D200 dynanic range, quality of Jpegs, noise & skin tone

[snoopy5]

Hi

I m planning to buy either a Nikon D200 or a Canon 5D.

I have 4 questions regarding the D200 in comparison to other DSLRs (I know the Nikon D70, so this makes it easier for me to compare any comments):

1. dynamic range of the D200 (compared to Nikon D70 and/or Canon 5D)

2. the quality of the Jepgs (best quality setting) compared to the RAW files of the same camera.

How much better then Jpeg can the RAW files be with the D200? 10%, 30% or more? I need that as a guideance to make a judgement whether the best Jpeg mode might be good enough for most of my shootings (high contrast scenes and available light).

If someone can compare the difference between Nikon D70 or Canon 5D Jpeg vs. D200 Jepg, this would be appreciated.

3. Noise. How much difference there is between either D70 or Canon 5D compared to the Nikon D200. 10%, 30% or more? I am not a noise maniac. I shoot not for test purposes. But I would be interested in the gap between these cameras to get a better impression...

4. Skin tone/appearance. I made the experience with many DSLRs, that skin is looking like plastic. An impression like somebody put vasiline over the lens. How about the capability of the D200 vs. Nikon D70 and/or Canon 5D to give "film like" skin?

Thanks in advance

 

[broodrooster]

This has been posted a couple of times, it's a comparison of the D200/20D/5D/D2x/D100/S3:

http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200E.htm

Good luck

Hi

I m planning to buy either a Nikon D200 or a Canon 5D.

I have 4 questions regarding the D200 in comparison to other DSLRs
(I know the Nikon D70, so this makes it easier for me to compare
any comments):

1. dynamic range of the D200 (compared to Nikon D70 and/or Canon 5D)
2. the quality of the Jepgs (best quality setting) compared to the
RAW files of the same camera.

How much better then Jpeg can the RAW files be with the D200? 10%,
30% or more? I need that as a guideance to make a judgement whether
the best Jpeg mode might be good enough for most of my shootings
(high contrast scenes and available light).

If someone can compare the difference between Nikon D70 or Canon 5D
Jpeg vs. D200 Jepg, this would be appreciated.

3. Noise. How much difference there is between either D70 or Canon
5D compared to the Nikon D200. 10%, 30% or more? I am not a noise
maniac. I shoot not for test purposes. But I would be interested in
the gap between these cameras to get a better impression...

4. Skin tone/appearance. I made the experience with many DSLRs,
that skin is looking like plastic. An impression like somebody put
vasiline over the lens. How about the capability of the D200 vs.
Nikon D70 and/or Canon 5D to give "film like" skin?

Thanks in advance

 

[snoopy5]

Thanks for that link. Since I do not speak an asian language, I can not see with which Jepge settings, tripod yes/no etc. thses shots have been made. Also the Nikon D70 is not used theer at all.

But more important my questions regarding skin tones and dynamic range in high contrast scenes and available light are not answered with this link at all.

So any additional comments would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

 

[Uncle Frank]

I m planning to buy either a Nikon D200 or a Canon 5D.

I have 4 questions regarding the D200 in comparison to other DSLRs

There are very few people who've owned a d200 and a 5D, so the info you're seeking is tough to come by. I think you're going to need to haunt both forums, and draw your own conclusions.

I can offer some insight on the d70 to d200 migration. Both dynamic range and high ISO noise are noticeably improved, and the d200 feels much "snappier". Other than resolution, image quality is similar, which I think is very good. Oh, and I only shoot jpegs, and both cameras satisfied my standatds.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[NicholasS]

My opinions offered honestly - hope it helps:

I would seriously consider the 20D and some serious lenses for the same $$$$ that you will spend on the D200 or the 5D - remember the body is disposable - I am currently on an 18 months cycle of replacing bodies but I am keeping the lenses I accumulate along the way.

In the review cited above the 20D compares favourably. I am the the first to admit that the LCD, ergonomics, WB, flash and focus are better on the D200 or 5D (the 20D is no slouch and has great IQ).

If you want a Nikon save the money for the lenses and buy a D70s. If the D70 had come out a few months earlier I would have been committed to Nikon and not Canon...

If money is not an issue then get the 5D.

Given the problems cited with D200 I would wait till the firmware, calibration, QC or what ever the issue is under control - the price will settle supply will be good and then I think you would get a great D200. I waited when the 20D was released and happy I did.

The race for megapixels is "sucking people in" - I regularly print 13x19 images from my 6Mpx 300D and honestly at normal viewing distances these images are indistinguishable from those of the 8.2Mpx 20D. Now if you are insane and inspect prints with a loupe at 3 inches you will notice a trival difference...

Just my 2c worth!

--
Nick

 

[NicholasS]

To specifically answer your questions (the bits I can).

1. Raw files with any camera are better, I am told that the 5D has similar issues to the 20D WB - RAW allows you to adjust this. Also RAW lets you use custom ICC profiles (ETCETERA are what I use). RAW with custom ICC gives very accurate skin tones - I think this can be generalized to any camera - Nikon/Canon/Minolta etc

2. I think the 5D from the images I have seen is the king of the high ISO by a considerable margin.

3. Film like = Nikon over Canon. Of the Canon's the old IDs is the most film like. My own obersvation is that for B&W it does not matter but the color noise of the Canon cameras is NOT film like.

--
Nick

 

[Matja tefan269i269]

Uncle Frank (and all the others who used D70 and are now using D200) :

It was discussed several times that photos from D70 need much more post-processing then those from Canon DSLRs.

What do you thing about photos from D200? Do they need as much work in the digital darkroom as the ones from D70?

Best regards, matjaž

--

~~~~ http://butterflyscream.deviantart.com/ ~~~~

 

[keith Bennett]

hi snoop,

it may not help, but i too was interested in the same thing as you - so i composited 3 pix in ps - 2 shot outside a cam shop down here 2 days ago + one previous D2X shot i had -

i took a shot of the dear salesperson (Raw quality) with a D200 (LHS) - 5D (centre) - and i had a high contrast pic previously shot 3 months ago from a D2X (RHS) (white shirt behind) - all camera's at normal settings - the pics were composited in ps with only very minimal tweaks - maybe the D200 shot could have had a wee bit less red, but there is not much in it imo - there was very slight sharpening to the final composite -

my impression was that the cmos chips may be slightly better than the ccd in the whites - but i was told that the dynamic range of both was 6 stops - the difference being in camera processing - this was the answer given in another thread -
i have had the D2X shot printed and it looks fine -

apart from the above, just checking the composite, it looks to me that the D200 is very good value -
i hope this may be of value -

the picture is at - http://static.flickr.com/43/81505734_49b37d521f_b.jpg
--
best wishes,
keith

 

[vindo]

I don really see anything wrong with this cam. Got this D200 2 days before 2006. Just in time for me to do countdown with it. Hope the link to the photo work. Thanks.

Happy New Year



--
vindo

 

[snoopy5]

Thanks for the fast feedback so far. Please continue even in a few days with your experiences. I will check this thread again and again before I will decide end of January/beginning of February.

Regarding differences RAW and Jpeg. I understand that RAW is qualitywise always better. The question for me is, whether the gain in quality will justify the less convenience with the Nikon D200.

I heard on other forums, that the Jpegs of the D200 shall be much better than D70 and therfore RAW less needed.

I know from the D70, that there is quite significant improvement with RAW files vs. Jpeg files highest settings.

Since the D200 is brand new, I hope that this gap between RAW and Jpeg will decrease. This is what I try to find out.

If the gap is i.e. just 10%, I know that in 95% of my shooting situations, Jpeg will be sufficient.

But I do not know how Skin tones are with jpeg images and whether dynamic range is enough in Jpeg vs. RAW file with the D200. In general, I like Nikon more than Canon (handling etc.). but Canon 5D is fullframe...

So any comment is much appreciated also in the future

Thanks in advance

 

[Carl Feather]

Sounds like you need to look at the Fuji S3. Last I knew, it was down around the price of a D200.

It has the best DR on the highlight end and noise is supposed to be quite good, not up to the old S2, however. Certainly not as good as a Canon 20D.

It's dog slow, however. And it's in an antiquated body.

Unfortunately, Nikon's not known for being a master of the noise issue. Canon has a better handle on that (sorry guys, but that's the way it is).

 

[Michael Mohrmann]

Oh, and I only shoot jpegs, and both cameras satisfied my standatds.

Given that this forum seems primarily keyed on shooting raw with the D200, I am somewhat surprised at this. I would be curious what criteria led you to decide on shooting jpeg instead of raw.

 

[Paul_U]

Current market is quite a puzzle indeed.

From what I can tell you - 1Dsmk2 is a hell of a camera, but it is pricey. BUT - if you are in serious business, it is the only choice.

If you are, as many of us here - a weekend warrior or amateur, then, well, nothing of above makes much difference.

5D is a good camera. If you do have a set of L Canon lenses already - do not thiink twice. But it is not in same class with 1D line units, neither sensor neither body wise, don't make a mistake here.

If you do not have any lenses from neither Canon and Nikon - well,

Fuji S3 - still THE best JPG camera for next year as it seems, it is on slow side AF wise and frame per sec wise, but noise and skin tones are perfect, plus who knows what Fuji did, but it shoots indoor well and its auto WB works. Resolution wise it is OK for portraiture. DR is the best.

D200 has Nikon(Sony) sensor and as people started to report - acts the same way as any previous Nikon sensor - it is critical to get correct exposure for good flesh tones, auto white balance is not as good as on Fuji, well, it is Nikon with its usual weaknesses.

But Flash system is much better than on Fuji, 10 megapixels and fast AF. Good camera for daylight and fill flash, you will have to shoot RAW+JPG to be on a safe side. Noise up to ISO400 is managable.

D70 is an entry level small camera, it does not fir in thr same line but if you just want your first DSLR to learn - it is a good choice, as well as Rebel 350.

Hi

I m planning to buy either a Nikon D200 or a Canon 5D.

I have 4 questions regarding the D200 in comparison to other DSLRs
(I know the Nikon D70, so this makes it easier for me to compare
any comments):

1. dynamic range of the D200 (compared to Nikon D70 and/or Canon 5D)
2. the quality of the Jepgs (best quality setting) compared to the
RAW files of the same camera.

How much better then Jpeg can the RAW files be with the D200? 10%,
30% or more? I need that as a guideance to make a judgement whether
the best Jpeg mode might be good enough for most of my shootings
(high contrast scenes and available light).

If someone can compare the difference between Nikon D70 or Canon 5D
Jpeg vs. D200 Jepg, this would be appreciated.

3. Noise. How much difference there is between either D70 or Canon
5D compared to the Nikon D200. 10%, 30% or more? I am not a noise
maniac. I shoot not for test purposes. But I would be interested in
the gap between these cameras to get a better impression...

4. Skin tone/appearance. I made the experience with many DSLRs,
that skin is looking like plastic. An impression like somebody put
vasiline over the lens. How about the capability of the D200 vs.
Nikon D70 and/or Canon 5D to give "film like" skin?

Thanks in advance

--
Best regards from UPVStudio Photography

 

[R Laing]

....to buy only the best glass for the 5D and are a Jpg shooter from what I've seen the 5D will give better results. At almost twice the cost it should. Canon and CMOS both are a help in, in camera processing. Speaking of only the best Glass.

You can buy a D200 and a pro level lens for the cost of the 5D body alone. I've seen a greater improvement in Image Quality as a result of good glass than any other factor.

Go to some of the gallery sites and you will see that it is just a tool. In the right hands any modern dSLR will give great results.

Asking these questions in a Nikon forum or Canon forum is kind of like taking sand to the beach don’t you think?

 

[Uncle Frank]

Regarding differences RAW and Jpeg. I understand that RAW is
qualitywise always better.

That's an Urban Legend, Snooper. It depends on how skillfully the RAW file is converted. Those that swear by RAW feel they have software that can do a better job than the algorithms that Nikon has built into their cameras. Personally, I've found Nikon's approach to be just fine.

But I do not know how Skin tones are with jpeg images and whether
dynamic range is enough in Jpeg vs. RAW file with the D200.

Using RAW will not increase the dynamic range of your captures. As far as skin tones are concerned, here's a few examples resulting from jpegs.









--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[Adam Kmiec]

I'd get the D200. Unless you need/want full frame, which some of us do, there is no reason in my opinion to get the 5D.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com

 

[Uncle Frank]

It was discussed several times that photos from D70 need much more
post-processing then those from Canon DSLRs.

Let's examine that premise. Firstly, it doesn't apply to RAW. In jpg default mode, Nikons produce a relatively flat file, which is ideal for photo-finishing, while Canons go a few steps further in finishing their pictures. But Nikons can be set up to do a more complete job in-camera by increasing saturation, contrast, and sharpening, or using a custom curve. And I'm told Canons allow you to adjust the amount of in-camera processing to produce a flatter file. So there isn't a compelling reason to choose one over the other based on in-camera processing scemes.

What do you thing about photos from D200? Do they need as much work in the digital darkroom as the ones from D70?

I don't have my in-camera settings dialed in yet, so at this point, a bit more.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[Uncle Frank]

Oh, and I only shoot jpegs, and both cameras satisfied my standatds.

Given that this forum seems primarily keyed on shooting raw with
the D200, I am somewhat surprised at this. I would be curious what
criteria led you to decide on shooting jpeg instead of raw.

I'm an event photographer, and process large numbers of images. Shooting jpg simplifies my workflow and storage requirements. I've found that if my exposures and white balances are close, I can get satisfactory results doing my editing in Photoshop. This is an example of a d200 image, shot in jpg with AWB, with minor adjustments in Photoshop. Note that it was taken at ISO800, which speaks to the d200's low noise capabilities as well.



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[Steve Bingham]

. . . of this site. http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200E.htm

Notice, if you will, that the site clearly has the D200 out resolving the D2x at ISO 100, 200, 400, etc. Being as I have both, and have tested both, and used both professionally, I can say this is pure nonsense. As I can't read Chinese I have no idea of his testing methods other than they are clearly flawed! Wait for Phil's test.

As for DR, I think the D200 has a SLIGHT edge over the D2x. Like, barely. As DR can be handled better in post anyway, this really is a moot point for most high end professionals. Do I love my D200? You bet. Awesome camera in ALL respects - but it is not better than the D2x as a professional camera. Period.

Now to answer your question. All the cameras you mentioned will do a superb job. Period. It really comes down to personal preferences - like handling, features, ease of use, etc.

My PERSONAL recommendation, based on your post, would be the D200. The D50 is also an excellent choice for the first timer. On the other hand, good deals can be had on a used D70. A year or so ago I would have recommended the Canon 20D above the Nikons. Now I would go with the D200 if I wanted something short of a full blown professional camera.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

 

[Steve Bingham]

Using RAW will not increase the dynamic range of your captures. As
far as skin tones are concerned, here's a few examples resulting
from jpegs.

Not quite true, Frank. Using raw CAN increase your DR with a simple double conversion. Takes less than a minute. Stack the two converted images in PS, use control/alt/tilde and then click on the mask button. You now have automatically added another two stops of DR. Go to Photoshop Tips on http://www.dustylens.com to get simple step-by-step illustrated directions (See Luminous Masking).

Very easy to do but not suitable for someone like yourself that must process hundreds of photos a day.

Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com