D200 seems like agreat camera but...

The reason you like this image might be 1000-fold, but maybe only one of these reasons is related to the camera USED to make that picture.

Matteo Del Grosso
http://www.delgrosso.de

Fatih U said:

I have found the following picture taken with Canon 5D which I am
very impressed with.

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/52200569/original

He has many more samples in this site.

My question is; can D200 take pictures like this? Both cameras have
similar pixel count, albeit different price. Can someone post
pictures they have taken with D200 that may have similar quality.

I am not trying to start another Canon/Nikon war. I am a nikonian
(I have a D50, you have to start somewhere). I am very excited
about the D200, however, I just want to find out if D200 users were
able to achieve similar results with their cameras.

Thanks,

Fatih

Click to expand...

--
Matteo Del Grosso
http://www.delgrosso.de

Here is the best one I saw. It is from Fuji DLSR forum. It is taken with D200 by Ola-E. Hofshagen

http://home.online.no/~ola-es-h/

There is also D200 signature in the shadow. Guess what.

Fatih U said:

I have found the following picture taken with Canon 5D which I am
very impressed with.

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/52200569/original

He has many more samples in this site.

My question is; can D200 take pictures like this? Both cameras have
similar pixel count, albeit different price. Can someone post
pictures they have taken with D200 that may have similar quality.

I am not trying to start another Canon/Nikon war. I am a nikonian
(I have a D50, you have to start somewhere). I am very excited
about the D200, however, I just want to find out if D200 users were
able to achieve similar results with their cameras.

Thanks,

Fatih

Click to expand...

thx...great sho

hahahahah

There is nothing about the image i think which most modern DSLR's would have an issue with.

Even an E-1 would have a good go. (nothing against the E-1 just that its a little low rez)

--

MrNiceGuy said:

Under controlled lighting on a stationary model, a capable shooter can > produce the same thing even with a P&S.

Click to expand...

You dont think thats going a bit too far? I know its the person behind the camera that matter the most, but saying that a p&s can deliver the same sharpness and detail as the 5D or D200 might be a slight exaggeration.

ovrebekk said:

ovrebekk said:

Under controlled lighting on a stationary model, a capable shooter can > produce the same thing even with a P&S.

Click to expand...

You dont think thats going a bit too far? I know its the person
behind the camera that matter the most, but saying that a p&s can
deliver the same sharpness and detail as the 5D or D200 might be a
slight exaggeration.

Click to expand...

A P&S can do the same? I agree that is a bit much.
--
John Power
Racehorse in the Desert

Provided you use a good lens with proper focus and exposure and proper studio light set up.

--
A good photo is better than thousand words!

http://www.hkdotnet.com

Qwntm said:

How's this with only half the mega pixels?

http://www.pbase.com/qwntm/image/55562222/original

Don't worry, the D200 can equal the 5D and may even exceed it due
to less agressive filtering required of the CCD vs. Cmos.

(By the way, in case you missed it, the link photo was shot with a
D70, and cropped about 40% in photoshop. It's effectively a 4-5 MP
shot...)

--
Edward
http://www.edwardtmartins.com
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm

Click to expand...

Edward, good gallery with plenty of experience too.
Can I ask you what your take is on the D2x as opposed to the D200?
Would really like to hear your opionions.
Rudi
http://www.vanstarrex.com

Sorry, only the 5d can take such a unflattering picture.

The only possible use for this picture is to sell some type of facial hair removeal product.

there is such a thing as too sharp you know. And this is a perfect example.

The legendary AIS 105/2.5 works very well with a D200. You can find a mint one for about $150 on ebay.

Agree...about the pics from the D200, D2X and 5D being too sharp for portraits, brutal in fact. The D1X is better suited. At least all the ladies at my house think so........

...she'd be naked, too.
--
'stuff' in profile

they would look somewhat different ... we're talking about the look, not the sharpness and reproduction
--
http://www.genesm.com
http://www.doughmag.com
genesm.gfxartist.com

I meant it will be similar!!! It's all about the light, make up(and such) and photographer.
--
http://www.genesm.com
http://www.doughmag.com
genesm.gfxartist.com

I can agree to that. But in situations where resolution is more important, like landscape photography, i think the difference will be much bigger.

For portraits i dont think we need much more resolution. When you can spot facial hair on women the detail is high enough IMO

loooool

--
http://www.photo.net/photos/Nachkebia

RudivanS said:

Edward, good gallery with plenty of experience too.
Can I ask you what your take is on the D2x as opposed to the D200?
Would really like to hear your opionions.
Rudi
http://www.vanstarrex.com

Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment!

As for the D2x vs. D200 I have a few general thoughts mainly based on what I need a camera for. First off, the "pro series" cameras these days are just flat out way too heavy, without any possibility of lightening them up. Pro series cameras in the past were usually hybrids that had the ability to add the motor drive if you needed it or delete the motor drive if you needed to lighten the load. Non-removable battery grips, like on 1D series Canons and Pro series Nikons are just not flexible enough for my needs. While I understand that in the begininning Dslrs absolutely needed that much power just to get some shots, those days are clearly over. ANd moaning about the D200 battery life aside, I think the D200 at 200-300 Raws per battery is just fine. Add the grip that takes AA's or 2 EnEl3 E's and what the hey, flexibility and extended shooting power. That is the answer.

I'm very happy with the D200. The D2x is just not the right "mix" though I am sure it is a fine camera. IS the D200 perfect? Almost. Would I pay more for an even better "mix?" Yup. What would that be?

How about a D200 with the D2x sensor and 100% viewfinder (with eyepiece blind.) Leave everything else the same as the D200, battery grip, AF etc. I'd pay another $500-$750 for that. That just may be my "perfect" camera. If I had to choose only one mod, I'd take the D2x viewfinder. The d200 sensor really is about equal.

So those are just some random thoughts, if you would like a more specific opinon just ask, and thanks for the interest!

--
Edward
http://www.edwardtmartins.com
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm

I was in a hurry and guessed wrong, it was the 17-55 2.8. (I may just have to get another one of those... )

(Though I have to dig a bit, I bet I could come up with a pretty sharp 18-70 shot. That lens does not dissapoint either!)

So my apologies for mis-leading anyone. You just can't get good help anymore these days!

--
Edward
http://www.edwardtmartins.com
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm

asks a question he never intends to have an answer for or reply to. Look at his posting history. Seems trollish..

here you answer him, but it will go ignored because he really didnt want to know the answer.
--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor