be about 3 screens wide and the D7000 would be about 4 screens wide. The more the detail is spread out the less sharp it looks. A 20 x 16 inch print looks less sharp than a 10 x 8 inch print blown up from the same film frame.

 

Make a 10 x 8 inch print from each of the cameras identical images and check those to see which is sharper.

 

The advantage of the higher resolution, file image size, is that you can make larger prints using the same printer resolution.

 

Printed at 300 PPI the D7000 image would give a 16.4 x 10.8 inch print

 

Printed at 300 PPI the D200 image would give a 12.9 x 8.6 inch print

 

If you try to stretch out the D200 image to 16.4 x 10.8 then you would start to lose quality and sharpness.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>1-the CCD sensor is best than CMOS sensor, and 2-some lens have to cailbrate a AF fine tune.and 3-the D200 maybe don't have antialaising filter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say you're wrong in two and a half out of three points:</p>

<ol>

<li>The very expensive digital cameras in this world (medium format, like Hasselblad and Mamiya) use CCD technology, instead of CMOS. Now, if the technology was really inferior, would cameras costing 40 times more than your D7000 use it? Really? Consider also: CMOS is actually cheaper to make.</li>

<li>AF fine tune can help..... but that has got nothing to do with the sharpness the D200 or D7000 are capable of. Use manual focus, and judge properly focussed images. Else, you are testing AF accuracy, which is a completely different thing.</li>

<li>The D200 has an AA filter.</li>

</ol>

<p>But your conclusion simply can not be based on the answers you received. Please read the answers given to you carefully, especially James' last one which is (in my view) ver clear. They will give you a proper idea what the problem really is about.<br /> Stop looking at photos at 100%. It is really not helping you at all.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Resolution has nothing to do with the appearance of sharpness. It has everything to do with edge contrast appearance where the roll off between the brightest and darkest transition is abrupt enough to give the impression of a sharp edge. That is controlled by a slew of variables both in front and behind the camera, some engineered into hardware, some software.</p>

<p>Sharpness appearance (excluding user influences) is primarily determined by software tonal curves and micro and local contrast that is dialed in according to electronically embedded & transferred to camera software MTF transfer function lens characteristics for any given optimal focal length to aperture setting when shooting in Program mode for incamera jpegs along with selected incamera sharpness settings.</p>

<p>See the notes on the Pentax K10D as an example MTF data affecting sharpness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function#Oversampling_and_downconversion_to_maintain_MTF</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Certain cameras (such as the <a title="Pentax K10D" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K10D">Pentax K10D</a>) feature an "MTF autoexposure" mode, where the choice of aperture is optimized for maximum sharpness. Typically this means somewhere in the middle of the aperture range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Third party Raw converters don't have access to this level of specifics on lens performance characteristics and rely mainly on "one size fits all" tonal contrast functions which usually require additional clarity, contrast and sharpness adjustments.</p>

<p>Below is my example of what happens when both camera hardware and software don't have access to MTF data embedded in the lens (in this case a lens rig, Quantaray 2X TC/1985 Vivitar zoom, with no electronic contacts to send lens data to my 6MP Pentax K100D DSLR) and how software (ACR, third party Raw converter) and user edits makes what looks extremely unsharp look sharp.</p><div></div>