Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
DTemp said:
Question... I'm new to the forum... whats a troll?
Click to expand...
It's an internet term, generally used to describe a person who posts inflammatory, negative comments in a forum, for the purpose of provoking the users of that forum into posting likewise inflammatory retorts. The troll posts serve no useful purpose to anyone. Only those of like minds to the troll, derive some perverse enjoyment out of the angry responses the posts generate.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
The "troll"yellers...if they would have lived in the 60's they would have been the communist hunters in the US of A (^^)

The poster of this thread, obviously does not know that the way a picture is made with a dSLR, and the way a digital picture is processed after it has been taken has a lot to do how it will look like, epsecially when printed professionally on paper (screen based images really do not say so much about quality).
Has nothing to do with being a troll, but more with the lack of knowledge.

Michel

--
Curiosity is the key to creativity - Morita Akio
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
 
M Lammerse said:
The "troll"yellers...if they would have lived in the 60's they
would have been the communist hunters in the US of A (^^)
Click to expand...
Witchhunt lives in most people and they only have to be allowed to realize it and things will be as they were in Russia in 1917. No other recipie than to educate people to remain reasonable because the "line" definition is always very blurry and can never be completely defined.
M Lammerse said:
The poster of this thread, obviously does not know that the way a
picture is made with a dSLR, and the way a digital picture is
processed after it has been taken has a lot to do how it will look
like, epsecially when printed professionally on paper (screen based
images really do not say so much about quality).
Click to expand...
Not completely agree. Yes printing may be the same because of limitations of printer. But there is nothing wrong with looking at the image at 100% and wanting it to be better, whether it is actually requried for your work/hobby or not.
M Lammerse said:
Has nothing to do with being a troll, but more with the lack of
knowledge.
Click to expand...
Well, lack of knoweldge is one possibility, yes. Another is curiousity why doesn't review publish d200 images which are already PP'ed a bit to be the best? Yes we all shoot NEFs which require PP on purpose, but when reviewing the camera initially I would show the best already PP'ed picture or a pic with in-camera sharpening and leave discussions of raw NEF without any sharpening and NR for later. That simple. So when (s)he made the post we could normally reply, sharpen and post back sharpened pics but not go crazy about all this. He had a point whether it's right or wrong and I'll be happy to prove him wrong because I really hope for d200 to be all I ever wanted and needed.

nik1024
 
R1 shot has more high frequence detail too. What this means is that R1 has a lens that's better than Nikon's 18-70. Nothing more nothing less.

I have postprocessed both shots and R1 holds detail better and is just sharper. There wasn't anything I could do with the D200 shot to make it the same.

Many people have posted absolutely oversharpened horribly postprocessed version of the shot, which I guess proves the point further. A good lens is a good lens is a good lens. If sharpening was all it took, then we all coud just buy 17-200, sharpen our shots in PS and get the same results as 17-35, 28-70, and 70-200 VR put together, a combo that costs 6 times as much.
 
I completely agree with the general reasoning you provide, what actually happens between R1 and 18-70 I don't know for sure, you know better, whether you're right or wrong.

But, question is, does sensor and non-removeable processing of the image by the camera software have their say in the image sharpness? Is it all lense and nothing else? I assume the sensor/firmware have a lot to do with this also. Since many images from D200 are on a soft(er) side, is it possible Nikon made the sensor/firmware that way so it'll show even with best lens? I really hope the answer is no.

nik1024
Mario said:
R1 shot has more high frequence detail too. What this means is that
R1 has a lens that's better than Nikon's 18-70. Nothing more
nothing less.

I have postprocessed both shots and R1 holds detail better and is
just sharper. There wasn't anything I could do with the D200 shot
to make it the same.

Many people have posted absolutely oversharpened horribly
postprocessed version of the shot, which I guess proves the point
further. A good lens is a good lens is a good lens. If sharpening
was all it took, then we all coud just buy 17-200, sharpen our
shots in PS and get the same results as 17-35, 28-70, and 70-200 VR
put together, a combo that costs 6 times as much.
Click to expand...
 
Everyone should wait at least one month to read the reviews, test the camera, wait for the reports on the bugs, check out the new 18-200 VR lens and wait for the lens test...

Maybe then I'll stand a chance of getting one from the first shipment...

Okay, I confess... I shot with one last week and think it's awesome...

--
My glamour gallery - Comments appreciated. Link below...

http://www.pixs.ws/gallery2/



Cheers,

Darrell
 
neuf said:
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.
Click to expand...
because nikon has never been soften image.

d200 is not canon.

understand?
 
Yes, I think most people understand that you came in here solely to troll based on your ridiculously flawed assumption that if it's not Canon, it's not worth having - and you've done nothing but bend "facts" to justify that position to yourself (though it appears that most of your fellow DPReview readers are not quite as convinced as you are of your fallacy).
--
Josh
EYANDA said:
because nikon has never been soften image.

d200 is not canon.

understand?
Click to expand...
 
Bernie Ess said:
Rich said:
Namely those irritating clipped highlights, that is sooo 2001.
Click to expand...
I guess you must have mentioned that the Sony shot is at least a
half stop overexposed, and brighter exposed than than the Nikon
shot.

I guess the samples show at least that the Sony is a v ery good
camera. After all its a compact camera with all advantages and
disadvantages of this species.
Click to expand...
Oh the Sony takes fine pictures, no doubting that, but looking at the output the Nikon image just looks better to me. Comparing the metering is hard, the Nikon is rated @ ISO100 while the Sony is @ ISO160. Yes the Sony appears a bit brighter but that harsh way it cuts off the highlights IS irritating, I have yet to see this on a D200 shot (or any Canon). Both look to have about the same shadow detail, so if it was just a case of the Sony overexposing then the shadows should be better on the Sony

I also favor the warmer white balance of the Nikon, but that's just my personal preference. As is the sharpening, I like that silky quality of the Nikon, you can sharpen what you want later. But when you get that consumerish highlight clipping, well that's harder to work with
 
EYANDA uses "funny" English, which I don't understand if he or she is 12 years old or simply does not know it too well.

However, it does not take a genious to see that what (s)he meant in this latest post is that (s)he thinks Nikon has been always SHARPER THAN CANON and (s)he thinks it's CANON which provides softer out-of-camera images, that's why(s)he is confused.

Stop hating everyone and misinterpret people's opinions backwards even if it's not to your liking.

From a huge Nikon fan, with regards,
nik1024
jliechty said:
EYANDA said:
because nikon has never been soften image.

d200 is not canon.

understand?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It does not take a genius to see what his/her general mode of operation has been throughout the thread. Given the post that s/he was replying to, as well as the quality of his/her English, it is not such a stretch as you imply to assume what I did when making my post. Naturally, I could be wrong, but given the vagueness of the posts at hand, so could you.
 
I know what you mean. However, since I'm really interested in the softness of images we have for d200 (which is my next cam) so far, I did read every reply. Plenty of people took it quite seriously and I am with them. There are valid arguments that R1 does more sharpening as a P&S cam. That R1 lenses better than 18-70, may be. That images were taken in slightly different conditions, etc, etc, etc, and a lot more. I agree with all those.

As to eyanda's language - I can't qualify it. It is "funny" and looks like a teenager who barely knows English. I can be wrong of course.

This certainly adds the steam to his posts, but does not make him a troll, a communist or a fashist.

HOWEVER, despite his amusing language, his post is quite valid. He took two images from a legitimate magazine reviewing both cameras and compared them. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

We do see trolls once in a while and I always simply ignore that, but in my unqualified opinion we lose as much time reading "trollish" replies to very valid questions if the question doubts superiority of Nikon. I am with Nikon and will remain such but when someone posts a thing like this based on genuine images, let's just analyze it and prove him wrong or explain it somehow but not go into trolling and spending time on texts like the one I just wrote :).

nik1024
 
As I shown side by side earlier, objects in R1 appear larger than in D200, by at least 15% due to zoom factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

joger
Sigma S200 f/2.0 | Laowa 180 f/4.5 macro | GM 300 | G 70-200 II macro ~ shootout | peak lens @ SONY
Replies
18
Views
4K
Impulses
I
JConrad
EF-s 10-18mm Inconsistency
Replies
0
Views
20
JConrad
JConrad
L
Z 35mm f/1.2 on Z8 - Very early impressions
Replies
2
Views
541
LTheWafflePWN
L
Phocal
  • User review User review
OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f/2.8 IS PRO Initial/Ongoing Review
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
20K
Hmm1000
H
B
Issues with TG-7 image quality - wide angle landscapes
Replies
17
Views
2K
pop2eye
P

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