Reading mode: Light Dark

Torture test production D200 high ISO

Go to last post
cant judge from these as they are both under exposed by 1-2 stops. Of course they are going to look noisy.

It would have nice to see somone spot meter of something white at +2ev and take a shot and post. at least the exposure will be right and give us something that is indicative of actual performance. Would even work in the camer shop to get the exposure right!

--
http://bradm.photopoints.com ,
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628
 
Because...from what I remember, 20d isn't that much better than this.

Been looking a couple 20d 1600 iso...and when compared to d200 samples, can't find a reason to say 20d is better.

Maybe people expecting d200 to be much better than 20d at iso 3200 feel "betrayed", but from my point of view, being noise almost equal, I'd choose d200 body and functions over 20d in a second. Personal preferences.

Anyway, can someone point me to some 20d full res high iso shots ?
 
I am sorry if I was too harsh or misunderstood in my post.

Yes it was meant to be ironic.

I don't think it is reasonable for us to automatically assume that just because other parts of the world (like Japan or Europe) have access to a few production D200's & those of us in North America don't, that these must be suspicious or unbelievable reports.

It may hard to accept, but North America is not necessarily the centre of the civilized world.

-evan

--
Fuji S2 etc.

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa
 
Straight from a 5D in MUCH better conditions at "only" ISO 1600:



Brendan
--

If you shoot Nikon don't argue with Canon measurbators, they have much longer rulers.
 
...in much better conditions at "only" ISO 1600 (not my shot):



Brendan
--

If you shoot Nikon don't argue with Canon measurbators, they have much longer rulers.
 
Yes they are underexposed as the settings were probably chosen to freeze movement (both pics made at 1/500). If they were shot at 1/250 or 1/125 the sensor would have collected much more light and the shadow areas would be better illuminated, thus displaying less noise overall (the same is true for all cameras). However the subjects would have been blurred. These pics were made at the very limits of the camera capabilities and should represent a worst case scenario. They are however indicative of the performance of the camera in low light.

Joao Salvador
 
Evan Effa said:
I am sorry if I was too harsh or misunderstood in my post.

Yes it was meant to be ironic.

I don't think it is reasonable for us to automatically assume that
just because other parts of the world (like Japan or Europe) have
access to a few production D200's & those of us in North America
don't, that these must be suspicious or unbelievable reports.

It may hard to accept, but North America is not necessarily the
centre of the civilized world.

-evan

--
Fuji S2 etc.

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa
Click to expand...
You are a gentleman. Please don't apologise for using irony; it was a good read.
--
Geoff B
 
I actually do believe that the Canon 5D is quite a bit better than the D200 at high ISO actually, and I've seen nothing to change my mind (the same 2 or 3 re-hashed poor shots that keep re-appearing from the 5D notwithstanding).
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken
 
Yes, I know that some of the testing was performed in Argentina as originally reported. there were many who scoffed at this thought because it wasn't in North America then either.

I was trying to be facetious. Perhaps I should refrain from such posting in the future.

--
Fuji S2 etc.

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa
 
That I am open to being proven wrong.

I eagerly await phils tests....and other tests from real world users.
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken
 
being proven wrong.

I eagerly await phils tests....and other tests from real world users.
--
--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken
 
I've read Phil report. Can't find a "comparable" shot to... ehm, well, compare.
 
Ran the downloaded shots through CS --- which said they were Adobe RGB --- wih Noise Ninja, and they looked pretty good. The 3200 was a passable 5x7, at least, and the 2500 was a passable 8x10. Better than I was expecting upon first seeing the images.
As said by others, the shots were underexposed, which didn't help.

Personally, I don't see too many times I'll be shooting at either 2500 or 3200 ISO.

Also, once hit with some levels in Photoshop, the colors on both looked more than okay for such high ISO's.

Tim

--
Photo Galleries:
http://home.zoomnet.net/~tparsley/
work: http://www.georgianonline.com/tim_slideshow/tim_ss_index.html
 
"Sometimes the D200 autofocus would hunt in weak light, where a D2x would have succeeded; but this is not often. If I compare with the autofocus in D100, D70 and D50, the D200 is perhaps two categories better. "

"Camera is staying on AF tracking, and I am not missing very much. Off the cuff, I fancy that the D2x performed better under similar circumstances, but the difference is not great. The lens used was an AF-S 70-200 VR, which is well documented to be good for these subjects. "

--
Geoff B
 
The pictures are shot as JPEGs without in cam sharpening.

The lighting conditions at the venue were poor half of the light tubes were shut off due to cost saving efforts. Exposure at 2.8 and 1/500 s.

The lens used was a 70-200mm/f2.8 and the auto-focus (CAM 1000) performed well. It did slip a couple of times but not often in the low light environment where the D2X would have succeeded. CAM 1000 is very close to Cam 2000 in performance. It is not one but two classes better than that of D100, D70 and D50.

Despite that the D200 is not a full fledged sports cam like the Canon 1D mkII or Nikon D2Hs it performs over expectations in focus capabilities as well as noise in the poorly lit arena. If you download the full sized images note that the lighting is not to be confused with the significantly better lighting in higher sports divisions (my comment: arenas for more serious sports events).

As Per wrote earlier the D200 easily outperforms the D2h and D2hs in the noise department if downsized to the same resolution.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
C P 5 7 0 0
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member
 
I've tried translating with some online swedish-english swedish-spanish. In the end, I understood the original better than the machine translation :-P
 
Thanks for your translation. I've been looking at both the D200 and the D2hs as a low-light action camera. I've been leaning more towards the Hs but after this info. will wait for further reviews and user inputs.

Many thanks also to the OP for posting this info.. Very useful for guys like me. I must say that I am happy with the samples at iso 3200, considering the conditions it was taken under. I don't really care how it compares to other brands. My preferred system is nikon, my only concern is that they come out with improved products to enable me to do my job better or easier (atleast). From samples I've seen (including these ones), hi-iso performance is a lot better than the D2x.

I'm surprised that Nikon decided to come out with a camera that performs (seems to?) comparably to the D2x so soon after it was released. At the D200's stated price, surely, they know that sales of the D2x would be severely affected.

Kudos to them for thinking of the consumers first. Well, I guess happy consumers=greater sales overall.
 
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