Off topic and not, D200

I've just spent five days trying to amass 15 images for a first submission to Alamy. Going over images at 100% has shown me what a lot of defects there are in my pictures taken with the 14nx (not with any other camera). I'm fed up with trying to get rid of xmas tree lights, wonderful pink edges, strange blotches in the sky.

so i think the Kodak is going on ebay shortly. What i want to know is: do older lenses work well with the D200 - or not. i don't have any DX lenses. I have (all AF) Nikon 85 1.8; Nikon 60 micro; Nikon 35-70; Nikon 50 1.8Sigma 15-30.

Anyone any idea what i can ask for the 14nx? It's had a little over 5,000 shots through it. I've just seen an SLRn on UK ebay for £1499.

Any help gratefully considered. Rick, I owe you an email. Thanks very much for the info and sheet. I just got sidetracked away from replying.

I think the value of these second hand is going up - I sold my SLR/n a month ago for £1350, privately rather than via ebay, to a forum member here. It had about 2,200 actuations and went with a good nikkor 24-70 and a not very good sigma 10-300. It was in as-new condition with all original packaging, unopened manuals, cables etc.

Don't get a D200, get a 5D: the extra pixels matter when you need to crop and it has the better high ISO performance. The price has come down too, the viewfinder is bigger/brighter and it weighs less, plus you get the focal lengths you're used too, though that does obviously mean that zoom lenses need to be heavier.

The 25-105 stablised lens which they sell as part of a kit is really very nice indeed!

Also as I posted in another topic here this evening, I did my first prints today having been a bit aware that the shots looked softer on screen than the kodak with no PP but you just add some sharpening and saturation and the prints are a blow-away. Fabulous. Require much less (and more easily batchable) PP and there is no sign of any artefacts or aberrations.

Tim
--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/

tashley said:

I think the value of these second hand is going up - I sold my
SLR/n a month ago for £1350, privately rather than via ebay, to a
forum member here. It had about 2,200 actuations and went with a
good nikkor 24-70 and a not very good sigma 10-300. It was in
as-new condition with all original packaging, unopened manuals,
cables etc.

Click to expand...

That looks hopeful then. I've got all the packaging, manuals, software, cables etc - though it's all opened because i'm like a little kid with new things and get as much fun out of the boxes and manuals as i do out of the camera itself.

tashley said:

Don't get a D200, get a 5D: the extra pixels matter when you need
to crop and it has the better high ISO performance. The price has
come down too, the viewfinder is bigger/brighter and it weighs
less, plus you get the focal lengths you're used too, though that
does obviously mean that zoom lenses need to be heavier.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not listening - you're proselitysing, you're being positively evangelical - and all to no avail as i have a spread of good Nikon glass, which i would lose money on selling, and I'd never be able to afford the Canon equivalent. Besides, I've never liked the feel of Canon stuff, I'm a Nikon person, it's just that feels right factor, undefinable but there.

tashley said:

The 25-105 stablised lens which they sell as part of a kit is
really very nice indeed!

Click to expand...

Oh, okay, in that case i just might have a look at it.

tashley said:

Also as I posted in another topic here this evening, I did my first
prints today having been a bit aware that the shots looked softer
on screen than the kodak with no PP but you just add some
sharpening and saturation and the prints are a blow-away. Fabulous.
Require much less (and more easily batchable) PP and there is no
sign of any artefacts or aberrations.

Click to expand...

i never print, hardly ever anyway. It's so expensive ink wise a nd for papr that i just do it for times when I really need a print.

tashley said:

Tim
--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/

Click to expand...

Hi Flick

I've (almost) decided to get a 5D for much the same reason.

I downloaded the full sized versions of Phil's studio test shots yesterday and did some serious pixel peeping (at 200% would you believe).

My conclusion was that my 14n has no additional fine detail beyond the capabilities of the 5D whatsoever (despite the lack of an AA filter and a few extra pixels). In fact it is neck and neck with some areas of the image favouring 5d and some the 14n depending where how the artifacts damaged that particular part of the shot.

However, what is noticeable is just how degraded the Kodak images are by various rather gross artifacts at pixel level. The 5D offers the same detail without the artifacts. Of course you can clean up the Kodak images in post but depending on the particular image you may suffer some local desaturation at odd points around the image. Usually it doesn't matter but you it is there and you do have the added hassle of having to do the processing.

I also compared the studio test shots with those for the 1Dsii, 20D, D200.

The D200 is a little better than the 20D but not by a lot and the 5D and the 14n are better still. Despite what you may have heard elsewhere the 1dsii doesn't appear to really offer that much extra detail most of the time.

I'm not sure whether all this will make a big difference in reasonably sized prints but I suspect it makes a slight subliminal difference even in A4 sized prints. You will get get cleaner pixel level results from the D200 but you will also lose a little detail relative to the Kodak.

I did a follow up sanity check on my findings using on my own cameras by comparing shots from my 14n and 350D (tripod, prime lens, blah, blah) and printing crops at different sizes.

I could see a distinct resolution advantage to the Kodak over the 8MP Canon onscreen at 100% and (surprised me) this is occasionally visible even in A4 prints. It is more obvious in A3 prints and even more obvious in 24 x 16 prints. But... at no point was the difference overwhelmingly important to the success of the print. The difference between 8MP and 13.5mp under ideal studio conditions is viisble but is quite modest in actual prints. Likewise the difference between the Kodak/5D and D200 is real, too but even more modest.

I think a lot of our images may not actually do justice to the sensor capabilities because of subtle operational flaws (misfocusing, mirror slap etc) and this probably has more of an effect on results than the model of camera.

If you are selling your shots to stock agencies you might like to consider that (rationally or irrationally) some of them insist on larger files than the D200 produces.

As for resale value...ebay is a remarkable place - I've recently seen 3 Fuji GW690III cameras like the one I have sell for over £750 whilst they are readily available for under £600 in shops with guarantees. But the 14n doesn't seem worth much more than £300-400 :-(

Flick said:

I've just spent five days trying to amass 15 images for a first
submission to Alamy. Going over images at 100% has shown me what a
lot of defects there are in my pictures taken with the 14nx (not
with any other camera). I'm fed up with trying to get rid of xmas
tree lights, wonderful pink edges, strange blotches in the sky.

so i think the Kodak is going on ebay shortly. What i want to know
is: do older lenses work well with the D200 - or not. i don't have
any DX lenses. I have (all AF) Nikon 85 1.8; Nikon 60 micro; Nikon
35-70; Nikon 50 1.8Sigma 15-30.

Anyone any idea what i can ask for the 14nx? It's had a little over
5,000 shots through it. I've just seen an SLRn on UK ebay for £1499.

Any help gratefully considered. Rick, I owe you an email. Thanks
very much for the info and sheet. I just got sidetracked away from
replying.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

I just looked at the price of the 5D. no way, it's over £2,500. I can't raise that much. I'm hoping to get the £1,200 for the D200 by selling my Kodak. I have £200 left of the £1000 I was gifted. then that's it. I'm not in a position to borrow as no income, and i'm not putting my house up against a loan. So Miss 5D is not the girl for me I'm afriad.

DMillier said:

Hi Flick

I've (almost) decided to get a 5D for much the same reason.

Click to expand...

As i'v just said to Tim, I'm afraid it's out of the question as I have no money, except £200 left from a gift, and whatever i get for the 14nx. It will, BTW be worth more than the 14n because of the sensor upgrade. I couldn't afford the Canon at more than twice the price of the D200, and I certainly can't affrod a new set of lenses.

DavidMillier said:

The D200 is a little better than the 20D but not by a lot and the
5D and the 14n are better still. Despite what you may have heard
elsewhere the 1dsii doesn't appear to really offer that much extra
detail most of the time.

Click to expand...

But the metering an AF are very good, and it isn't as noisy as my Kodak. I've spent days trying to clean up noise from even images where the exposure was perfect.

DavidMillier said:

If you are selling your shots to stock agencies you might like to
consider that (rationally or irrationally) some of them insist on
larger files than the D200 produces.

Click to expand...

You interpolate. you have to do it for the Kodak too because they want 8bit images at a minimum of 48MB. I'be been successfully upsizing stuff from my S2 (now no longer with me).

Tim is right, though.

One other thing to consider - you will not reliably extract the last ounce of resolution out of these cameras without perfect technique - and that means base ISO, tripod, mirror locked up, perfect focus, prime lens stopped down etc etc (you know, all those things people hate bothering with). And in that scenario your nikon lenses will transfer to Canon with adapters (you lose AF and only have stop down metering of course).

My current feeling is that I will use the tiny 350D with 10-20 and 28-135IS lenses for handheld stuff (relatively compact and lightweight and just as high res for handheld stuff) and get a 5D for those special landscapes that need max resolution and use it with my Nikon primes. There is little to no advantage to super hi res cameras when shooting handheld and the slowness of tripod working will mean there is no real drawback from the loss of open aperture metering and AF and the big viewfinder should make MF easy.

The Kodak is still excellent for black and white so I will use it in this mode for a while until I decide to offload it.

By the way - as for handling, the Canon is better than you might think from the stupid melted looking styling. That big round dial on the back is a revelation. I've been playing with the office's 10D and it works far better than the traditional rear thumbwheel even though it looks silly. And the Canon mob assure me that the camera is genuine metal bodied even the special surface makes it seem like plastic (Tim, can you confirm it is metal?).

D

Flick said:

tashley said:

I think the value of these second hand is going up - I sold my
SLR/n a month ago for £1350, privately rather than via ebay, to a
forum member here. It had about 2,200 actuations and went with a
good nikkor 24-70 and a not very good sigma 10-300. It was in
as-new condition with all original packaging, unopened manuals,
cables etc.

Click to expand...

That looks hopeful then. I've got all the packaging, manuals,
software, cables etc - though it's all opened because i'm like a
little kid with new things and get as much fun out of the boxes and
manuals as i do out of the camera itself.

Flick said:

Don't get a D200, get a 5D: the extra pixels matter when you need
to crop and it has the better high ISO performance. The price has
come down too, the viewfinder is bigger/brighter and it weighs
less, plus you get the focal lengths you're used too, though that
does obviously mean that zoom lenses need to be heavier.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not listening - you're proselitysing, you're being
positively evangelical - and all to no avail as i have a spread of
good Nikon glass, which i would lose money on selling, and I'd
never be able to afford the Canon equivalent. Besides, I've never
liked the feel of Canon stuff, I'm a Nikon person, it's just that
feels right factor, undefinable but there.

Flick said:

The 25-105 stablised lens which they sell as part of a kit is
really very nice indeed!

Click to expand...

Oh, okay, in that case i just might have a look at it.

Flick said:

Also as I posted in another topic here this evening, I did my first
prints today having been a bit aware that the shots looked softer
on screen than the kodak with no PP but you just add some
sharpening and saturation and the prints are a blow-away. Fabulous.
Require much less (and more easily batchable) PP and there is no
sign of any artefacts or aberrations.

Click to expand...

i never print, hardly ever anyway. It's so expensive ink wise a nd
for papr that i just do it for times when I really need a print.

Flick said:

Tim
--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

The price of the 5D is £1800 at warehouseexpress and canon are running a post purchase rebate worth £200 so the real cost is currently £1600.

Flick said:

I just looked at the price of the 5D. no way, it's over £2,500. I
can't raise that much. I'm hoping to get the £1,200 for the D200 by
selling my Kodak. I have £200 left of the £1000 I was gifted. then
that's it. I'm not in a position to borrow as no income, and i'm
not putting my house up against a loan. So Miss 5D is not the girl
for me I'm afriad.

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

You;ve been looking in the wrong shop! Current price with Canon rebate is £1600.

I've been reading up on stock! Many agencies insist on mimimum 11MP, no interpolation. You may be limiting your future possibilities - I'm sure Quentin can advise on that one.

Flick said:

DMillier said:

Hi Flick

I've (almost) decided to get a 5D for much the same reason.

Click to expand...

As i'v just said to Tim, I'm afraid it's out of the question as I
have no money, except £200 left from a gift, and whatever i get for
the 14nx. It will, BTW be worth more than the 14n because of the
sensor upgrade. I couldn't afford the Canon at more than twice the
price of the D200, and I certainly can't affrod a new set of lenses.

Flick said:

The D200 is a little better than the 20D but not by a lot and the
5D and the 14n are better still. Despite what you may have heard
elsewhere the 1dsii doesn't appear to really offer that much extra
detail most of the time.

Click to expand...

But the metering an AF are very good, and it isn't as noisy as my
Kodak. I've spent days trying to clean up noise from even images
where the exposure was perfect.

Flick said:

If you are selling your shots to stock agencies you might like to
consider that (rationally or irrationally) some of them insist on
larger files than the D200 produces.

Click to expand...

You interpolate. you have to do it for the Kodak too because they
want 8bit images at a minimum of 48MB. I'be been successfully
upsizing stuff from my S2 (now no longer with me).

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

Flick said:

i never print, hardly ever anyway. It's so expensive ink wise a nd
for papr that i just do it for times when I really need a print.

Click to expand...

AAH! Now here we have a contentious issue:

I almost never print either but if you (or I) want to sell for stock, then it's clear that we'll more than likely therefore be selling for print and it's a weird fact that images from different cameras have very different characteristics on screen than in print. The Canon's shots look amazing in print.

I also heard that the D200 does some weird thing around underexposing in certain circumstances in order to avoid blowing highlights, and that this means it requires more PP. I am rapidly realising that PP is not cost free: every time you do something in photoshop, it adds noise. Boo!

Tim

DMillier said:

Tim is right, though.

One other thing to consider - you will not reliably extract the
last ounce of resolution out of these cameras without perfect
technique - and that means base ISO, tripod, mirror locked up,

Click to expand...

Excuse me young David, the photos i've been processing ARE done with tripod etc etc etc. Deary me, I've been taking photographs for 30 years, I've been to colleg twice to study it - i do know just a teensy bit about the technical side - though much of the stuff i'm trying to redeem at the moment was done when my sensor was on its way out.

DavidMillier said:

By the way - as for handling, the Canon is better than you might
think from the stupid melted looking styling. That big round dial
on the back is a revelation. I've been playing with the office's
10D and it works far better than the traditional rear thumbwheel
even though it looks silly. And the Canon mob assure me that the
camera is genuine metal bodied even the special surface makes it
seem like plastic (Tim, can you confirm it is metal?).

Click to expand...

well, that's all academic as far as i'm concrned as I don't have and am not likely to get very soon the other grand or more for the Canon.

DavidMillier said:

D

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

The price of the 5D is £1800 at warehouseexpress and canon are
running a post purchase rebate worth £200 so the real cost is
currently £1600.

Click to expand...

Still too much. I don't have an income till i start to earn with my camera, and i don't have savings or anything left to sell, other than the Kodak. That extra £400 might as well be £4000.

It's metal but it's light. One point worth noting: if you go into a shop and pick up a D200 and a 5D one after the other with no lens on, the 200 feels somehow better but put a well-made lens on the Canon and it suddenly comes to life. In use it is wonderfully quick and sure, and it returns to shooting mode from sleep or menus faster than you can blink. You NEVER miss a shot for reasons other than your own slowness, which is sobering...
--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/

DMillier said:

You;ve been looking in the wrong shop! Current price with Canon
rebate is £1600.

Click to expand...

sorry, still out of my price range.

DavidMillier said:

I've been reading up on stock! Many agencies insist on mimimum
11MP, no interpolation. You may be limiting your future
possibilities - I'm sure Quentin can advise on that one.

Click to expand...

Alamy are happy with 6MP interpolated.

Quentin has advised me at great length, bless him, in fact he's been encouraging and supportive rather than the voice of doom.

Well, i wish i could afford it, but it's out of my price range.

tashley said:

It's metal but it's light. One point worth noting: if you go into a
shop and pick up a D200 and a 5D one after the other with no lens
on, the 200 feels somehow better but put a well-made lens on the
Canon and it suddenly comes to life. In use it is wonderfully quick
and sure, and it returns to shooting mode from sleep or menus
faster than you can blink. You NEVER miss a shot for reasons other
than your own slowness, which is sobering...
--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/

Click to expand...

tashley said:

AAH! Now here we have a contentious issue:

I almost never print either but if you (or I) want to sell for
stock, then it's clear that we'll more than likely therefore be
selling for print and it's a weird fact that images from different
cameras have very different characteristics on screen than in
print. The Canon's shots look amazing in print.

Click to expand...

Well, your're right about the final output being print. I'm killing myself to get rid of noise that will probably never show up in the end product...but if i don't get rid of it, they'll reject my photos.

tashley said:

I also heard that the D200 does some weird thing around
underexposing in certain circumstances in order to avoid blowing
highlights, and that this means it requires more PP.

Click to expand...

But this is probably only in matrix, which blows highlight on every system I've ever used, film as well as digital.

I am rapidly

tashley said:

realising that PP is not cost free: every time you do something in
photoshop, it adds noise. Boo!

Click to expand...

Right on the nail. But if you don't at last apply a gentle curve, stuff can look flat. Boo indeed. It's amazing how differently you view you work under the actual pixels constraint.

well, we've strayed far awy from my original question aboyut my lenses on the D200.

as for using an adaptor on the Canon, presumably you ose AF. I'm 59 years old and my eyes are no longer quick to accomodate, so manual focus isn't an option now.

tashley said:

Tim

Click to expand...

8

Flick said:

But the metering an AF are very good, and it isn't as noisy as my
Kodak. I've spent days trying to clean up noise from even images
where the exposure was perfect.

Click to expand...

8

Flick, what PP software are you using? Surely you can get superb results from the Kodak with a relatively modest outlay on a good RAW converter or two? Quentin will attest to that, I'm sure.

--
Kind regards,
Nigel

A bad workman always blames his tools. But in the light of all that I have written above, I am definitely blaming my keyboard!

the signatory said:

Flick, what PP software are you using? Surely you can get superb
results from the Kodak with a relatively modest outlay on a good
RAW converter or two? Quentin will attest to that, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

I'm processing older stuff from when the sensor was failing. but some of the weird effects are not that quick and easy to remove, like coloured fringing etc. I haven't had time or a well enough back to take the heavy old Kodak and my tripod out recently. Using the E1 has made me reasie how easy a camera can be. AdamT put it in a nutshell (and he earns his living doing event photography, weddings etc): he said a professional camera is one that you don't have to flog yourself to death with in PP, and that when your bread and butter depends on yur camera. you can't afford to spend hours in front of a computer salvaging all the problems/.

Flick said:

Flick said:

Flick, what PP software are you using? Surely you can get superb
results from the Kodak with a relatively modest outlay on a good
RAW converter or two? Quentin will attest to that, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

I'm processing older stuff from when the sensor was failing. but
some of the weird effects are not that quick and easy to remove,
like coloured fringing etc. I haven't had time or a well enough
back to take the heavy old Kodak and my tripod out recently. Using
the E1 has made me reasie how easy a camera can be. AdamT put it in
a nutshell (and he earns his living doing event photography,
weddings etc): he said a professional camera is one that you don't
have to flog yourself to death with in PP, and that when your bread
and butter depends on yur camera. you can't afford to spend hours
in front of a computer salvaging all the problems/.

Click to expand...

Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that if you are shooting events or weddings. However, I can't imagine you will need to mass/batch process those kind of numbers just for some stock?

--
Kind regards,
Nigel

A bad workman always blames his tools. But in the light of all that I have written above, I am definitely blaming my keyboard!

Now, now Flick!

Those comments were just a lead up to saying that if you are shooting from a tripod, losing AF is not a big deal so switching to canon would be feasible - which you would have realised if you had read my post through before leaping on a tall horse. Try and not be quite so sensitive, I'm only trying to be helpful ;-)

Flick said:

DMillier said:

Tim is right, though.

One other thing to consider - you will not reliably extract the
last ounce of resolution out of these cameras without perfect
technique - and that means base ISO, tripod, mirror locked up,

Click to expand...

Excuse me young David, the photos i've been processing ARE done
with tripod etc etc etc. Deary me, I've been taking photographs for
30 years, I've been to colleg twice to study it - i do know just a
teensy bit about the technical side - though much of the stuff i'm
trying to redeem at the moment was done when my sensor was on its
way out.

Flick said:

By the way - as for handling, the Canon is better than you might
think from the stupid melted looking styling. That big round dial
on the back is a revelation. I've been playing with the office's
10D and it works far better than the traditional rear thumbwheel
even though it looks silly. And the Canon mob assure me that the
camera is genuine metal bodied even the special surface makes it
seem like plastic (Tim, can you confirm it is metal?).

Click to expand...

well, that's all academic as far as i'm concrned as I don't have
and am not likely to get very soon the other grand or more for the
Canon.

Flick said:

D

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm