Reading mode: Light Dark

D200+Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 = SHARP

Go to last post
The D70 is a great camera, and if you check out my galleries you'll see that I got some good shots from it. The D100, in addition to its better speed, controls and viewfinder, meters better, both with and without flash.

I agree that the lens is an important factor.
--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

 
full size, directly out of the box, without PP ?

I'm still waiting for my D200...

thanks in advance :)
Pierre
Radu Tenenbaum said:
Shot RAW at 60mm with SB-800 flash. Manual Exposure and Spot
Meter. 1/125 at f/5. This is a 100% Crop.

I'm new to both the D200 and the 28-70, but I can tell that it's a
step up from my D70 and Tamron 28-75.

Now, if only I can get a higher percentage of my shots to come out
like this...



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

Click to expand...
 
NC Settings:
Sharpning: None
Tone Com: Low Contrast
Color Mode I
Saturation: Normal
No USM

No PS other than saving the jpeg.

Here's the original snap:



Here's the 100 crop, saved at JPG level 9 (Again, zero sharpening or any other processing).



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

 
Sorry, here it is with the 100% Crop
Radu Tenenbaum said:
NC Settings:
Sharpning: None
Tone Com: Low Contrast
Color Mode I
Saturation: Normal
No USM

No PS other than saving the jpeg.

Here's the original snap:



Here's the 100 crop, saved at JPG level 9 (Again, zero sharpening
or any other processing).



--
Click to expand...
--
Radu
http://www.pbase.com/raduray

 
Very nice explanation. I thought I was the only one who did not know what this means. Glad someone asked.
--
Tim

'I keep my day job so I can buy all these fun toys'
 
Nicely done, PP is very nice for a beautiful little girl, skin looks very nice, sharpeness is very good period. When printed it will look great. Dont understand why everyone is trying to dissect the pic probably because its that good.
Great results overall
Roger
--
Roger104
 
Now that looks more natural and appealing to my eyes at least.

Enjoy that D200 and you 28-70/2,8!

Thanx for putting up with us.

Kindest
--
Regards
Paul L.
 
photoship said:
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?
Click to expand...
The image does not look plastic it's not a Canon :-)

I'm not a rep, and I don't need to explain my online nick to you. No I'm not in Attack mode just saying the facts. It is you who does not like seeing good pics from the D200 as it a good camera and you wish you had it!

You wish the 5D had what this has! The other day someone posted a picture of a studio shot of football players. It was really great, did not see you there talking it up. You seem to only find a strange angle and preach to me about my nick or attack mode.

If you think the picture looks plastic that is your opinion...who do you feel that I have to have the same view?

--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com
 
nikonians said:
photoship said:
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?
Click to expand...
The image does not look plastic it's not a Canon :-)

I'm not a rep, and I don't need to explain my online nick to you.
No I'm not in Attack mode just saying the facts. It is you who does
not like seeing good pics from the D200 as it a good camera and you
wish you had it!

You wish the 5D had what this has! The other day someone posted a
picture of a studio shot of football players. It was really great,
did not see you there talking it up. You seem to only find a
strange angle and preach to me about my nick or attack mode.

If you think the picture looks plastic that is your opinion...who
do you feel that I have to have the same view?

--
http://www.jkerk.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
Your post makes as much sense as you nick.....

--
Regards
Paul L.
 
Incidentally, a crop like this is also a good example to illustrate a senseless aspect of megapixel hysteria for the consumer point-and-shoot cameras. In theory, a digital camera that has a maximum resolution of 0.6M pixels (yes, I meant 0.6M, not 6M) could take a picture like the 100% crop shown here. I bet many snap-shooters would be delighted if there digital camera can take a picture like this (the 100% crop shown, not the entire original photo). The picture would display at a quite substantial size (about 60%) on a 17-19 inch screen, and might even produce a pretty good 4 x 6 print. But of course you know that in reality a 0.6 M digital camera like this has never been made (look at those crappy 1M webcams and you will know what I mean by this).

So this is what a regular consumer thinks: my 4M digital camera can't take good pictures because it does not have enough megapixels, so I've got to buy that new 8M camera in order to take better pictures. But the truth is that the 4M digital camera doesn't take good pictures because it isn't designed to do that (poor optics chiefly, but also tiny sensor), not because it does not have enough megapixels.

Now, don't take me wrong, I am not saying that going for a digital camera with more megapixels is altogether meaningless. All I'm saying is that a majority of consumers don't realize that what they are buying and what they actually need don't really match when it comes to megapixels. I think the megapixel race still has a bit of meaningful room for dSLRs. My experiences is that even with a superbly designed camera with top-notch optics, a 4M camera will start to show a perceptible lacking of details on prints larger than 11 x 16", and a 6M camera would appear visibly coarse beyond 14 x 20". So beyond 6M we are talking about very large prints here. And even with such large sizes, prints made from 4M or 6M dSLRs aren't altogether "bad", they just look relatively grainier. In addition, I am also venturing a theory that beyond about 15-20M, megabytes would become largely meaningless regardless of the print size because it would have reached the maximum resolving power of a vast majority of the lenses on the market.
 
you see it like that.

The reason many people including me reacted so "negative" was probebly due to the subject line. And the fact the 100 % crop didnt look all that detailed and sharp.

But we/I forgot to compliment you on the actual photo. Its an a adorable girl!, and a great capture. Photos of our children/family/friends will always be cherished no matter what.

You proved your point though, the D200 combined with the 28-70/2,8 Af-s can clearly deliver some sharp images.

I just recived this lens my self, and im totally blown away about the quality and consistent results it get from it (the short time iv tried it out).

I also tested some cheaper alternatives (tamron 28-75/2,8) but wasnt really pleased so i decided to go for the real deal instead. Seems to pay off in the long run.

My apologies for getting wrapped up in the technical stuff and forgetting the actual photo.

Happy New Year!.

Kindest
--
Regards
Paul L.
 
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