Colors - D200 vs D300s

Started Sep 14, 2011 | Discussions
chadmarek
Contributing MemberPosts: 919
Like?
Colors - D200 vs D300s
Sep 14, 2011

It has been a while since I sold my D200 (CCD) for a D300 (CMOS), then D300s (CMOS), but I seam to remember that the colors of the D200 were REALLY good, better than the D300s - not that I don't like the D300s' colors.

Am I just doing the "back in the good ole days" thing?

chad

Tony Beach
Senior MemberPosts: 5,064
Like?
Re: Colors - D200 vs D300s
In reply to chadmarek, Sep 14, 2011

chadmarek wrote:

It has been a while since I sold my D200 (CCD) for a D300 (CMOS), then D300s (CMOS),

CMOS versus CCD has nothing to do with it. D2x/D2xs are CMOS, and those sensors are Nikon's best at discriminating colors.

but I seam to remember that the colors of the D200 were REALLY good, better than the D300s - not that I don't like the D300s' colors.

I'm not sure about the D300s colors, there appear to be some differences between it and the D300; but the D300 and the D200 are very close in discriminating colors (and Iliah Borg told me that the D300 was actually slightly better than the D200 for skin tones). Most of this comes down to the color profiles used, and Nikon changed from Image Optimization to Picture Control when they released the D300 and D3, and there was a backlash against that which culminated in D2X Mode Picture Control options being made available. You cannot get those D2X Mode Picture Controls for the D300s, but you can apply them in NX to NEF files.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chadmarek
Contributing MemberPosts: 919
Like?
Re: Colors - D200 vs D300s
In reply to Tony Beach, Sep 14, 2011

Tony Beach wrote:

You cannot get those D2X Mode Picture Controls for the D300s, but you can apply them in NX to NEF files.

So that explains why I was not able to load the profiles on to my D300s. I thought I was just doing something wrong.

I am not happy about not being able to do that. I really liked the portrait profile and would prefer to not have to add the extra steps in post to get it in there. More efficient to do it automatically at capture.

chad

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JonathanRphoto
Forum MemberPosts: 69Gear list
Like?
Re: Colors - D200 vs D300s
In reply to chadmarek, Sep 14, 2011

No camera is "Really" truly good at skin tones and color. That's why we have color correction soft wear. I shoot in Raw which gives you the best detail in shadow and highlights anyways so it takes a second to apply the color profile you like best. If you really don't like the color of skin tones. Go back to film

 JonathanRphoto's gear list:JonathanRphoto's gear list
Nikon D4
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Re: Colors - D200 vs D300s
In reply to chadmarek, Sep 14, 2011

chadmarek wrote:

It has been a while since I sold my D200 (CCD) for a D300 (CMOS), then D300s (CMOS), but I seam to remember that the colors of the D200 were REALLY good, better than the D300s - not that I don't like the D300s' colors.

Am I just doing the "back in the good ole days" thing?

chad

Firstly when we say camera A has better colour than Camera B, I think in general the word better is confusing; It would be fairer to say "easier to get good colours". There is allot of anecdotal information that says the D2x had good colours and the D200 had inherited this as well, yet one was CMOS and the other CCD.

But! Both cameras had Analogue colour preconditioning prior to Digital conversion something that Nikon highlighted in their brochures. Reading the behind the scenes technology at Nikon's Webb site, they state that the D200 had better hardware than the D2X. and the experienced gained with D2x metering was used in the D200. http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/

What is interesting is that the advantage of CMOS was the pixel level Analogue digital conversion; So why did the D2x use CCD type Analogue Digital conversion at the expense of Hi ISO ability?

My guess is that at this time Nikon was obsessed with getting easy to get good colours, but as the high ISO and faster FPS battle was stepped up by Canon, Nikon changed to traditional CMOS implementation to compete. Hence the priorities were changed with the D300.

The D3 series used a combination of the D2x approach and traditional CMOS configuration and large volume and expensive off chip electronic hardware. These electronics were so large that they would not fit in the D700. This may also explain why CCD was used in the D200. Although CCD was a more expensive technology it did not require so much off chip bulky hardware as the D2X, as CCD was by nature less noisy than CMOS, which used complex noise cancelling techniques.

The Mixed approach used in the D2x, is I believe typical of the LBCAST thinking that was prevalent at that time at Nikon.

I wish that Nikon had continued to improve the multi-channel CCD approach and found innovative solutions to its weaknesses, rather than jumping on the CMOS band wagon. It would have been expensive, although ironically it could have paid off by providing superb video.

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads