 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2006Want resolution? Nikon D200. Want dynamic range? A D50!!!!
According to one review in a Brit mag called, "Digital Camera." The pixel density of the D200 (in addition to putting it well behind the Canon 5D in terms of image quality) means it doesn't have the dynamic range of the lowly D50! Part of the gains it has in-terms of resoution (10M versus 6M for the D50) are lost due to the dynamic range compression! I guess you can't change the laws of physics, even with a beautiful magnesium weather-sealed body. -Rich >> According to one review in a Brit mag called, "Digital Camera." >> The pixel density of the D200 (in addition to putting it well behind [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> magnesium weather-sealed body. >> -Rich Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D.  Signaturewww.photosbydouglas.com www.weprint2canvas.com If you really must write,use my name at an above domain. >Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D. What kind of $? In the US, the 5D is only $1K more than the D200. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D. > > What kind of $? In the US, the 5D is only $1K more than the D200. > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< So only people in the US can buy them? Expand your universe, only 6% of the worlds population lives in the USA. http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So only people in the US can buy them? Expand your universe, only 6% of > the worlds population lives in the USA. That was probably why JP was asking what kind of dollars. Aussie dollars are smaller than American dollars, which would account for a larger difference in price, I guess. Actually the price difference in the US is more like $1200-1400, but, hey, who's counting... SignatureSkip Middleton > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > difference in price, I guess. Actually the price difference in the US is > more like $1200-1400, but, hey, who's counting... Yeah I did know that of course and of course everyone should know that Douglas lives in Australia, mind you it is a bit hard to keep up with his hundred aliases. >> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Douglas lives in Australia, mind you it is a bit hard to keep up with his > hundred aliases. The last time I commented on the difficulty of keeping track of Douglas, he unleashed an unwarranted personal attack on me. I wonder what he'll do this time. So far, he's appeared as Douglas, Ryadia, go go dancer, Tropical Treat (my personal favorite), wraped (sic) in canvas, D-Mac, Technical Aussie, and at least two more that I've forgotten. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >The last time I commented on the difficulty of keeping track of Douglas, he >unleashed an unwarranted personal attack on me. I wonder what he'll do this >time. >So far, he's appeared as Douglas, Ryadia, go go dancer, Tropical Treat (my >personal favorite), wraped (sic) in canvas, D-Mac, Technical Aussie, and at >least two more that I've forgotten. "Maddy" was the best. ;-) Offtopic. But it's a silly thread anyway. Nitpicking about resolution and dynamic range at these levels is of little point - if people are fussed they will read the reviews for themselves, without Rich having to repost information (or non-information in many cases) simply to get his numbers up. >So far, he's appeared as Douglas, Ryadia.... >... and at least two more that I've forgotten. Actually, it's getting close to 50 identities now - you really should check *everyone* you are talking to, he could be anywhere, as...(deep breath): ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug, douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones, alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt, healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong, wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple, not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas... He's giving me much to consider as I do my psych degree.... I particularly like the misspellings - the 'raped in canvas' one is quite apt, having seen his prints.. But he doesn't think he has a problem... (O: Just call him Sybil. Or maybe Sybil³... (By the way, I don't think Douglas' 'justintyme' is related to a Justin Thyme character I have seen around the groups..) Consider your paranoid belief that I'm many different people. And consider you simpleton's belief that resolution and dynamic range questions are nitpicking. In message <44111966$0$14546$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, >>>Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D. >> What kind of $? In the US, the 5D is only $1K more than the D200. >So only people in the US can buy them? Expand your universe, only 6% of the >worlds population lives in the USA. You are a jerk. Why do you think I *ASKED* "What kind of $"? PRECISELY because I am aware that the US is not the world, and I was bring to the OP's attention the fact that his country is not the world. What is your problem? Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > In message > <44111966$0$14546$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What is your problem? Actually John I had been going to apologise but then I reread your post, you should have known the poster was Douglas and it appears that your treat the rest of the world just like he does, as though they are idiots so I am not going to apologise. Cheers. >>>Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D. >> >> What kind of $? In the US, the 5D is only $1K more than the D200. > So only people in the US can buy them? Expand your universe, only 6% of > the worlds population lives in the USA. Oh? How many of the remaining 94% are in the market for a $1600 dslr? SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D. > > What kind of $? In the US, the 5D is only $1K more than the D200. Only? The D200 body sells for less than $2000. That is more than a 50% premium. Nothing only about it. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 -- "I'd love to go out with you, but I've been scheduled for a karma transplant." >>>Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D. >> >> What kind of $? In the US, the 5D is only $1K more than the D200. > >Only? The D200 body sells for less than $2000. That is more than a 50% >premium. Nothing only about it. Is there a general problem with reading comprehension in this thread? One person said $2000, not stating the currency, and said that in one currency, it is "only" $1K more (i.e., much less than $2000). No opinions at all on my part about pricing. I think they all cost way too much. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Want noise at High ISO's? Get a Nikon. ********************************************************** "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the color of blood in black and white" David Douglas Duncan Speaking on why in Vietnam he worked only in black and white http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/ > According to one review in a Brit mag called, "Digital Camera." > The pixel density of the D200 (in addition to putting it well behind [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > magnesium weather-sealed body. > -Rich I've used the D50, and bought the D200, the image quality on the D200 very good, WB is great, flesh tone are excellent, but what sold the camera to me is the viewfinder, bright and accurate, one of the big letdowns on the N80 based cameras, even the Fujis is the viewfinder is very inaccurate as to placing the subject. Not to bad for regular photos but I'm working with macro and the N80 based cameras just don't hack it. The D50 and D70 both have mirror, not prism viewfiders so they are very dim, again something you don't want with macro. Thought the D20 (D30) was OK but the D200 felt like the film cameras I'm used to Leica, Canon F1 and Nikon F3 (by far the best viewfinder ever). So for what a Canon 5D would cost I have a Nikon D200, 24mm f2, 70-210 f4 (not the 4.5-5.6) via ebay, and a Tokina 12-24, and a 50mm Sigma macro (yes would prefer a Nikon but 60mm is just too close to the 70mm) I also photograph art work so a shorter lens is more advantageous. Also brought the D200 into the clinic where I work, did a couple of patients, so much better than the Fuji S2 I'm used to, image placementwise and tonality, the added brightness of the viewfinder made hand held 1:1 images much easier. Tom >>According to one review in a Brit mag called, "Digital Camera." >>The pixel density of the D200 (in addition to putting it well behind >>the Canon 5D in terms of image quality) means it doesn't have >>the dynamic range of the lowly D50! Is that just theoretical or they did some kind of real world comparison? It seems they have broken the laws of physics if it has twice the pixels at the same size & (nearly) the same dynamic range. The D200 is supposed to have about the same dynamic range as a D70 and yes the D50 is a tad better. It depends what you are measuring exactly and that doesn't necessarily translate into real world usefulness: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PIMATEST.HTM scroll down about half way... Dynamic Range (in f-stops) vs Image Quality (At camera's minimum ISO) Model 1.0 (Low) 0.5(Medium) 0.25(Med-High) 0.1(High) Fujifilm S3 (RAW)12.1 11.7 10.7 9.0 Fujifilm S3 Pro -- 9.9 9.4 7.94 Nikon D50 10.7 9.93 8.70 7.36 Canon EOS 20D 10.3 9.66 8.85 7.29 Canon Rebel XT 10.3 9.51 8.61 7.11 Olympus EVOLT 10.8 9.26 8.48 7.07 Canon Rebel 10.1 9.11 8.47 6.97 Pentax *istDs 10.2 10 8.87 6.9 Nikon D2x -- 8.93 7.75 6.43 Nikon D70S 9.84 8.69 7.46 5.85 Nikon D70 9.81 8.76 7.58 5.84 >>Part of the gains it has >>in-terms of resoution (10M versus 6M for the D50) are lost [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Tom SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > According to one review in a Brit mag called, "Digital Camera." > The pixel density of the D200 (in addition to putting it well behind [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I guess you can't change the laws of physics, even with a beautiful > magnesium weather-sealed body. Gosh. And here Phil Askew on DPReview was saying that picture quality was better than the 5D. And even the most diehard "laws of physics" guys here are saying that there is still room for the number of pixels to be doubled or even quadrupled before the quantum limits of gathering photons are reached. Given that "Digital Camera's" review represents a minority of one out of all the reviews so far published about the D200, I guess it says more about "Digital Camera" than it does about the D200. Perhaps the reason you don't have a camera, Rich, is that none of them are perfect enough for you. >> According to one review in a Brit mag called, "Digital Camera." >> The pixel density of the D200 (in addition to putting it well behind [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Gosh. And here Phil Askew on DPReview was saying that picture quality > was better than the 5D. Phil didn't say the image quality of the D200 was better than the Canon 5D, he said the build quality was better, to wit: " Which brings us to the competition, from a build/features point of view it's clearly ahead of the Canon EOS 20D/30D and in my opinion a step above the EOS 5D, a baby D2X." > And even the most diehard "laws of physics" guys here are saying that > there is still room for the number of pixels to be doubled or even > quadrupled before the quantum limits of gathering photons are reached. Quite the opposite, there has been speculation that the limit, if not already reached, is definitely on the horizon. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.