D200+Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 = SHARP

Are you denying that this image has a plastic look to it? I see you are in atttack mode, but you neglected to respond with your judgement of this image.

I suppose you'll respond to me with yet another attack and once again avoid evaluating this thread's posted image. By the way, I own a D200 and have never bought a digital Canon. Does your forum's stage name indicate that your are but a PR rep?

I believe it just means a crop of any pixel dimensions, but from a 100% zoom view.
--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com
'You are the master of the unspoken word;
once it is out of your mouth, you are the slave.'

But do we know how severe a crop is from the original? If I crop-off the outer perimeter by only 1 pixel, does that really improve the "most meaningful way to demonstrate the quality of a camera sensor?" The adjective "100%" doesn't seem to quantify the amount of cropping. The web image size (e.g., 800x800) is a consequence of algorithmic image size reduction, not cropping.

zemes gaoson said:

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).

Click to expand...

It does look a little over pp.

Why do people insist on showing 100% crops wich has been altered ? If i want to judge a 100% crop of an image i most likely want to see the original without nr or usm.

Kindest
--
Regards
Paul L.

To get a idea of the dimensions of the crop its best to show the full image (resized offcourse)

Images are saved as jpg, no pp done to them.

Original (resized to 25% of original size)



Crop (100%)



--
Regards
Paul L.

I've been doing some investigation of d200 sharpness with my new 17-55 and so far I'm satisfied with both. Didn't want to start new thread, so here it is. To be fair, I don't expect d200 to perform as 5d, nor it's important to me. But all claims with tripod reqirement and d200 softness... well, I gave it a shot. A few actually. It's my first day with d200 and I am an amateur without any studio. I tried to photograph things, but it's had to tell if it was sharp, best is to photograph living things.

All images below made to "Medium High" sharpening, NOTHING else. Saved to JPEG. I don't expect d200 to produce TACK SHARP images with NO sharpening. May be in ideal conditions with prime lenses but not during my first day of shooting. It was a 10-minute session with a dog named Doubey, a teenager, D200+17-55, SB-800 and an amateur pressing buttons.

Sometimes I feel we want images to be sharper than things really are

First: full image of Doubey and 100% crop (Medium High sharpening):





Now second image and 100% crop:





A teenager and 100% crop:





This is probably good enough for me. It's not as good as those famous 5d shots, but it's not in the studio with a professional photographer either.

What is the camera/lense? I want those

photoship said:

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.

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, 100% crop is a misnomer, hence the confusion to many. But this is the term that stuck. Here, the term "100%" does not refer to the percentage of cropping, but refers to the percentage of displaying, meaning that a 100% crop picture is displayed on the screen at 100% without resizing.

For example, say you have taken a digital photo at the camera's full resolution. Try to display this photo on your computer screen and see what happens. If you don't do resizing and don't let your computer resize the photo, you would be only seeing a small portion of the picture at a time because your screen simply does not have that many pixels to display a multi-megabyte picture. (Most screens up to 19" have a little bit over 1M pixels.) Many people don't realize this since very often the photo display program automatically resizes the picture so you would still be able to see the entire picture despite the large file size. But in that case if you look carefully at the display window of the photo program you will see that the picture is not displayed at 100%, but rather a reduced percentage, say 10%. If you manually adjust the display to 100%, you would be seen only a portion of the picture, and you would have to be doing a lot of scrolling to see the other parts of the picture.

Now, you can easily see what 100% drop means. If you are displaying a full-sized image at 100% on your screen, whatever crop you make is a 100% drop. Generally, you make a crop that is smaller than a full computer screen for the convenience of displaying purpose. But regardless of what size of the crop is, as well as the cropping is done at 100% display of a full-size image, it is a 100% crop.

Apparently, making the 100% drop isn't a very complicated thing to do. But it is somewhat counterintuitive. In order to have better computer screen displays, most people intuitively reduce the file size of the picture. This is what people do when they upload smaller yet complete pictures. With a reduced size, you are seeing the entire image but not the entire file size of the original image. There is of course nothing wrong doing this. In fact, it is the proper way to upload or send photos unless a full-size file is intentionally desired. Many people don't even know this. I have friends who would e-mail snapshots each of several megabytes without knowing that for viewing purpose of a snapshot on a computer screen, a reduced size of about 0.1 - 0.2M in compressed JPG would be sufficient. But if your purpose is to provide meaningful resolution information of a digital camera rather than showing the picture itself, making a 100% crop is the way to go. The other alternative is to communicate the entire full-sized file, which is not always easy nor necessary.

D2x and the Nikkor 28-70/2,8

Have to excuse the poor choice of model , it was just a snapshot to prove a point.

Kindest
--
Regards
Paul L.

In my initial testing, which is very incomplete at this point, there is a significant amount of barrel distortion at the 18mm end. Mostly, I'm liking this lens a lot, but it does have significantly more distortion at 18mm than the 18-70mm lens. The VR is excellent.
--

Cheers,
Eric

photoship said:

But do we know how severe a crop is from the original? If I
crop-off the outer perimeter by only 1 pixel, does that really
improve the "most meaningful way to demonstrate the quality of a
camera sensor?" The adjective "100%" doesn't seem to quantify the
amount of cropping. The web image size (e.g., 800x800) is a
consequence of algorithmic image size reduction, not cropping.

Click to expand...

You raise two separate questions here. First, regarding image size reduction by the computer, there shouldn't be any if the cropping is a true 100% crop. A true 100% crop is presumably taken from an uncompressed file. In general, image size reduction is done at the image source rather than by the end-user computer, unless of course your photo display program performs compression without telling you whenever it displays an image (I am not aware of such programs). In general, your computer displays whatever the source image is. If the source is a compressed JPG, it shows a compressed JPG; if the sources uncompressed TIFF, it shows just that. It wouldn't change the size of the file.

The second part of your question is only theoretical without parameters. It is true that the adjective "100%" does not quantify the size of the cropping, but people generally crop a meaningful subject or a recognizable portion of the picture to convey a relative sense of resolution. In addition, the crop size is generally a viewable one. For example, the crop discussed in this thread is a complete headshot of a child and also has a fairly convenient and a viewable display size. These are the generally accepted (and presumed) parameters for making 100% crops.

Thanks for your perfect explanation

Jan The Netherlands

--
Some of my pictures with the D2X

http://www.xs4all.nl/~roadrats/D2X/D2X.html

and with the good old D100

http://www.xs4all.nl/~roadrats/Nikon/Nikon.html

Radu Tenenbaum said:

saved JPG at quality level 6.

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

Click to expand...

1. 1. why did you save at .jpg level 6?.... as that doesn't give the best look/too much compression
2. 2. alwauys check the nostrils of kids before shooting (i'm a pediatrician, if you weren't aware) as her left nostril isn't clean

great shot
thanks for sharing
--
Greg
live life like you mean it...
but take your family and friends along for the 'ride'

Double thanks. What a complete explanation. This is the kind of stuff that made dpreview popular.

the portrait is beautiful, but one cannot see any skin structure.
it must be some setting with strong nr.

d200 can do better!
--
greetz, pam

i agree there is no skin structure (better for older folks than kids)

but i'd like to think of this picture as that of a PORCELAIN DOLL... and not one of a plastic nature

i like the effect, though this particular photo does NOT show off the resolution capabilities of the D200
--
Greg
live life like you mean it...
but take your family and friends along for the 'ride'

skins way to blotchy. no detail in the skin either

There is something wrong with this pic. It looks watery to me.

The D70 will give you results like that, but not with a tamron lens. key to that photo is the Nikon 28-70 afs.
Have fun with your new camera
jd
--
pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/champ3jd

There is no comparison between those two lenses. The 28-70 is a super high end pro type zoom lens. The 18-200 is at a different level. I am not knocking the 18-200, it will be a great carry around lens, just not in the same class.
great shooting and Happy New Year,
jd
--
pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/champ3jd