Does the D200 really outperform the D50?

Thanks for the detailed reply. Of course what you are saying is right. The D50 can't be the best camera in the range. It just would not make sense.

I am an IT person and I have had much dealings with reasonably non computer literate people, especially people of an older generation. These people are pre IT but post SLR if you see what I mean.

They have been able to use SLRs for the last 40 years and are actually good with cameras, but using a PC in an advanced way, beyond basic email, web and office usage can be difficult for them.

So it does boil down to a matter of the camera being "fit for purpose" as we agree.

You have clarified your last but one message and explained that the high end cameras do have in camera processing but that it is selectable.

That is good because I think that for many people, being forced into a computer based process in order to get a good result is a very real problem.

There is also a hidden cost to this. Naturally, one needs a PC anyway when using a DSLR but the additional cost of Photoshop and specialised plug ins eg to remove noise is not trivial. Other, cheaper software is availabe but they are not as elegant as Adobe products to my mind and therefore they can be confusing.

Furthermore if one is time constrained, there is another time cost involved in going through ones shots one at a time in order to release the inherent quality of the images.

I feel that it is critical to have within a DSLR the capability of finishing the image or at least almost finishing it "for the rest of us" as Apple used to say.

I don't know to what extent the D80 can process images internally but I do hope that this capability is substantial especially (as I said before) because the D50 shows that Nikon implements this so well.

Cheers.

My point is that people go over board defending their equiptment and putting down others. For some reaons some people take someone having something better as an attack on themselves. They seem to have a need to prove themselves better by downgrading others and other's equiptment.

Is the D80 (in 90% of the situations) better then my camera? I should hope so! Wouldnt' say much for Nikon if they couldn't do better after 2.5 years of research. Does that detract from my camera? Not at all. It is still a good camera that serves me well.

--
Life is a series of images - capture them!

NO, that is not at all what I thought the original poster was saying, it was a response after reading some of the replies to his question

Tim
--
Life is a series of images - capture them!

I have both. My wife's D50 and my D200. They're totally different cameras. The D200 is an entirely different build type (very heavy) where the D50 is built for lightness and protability.

The D200 has control buttons for functions where the D50 needs you to go into menus to set them (but that's OK as they are functions a casual photographer is not likely to use. The lower resolution on the D50 translates into larger individual pixel sensors on the CCD than the D200, which gives it - I'd assume - a slight edge in low light. The D200 has a much wider range of ISO options and an absolutely brilliant image-processing thingy.

I use both cameras and love them both. But they're different cameras.

To answer your question you'd have to specify what performance area you are specifically comparing.

Oh yeah - and the continuous shot speed of the D200. Woohoo.

Cheers, Dani
--
Zurich, Switzerland

Grevture said:

I find it a bit strange to argue that a camera is the best because
it has one helpful feature that some people use. The D50 is the
best camera for those who want a camera to work like a D50. But
that does not mean it is a better camera then the D200 or D2X. To
me the D2H is a way better camera then a D50, but that is because
how I tend to use my cameras. But it is not the best camera when I
go on a hiking trip, then my D70S is my best camera.

Click to expand...

Grevture said:

I really do think it is a great camera. But to argue it is the overall best
Nikon camera ... That I find plain silly

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Excellent post.

Alan.
--
Spam Filter Reviews at: http://www.whichspamfilter.com

Wellington100 said:

There is also a hidden cost to this. Naturally, one needs a PC
anyway when using a DSLR but the additional cost of Photoshop and
specialised plug ins eg to remove noise is not trivial. Other,
cheaper software is availabe but they are not as elegant as Adobe
products to my mind and therefore they can be confusing.

Click to expand...

I can whole hartedly recommend Picture Window Pro by Digital Light and Color ( http://www.dl-c.com/ ), it is made for photographers and the workflow used in it is more similar to a traditional wet-film workflow, so migration should be easier for the folks from the wet-film era. The GUI does not look as elegant as Adobe's, but how it functions is very elegant. Oh and it supports full 48-bit image processing.

And Grevture, I completely agree with you, an excellent perspective! It's similar to my mantra concerning programming languages, I always say there is no superior language in general, just that one language is better suited for one job and others for other jobs. Of course there are cases of poor languages, but I don't think any of the current line-up of Nikon SLR camera's qualifies for such classification.

Just my 2 cents.
Michel

Wellington100 said:

Thanks for the detailed reply. Of course what you are saying is
right. The D50 can't be the best camera in the range. It just would
not make sense.

Click to expand...

I do remember early on when the D200 was getting out on the market, there were some, very few people that was hugely disappointed with it because they failed to understand how that camera is meant to be used. I particularily remember one guy that argued rather fiercly that the D200 did not produce sharp images comapared to the high end point and shoot camera he had used before. And, in one way he was correct. His old camera produced somewhat oversharpened pictures with jpg artefacts that would be a real trouble to blow up on a large print. The D200 on the other hand (with default settings) produce slightly soft images that can be carefully sharpened just to exactely fit the need.

Wellington100 said:

I am an IT person and I have had much dealings with reasonably non
computer literate people, especially people of an older generation.
These people are pre IT but post SLR if you see what I mean.

Click to expand...

I have the same experience

Wellington100 said:

They have been able to use SLRs for the last 40 years and are
actually good with cameras, but using a PC in an advanced way,
beyond basic email, web and office usage can be difficult for them.

Click to expand...

This starts to sound like a description of me

No, but seriously, a lot of my instincts and reflexes in photography are based on my many years using my beloved Canon F1 AE, a camera that had rudimentary auto exposure, but really shined when used fully manual. I still miss the elegant exposure meter to the left in the viewfinder and the wonderful four-split focusing screen. I was shooting slides (Kodachrome 25/64) often without expousure meter and over the years developed a fairly good sense on eye-based-exposure.

Wellington100 said:

So it does boil down to a matter of the camera being "fit for
purpose" as we agree.

You have clarified your last but one message and explained that the
high end cameras do have in camera processing but that it is
selectable.

That is good because I think that for many people, being forced
into a computer based process in order to get a good result is a
very real problem.

Click to expand...

I completely agree on that. I belive that there are many that would benefit from the freedom and ease och use with digital but are intimidated by having to add a computer to the process.

Wellington100 said:

There is also a hidden cost to this. Naturally, one needs a PC
anyway when using a DSLR but the additional cost of Photoshop and
specialised plug ins eg to remove noise is not trivial. Other,
cheaper software is availabe but they are not as elegant as Adobe
products to my mind and therefore they can be confusing.

Click to expand...

I myself use the sadly discontinued Rawshooter, fairly cheap and wonderfully fast to work with. But again, I agree with your point.

Wellington100 said:

Furthermore if one is time constrained, there is another time cost
involved in going through ones shots one at a time in order to
release the inherent quality of the images.

Click to expand...

That is true, but you also develop (...) a skill in doing this at good speed when having to sift through hundreds of images every day.

Wellington100 said:

I feel that it is critical to have within a DSLR the capability of
finishing the image or at least almost finishing it "for the rest
of us" as Apple used to say.

I don't know to what extent the D80 can process images internally
but I do hope that this capability is substantial especially (as I
said before) because the D50 shows that Nikon implements this so
well.

Click to expand...

Nikon actually has incorporated some in-camera post processing from the Coolpix series into the D80, for just the reasons you mention. Many people just want to adjust a little and walk into a store and get some prints right out of the camera. Or display them on a TV near you.

I know manufacturers like Epson have some far reaching ideas on take ideas like the Pictbridge even further. The basic concept is that you should be able to shot pictures and edit them, display them (on for example a TV) and print them without ever needing a separate computer.

Michel Keuning said:

And Grevture, I completely agree with you, an excellent
perspective! It's similar to my mantra concerning programming
languages, I always say there is no superior language in general,
just that one language is better suited for one job and others for
other jobs. Of course there are cases of poor languages, but I
don't think any of the current line-up of Nikon SLR camera's
qualifies for such classification.

Click to expand...

Perl rules!

John Hensall (British digital camera journalist since the year dot) compared the D50 against the D70 and the D70 produced significantl better images. To bring the D200 and D2x into the arguemant seems a little naive.
You get what you pay for surprisingly.
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

Grevture said:

Each camera is made for a target audience. For one audience one
kind of camera is the best, for another audience, another camera.
There simply is no overall best camera in terms of usage. It
depends on who shoots what and where.

Click to expand...

Uh, reread the post you're responding to Grevture...as I believe that's exactly what Wellington was alluding to. He/she never said the D50 was the best overall camera...

Tim,

At one extreme you have people who only seem to care about the numbers: MP, FPS, IQ, Extinction Resolution, Buffer, effective FOV, S/N, etc. We'll call them Number Heads.

On the other extreme you have people you have people who proclaim, "I don't understand what the OP is on about. Can't we all just love one another and go take beautiful pictures?" We'll call these Flower Children.

Between these two pole lies a continuum along which you, me and the rest of us fall. We'll call this realm "Digital Photography."

Sure, you have Number Heads, who are only concerned with the Digital. They don't care at all about making "art." They like to debate the pros and cons, ad nauseum, of each and every camera. It's a game, and to them it is a lot of fun.

Then you have the Flower Children interested only in taking pictures. They don't care how their cameras work and find discussion of such matters uncomfortable at best. But they take lots of photos and complement each other on all the photos they post.

Let me stress that most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We like digital photography for both aspects.

The point is that no one can claim that Digital Cameras have an intended purpose besides fun. (Seriously, not even pros do it for the money.) And this fun can be had in many ways. If you don't want to discuss the advantages of the D50 over the D200, or the important differences between the D70 and the D70s (however stupid such discussions may be is another story), fine. But don't admonish those who do enjoy such matters, however ridiculous. Your way of enjoying digital photography is no better than anyone else's.

The take home message here is, if you don't get it, don't post. It's that simple.

Tim

Personally I "upgraded" from a D50 to a D200, probably got a bad copy of the latter (though absolutely NO banding involved) and came running back to the D50 (had a D70s in the meantime but it wasn't up to my good ol' D50 in terms of sheer IQ, and low noise).

The D200 has a FANTASTIC body with a lovely feature set and is a pleasure to shoot.

But mine has a really serious noise issue starting as low as ISO 320, and since I shoot a LOT if high ISO stuff, it was an immediate deal breaker for me.

Yet of course we have all seen gorgeous D200 pictures. My experience was just that the price diference was by no means justified, at least with the unit I had.
The D50 is a truly surprising little camera.
That won't keep me from giving the D80 a run though ;-)

Claire

Of course the D200 outperforms the D50, but my D50 is more than good enough/fast enough for me for now.





Good shooting...
--
HaraldBluetooth
'Do Not Look Where You Fell, But Where You Slipped'

Grig said:

If you don't need:

1. Remote flash capabilities;
2. Flash FP Sync up to 1/8000 (altough you can fool SB800 by taping
contacts;
3. Shutter speed faster then 1/4000
4. Backlit top LCD
5. 5-FPS
6. Vertical Grip

Click to expand...

I needed none of these but did need:

1. Mirror lockup
2. Larger, brighter viewfinder, primarily to help verify focus.
3. Larger rear LCD with greater image zoom and RGB histogram display
4. Metering with AI lenses
5. Remote that can be used behind the camera

I've also used the multiple exposure and repeating flash features to good effect, and the ISO readout in the viewfinder is nice.

Separate wheels for aperature and shutter speed -- almost a necessity when shooting in manual exposure mode.

I don't have any samples available on the web, but if you go searching for D200 samples, you should notice that it is far less prone to clipping the red channel than the D70 (and D50 also, IIRC). The D200 sensor also seems to have a gentler default tone curve than the D70 (and the D50 me thinks). It might have a stronger AA filter though, which yields none of the moire concerns of the D70, but will also yield moderately softer local contrast (at the pixel level) as a result -- so you may find a bit more of a need to sharpen up the pixels for large prints, but then again, you have more pixels, so maybe it's actually a combination of the two effects and not necessarily that pixels are softer.

Personally, I think other than the difference in sensor tonal response -- and I prefer D200's in this case -- and the higher pixel count vs the very slightly higher pixel level noise level, which you can largely offset by resizing back down to 6MP (if that's what you want), the real differences are in everything that surrounds the sensors. If you don't really care about the substantially better all-round package of the D200, then there's probably not much point in upgrading to the D200. In fact, in most cases, you'd probably be better served waiting for the D80 from the looks of it. I certainly would have a hard time choosing if the D80 came out at the same time as the D200 -- I suspect I would probably end up w/ the D80 and ~$700(US) to spend on something else.

If you want to know how much better (and whether the D200 is worthwhile to you), I'd recommend going to a decent dealer and give one a spin to see for yourself. If the body itself doesn't convince you to get it, then you should probably wait for the D80 (or something else later).

Man

David Lal said:

I am considering upgrading from my D70 to a D200 now that prices in
the UK have come down. However I do wonder just how much better the
latter is. It seems to me that Bmcent1 is in a similar position and
asked a perfectly reasonable question - I don't think he was trying
to prove anything at all. I at least have found most of the
responses in this thread useful.

Cheers
David

Timothy Phelan said:

Why is it that people feel this intense need to prove their camera
is best?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--



Just another amateur learning to paint w/ 'the light of the world.' (John 8:12)
'Cameras are for making photos, not war...'
See my profile for some useful resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong

From what I've read in D80 reviews, the D50 apparently does a better job than the D70 and D70S.

Oh yes? I must be living in fantasy world then.

jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

This thread is nuts, I think people have got August braindeadness or something.

The D200 is a better camera than the D70 which is a better camera than the starter camera the D50.

Anyone who thinks differently needs their head examined. Or should I say that they should buy the D50 and save their money as they haven't got the first idea about cameras.
jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.

JulesJ said:

This thread is nuts, I think people have got August braindeadness
or something.
The D200 is a better camera than the D70 which is a better camera
than the starter camera the D50.
Anyone who thinks differently needs their head examined. Or should
I say that they should buy the D50 and save their money as they
haven't got the first idea about cameras.

Click to expand...

Lol. Very true Jules. I wish I had said that.

Alan.

--
Spam Filter Reviews at: http://www.whichspamfilter.com

Sorry Tim, but I don't think you are getting it either, but that is ok, feel free to keep on posting

--
Life is a series of images - capture them!