d200 image is very disappointed.. it's very soft

I'm surprised that no one as yet has pointed out the most likely explanation -
at least from my quick read through the thread. Atmospheric conditions
can have a huge impact on perceived image softness.

Temperature fluctuations lead to air density fluctuations which causes
wave length dependent light scattering (diffraction). The same effect
leads to mirages.

Atmospheric contaminants cause variations in the relative permittivity
(the dielectric constant) which causes diffraction.

Gaseous and particulate contaminates also absorb light to change color
(not a cause of softness, but does degrade an image which increases
perception of sharpness loss). Particulates also scatter light.

It looked very obvious to me that the city shots were taken under poor
atmospheric conditions and the camera was probably doing a good
job of imaging what light was entering the lens.

BTW - don't complain too much about air density fluctuations causing
degredation of image sharpness. Without it the sky would not be blue!

EYANDA said:

left shot d200, right shot R1

what happen to d200?

d200 image is very...very soft..

oh my god.. i hope it is not real..

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/11/25/2732.html
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/11/08/2626.html

Click to expand...

--
Chasm

where's the debate in that?
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

The limiting factor of sharpness would appear to be the haze in D200.
After that there is no point in bothering with lenses or sensors.

Andrew

is the 17-80 lens performance. Yes, the R1 shot looks way better and sharper, with more fine detail, but on the other hand I get shots like that wih my D100 and 17-35 or 70-200 VR or any prime.

So, D200 is a much more expensive option when you factor in that you have to spend decent coin to get really good lenses (I already made that investment), so all I need is a better body, and D200 is it. I realize this is not the case for everyone.

The Sony will have a higher default in-camera sharpening than the Nikon.

You can either bump up the sharpening on the camrea, or you can sharpen it up in Photoshop (or any half-decent editor) with the Unsharp Mask (USM).

Simple as that. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

People always seem to forget this simple, and widely know fact that digital SLR's have a low default sharpening level.

Ron Parr said:

michaeladawson said:

So, this site may be reputable but do they know how to take a
picture? I don't read Japanese so I can't speak to the details of
the image. But those were some bad shots. And if they would post
shots like that how reputable are they?

Click to expand...

They seem to put an emphasis on being first over being the most
careful. I've seen them post out of focus shots before and I've
also seen comparisons where the framing wasn't exactly the same.

Click to expand...

If they are sloppy with their tests, isn't it reasonable to take that into account, when trying to evaluate the results of their tests?

Member said:

That said, I do think people here put too much emphasis on the
photographer in these comparisons. Whenever an unfavorable
comparison comes up, they blame the photographer. However, if
there's something not right about a comparison, you can usually
infer it pretty quickly from the exif header and from studying the
image. Such genuine critiques of comparison methods are useful,
while blanket assasult against the photographer are pointless, IMO.

Click to expand...

I understand and agree with your point. But, I think it's normal and reasonable for people to expect a certain minimum standard of performance from a photographer that is publishing a "review" of a camera.

I downloaded a few of their shots. The misfocus is something rather strange. Is it the photog, the camera, the lens or all of the above? How is one to know? The underexposure of the ISO test shots, is clearly the photog's fault. Looking at the sony ISO test shots, they are much better exposed.

Granted, the ISO tests are still valid for the given exposure, but again, it shows how sloppy they are with their technique. Does it make their tests invalid? No, but it certainly doesn't give me much confidence in their methods and makes me wonder why they would post such a miserable effort. Are they biased, deliberately skewing the shots, or are they just uncaring, content to present shoddy, slapped together type stuff?

Dunno, but it certainly signifcantly reduces the value of their tests, IMO. I would ashamed to publish such shoddy work.

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

when the focus point is in lower right corner (wait for NC 4.4 to see it), image should be disappointed with the photographer.

Charles Musgrave said:

His first language is obviously not English.

Click to expand...

You are most obviously wrong

--
Julia

R. D'agostino said:

Everyone talks about the differnces in sharpness..Look at the
differnce in the noise..I took a close look at ISO1600 shots with
the pink flower pot..The D200 looks much nicer, looks like film
grain..Where as the Sony noise has lots of colors !..

Rich In Fl.

Click to expand...

the severe underexposure in the D200 shots it still pulls off more detail and much less noise at ISO 3200. Equally well exposed tests would shift the advantage further to the D200. It would be nice to see a D200 full review by Phil to coincide with the mass availability of the body by 12/15.

Regards,
--

Sorry i will not go over the 100 post in this thread but honestly speaking does anyone of you think that even with an 18_70 lensthe D200 cannot provide better quality than this? I'm sure that for it to go out of Nikon Factory it should at least be good. Come on a 1700 usd camera on ly caable of this?it is just stupid to argue about it?

Julia Borg said:

when the focus point is in lower right corner (wait for NC 4.4 to
see it), image should be disappointed with the photographer.

Click to expand...

You can correct this in PS; brighten any disappointed images
and if any are still unhappy, but an unsharp mask on them before
they ruin their image. Or get them to change their perspective or to
focus on something more positive than the photographer.

Julia Borg said:

Charles Musgrave said:

His first language is obviously not English.

Click to expand...

You are most obviously wrong

Click to expand...

For his sake, I hope I am not!

Julia Borg said:

--
Julia

Click to expand...

--
Chasm

MC said:

Sorry i will not go over the 100 post in this thread

Click to expand...

Why not? Are you special or something?

MC said:

but honestly
speaking does anyone of you think that even with an 18_70 lensthe
D200 cannot provide better quality than this?

Click to expand...

Well, since you can't be bothered to read the posts, I guess you've missed the point that people expect it to perform better than this, but it is certainly true that a photographer can make bad images with any camera....

MC said:

I'm sure that for it
to go out of Nikon Factory it should at least be good. Come on a
1700 usd camera on ly caable of this?it is just stupid to argue
about it?

Click to expand...

Who said it was only capable of this? Is that what you're saying? If so, what basis do you have for saying such?

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

Charles Musgrave said:

Julia Borg said:

when the focus point is in lower right corner (wait for NC 4.4 to
see it), image should be disappointed with the photographer.

Click to expand...

You can correct this in PS; brighten any disappointed images
and if any are still unhappy, but an unsharp mask on them before
they ruin their image. Or get them to change their perspective or to
focus on something more positive than the photographer.

Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO

--
Julia

CRAIGY said:

What is beyond you is the capability to pass judgement with so
little information to go on. if you look at one set of pictures and
make a buying decision based on what you see-then your name is
spelt wrong and should read moron and if you have cancelled your
order then good for the next person in the queque.

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't realize that I was being sarcastic. Lighten up Francis!

neuf said:

People always seem to forget this simple, and widely know fact that
digital SLR's have a low default sharpening level.

Click to expand...

I had been a practicing amateur for over 25 years when I got my first digital camera (Olympus 3030). It seemed fine. I then bought a D100 as soon as it came out.

I was still a novice when it came to digital processing. But I knew that I wanted to be in control of the image, not let the camera be in charge. So I turned off, or minimized, all in camera options. Sharpening, tone, etc.

When I brought the photos into Photoshop they looked awful. I was disappointed in them and thought the camera or my shooting technique was bad.

It took me a long time to believe and accept that digital images shot with no in-camera processing will look pretty bad if you try to compare them with the old film days when crisp, colorful photos came back from the lab.

I'm now happy with my PP skills. Not claiming to be an expert yet but happy with my results. I suppose I should compare it some day to images taken with heavy in-camera processing and see how my efforts compare.

I would laugh at my own mistakes more often, but they seem funnier
when someone else makes them

I hate proof reading my posts because I only find the errors just
after I have submitted them!

Got to go catch some rays...

Charles

RomanJohnston said:

I was just poking fun......

And I gotta poke fun at me too....as fun starts with me. : )

Roman
--
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

http://www.romanjohnston.com

Click to expand...

--
Chasm

Julia Borg said:

Charles Musgrave said:

Julia Borg wrote:
You can correct this in PS; brighten any disappointed images
and if any are still unhappy, but an unsharp mask on them before
they ruin their image. Or get them to change their perspective or to
focus on something more positive than the photographer.

Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO

Click to expand...

I got to get a shot of you in action! That will brighten up my pictures
and make them less dissappointed in this photographer

Julia Borg said:

--
Julia

Click to expand...

--
Chasm

Charles Musgrave said:

I got to get a shot of you in action!

Click to expand...

what kind of action are we talking here?

--
Julia

I agree with most of what is said here, that a quality tripod, quality lens, and quality technique (perhaps start with mirror lockup) cannot be assumed to be taken on this picture, thus my 6 yearold nephew could have taken this shot, for all we know.

Question... I'm new to the forum... whats a troll? Or am I a troll for asking?

DTemp said:

Question... I'm new to the forum... whats a troll? Or am I a troll
for asking?

Click to expand...

No . A troll is someone who posts something just to start a "war", like "d200 s*ucks". This is a public forum and some people and may be teenagers can post something stupid/wrong/inflammatory just for the heck of it. That is illegal by the rules of this post.

There are some posts which are clearly trolling. It is a fine line, however, because some people scream "troll" when they simply disagree with the poster. While I don't approve of the written language of the author of this post, I think (s)he had the right to post R1-d200 side-by-side. It may or may not make sense and be right or wrong, but I don't see it as "trolling". The images are genuine from all we know, so...

I only wish the original poster didn't use the language of the teenage chat rooms in his posts.

nik1024

Take a look at the people in the shadow area of that crop. I see much more detail in the D200 image indicating better Dynamic range. Obviously the in-camera sharpening is the issue here. Looking forward to getting a D200 with a much better range of lenses than that Sony digicam.