Nikon D200 review on CreativePro

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Frank ess - 03 Apr 2006 16:36 GMT

http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily

Reply to this Message

Rich - 03 Apr 2006 21:25 GMT

>http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily

"Full disclosure: I am a confessed Canon shooter. As such, I find the
Nikon interface annoying."

From the review, it seems you get higher ISO noise than one of the 8
meg DSLRs like the Canon 30D, and entry-level Nikon D50 but you get
the extra resolution of the 10 megapixels and a host of more advanced
features (he called them "pro" but I had some of them on my prosumer)
than either of the other two cameras.
-Rich

Reply to this Message

Thomas T. Veldhouse - 03 Apr 2006 21:47 GMT

> "Full disclosure: I am a confessed Canon shooter. As such, I find the
> Nikon interface annoying."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> than either of the other two cameras.
> -Rich

Unless we know the exact shooting conditions for each shot (i.e. exposure for
each shot as well as an assumption that the lighting did not change), we can
not draw a conclusion about the noise based on these images. If the
"confessed Canon shooter" didn't pay attention to details of exposure (and
keep in mind "actual" iso ratings will likely differ between models), then
there is bound to be more noise in one of those photos when trying to match
exposure in post processing. Also, doesn't Digic II automatically apply noise
reduction algorithms?

Signature

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Reply to this Message

Paul Furman - 04 Apr 2006 07:32 GMT

>> http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily
> Unless we know the exact shooting conditions for each shot (i.e. exposure for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> exposure in post processing. Also, doesn't Digic II automatically apply noise
> reduction algorithms?

The noise comparison shown looks awful. I hope there was some error in
the testing, that doesn't seem right.
http://www.creativepro.com/img/story/20060403_fg3.jpg

Reply to this Message

cjcampbell - 04 Apr 2006 08:13 GMT

> >> http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily
> > Unless we know the exact shooting conditions for each shot (i.e. exposure for
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> the testing, that doesn't seem right.
> http://www.creativepro.com/img/story/20060403_fg3.jpg

The D200 noise does look like it is worse than usual. Noise comparison
with Canon on other sites does not look nearly as bad. Most Nikon users
would agree that Nikons are noisier than Canons, but not that much
worse.

Reply to this Message

cjcampbell - 04 Apr 2006 06:18 GMT

> http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily

Seems like a nice review. Too bad he did not like the button layout,
but that, as he says several times, is extremely subjective and largely
a matter of what you are used to.

What a shock: the Nikon is noisier than the Canon at ISO 1600. Oddly,
although I use Nikons and I shoot a lot of night pictures, I have never
really found that this bothers me a lot. Possibly it is because even my
night pictures are usually no more than ISO 400. It is a habit that I
developed from the old film days, so maybe I just adjusted more easily
to Nikon.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 04 Apr 2006 08:26 GMT

>> http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>developed from the old film days, so maybe I just adjusted more easily
>to Nikon.

To be honest, I've never cared much about noise levels for myself. I
usually shoot at or below 400 as well simply because it gets the best
results regardless of camera model. If you can't get a good shot at
100-400, then your technique is lacking.

:-)

I know, I know...there are times where high ISO values are needed. But
if you came prepared, you don't need anything beyond the default setting
of 100 or 200.

Reply to this Message

David Dyer-Bennet - 04 Apr 2006 17:13 GMT

> >> http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> :-)

Yeah, well, my technique is lacking. I can't reliably enough time the
shot to get the musicians with their heads sharp if I'm shooting at
1/4 second. So I end up shooting at high ISO a lot.

> I know, I know...there are times where high ISO values are needed. But
> if you came prepared, you don't need anything beyond the default setting
> of 100 or 200.

I've *got* a flash, but it won't look right and it will annoy the
subjects (at 3am at an informal musician's jam session).

Signature

David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Reply to this Message

cjcampbell - 05 Apr 2006 01:20 GMT

> Yeah, well, my technique is lacking. I can't reliably enough time the
> shot to get the musicians with their heads sharp if I'm shooting at
> 1/4 second. So I end up shooting at high ISO a lot.

1/4 second? Yeah, it does sound like your technique is lacking.

Reply to this Message

David Dyer-Bennet - 05 Apr 2006 05:42 GMT

> > Yeah, well, my technique is lacking. I can't reliably enough time the
> > shot to get the musicians with their heads sharp if I'm shooting at
> > 1/4 second. So I end up shooting at high ISO a lot.

> 1/4 second? Yeah, it does sound like your technique is lacking.

Yep, any decent photographer *ought* to be able to time his shot to
hit that 1/4 second when the performer isn't moving his head enough to
blur it. I'm just a wuss, is all.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Thomas T. Veldhouse - 05 Apr 2006 13:29 GMT

>> Yeah, well, my technique is lacking. I can't reliably enough time the
>> shot to get the musicians with their heads sharp if I'm shooting at
>> 1/4 second. So I end up shooting at high ISO a lot.
>
> 1/4 second? Yeah, it does sound like your technique is lacking.

While his technique *may* be lacking, I fail to understand what you are
alluding too here. If he has a slow lens and dim light, then he may indeed
have to increase the ISO or use a slower shutter speed (obviously the latter
requires a static subject for a sharp image). So, how is his technique
lacking if he shoots at a higher ISO?

Signature

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Reply to this Message

David Dyer-Bennet - 05 Apr 2006 16:18 GMT

> >> Yeah, well, my technique is lacking. I can't reliably enough time the
> >> shot to get the musicians with their heads sharp if I'm shooting at
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> requires a static subject for a sharp image). So, how is his technique
> lacking if he shoots at a higher ISO?

Especially the "dim light"; I rarely use a lens slower than f/2 for
this sort of thing, with the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT available for the worst
cases. (The 1/4 second is what I'd end up with *without* high ISO).

Signature

Reply to this Message

Thomas T. Veldhouse - 05 Apr 2006 16:26 GMT

>> While his technique *may* be lacking, I fail to understand what you are
>> alluding too here. If he has a slow lens and dim light, then he may indeed
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> this sort of thing, with the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT available for the worst
> cases. (The 1/4 second is what I'd end up with *without* high ISO).

So, unless the OP owns such a lens and isn't using it, I don't think it is
actually an issue of technique. I don't think 1/4 second is appropriate for
anything that moves unless it is for an artistic effect (i.e. motion blur).

Signature

Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

Reply to this Message

Brian - 07 Apr 2006 17:31 GMT

>>http://www.creativepro.com/story/review/24103.html?cprose=daily
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> developed from the old film days, so maybe I just adjusted more easily
> to Nikon.

I think, also, that a lot of tests don't really show the true capability
of digital cameras. I am a Canon user, but I like any camera that takes
good shots. I took a dislike to the Nikon D70s purely due to its test on
a site, it showed a lot of noise at ISO 400. A friend of mine has that
same camera and we have been doing some comparisons between his Nikon
and my Canon EOS 20D and his noise level is not that much higher than
mine; both cameras have very little noise from our experiences. I think
the quality of the images off his camera are fine. They would surely be
a LOT better off the D200.

Even on DPreview.com I have seen out of focus images taken on cameras
which have 1st class focusing systems.

Regards,
Brian.

Reply to this Message