The Amazing D200.

Started Jun 13, 2013 | Discussions
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Scientists not convinced by CMOS develop Scientific-cmos
In reply to Tidewater, Jul 24, 2013

'Broadly speaking however, and despite

some undeniably rapid advances over the

last decade, ‘traditional’ CIS (cmos imaging systems) performance

has generally been worse than CCDs and

their acceptance into scientific markets

has been limited due to a reputation of

unacceptably high read noise and dark

current, lower fill factors, and greater nonuniformity.

These are all drawbacks that our new

sCMOS technology has been specifically

designed to overcome.'

'These have been conceived in order to match

the traditionally high fidelity imaging

performance of CCDs with the readout

speed capabilities of CMOS.

http://www.scmos.com/files/low/scmos_white_paper_2mb.pdf

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,473Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 24, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

If you are looking for a DX camera for low light use, a D200 isn't the right choice given today's options.

Aha, but I must have left out the part that I am financially restricted at the moment and a D200 will be the perfect test bench, and maybe even be the suitable tool I am looking for, anyway.

My shots are not used full size, but very much reduced, so noise is not a problem.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,473Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 24, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

Olympus D200? And I've never posted to the Fuji forum so have no clue to what you are talking about here either.

Sure looks like brain fade on my part - sorry for confusion.  Did I really write Olympus D200??

And we will see if you bash this D200 after trying to use it in low light or not It's pretty clear this is NOT a camera choice anyone would recommend as a low light marvel.

I'm not a basher.

If the D200 doesn't meet my low light needs I won't be complaining.

My issue is with folk who insist that CCD is better, but don't/cannot use worthwhile (or any) comparison shots to show the differences.

Without the evidence, it's just like the emporer's new clothes: nothing of substance, nothing visible, all in the imagination.

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,473Gear list
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances, just like the emporer's new clothes
In reply to marcio_napoli, Jul 24, 2013

marcio_napoli wrote:

Hi Trevor,

Well, if you want, I can post a D700 vs Leaf Aptus 5 comparison.

I don't believe you just said that, as if it could ever be a valid comparison.

You can only test something like this with the same lenses on similar bodies - say D200 and D300, although a D7000 might do at a pinch.

If evaluating one technology against another, you have to just change one thing (the technology) at a time.  You can't change lenses and brands as well!

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Pangloss
Senior MemberPosts: 2,298Gear list
Like?
Stacey, that's a beautiful portrait in natural light!
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 24, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

I just recently got one of these after another forum recommended I try one and like others here, love the output I am getting, especially the colors. I have learned for my shooting style it needs +.3EV set for most shots. Also have the in camera sharpening turned up a good bit.

This was done in late afternoon light outdoors with an 85mm F1.8G at F2. This is now my go to combo for shooting portraits!

-- hide signature --

Stacey

I understand why you wrote that the 85 f/1.8 stays on your D200 most of the time. Perfect rendering and great skin colors! Thanks for sharing and yes, it does perfectly show how the D200 excels.

-- hide signature --

Andrew
Novice photographer

 Pangloss's gear list:Pangloss's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 Nikon D200 Ricoh GXR A12 50mm F2.5 Macro Ricoh GXR GR Lens A12 28mm F2.5 Nikon 1 V1 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rkumar
Regular MemberPosts: 420
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances, just like the emporer's new clothes
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 24, 2013

Trevor G wrote:

marcio_napoli wrote:

Hi Trevor,

Well, if you want, I can post a D700 vs Leaf Aptus 5 comparison.

I don't believe you just said that, as if it could ever be a valid comparison.

You can only test something like this with the same lenses on similar bodies - say D200 and D300, although a D7000 might do at a pinch.

If evaluating one technology against another, you have to just change one thing (the technology) at a time. You can't change lenses and brands as well!

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

If someone posts a comparison with the same lens/scene, then the next question will be about post-processing; whether the highlights and shadows (and the look of the image) can't be matched with enough adjustments in Lightroom etc. What the folks here are saying is that they have used both the D200 and CMOS based DSLRs and many prefer the look of the D200 output in good light. BTW, if you insist on a 'scientific' comparison, the D200 has a higher score for color accuracy, compared to most other CMOS sensor bodies (as measured by DXO labs).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,682Gear list
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances, just like the emporer's new clothes
In reply to rkumar, Jul 24, 2013

rkumar wrote:

If someone posts a comparison with the same lens/scene, then the next question will be about post-processing; whether the highlights and shadows (and the look of the image) can't be matched with enough adjustments in Lightroom etc.

What's comical to me is Trevor feels it's our job to convince him. I honestly could care less if he can see the difference nor is it my job on this earth to convince him of what I believe to be true. Please Trevor, by all means do NOT use a D200 or any CCD camera!

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,682Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 24, 2013

Trevor G wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

If you are looking for a DX camera for low light use, a D200 isn't the right choice given today's options.

Aha, but I must have left out the part that I am financially restricted at the moment and a D200 will be the perfect test bench,

At this price point, there are many much better options for low light use. It is not "the perfect test bench" for low light use and given you are going into this "experiment" believing the output color wise is no different than any other, it's pretty pointless to buy one.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,682Gear list
Like?
Re: Is Nikon CCD really better?
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 24, 2013

Trevor G wrote:

My issue is with folk who insist that CCD is better, but don't/cannot use worthwhile (or any) comparison shots to show the differences.

It's not my job to prove anything to you and I could care less if you believe what people say or not. Feel free to ignore what all the people in this thread are saying, we obviously are all wrong.

Here is a clue why there probably is some truth to what we are saying, for example: I own a D7000. Bought it new so have a good bit of money invested in it. I was finding it was a struggle to get the color I was after using it, so bought an additional body, a D200, to try to address this and it has. So it can't be buyer envy as I already own both. I honestly don't need to shoot a side by side, that you would still find something wrong with, to see that my problems with color disappeared when I started using the D200. I know where each camera is strong and which is weak so this just opens up my options. Again, please ignore everyone who posted they like this camera and go by what DXO or whoever says the best camera is. I'm sure the D200 has low scores there..

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marcio_napoli
Contributing MemberPosts: 835
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances, just like the emporer's new clothes
In reply to Trevor G, Jul 24, 2013

That's why I didn't even bother posting it in the first place. I knew it would be criticized as an invalid test.

Agree it's not a fair fight, agree.

But in this case, the lens is the last problem we have here.

We have bigger differences coming from the different sensor sizes, resolution, sensor types, etc.

And it's not my goal to make you a "believer" or not. If you can see the nuances we talk about, that's great.

If you don't, that's fine too!

-- hide signature --

Marcio Napoli

www.marcionapoli.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
seahawk
Senior MemberPosts: 2,081
Like?
Re: Ok here is what I like about "The Amazing D200".
In reply to Tidewater, Jul 24, 2013

Given good light, allowing the D200 to stay at ISO 100/200, I still love this camera. And I will keep it even when the D400 allows me to make my D300 the back-up. I jsut keep the D200 for travel to sunny places, where you can not store your gear safely.

A shot from last year with the D200.

http://www.jetphotos.net/photolink.php?id=7484576

-- hide signature --

hobby aviation photographer

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Klimt z
Regular MemberPosts: 333
Like?
Re: Ok here is what I like about "The Amazing D200".
In reply to seahawk, Jul 24, 2013

Spectacular Jet photo. Very sharp and colorful with a 70-300, which is another Nikon classic.

-- hide signature --

K

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Scientists not convinced by CMOS develop Scientific-cmos
In reply to Cytokine, Jul 24, 2013

Cytokine wrote:

"Broadly speaking however, and despite some undeniably rapid advances over the last decade, ‘traditional’ CIS performance has generally been worse than CCDs and their acceptance into scientific markets has been limited due to a reputation of unacceptably high read noise and dark current, lower fill factors, and greater non- uniformity.

"These are all drawbacks that our new sCMOS technology has been specifically designed to overcome."

"These have been conceived in order to match the traditionally high fidelity imaging performance of CCDs with the readout speed capabilities of CMOS."

http://www.scmos.com/files/low/scmos_white_paper_2mb.pdf

I think it's hard to compare specialized scientific imaging sensors with those produced for the professional (and consumer) DSLR market. The cost and usage constraints are just way different.

For example, I think that most DSLR users would NOT be interested in a $10,000, 16-MP astronomical CCD that requires water cooling for best performance.  

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mistermejia
Senior MemberPosts: 2,921Gear list
Like?
For What Some of us do, Yes, CCD is Better.
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 24, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

Trevor G wrote:

My issue is with folk who insist that CCD is better, but don't/cannot use worthwhile (or any) comparison shots to show the differences.

It's not my job to prove anything to you and I could care less if you believe what people say or not. Feel free to ignore what all the people in this thread are saying, we obviously are all wrong.

Here is a clue why there probably is some truth to what we are saying, for example: I own a D7000. Bought it new so have a good bit of money invested in it. I was finding it was a struggle to get the color I was after using it, so bought an additional body, a D200, to try to address this and it has. So it can't be buyer envy as I already own both. I honestly don't need to shoot a side by side, that you would still find something wrong with, to see that my problems with color disappeared when I started using the D200. I know where each camera is strong and which is weak so this just opens up my options. Again, please ignore everyone who posted they like this camera and go by what DXO or whoever says the best camera is. I'm sure the D200 has low scores there..

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Trevor, there is no "issue".  You are the one that's making this an issue.

I will give you an example:  I compare CMOS sensor to a modern LED TV, and the CCD as a PLASMA TV.  Yes they are BOTH TVs, but they are different and they both have a different "look".

The LED looks sharp crisp and bright as hell, and it is nice, but the LED has that extreme sharp and clear look as if you were watching a high definition video coming straight out of a cam corder.  On the plasma tv a cartoon will look like a normal cartoon, but on the LED it just looks even more cartoonish and weird looking.  Now, if you have the LED connected to the internet or play video games, the LED wins.  No doubt.

The plasma tv on the other hand, it has that more cinematic look and it is more pleasant to watch movies and even cartoons, and although it is also a TV, the damn thing is COMPLETELY different from the LED.  No doubt.

Some people LOVE the LED look, and that's fine.  I personally don't like LED.  The same thing is happening with CCD. 

For what some of us dowe prefer the CCD look, and yes, that is what makes it better.  This is pretty much the idea  

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Rokinon 85mm F1.4 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Re: Scientists not convinced by CMOS develop Scientific-cmos
In reply to olliess, Jul 24, 2013

olliess wrote:

Cytokine wrote:

"Broadly speaking however, and despite some undeniably rapid advances over the last decade, ‘traditional’ CIS performance has generally been worse than CCDs and their acceptance into scientific markets has been limited due to a reputation of unacceptably high read noise and dark current, lower fill factors, and greater non- uniformity.

"These are all drawbacks that our new sCMOS technology has been specifically designed to overcome."

"These have been conceived in order to match the traditionally high fidelity imaging performance of CCDs with the readout speed capabilities of CMOS."

http://www.scmos.com/files/low/scmos_white_paper_2mb.pdf

I think it's hard to compare specialized scientific imaging sensors with those produced for the professional (and consumer) DSLR market. The cost and usage constraints are just way different.

For example, I think that most DSLR users would NOT be interested in a $10,000, 16-MP astronomical CCD that requires water cooling for best performance.

Oliess, I posted these quotations and link, because the two sensors are almost diametrically opposed in the way they work, therefore it is not surprising that some people can see a difference.

Actually the two sensor types compliment each other, and allow photographers to choose the right tool for the job in hand.

This is also the case in some scientific applications where CMOS is used to differentiate between high level light signal analysis, and CCD for low level light signal analysis, both complimenting each other.

CCD has better pixel dynamic range and CMOS better system dynamic range (given enough light).

CCD gives a cleaner signal that gets relatively dirtier when amplified, CMOS gives a dirtier signal that gets relatively cleaner when amplified, but it needs some light to work otherwise we are just left with a dirty signal.

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Tidewater
Contributing MemberPosts: 765Gear list
Like?
Re: Scientists not convinced by CMOS develop Scientific-cmos
In reply to Cytokine, Jul 24, 2013

Seems to me the CMOS is for speed as in video recording. As soon as they started to offer video in regular cameras they all went to cmos. Chicken or Egg??

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Scientists not convinced by CMOS develop Scientific-cmos
In reply to Cytokine, Jul 24, 2013

Cytokine wrote:

olliess wrote:

I think it's hard to compare specialized scientific imaging sensors with those produced for the professional (and consumer) DSLR market. The cost and usage constraints are just way different.

For example, I think that most DSLR users would NOT be interested in a $10,000, 16-MP astronomical CCD that requires water cooling for best performance.

Oliess, I posted these quotations and link, because the two sensors are almost diametrically opposed in the way they work, therefore it is not surprising that some people can see a difference.

John,

I appreciate the link. It's an interesting read so far (although I admit to not being able to finish it in one go. )

It seems to me that the sensors could only be described as working in "diametrically opposed" ways from a certain perspective. After all, the main physical principle of both sensors types is the same: photons are received in a photosensitive area, which converts the photons to charges, and then the charges need to be counted. The major working difference is between moving the charges off-sensor first to count them, or doing it on the spot.

IMHO, it would be somewhat surprising for two modern commercial sensors, under normal operating conditions, to show such obvious differences due to sensor type that people could reliability tell which was which.

People said the same thing about tube amplifiers and transistors too, if you want to open up a whole can of worms.

Actually the two sensor types compliment each other, and allow photographers to choose the right tool for the job in hand.

Only if there's a job that one sensor can do and the other demonstrably cannot. Otherwise, photographers might want to just pick the best sensor available to them and not worry about CMOS vs CCD.

This is also the case in some scientific applications where CMOS is used to differentiate between high level light signal analysis, and CCD for low level light signal analysis, both complimenting each other.

CCD has better pixel dynamic range and CMOS better system dynamic range (given enough light).

I think these are overgeneralizations. Is this true for every CCD and every CMOS sensor?

To go back to my original point, the constraints are totally different between scientific applications and a mainstream DSLR. Even if there is a CCD which is measurably better in every way than the CMOS used in my camera, it doesn't do me any good if I can't afford it (or the manufacturer can't afford to put it in their camera, without going out of business anyway).

Any, that's just my $0.02. I've owned for many years (and continue to use) a D200, so I'm definitely not saying this just because I'm "too good for CCDs" or something.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Scientists not convinced by CMOS develop Scientific-cmos
In reply to Tidewater, Jul 24, 2013

Tidewater wrote:

Seems to me the CMOS is for speed as in video recording. As soon as they started to offer video in regular cameras they all went to cmos. Chicken or Egg??

Probably a bit more CMOS before video in this case. Canon was using CMOS pretty much from the start, and IIRC, Canon noise-performance was always a bragging point until about the D300/D700 generation. And then they all went and started putting in HD video, and the world went to pot.  

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Cytokine
Contributing MemberPosts: 626
Like?
Re: Scientists not convinced by CMOS develop Scientific-cmos
In reply to olliess, Jul 24, 2013

olliess wrote:

Cytokine wrote:

olliess wrote:

I think it's hard to compare specialized scientific imaging sensors with those produced for the professional (and consumer) DSLR market. The cost and usage constraints are just way different.

For example, I think that most DSLR users would NOT be interested in a $10,000, 16-MP astronomical CCD that requires water cooling for best performance.

Oliess, I posted these quotations and link, because the two sensors are almost diametrically opposed in the way they work, therefore it is not surprising that some people can see a difference.

John,

I appreciate the link. It's an interesting read so far (although I admit to not being able to finish it in one go. )

It seems to me that the sensors could only be described as working in "diametrically opposed" ways from a certain perspective. After all, the main physical principle of both sensors types is the same: photons are received in a photosensitive area, which converts the photons to charges, and then the charges need to be counted. The major working difference is between moving the charges off-sensor first to count them, or doing it on the spot.

IMHO, it would be somewhat surprising for two modern commercial sensors, under normal operating conditions, to show such obvious differences due to sensor type that people could reliability tell which was which.

People said the same thing about tube amplifiers and transistors too, if you want to open up a whole can of worms.

Actually the two sensor types compliment each other, and allow photographers to choose the right tool for the job in hand.

Only if there's a job that one sensor can do and the other demonstrably cannot. Otherwise, photographers might want to just pick the best sensor available to them and not worry about CMOS vs CCD.

This is also the case in some scientific applications where CMOS is used to differentiate between high level light signal analysis, and CCD for low level light signal analysis, both complimenting each other.

CCD has better pixel dynamic range and CMOS better system dynamic range (given enough light).

I think these are overgeneralizations. Is this true for every CCD and every CMOS sensor?

To go back to my original point, the constraints are totally different between scientific applications and a mainstream DSLR. Even if there is a CCD which is measurably better in every way than the CMOS used in my camera, it doesn't do me any good if I can't afford it (or the manufacturer can't afford to put it in their camera, without going out of business anyway).

Any, that's just my $0.02. I've owned for many years (and continue to use) a D200, so I'm definitely not saying this just because I'm "too good for CCDs" or something.

Olliess,

" Dynamic range, the ratio of a pixel’s saturation level to its signal threshold. It gives CCDs an advantage by about a factor of two in comparable circumstances. CCDs still enjoy significant noise advantages over CMOS imagers because of quieter sensor substrates (less on-chip circuitry), inherent tolerance to bus capacitance variations and common output amplifiers with transistor geometries that can be easily adapted for minimal noise. Externally coddling the image sensor through cooling, better optics, more resolution or adapted off-chip electronics cannot make CMOS sensors equivalent to CCDs in this regard".

https://www.teledynedalsa.com/public/corp/Photonics_Spectra_CCDvsCMOS_Litwiller.pdf

This was written in 2001 and to some extent it is just as relevant today, as Cmos sensor real-estate now looks like New-York New-York. they are smaller with even more on-chip circuitry, relying on ever smaller micro lenses to bring some light to the light sensitive area.

With micro lenses came other side effects: limited light acceptance angles=Stealth ISO increases with wide aperture lenses.

With on chip A/D conversion came difficult to get colours. (No analogue colour preconditioning) (blowing the red channel etc.,).

However CMOS is a reasonable compromise if you want all the bells and whistles.

John

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Trevor G
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,473Gear list
Like?
Re: It's all about nuances, just like the emporer's new clothes
In reply to Stacey_K, Jul 25, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

What's comical to me is Trevor feels it's our job to convince him.

That's akin to a personal attack.  It's not necessary.

If you cannot even show me an example of back-to-back images where the D200 is noticeably superior, all other things being equal, then the claimed superiority just doesn't exist.  Does it?

In your mind, perhaps, but not in reality.

I'm not saying that the D200 is not a good camera.  I am questioning the (so far) totally unsubstantiated claims of the D200 MAS (mutual admiration society) that its CCD produces noticeably better output than a similar CMOS camera.

I honestly could care less if he can see the difference nor is it my job on this earth to convince him of what I believe to be true. Please Trevor, by all means do NOT use a D200 or any CCD camera!

It's not so comical when you realise that people make spurious and unsubstantiated claims about all sorts of things every day.

With imaging techniques and IQ in general, if it's not easy to demonstrate it probably doesn't exist.

For further reading do a search in the Leica forum for a poster called Leica King (back in late 2006 and early 2007) who fooled them all for quite some time with wonderful Leica images which appealed to the snobbery in there, but later turned out to be from a Canon 5D, I think it was.

http://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=leica_king&forum=1038&sort=from-oldest

-- hide signature --

Cheers
Trevor G
Silkypix tutorials at: http://photo.computerwyse.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads