Reading mode: Light Dark

D200+Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 = SHARP

Go to last post
Radu Tenenbaum

Radu Tenenbaum

Veteran Member
Messages
2,969
Reaction score
222
Location
Worcester, MA, US
Shot RAW at 60mm with SB-800 flash. Manual Exposure and Spot Meter. 1/125 at f/5. This is a 100% Crop.

I'm new to both the D200 and the 28-70, but I can tell that it's a step up from my D70 and Tamron 28-75.

Now, if only I can get a higher percentage of my shots to come out like this...



--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

 
I've got the 18-200 on order and I'll keep both. The 28-70 is not what I'll be wanting to lug around on vacation. The 18-200 will replace my 28-200 (I'm selling it) which has proven to be a tremendously versatile, lightweigh, inexpensive, and capable performer. Hopefully, the 18-200 will live up to its capabilities.
--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

 
Something wrong with this shot, it looks like NR did a lot of job. Artefacts are everywhere. A lot of postprocessing but not a lot sharpness.

I hope you shoot in RAW and ISO 100? It doesn't looks like this.
 
Converted in NC with Sharpening set to Low and USM (48,5,8). This is the default NC setting recommended by Ron Reznick and it's what I had been using for my D70.

In Photoshop CS I applied just the slightest S curve, converted to LAB mode for a bit more sharpening (86,.6, 1), back to RGB, cropped the sample, converted to sRGB and saved JPG at quality level 6.

Shot was at ISO 100. NR is off in the camera, and no NR was applied during post.
--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

 
Completely happy with Nikon gear. Maybe to shoot RAW is a better idea to extract full sharpness from the shot.
 
I' just told Canon guys that D200 is a very good camera, while they all were looking at chineese fake test and as usual were making all their canon propaganda.

Never bushing Nikon, Nikon is the best.
 
I actually agree with dimar, it is a bit overprocessed and artifacts are visible. I don't know why Ron advised such setting, if my shot is sharp and is NEF with NO sharpenning applied, doing 48,5,8 will completely oversharpen it and create very visible artifacts. I RARELY go above 20,5,0 and often leave images as-is if I nailed them well and sometimes do 10,5,0 just to make them bit more punchy.

This is all for full-sized image, for Web you sharpen after resizing.
 
shapening may be very different for landscapes/macro and for pictures with faces. I think they are two different stories.
 
Radu Tenenbaum said:
I'm new to both the D200 and the 28-70, but I can tell that it's a step up from my > D70 and Tamron 28-75.
Click to expand...
I think this says a lot. While I'm not not criticizing your image, it appears to me not as sharp as you indicated in your heading. I'm seeing a lot of plastic looking images. Almost a Canon look, but more soft, IMO.

--
'I'm Just A Messenger'

-ricK

 
dimar said:
Something wrong with this shot, it looks like NR did a lot of job.
Artefacts are everywhere. A lot of postprocessing but not a lot
sharpness.

I hope you shoot in RAW and ISO 100? It doesn't looks like this.
Click to expand...
You might have a second thought if you realize it is a 100% crop. It is only a small portion of the entire image. With about 800 x 800 pixels, it is only about 1/15 of the 10M of the camera. I'd say it's remarkable. Sorry this must have been repetitively mentioned by many here time and again, on a computer screen, providing 100% crops is the most meaningful way to demonstrate the quality of a camera sensor. As far as the resolution of the sensor is concerned, showing full framed pictures is just about meaningless . A full framed picture displayed on a computer screen might show the artistic talent of the photographer, perhaps also color rendition of the camera, but nothing on the sensor resolution. This is because a vast majority of the computer screens have about 1 M pixels, meaning that screen display of a picture is inherently incapable of comparing camera resolutions beyond 1 M pixels (that's assuming the picture is displayed over the entire screen, which usually isn't even a case).
 
I have seen this expression "100% crop" used in what appears to be different contexts. Since I never hear reference to such values as

"47% crop" or "90% crop," it would seem that a 100% crop would mean no cropping at all; otherwise, any cropping at all would be 100% crops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top