D300 vs D200 surprising results Locked

Started Jun 25, 2013 | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
D300 vs D200 surprising results
Jun 25, 2013

Hi, here is a comparison I made today between the D300, D200 and my old D40X. My first intention was to see the difference in terms of sharpness, using MLU on both pro cameras, and the 5 seconds delay option on the D40X.

I already know that my D200 and D40X offer different colors out of the box and also experienced in recent portrait and event shootings that my D300, despite the awesome technology behind the camera itself, offers less accurate skin-tones, white balance, as well as very dark shadows, that can become very muddy if pulled back, so I wanted to be certain of that and used the following settings :

NEF - auto WB - MLU - shutter, ISO and aperture the same on each camera, camera on sturdy tripod, lens, Tamron 17-50mm VC off set at 50mm.

Software used : Capture NX, neutral picture mode, contrast and tune set to 0, sharpening + 4, no shadow recovery or D-lighting.

The setup and settings were calibrated equally to see the differences out of the box and compare each result in Capture NX using the same settings too.

The first thing to notice is the sharpness, both D200 and D300 cameras produce amazing details and the D40X is a good contender, despite the lack of MLU. The shutter speed was set at 1/100, aperture F5, ISO400 (to be able to compare noise levels and avoid slow shutter speed)

I could confirm my first issue with the D300: the WB has to be re-calibrated and the colors are quite muddy out of the box, even when using the same picture controls (D300). I made actions that uses fine tuning WB and Tune settings to try to match the D200 tones. They work quite good but have to be re-adjusted sometimes.(D300 to D200).

The other issue, which is more problematic, are the darker areas: by default, with the same picture control settings, the D300 offers less dynamic range in darker areas than the D200. This is an observation I already made and this test confirms it. The shadows are very dark, offer less breathing and also show muddy grayish tones in comparison with the D200 files. Actually, D200 files barely need any shadow recovery if the picture is well exposed. Another observation is that the advanced D-lighting tool is a preferred option to pull the shadows on the D300 images: it will not create outlining shadows or highlight effect. On the D200, the shadow recovery works with no outlining issue.

Thanks for keeping this tread civil, my intention is not to start a "civil war" but those are my observations and I am shooting events every week with both cameras as well as the D600.

Uncivil replies will be ignored.

NEF files to download here : https://www.transferbigfiles.com/6f3cca57-611b-4508-a334-d04e936bf38f/cbrGryb5vh_9k7RHf6gzvw2

Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D40X Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-F5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
unknown member
(unknown member)
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results D300 exposure/ shadows
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 25, 2013

Hi,

I cannot comment on the comparison, don't have a D200. But I have always found (in the year and a half or so shooting recently), that the D5000/ D300 (similar) sensor is very good at recording shadow detail and thus recovery.

I do understand your reference to color balance, may be it is because I am using LR and not CNX2, but the color balance always needs to be warmed (or I just set the camera to cloudy...hmmm.).

However, I most always play a bit with the black and contrast sliders anyway, so maybe  I am nullifying the effect of weakened shadows, subconsciously anyway.

As you note, while I like a full tonal range in a photo, I do like the black to be black and white to be white, albeit ideally everything in between is desirable, within reason.

I mostly shoot RAW, then process., although its a lot more than just JPEG, maybe its left over from the days I played around with darkroom processing and digital is still so much faster and convenient, so see no problem processing all the photos in digital.

So, possibly I am not noticing it as much because of my process flow. But yes, I do generally enhance the blacks and contrast. But that to me is a plus of the sensor, allowing a lot of information to be captured and processed.

Dunno if that lends anything to the discussion.

-- hide signature --

Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

 Bajerunner's gear list:Bajerunner's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +8 more
Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results D300 exposure/ shadows
In reply to Bajerunner, Jun 25, 2013

Bajerunner wrote:

Hi,

I cannot comment on the comparison, don't have a D200. But I have always found (in the year and a half or so shooting recently), that the D5000/ D300 (similar) sensor is very good at recording shadow detail and thus recovery.

my experience is that the shadow recovery tool is affecting the shadow colors on my D300. They are lacking colors natively and it worsens if I pull them. My D5100 has a slightly different image too (with the same picture controls) : shadows are prone to color shift: brown hair will turn blue or magenta. My D200 offers better and colorful shadows natively.

I do understand your reference to color balance, may be it is because I am using LR and not CNX2, but the color balance always needs to be warmed (or I just set the camera to cloudy...hmmm.).

However, I most always play a bit with the black and contrast sliders anyway, so maybe I am nullifying the effect of weakened shadows, subconsciously anyway.

As you note, while I like a full tonal range in a photo, I do like the black to be black and white to be white, albeit ideally everything in between is desirable, within reason.

Me too. If you download my NEF files, you'll see that the B&W point are perfectly aligned on both D200 and D300 shots, but the D300 shadows are very dark and muddy. The images are lacking colors in the shadows as well, trying to compensate the saturation is not helping, they feel more like re-colored B&W images.

I mostly shoot RAW, then process., although its a lot more than just JPEG, maybe its left over from the days I played around with darkroom processing and digital is still so much faster and convenient, so see no problem processing all the photos in digital.

So, possibly I am not noticing it as much because of my process flow. But yes, I do generally enhance the blacks and contrast. But that to me is a plus of the sensor, allowing a lot of information to be captured and processed.

it is, but the point is that the D200 seems to offer more dynamic range in the shadows, and better colors in the shadows, out of the box. This implies less workflow and better colors overall. The D300 is an extremely nice camera, with a better screen, viewfinder, grip and buttons, but the color and contrast output in the shadows is really strange, to me.

Dunno if that lends anything to the discussion.

Thanks a lot for your participation.

-- hide signature --

Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

n057
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,311Gear list
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 25, 2013

FTH wrote:

Hi, here is a comparison I made today between the D300, D200 and my old D40X. My first intention was to see the difference in terms of sharpness, using MLU on both pro cameras, and the 5 seconds delay option on the D40X.

Thanks for taking the effort!

At the time that the D300 came out, I concluded that it was better to get 2.8 glass than that new body - but then the majority of my pictures are taken at light so bad that I operate most of the time at 1600ISO, between 1/10 and 1/40 sec and between f/2.8 and f/4. My quick test showed that under those circumstances, the D300 did not give me enough of a boost above the D200, using variable aperture zooms.

Are you able to repeat a controlled test under that type of lighting? Hi-ISO, wide apertures and slow shutter speeds, under tungsten lights.

Thanks!

JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers

 n057's gear list:n057's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +6 more
Kerry Pierce
Forum ProPosts: 17,579Gear list
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 25, 2013

I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras.  You can't expect the d300 sensor to output the same colors and WB as the d200, because they are completely different sensor designs with different CFA's.

You were a participant in the CCD thread in the FX forum, in which many posts explained the differences how to benefit from them.  AnotherMike, among others, posted some very good info in that thread, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675955

thanks

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +11 more
azguy
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,157
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Kerry Pierce, Jun 25, 2013

I have both a D200 and a D300 (have actually owned several D200s).

There are many other factors that come into play for me, besides shadow detail, shadow exposure, or even clarity.

I use the better focusing of the D300 extensively, and also the higher useable ISO.  I also like the larger sensor, and may purchase a D7100 for that reason.

I do so much PP in PS6, using the highlights/shadows, lights/darks tools in during RAW conversion, and the shadows/highlights tool in jpeg, that I have no trouble getting what I want from either camera.

But I prefer the D300/D300s overall.

Regards.

Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to azguy, Jun 25, 2013

azguy wrote:

I have both a D200 and a D300 (have actually owned several D200s).

There are many other factors that come into play for me, besides shadow detail, shadow exposure, or even clarity.

I use the better focusing of the D300 extensively, and also the higher useable ISO. I also like the larger sensor, and may purchase a D7100 for that reason.

I do so much PP in PS6, using the highlights/shadows, lights/darks tools in during RAW conversion, and the shadows/highlights tool in jpeg, that I have no trouble getting what I want from either camera.

But I prefer the D300/D300s overall.

Regards.

this is exactly my point: it is a nicer camera (nicer body) but the trouble is that I don't get much shadow information / colors in the native files, they feel like re-colorized b&w. Medium tones and highlights are fine though but saturation compensation has to be made locally in the shadows and still, don't offer true rich colors. Some subjects will not be affected by it too much, and some will.

Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Kerry Pierce, Jun 25, 2013

Kerry Pierce wrote:

I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras. You can't expect the d300 sensor to output the same colors and WB as the d200, because they are completely different sensor designs with different CFA's.

this is what I did (cf D300 to D200 picture preset) but this doesn't explain the lack of colors in the shadows. Again, using the shadow recovery tool will show unsaturated shadows (grayish muddy shadows) vs the D200 files that also don't need any shadow recovery process to obtain more lattitude. And adding saturation will boost saturation on the whole image, not locally on the shadows.

You were a participant in the CCD thread in the FX forum, in which many posts explained the differences how to benefit from them. AnotherMike, among others, posted some very good info in that thread, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675955

Indeed, but he is actually pointing that both sensors have nothing to do with color reproduction. You, in the contrary, are stating that I shouldn't expect the same colors or WB because the sensors are different, this is where I tend to agree with you. Nikon clearly designed the D200 sensor with the intention to reproduce extremely accurate colors, see here:

"With its 10mp CCD sensor with 4 channels and corresponding 4 analogue digital converters tweaked by Nikon, with help from Fuji, to provide a realistic comparison to 35mm film. Like the D2 the D200 4 channel sensor and its 4x ADC’s allowed digital processing before AD conversion allowing a very precise control of colours.Industry-leading image processing for exceptional color performance

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Digital-slr-Cameras/25235/D200.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-RatingsReviews

Incorporates Nikon's industry-leading advanced image processing engine of the D2x, allowing for color-independent pre-conditioning prior to A/D conversion working in concert with advanced digital image processing algorithms to achieve fine color gradations with exceptionally smooth, consistent transitions. they are testimonials from 2013 users too.

Even if all sensors "see" in b&w, conversion techniques (algorithms) and hardware is clearly both involved in the final output.

MiraShootsNikon
Contributing MemberPosts: 649
I don't understand this test or its results.
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 26, 2013

Some thoughts on your test, FTH, in line with your text, below.

FTH wrote:

Hi, here is a comparison I made today between the D300, D200 and my old D40X. My first intention was to see the difference in terms of sharpness, using MLU on both pro cameras, and the 5 seconds delay option on the D40X.

I already know that my D200 and D40X offer different colors out of the box and also experienced in recent portrait and event shootings that my D300, despite the awesome technology behind the camera itself, offers less accurate skin-tones, white balance, as well as very dark shadows, that can become very muddy if pulled back, so I wanted to be certain of that and used the following settings :

NEF - auto WB - MLU - shutter, ISO and aperture the same on each camera, camera on sturdy tripod, lens, Tamron 17-50mm VC off set at 50mm.

Software used : Capture NX, neutral picture mode, contrast and tune set to 0, sharpening + 4, no shadow recovery or D-lighting.

So what, exactly, are you testing?

(1) You aren't testing "out of box" results because you've just tweaked all of the cameras with sharpening they didn't ship with and you've turned off the D300's D-lighting, which, if memory serves, is "on" when the camera comes out of the box for its first use. If you really want to test Nikon's shipping intention, it's more reasonable to test the D300 with D-Lighting on against the D200's lack of that specific in-camera algorithm. It's more reasonable to test the sharpening settings with which they shipped. (I'm not saying that's a good test of anything meaningful, either. But it is "out of box.")

(2) The "zero" contrast setting and the "neutral" picture control are just arbitrary names given to a set of processing algorithms that mean different things to different inputs. Empirically, why should the D300's "zero contrast" mean the same thing as the D200's? If you're trying to measure sensor response, don't you need to try to equalize tone curves empirically--by actually looking at them--and not by just aligning arbitrary labels?

(3) Using the current Capture NX2 to convert RAW from the D200 with modern picture control modes (i.e., the "neutral" you selected) can't be a very scientific test: the D200 didn't ship with Picture Controls--it shipped with the D2 "Mode I, II, III" color management and software that supported it. If you test a D200 and apply modern Picture Controls to the RAW, you're testing a 2006 camera with 2013 software it wasn't designed to use. Where's the empirical baseline in that? Why not thow 'em both against ACR and conclude that the D300 is "better" because it goes into ACR with brighter reds? Why not throw 'em both against Silkypix from 2008 and declare a winner? You get the gist. If it's not "out of box" for any of the cameras you're testing, why does the workflow you've picked have any particular relevance?

The setup and settings were calibrated equally to see the differences out of the box and compare each result in Capture NX using the same settings too.

So, again, I have to question this test's claim to being "out-of-the-box."

The first thing to notice is the sharpness, both D200 and D300 cameras produce amazing details and the D40X is a good contender, despite the lack of MLU. The shutter speed was set at 1/100, aperture F5, ISO400 (to be able to compare noise levels and avoid slow shutter speed)

I could confirm my first issue with the D300: the WB has to be re-calibrated and the colors are quite muddy out of the box, even when using the same picture controls (D300).

OK, but remember, the D200 was never even designed to use Picture Controls. The whole picture control system was years away when the D200 shipped.

Also, even if 2013's "neutral" picture control processing of both does favor the D200's RAW, what does that prove beyond that you've found a favorable workflow for that specific camera? Switching them both to "vivid" might end in a thorough win by the D300. Or pushing them both into Capture One might reveal something else. Since we've thrown "out of box" or empirical matching out the window, why is your test's specific workflow a more valid or revelatory comparison than any other?  Why should the baseline be the specific processing parameters (software, version, settings) you've picked and not others?

So, If I summarize these objections, it seems like you aren't really "testing" anything so much as assigning all of your cameras to a workflow you like and commenting on which performs better within that workflow. Great, OK, but it doesn't really tell us anything about the cameras, which may perform differently within a different workflow. What if you've chosen that workflow to get the best out of the D200? Of course the other cameras will underperform, but that doesn't mean they're intrinsically "worse." Results from the D300's best workflow, whatever it is, might totally spank those from the D200's.  Or maybe this isn't even the D200's "best" workflow--maybe it's even better than you've shown if processed against the D300 another way, or another.

Cheers!

mira

Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Re: I don't understand this test or its results.
In reply to MiraShootsNikon, Jun 26, 2013

MiraShootsNikon wrote:

Some thoughts on your test, FTH, in line with your text, below.

FTH wrote:

Hi, here is a comparison I made today between the D300, D200 and my old D40X. My first intention was to see the difference in terms of sharpness, using MLU on both pro cameras, and the 5 seconds delay option on the D40X.

I already know that my D200 and D40X offer different colors out of the box and also experienced in recent portrait and event shootings that my D300, despite the awesome technology behind the camera itself, offers less accurate skin-tones, white balance, as well as very dark shadows, that can become very muddy if pulled back, so I wanted to be certain of that and used the following settings :

NEF - auto WB - MLU - shutter, ISO and aperture the same on each camera, camera on sturdy tripod, lens, Tamron 17-50mm VC off set at 50mm.

Software used : Capture NX, neutral picture mode, contrast and tune set to 0, sharpening + 4, no shadow recovery or D-lighting.

So what, exactly, are you testing?

(1) You aren't testing "out of box" results because you've just tweaked all of the cameras with sharpening they didn't ship with and you've turned off the D300's D-lighting, which, if memory serves, is "on" when the camera comes out of the box for its first use. If you really want to test Nikon's shipping intention, it's more reasonable to test the D300 with D-Lighting on against the D200's lack of that specific in-camera algorithm. It's more reasonable to test the sharpening settings with which they shipped. (I'm not saying that's a good test of anything meaningful, either. But it is "out of box.")

(2) The "zero" contrast setting and the "neutral" picture control are just arbitrary names given to a set of processing algorithms that mean different things to different inputs. Empirically, why should the D300's "zero contrast" mean the same thing as the D200's? If you're trying to measure sensor response, don't you need to try to equalize tone curves empirically--by actually looking at them--and not by just aligning arbitrary labels?

(3) Using the current Capture NX2 to convert RAW from the D200 with modern picture control modes (i.e., the "neutral" you selected) can't be a very scientific test: the D200 didn't ship with Picture Controls--it shipped with the D2 "Mode I, II, III" color management and software that supported it. If you test a D200 and apply modern Picture Controls to the RAW, you're testing a 2006 camera with 2013 software it wasn't designed to use. Where's the empirical baseline in that? Why not thow 'em both against ACR and conclude that the D300 is "better" because it goes into ACR with brighter reds? Why not throw 'em both against Silkypix from 2008 and declare a winner? You get the gist. If it's not "out of box" for any of the cameras you're testing, why does the workflow you've picked have any particular relevance?

The setup and settings were calibrated equally to see the differences out of the box and compare each result in Capture NX using the same settings too.

So, again, I have to question this test's claim to being "out-of-the-box."

The first thing to notice is the sharpness, both D200 and D300 cameras produce amazing details and the D40X is a good contender, despite the lack of MLU. The shutter speed was set at 1/100, aperture F5, ISO400 (to be able to compare noise levels and avoid slow shutter speed)

I could confirm my first issue with the D300: the WB has to be re-calibrated and the colors are quite muddy out of the box, even when using the same picture controls (D300).

OK, but remember, the D200 was never even designed to use Picture Controls. The whole picture control system was years away when the D200 shipped.

Also, even if 2013's "neutral" picture control processing of both does favor the D200's RAW, what does that prove beyond that you've found a favorable workflow for that specific camera? Switching them both to "vivid" might end in a thorough win by the D300. Or pushing them both into Capture One might reveal something else. Since we've thrown "out of box" or empirical matching out the window, why is your test's specific workflow a more valid or revelatory comparison than any other? Why should the baseline be the specific processing parameters (software, version, settings) you've picked and not others?

So, If I summarize these objections, it seems like you aren't really "testing" anything so much as assigning all of your cameras to a workflow you like and commenting on which performs better within that workflow. Great, OK, but it doesn't really tell us anything about the cameras, which may perform differently within a different workflow. What if you've chosen that workflow to get the best out of the D200? Of course the other cameras will underperform, but that doesn't mean they're intrinsically "worse." Results from the D300's best workflow, whatever it is, might totally spank those from the D200's. Or maybe this isn't even the D200's "best" workflow--maybe it's even better than you've shown if processed against the D300 another way, or another.

Cheers!

mira

thanks for your long answer, if I understand well, Capture NX will not put both files on the same level when using the same picture controls due to different algorithms processed on each raw file coming from different camera models, which is a shame, how is it possible in this case to calibrate files to the same output on Nikon's software ? It is like adding a filter on the top of another pre-existing one...

If you can tell me why the D300 is giving grayish muddy shadows independently of the medium tones and the highlights, and provide me a direct solution to it (without local PP on the muddy grayish shadows), I would be very thankful: I tried every picture control available, but no one will provide clean & colorful shadows.

Another observation is that the D5100 and D600 files are prone to color shift in the shadows, when pulled, which is not the case with the D200.

Does it mean that Capture NX is a bad software for newer cameras ?

The NEF files are in the link bellow my first post.

thank you.

rkumar
Regular MemberPosts: 420
Interesting...
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 26, 2013

It is interesting what Nikon says specifically about colors on D200, and about it being like D2X, help from Fuji etc. AFAIK, Capture NX2 has a D2X color mode, which you could also load on certain bodies.

Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Re: Interesting...
In reply to rkumar, Jun 26, 2013

rkumar wrote:

It is interesting what Nikon says specifically about colors on D200, and about it being like D2X, help from Fuji etc. AFAIK, Capture NX2 has a D2X color mode, which you could also load on certain bodies.

Indeed this is a bizarre assumption coming from Nikon. If it was so easy to copy the D2X by simple software, why would Nikon assume on their official website that this is hardware related?

MiraShootsNikon
Contributing MemberPosts: 649
Re: I don't understand this test or its results.
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 26, 2013

FTH wrote:

thanks for your long answer, if I understand well, Capture NX will not put both files on the same level when using the same picture controls due to different algorithms processed on each raw file coming from different camera models, which is a shame, how is it possible in this case to calibrate files to the same output on Nikon's software ? It is like adding a filter on the top of another pre-existing one...

You understand my point perfectly, FTH.

For another interesting perspective on this: here's Nikon's suggestion of how you might use the current Picture Control software settings to approximate the native color and tonal processing of cameras built before the Picture Control era:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/picturecontrol/other/approximation.htm

Note that Nikon acknowledges that these guidelines are, at best, an approximation. In other words, it's not even possible to process D200 RAW in 2013 with the same look you'd have gotten in 2006. Unless you've kept 2006's ViewNX and CaptureNX.

Also note that Nikon's guide gives away an interesting "tell" about the difference between Gen 1 (D200, D40x) and the Gen 2 (Picture Controls, D300, etc.) color / tone processing. You'll notice that, across the board, using the Picture Controls to simulate the D200's and D40x's original "Mode I or "Mode III" color processing requires a -1 brightness tweak.

If you can tell me why the D300 is giving grayish muddy shadows independently of the medium tones and the highlights, and provide me a direct solution to it (without local PP on the muddy grayish shadows), I would be very thankful: I tried every picture control available, but no one will provide clean & colorful shadows.

Within the picture control utility, adjusting the tone curve directly might be your best bet if you favor precise control of tonal response.

Or, if it's easier, add a levels-curves adjustment palette in NX2 that you can simply copy from frame to frame.

Something to consider: if you push and pull RAW with a software package's categorical sliders--"contrast" or "shadow protection," or the like--you're relying on the underlying math behind those sliders to effect a change on your histogram. There isn't some universal standard on what "defines" shadow protection or how, exactly, your slide toward "more contrast" should actually spread recorded tonality.

What's more, "slider math" that works for one situation or one camera's RAW files may not work as well for another camera's RAW files or another situation. Remember that a D200 and a D600 are feeding Capture NX2 with RAW data collected and processed in different ways. (A D200, for example, can't feed Capture NX2 RAW data amped at ISO 6400).

So if you see a given slider change effect your RAW in a way you don't like, it's not necessarily an indictment of the camera's output--it's just as likely an indictment of the slider math's suitability to the change you're trying to make on the data you've collected.

Which is why most software packages worth their salt offer a direct level/curve adjustment in addition to sliders. Tweaking the curve directly allows you to bypass the "slider math" and directly change tonal response on your own terms. It's the software engineer's tacit admission that the sliders or preset notches aren't always going to cover every circumstance.

Another observation is that the D5100 and D600 files are prone to color shift in the shadows, when pulled, which is not the case with the D200.

Well, to be clear: this observation comes from your test processing of these various cameras within a single workflow you chose, not from any intrinsic measurement of sensor response or tests with other workflows / non-Nikon software.

So you can't really say that D600 files are "prone to color shift in the shadows when pulled" if you've been using a single software package's slider(s) to do the pulling.  But if that's your analysis after some work with the tone curve, it's a different and more compelling story.

Does it mean that Capture NX is a bad software for newer cameras ?

No. It means only that the default tonal responses of the stock picture controls don't handle tones exactly the way you'd prefer. But since you can create a custom curve in the Picture Control utility, it's a moot point: you can create any tonal response you'd like.

The NEF files are in the link bellow my first post.

thank you.

You're welcome.

azguy
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,157
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 26, 2013

FTH wrote:

azguy wrote:

I have both a D200 and a D300 (have actually owned several D200s).

There are many other factors that come into play for me, besides shadow detail, shadow exposure, or even clarity.

I use the better focusing of the D300 extensively, and also the higher useable ISO. I also like the larger sensor, and may purchase a D7100 for that reason.

I do so much PP in PS6, using the highlights/shadows, lights/darks tools in during RAW conversion, and the shadows/highlights tool in jpeg, that I have no trouble getting what I want from either camera.

But I prefer the D300/D300s overall.

Regards.

this is exactly my point: it is a nicer camera (nicer body) but the trouble is that I don't get much shadow information / colors in the native files, they feel like re-colorized b&w. Medium tones and highlights are fine though but saturation compensation has to be made locally in the shadows and still, don't offer true rich colors. Some subjects will not be affected by it too much, and some will.

You misunderstand. I am not saying that there is a difference in shadow detail, shadow exposure, or even clarity, particularly with the way I process the files.

Kerry Pierce
Forum ProPosts: 17,579Gear list
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 26, 2013

FTH wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras. You can't expect the d300 sensor to output the same colors and WB as the d200, because they are completely different sensor designs with different CFA's.

this is what I did (cf D300 to D200 picture preset) but this doesn't explain the lack of colors in the shadows. Again, using the shadow recovery tool will show unsaturated shadows (grayish muddy shadows) vs the D200 files that also don't need any shadow recovery process to obtain more lattitude. And adding saturation will boost saturation on the whole image, not locally on the shadows.

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

You were a participant in the CCD thread in the FX forum, in which many posts explained the differences how to benefit from them. AnotherMike, among others, posted some very good info in that thread, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675955

Indeed, but he is actually pointing that both sensors have nothing to do with color reproduction. You, in the contrary, are stating that I shouldn't expect the same colors or WB because the sensors are different, this is where I tend to agree with you.

No, he and I are saying basically the same thing, but he is much more technical and detailed about how he is saying it. He and I are saying that they are completely different cameras and that you can't expect them to produce identical results. Each camera can produce excellent results, but only if you do your part in making that happen.

Mira's post is an excellent explanation, much better than mine.  She's basically telling you the same thing that I am saying.  You must tweak your shots and your post processing specifically to each camera and not expect to use one process for all.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +11 more
Kerry Pierce
Forum ProPosts: 17,579Gear list
Re: I don't understand this test or its results.
In reply to MiraShootsNikon, Jun 26, 2013

Thanks for posting these excellent articles, Mira. They explain things so much better than I was able to do. That's very cool. If you don't mind, I'll bookmark them and show them to future posters with questions on this type of thing.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +11 more
Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Kerry Pierce, Jun 26, 2013

Kerry Pierce wrote:

FTH wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras. You can't expect the d300 sensor to output the same colors and WB as the d200, because they are completely different sensor designs with different CFA's.

this is what I did (cf D300 to D200 picture preset) but this doesn't explain the lack of colors in the shadows. Again, using the shadow recovery tool will show unsaturated shadows (grayish muddy shadows) vs the D200 files that also don't need any shadow recovery process to obtain more lattitude. And adding saturation will boost saturation on the whole image, not locally on the shadows.

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

"I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras"

it has actually to do with my experience using capture NX, the muddy shadows are not going away with any picture control used in NX. As Mira pointed, both cameras use different algorithms on the raw files, and using a picture control on the top of that will not neutralize and reboot the initial algorithms to the new ones, it will actually ad the picture control on the top of them.

You were a participant in the CCD thread in the FX forum, in which many posts explained the differences how to benefit from them. AnotherMike, among others, posted some very good info in that thread, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675955

Indeed, but he is actually pointing that both sensors have nothing to do with color reproduction. You, in the contrary, are stating that I shouldn't expect the same colors or WB because the sensors are different, this is where I tend to agree with you.

No, he and I are saying basically the same thing, but he is much more technical and detailed about how he is saying it. He and I are saying that they are completely different cameras and that you can't expect them to produce identical results. Each camera can produce excellent results, but only if you do your part in making that happen.

"anothermike"'s reply is just grossly pointing out ("educating") to use nikon picture controls, this is something that every Nikon shooter using Capture NX on a daily basis is aware off. Mira's answer is way more helpful and "educative" in this regard: no one in the previous debate was able to point out the truth about Nikon using algorithms on the top of different algorithms when using the picture controls.

Mira's post is an excellent explanation, much better than mine. She's basically telling you the same thing that I am saying. You must tweak your shots and your post processing specifically to each camera and not expect to use one process for all.

Yes, she's telling that and I aware of that, the only issue is that Nikon's official software is lacking of consistency as it should be able to offer a perfect workflow when using NEF files instead of having to fine tune ourselves an action to match each other's camera output. It should be able to match a NEF file coming from each camera when using the picture controls.

Regarding the muddy shadow issue with my D300 and color shift in shadows with my D5100,D600 NEF I still did not find any picture control solving the issue. Even if my D200 NEF files seem not to be updated for Capture NX anymore, they still don't show any issue in the shadows.

I would be more than thankful if someone could give me a solution about that. Other shooters experienced the same troubles in fredmiranda's forum.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Kerry Pierce
Forum ProPosts: 17,579Gear list
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Deleted-pending, Jun 26, 2013

FTH wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

FTH wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras. You can't expect the d300 sensor to output the same colors and WB as the d200, because they are completely different sensor designs with different CFA's.

this is what I did (cf D300 to D200 picture preset) but this doesn't explain the lack of colors in the shadows. Again, using the shadow recovery tool will show unsaturated shadows (grayish muddy shadows) vs the D200 files that also don't need any shadow recovery process to obtain more lattitude. And adding saturation will boost saturation on the whole image, not locally on the shadows.

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

"I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras"

it has actually to do with my experience using capture NX, the muddy shadows are not going away with any picture control used in NX. As Mira pointed, both cameras use different algorithms on the raw files, and using a picture control on the top of that will not neutralize and reboot the initial algorithms to the new ones, it will actually ad the picture control on the top of them.

I use several different RAW conversion programs, mainly Capture One, Lightroom and PSCS ACR, and Capture NX.  If you aren't getting the results that you want from NX, I would have 2 suggestions.  First, contact Jason Odell and tell him your problem.  He used to be a regular here and he still posts once in a while.  Probably best to send him a PM, but you'll have to search for his user name.  Second, take a look at his site, tutorials and the ebooks that he has. http://www.luminescentphoto.com/nx2guide.html   I think that if anyone can quickly resolve your muddy shadows with NX, it would be Jason.

You were a participant in the CCD thread in the FX forum, in which many posts explained the differences how to benefit from them. AnotherMike, among others, posted some very good info in that thread, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675955

Indeed, but he is actually pointing that both sensors have nothing to do with color reproduction. You, in the contrary, are stating that I shouldn't expect the same colors or WB because the sensors are different, this is where I tend to agree with you.

No, he and I are saying basically the same thing, but he is much more technical and detailed about how he is saying it. He and I are saying that they are completely different cameras and that you can't expect them to produce identical results. Each camera can produce excellent results, but only if you do your part in making that happen.

"anothermike"'s reply is just grossly pointing out ("educating") to use nikon picture controls, this is something that every Nikon shooter using Capture NX on a daily basis is aware off. Mira's answer is way more helpful and "educative" in this regard: no one in the previous debate was able to point out the truth about Nikon using algorithms on the top of different algorithms when using the picture controls.

Mira's post is an excellent explanation, much better than mine. She's basically telling you the same thing that I am saying. You must tweak your shots and your post processing specifically to each camera and not expect to use one process for all.

Yes, she's telling that and I aware of that, the only issue is that Nikon's official software is lacking of consistency as it should be able to offer a perfect workflow when using NEF files instead of having to fine tune ourselves an action to match each other's camera output. It should be able to match a NEF file coming from each camera when using the picture controls.

Regarding the muddy shadow issue with my D300 and color shift in shadows with my D5100,D600 NEF I still did not find any picture control solving the issue. Even if my D200 NEF files seem not to be updated for Capture NX anymore, they still don't show any issue in the shadows.

I would be more than thankful if someone could give me a solution about that. Other shooters experienced the same troubles in fredmiranda's forum.

I'm sorry that I can't give you a quick solution.  I don't pretend to be a guru of any kind.  What I know is that when I can't get the results that I want from one RAW converter, I use another or another, until I do get the results that I want.  Capture One is my favorite for difficult files, but that doesn't mean much other than the probability that I don't know how to use NX or ACR well enough to do what C1 does for me, in those instances.   My primary conversion program is an Adobe product.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

 Kerry Pierce's gear list:Kerry Pierce's gear list
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC +11 more
Deleted-pending
Senior MemberPosts: 2,665
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Kerry Pierce, Jun 26, 2013

Kerry Pierce wrote:

FTH wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

FTH wrote:

Kerry Pierce wrote:

I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras. You can't expect the d300 sensor to output the same colors and WB as the d200, because they are completely different sensor designs with different CFA's.

this is what I did (cf D300 to D200 picture preset) but this doesn't explain the lack of colors in the shadows. Again, using the shadow recovery tool will show unsaturated shadows (grayish muddy shadows) vs the D200 files that also don't need any shadow recovery process to obtain more lattitude. And adding saturation will boost saturation on the whole image, not locally on the shadows.

Sorry, but I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

"I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras"

it has actually to do with my experience using capture NX, the muddy shadows are not going away with any picture control used in NX. As Mira pointed, both cameras use different algorithms on the raw files, and using a picture control on the top of that will not neutralize and reboot the initial algorithms to the new ones, it will actually ad the picture control on the top of them.

I use several different RAW conversion programs, mainly Capture One, Lightroom and PSCS ACR, and Capture NX. If you aren't getting the results that you want from NX, I would have 2 suggestions. First, contact Jason Odell and tell him your problem. He used to be a regular here and he still posts once in a while. Probably best to send him a PM, but you'll have to search for his user name. Second, take a look at his site, tutorials and the ebooks that he has. http://www.luminescentphoto.com/nx2guide.html I think that if anyone can quickly resolve your muddy shadows with NX, it would be Jason.

thanks a lot for the contact.

You were a participant in the CCD thread in the FX forum, in which many posts explained the differences how to benefit from them. AnotherMike, among others, posted some very good info in that thread, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675955

Indeed, but he is actually pointing that both sensors have nothing to do with color reproduction. You, in the contrary, are stating that I shouldn't expect the same colors or WB because the sensors are different, this is where I tend to agree with you.

No, he and I are saying basically the same thing, but he is much more technical and detailed about how he is saying it. He and I are saying that they are completely different cameras and that you can't expect them to produce identical results. Each camera can produce excellent results, but only if you do your part in making that happen.

"anothermike"'s reply is just grossly pointing out ("educating") to use nikon picture controls, this is something that every Nikon shooter using Capture NX on a daily basis is aware off. Mira's answer is way more helpful and "educative" in this regard: no one in the previous debate was able to point out the truth about Nikon using algorithms on the top of different algorithms when using the picture controls.

Mira's post is an excellent explanation, much better than mine. She's basically telling you the same thing that I am saying. You must tweak your shots and your post processing specifically to each camera and not expect to use one process for all.

Yes, she's telling that and I aware of that, the only issue is that Nikon's official software is lacking of consistency as it should be able to offer a perfect workflow when using NEF files instead of having to fine tune ourselves an action to match each other's camera output. It should be able to match a NEF file coming from each camera when using the picture controls.

Regarding the muddy shadow issue with my D300 and color shift in shadows with my D5100,D600 NEF I still did not find any picture control solving the issue. Even if my D200 NEF files seem not to be updated for Capture NX anymore, they still don't show any issue in the shadows.

I would be more than thankful if someone could give me a solution about that. Other shooters experienced the same troubles in fredmiranda's forum.

I'm sorry that I can't give you a quick solution. I don't pretend to be a guru of any kind. What I know is that when I can't get the results that I want from one RAW converter, I use another or another, until I do get the results that I want. Capture One is my favorite for difficult files, but that doesn't mean much other than the probability that I don't know how to use NX or ACR well enough to do what C1 does for me, in those instances. My primary conversion program is an Adobe product.

No worries, I am just trying to move further the debate sothat the users experiencing troubles are able to solve those issues. I compared ACR, Lightroom, Capture one and DXO 1 year ago but came to the conclusion that Capture NX was a better software to use with NEF files. It will remove CA automatically and is genuinely compatible with every nikon lens for distortion, vignetting, lateral CA and moire too (the best for D800E users). The u-point system is also excellent, although Nik software offers the plugin for photoshop and Lighroom too.

Kerry

-- hide signature --

my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,672Gear list
Re: D300 vs D200 surprising results
In reply to Kerry Pierce, Jun 26, 2013

Kerry Pierce wrote:

I would suggest that you develop your own picture controls and post processing techniques for the d300, rather than using the same controls on both cameras. You can't expect the d300 sensor to output the same colors and WB as the d200, because they are completely different sensor designs with different CFA's.

You were a participant in the CCD thread in the FX forum, in which many posts explained the differences how to benefit from them. AnotherMike, among others, posted some very good info in that thread, http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51675955

Interesting this "anothermike" and other said the sensor is color blind and sensor type has nothing whatsoever to do with the image or the colors reproduced. Here you say "they are completely different sensor designs", so which is it?

I have been using a D7000 for over a year after switching from an olympus E1. I tried a D200 last week and am seriously thinking of selling my D7000 after seeing the IQ this camera has. Yes, I will have to give up the high ISO performance but I can live with that for the colors etc this camera produces. It's like shooting with a 10MP E1.

-- 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads