Reading mode: Light Dark

Does the D200 really outperform the D50?

Go to last post
I'm curious Jules. In your opinion, what makes the image quality so much better when you are comparing the D50 and D70 to the D200? You act as if it is SO obvious, even a laymen could pick images from one camera to the next. I'd be amazed if you could.

Are you up for the challenge or is that request, using your term, "braindeadness"??

--
http://cmvsm.zoto.com/galleries/favorites6227
 
.. He was referring to the devices, not necessarily to the images they produce. Although the resultant images may be indistinguishable there could be considerable differences in the ease or flexibility with which they were obtained.

Cheers
David
cmvsm said:
I'm curious Jules. In your opinion, what makes the image quality
so much better when you are comparing the D50 and D70 to the D200?
You act as if it is SO obvious, even a laymen could pick images
from one camera to the next. I'd be amazed if you could.

Are you up for the challenge or is that request, using your term,
"braindeadness"??
Click to expand...
 
D50 does not equal a D200. I wanted a D200 but could not justify the price with my novice skill level. Like most consumer I like getting the best out and the D200 was in my opinion the best prosumer camera available at the time I bought my D50 (D2X was not even a consideration - well out of my price range and ability levels).

So why did I go with the D50 when I could have paid for a D200? Simply put, skill level and accessory budget. Lenses seem like a far better investment to me. An SB-800 and a 18-200VR will out perform a kit lens D200 and built in flash on a D200 and they can move with me.

Next for me is a D80 - I'm excited about its pending release. It gives me everything I want in the D200 with a body of the D50.

--
Jessie
Novice Night Shot Wanna Be
Please check out my Featured Gallaries at http://jessiethe3rd.zenfolio.com
All Pictures Shot with a D50 w/ kit lens or 75-300mm Nikor
 
Then welcome to Fantasy Disco Jules. You tie quality too much to a price tag. That IS living in wonderland.

Oh right, so all the D70 and D200 owners have got it wrong have they. they should have saved their money and got the better camera the D50. Plus the fact that hensals article documented exactly the same subjects taken by the cameras at their best modes and the D50 images being that much poorer than the other two should be disregarded eh?

I'm definately living in fantasy world, the only thing being that i shoot difitally for a living and we use the D2x. If you can do it and produce large, fantastic quality art prints as good as our using the D50 , then all i can say is well done. We have obviously wasted over £1000 on a camer we didn't need.
Keep on dreaming.
jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
cmvsm said:
I'm curious Jules. In your opinion, what makes the image quality
so much better when you are comparing the D50 and D70 to the D200?
You act as if it is SO obvious, even a laymen could pick images
from one camera to the next. I'd be amazed if you could.

Are you up for the challenge or is that request, using your term,
"braindeadness"??
Click to expand...
Jules way of expressing his opinions leave a lot to be desired. But his basic assumption is a correct one.

Like I argued earlier in this thread, image quality is the result of many, many small and large factors. The sensor itself, and the data processing that is done after capturing an image play a big role. But there is more to the equation then that. Way, way more.

When I shoot sport I mainly rely on timing. But occasionally, you just have no clue what is going to happen next, or exactly when. Then your only option is to fire of a burst of images and just hope to get whatever interesting moment that fly by. Try that shooting raw with a D50 (or a D70 for that matter). You get four images, then the camera locks up for several crucial seconds while writing to the card. And that is when the goalkeeper make that amazing save. Or the outfielder does an insanely great catch. With a D200 (or the D2H that I use) I can fire of long (5-10 images) bursts at 5 (or 8) fps. Re-aim, fire of another similar burst, and basically keep doing that until the action has stopped.

When you work with photography, you live with your camera. It is always with you. In rain, in snow, when taking a fall down a ditch. Put a 300/f2.8 on a D50 and make a nose dive to the ground. You will very likely break the lens mount, because the D50 (or D70 and D80) lens mounts are not built to take such abuse with a five pound lens mounted. The D200, D2H(s) and D2X(s) are built to take just that and continue working. How good is the IQ on a camera with a broken (or semi-broken) lens mount?

Or, after a maybe a hundred thousand of accutations, the shutter on a D50 (or D70) will probably become very irratic and unreliable. On a pro model will happily click on for years to come. How good is IQ when the shutter does not work properly?

But let's focus on pure image quality for a moment. You seriously think there is no advantage at all having 10 megapixels? Ok, I know a lot of people over estimate the importance of megapixels (as a D2H owner I am fairly used to discuss that issue :-). But again, occasionally you get a really good image -- but with a wide angle lens on, when a longer lens would have been the best option. With 10 (or 12) megapixels you can do a lot more cropping and still have image resolution to play with. The difference is maybe not huge, but it sure is there.

Or let's look at the very, very good image processing the D50 does when shooting jpeg. That is great. But it does mean you leave a lot of your post processing desicions to some unknown Nikon engineer. And people that live of their camera tend to want to make those desicions themselves. You want control. You want to get the image data as unprocessed as possible out of the camera and do things your way. The D50 has som great built-in image processing, but that is of little value for someone that want to stay in control of the workflow.

Or take a simple thing as working with manual exposure (yes, a lot of people still do that, with good results) -- that's when the D70/D80 shine over a D50 wth the extra command wheel. A simple thing like being able to quickly adjust both aperture and shutter without extra fiddling around is a big benefit in many situations. Again, it is about that extra option some people want and/or need. It cost a little extra, but in the end it is a way to get the image quailty you want.

Sp the D70 have some slight advantages over the D50 in terms of working manually, and some actually people prefer they way its handles image data lifted from the sensor compared to how the D50 does it. The D80 adds more pixels to that. The pro cameras is litteraly in another league: They add durability, pure speed, faster handling (more buttons, less menu fiddling), more accurate (even in dim light) AF, more choices in terms of image processing and lots, lots more.

So the D50 sucks then? No, it is a great camera -- if you use it the way a D50 is intended to be used. It is not built for pro use. It is not intended for those of us that shoot mostly manual mode. But from what I have seen it is (together with the D2Hs) the best noise performer at high ISO in the Nikon crowd. It has an excellent jpeg processing (I hope the D80 gets a piece of that), and it is hard to beat for image quality/dollar value. But to argue it gives the best image quality over all ... Get real :-)
 
cmvsn, (don't you have a treal name?).

I respect and honour the opinions of John Hensall a long time digital camera journalist. I read his reviews and comparisons of the D70 compared to the D50 and saw his test pictures. He uses exactly the same location and subject (a house) in all his camera tests and shoots them in as near as the same light as possible, using the same ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc etc. the results are printed there for you te see and I have no reason why on earth he should doctor these results.

He did this for the D70 and D50 when the D50 came out. he commented on the not so clera result of the D50 and they were printed therer for all to see (I believe it was The photagrapher magazine, a well respected mag in the UK).

What are you trying to say? If you evidence that this cheap Nikon (and I say that as a matter of fact, not as an opinion) is better than more expensive ones then print your comparison results. If you can't do that then be quiet.

Strangely enough Nikon bring out cheaper versions of cameras for those that either cannot afford the more expensive one or don't need better quality. If you know something about their marjketing that turns strategy this upside down, then do let us know what it is!!!
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
David do you write politicians speeches in your spare time. Your ambiguousness is superb!
jules
David Lal said:
.. He was referring to the devices, not necessarily to the images
they produce. Although the resultant images may be
indistinguishable there could be considerable differences in the
ease or flexibility with which they were obtained.

Cheers
David
Click to expand...
ion.
 
JulesJ said:
cmvsn, (don't you have a treal name?).
I respect and honour the opinions of John Hensall a long time
digital camera journalist. I read his reviews and comparisons of
the D70 compared to the D50 and saw his test pictures. He uses
exactly the same location and subject (a house) in all his camera
tests and shoots them in as near as the same light as possible,
using the same ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc etc. the results
are printed there for you te see and I have no reason why on earth
he should doctor these results.
He did this for the D70 and D50 when the D50 came out. he commented
on the not so clera result of the D50 and they were printed therer
for all to see (I believe it was The photagrapher magazine, a well
respected mag in the UK).
What are you trying to say? If you evidence that this cheap Nikon
(and I say that as a matter of fact, not as an opinion) is better
than more expensive ones then print your comparison results. If you
can't do that then be quiet.
Strangely enough Nikon bring out cheaper versions of cameras for
those that either cannot afford the more expensive one or don't
need better quality. If you know something about their marjketing
that turns strategy this upside down, then do let us know what it
is!!!
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
Click to expand...
I own neither camera, but have used both. Clearly the D200 has a number of areas it better at, AF, speed, build, Viewfinder, 5FPS, in a class of its own, I like it a lot...nice controls too.

The D50 is a superbudget DSLR, but capable...and not bad in itself..

In terms of image quality you get the advantage at low ISO with the D200, but it has to be said (and no point denying it..., that the D50 clearly is significantly better at high ISO, noise is greatly reducted, and more usable IMHO...

So there ya go a non nikon owners view...

D200 is superb...but I think it could, and should do better at higher ISO levels. How much of an issue this is..depends on users needs. You cant have 10mp and not give up something.

--

 
Nice essay but you didn't tell me anything i didn't know.....nor did you back up your ealrlier statements.

I'm sorry that you don't like the way I express things but since I am obviously banging my head on a brick wall I'll refrain from continuing this somewhat pointless discussion and leave you to using your broken D50 in a ditch or whatever.

I'll just get on with making a living using the D2x and having fun with my D70 on holidays. (I don't own a D50, why would I need one?)

Jules
Grevture said:
Jules way of expressing his opinions leave a lot to be desired. But
his basic assumption is a correct one.

Like I argued earlier in this thread, image quality is the result
of many, many small and large factors. The sensor itself, and the
data processing that is done after capturing an image play a big
role. But there is more to the equation then that. Way, way more.

When I shoot sport I mainly rely on timing. But occasionally, you
just have no clue what is going to happen next, or exactly when.
Then your only option is to fire of a burst of images and just hope
to get whatever interesting moment that fly by. Try that shooting
raw with a D50 (or a D70 for that matter). You get four images,
then the camera locks up for several crucial seconds while writing
to the card. And that is when the goalkeeper make that amazing
save. Or the outfielder does an insanely great catch. With a D200
(or the D2H that I use) I can fire of long (5-10 images) bursts at
5 (or 8) fps. Re-aim, fire of another similar burst, and basically
keep doing that until the action has stopped.

When you work with photography, you live with your camera. It is
always with you. In rain, in snow, when taking a fall down a ditch.
Put a 300/f2.8 on a D50 and make a nose dive to the ground. You
will very likely break the lens mount, because the D50 (or D70 and
D80) lens mounts are not built to take such abuse with a five pound
lens mounted. The D200, D2H(s) and D2X(s) are built to take just
that and continue working. How good is the IQ on a camera with a
broken (or semi-broken) lens mount?

Or, after a maybe a hundred thousand of accutations, the shutter on
a D50 (or D70) will probably become very irratic and unreliable. On
a pro model will happily click on for years to come. How good is
IQ when the shutter does not work properly?

But let's focus on pure image quality for a moment. You seriously
think there is no advantage at all having 10 megapixels? Ok, I know
a lot of people over estimate the importance of megapixels (as a
D2H owner I am fairly used to discuss that issue :-). But again,
occasionally you get a really good image -- but with a wide angle
lens on, when a longer lens would have been the best option. With
10 (or 12) megapixels you can do a lot more cropping and still have
image resolution to play with. The difference is maybe not huge,
but it sure is there.

Or let's look at the very, very good image processing the D50 does
when shooting jpeg. That is great. But it does mean you leave a lot
of your post processing desicions to some unknown Nikon engineer.
And people that live of their camera tend to want to make those
desicions themselves. You want control. You want to get the image
data as unprocessed as possible out of the camera and do things
your way. The D50 has som great built-in image processing, but that
is of little value for someone that want to stay in control of the
workflow.

Or take a simple thing as working with manual exposure (yes, a lot
of people still do that, with good results) -- that's when the
D70/D80 shine over a D50 wth the extra command wheel. A simple
thing like being able to quickly adjust both aperture and shutter
without extra fiddling around is a big benefit in many situations.
Again, it is about that extra option some people want and/or need.
It cost a little extra, but in the end it is a way to get the image
quailty you want.

Sp the D70 have some slight advantages over the D50 in terms of
working manually, and some actually people prefer they way its
handles image data lifted from the sensor compared to how the D50
does it. The D80 adds more pixels to that. The pro cameras is
litteraly in another league: They add durability, pure speed,
faster handling (more buttons, less menu fiddling), more accurate
(even in dim light) AF, more choices in terms of image processing
and lots, lots more.

So the D50 sucks then? No, it is a great camera -- if you use it
the way a D50 is intended to be used. It is not built for pro use.
It is not intended for those of us that shoot mostly manual mode.
But from what I have seen it is (together with the D2Hs) the best
noise performer at high ISO in the Nikon crowd. It has an excellent
jpeg processing (I hope the D80 gets a piece of that), and it is
hard to beat for image quality/dollar value. But to argue it gives
the best image quality over all ... Get real :-)
Click to expand...
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
JulesJ said:
cmvsn, (don't you have a treal name?).
Click to expand...
Nope...thats it. CMVSM. It gave teachers a heck of a time!
JulesJ said:
I respect and honour the opinions of John Hensall a long time
digital camera journalist. I read his reviews and comparisons of
the D70 compared to the D50 and saw his test pictures. He uses
exactly the same location and subject (a house) in all his camera
tests and shoots them in as near as the same light as possible,
using the same ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc etc. the results
are printed there for you te see and I have no reason why on earth
he should doctor these results.
He did this for the D70 and D50 when the D50 came out. he commented
on the not so clera result of the D50 and they were printed therer
for all to see (I believe it was The photagrapher magazine, a well
respected mag in the UK).
Click to expand...
Basing an entire opinion on one man's findings, no matter what the calibre, is a bit shallow don't you think?
JulesJ said:
What are you trying to say?
Click to expand...
What I'm saying in case you haven't gotten it quite yet is that image quality in these cameras straight out of the shoot is very good on just about every level. So much so that in typical viewing, no one could consistently pick out a D70 image from a D2X for example. The D50 is no different. Chris Hartman's modeling work with his D70 is case and point. Now, what you do with the image afterwards is another story. If large prints or cropping is your bag, then perhaps you need a higher resolving camera like a D2X. If you need the additional features for ease of use, then maybe you need to spend more. Remember Ansel Adams had none of this and took incredible shots. As technology advances, and in terms of DSLR's, its quite fast, you will see the price points catching up with quality. Computers are a perfect example. A $300 computer system can easily do the work of a $2000 system. It may not be as fast and it may be more of a hassel to use, but the end result will be the same.

As I said before, your posts make it sound like that when viewing a D50, D70, D200, or D2X image, you should easily be able to tell the differences due to the price points and quality of the cameras. This is entirely untrue and feel free to prove that point.

--
http://cmvsm.zoto.com/galleries/favorites6227
 
JulesJ said:
I'll just get on with making a living using the D2x and having fun
with my D70 on holidays. (I don't own a D50, why would I need one?)
Click to expand...
Hey Jules,

Would you be so kind and show us your beautiful D2X images?

Photography - it's not the expensive camera... It's who behind it...

And - BTW - if you don't own D50 - you can't really say anythong about it... I bought it especially for my 70-200VR as a secondary to D200+17-55/F2.8 for weddings and IMHO - it's the best nikon for low light shooting.

Thanks,
Grig
--
Real photography - it's just the ability to see what was already created by God!
http://www.pbase.com/grig
 
.. There I was, thinking I was springing to your defence - or was I ?!

To be less ambiguous, as I mentioned in my previous contribution to this discussion, I'd like a D200 and they are more affordable now than they were. The lure, of course, is better image quality but also ease of use for me . I do a lot of manually focussed macro so any Nikon with a better viewfinder than my D70 is attractive. I also use multiple flash - so any Nikon which is better than the flash-crippled D50, for me is certainly a better performer. Then again, a few more megapixels does not hurt either and I like all the controls easily accessible externally on the body - not buried in an LCD menu somewhere. Agreed, it is possible to end up with more or less identical images regardless of which Nikon is used to get them but the ease or difficulty of the path can be very different - hence my comment.

Cheers
David
JulesJ said:
David Lal said:
.. He was referring to the devices, not necessarily to the images
they produce. Although the resultant images may be
indistinguishable there could be considerable differences in the
ease or flexibility with which they were obtained.

Cheers
David
Click to expand...
ion.
Click to expand...
 
Stick to commenting on my first two paragraphs then.
jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
Grig said:
Photography - it's not the expensive camera... It's who behind it...
Click to expand...
I'd differ on that opinion. The camera is really responsible for a part of it too. Or else we'd all be buying the same one model. That's why there's a distinction between consumer, prosumer and professional cameras. Of course you can give a D2X to a noob and you'll get mediocre snapshots, but you get what I mean.

--

'Life is not measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many moments that take your breath away.' - A friend
 
Grig, I'd be happy to but you are not contactable from this forum because your email is hidden. if you contact me I will send you a link where you can see our work.
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
You are probably right Barry. We shoot 100% in the studio and don't need or use high ISOs. It's horses for courses, so the noise problem is not a problem for us whatever camera. But having said that, we got grain with high ISO films and lived with it, I actually liked it. Unfortunately now, judging by these forums, pictures (I use that word instead of photographs) are judged not by their content but by their technicalities. It's a sad leap that these ever "better" cameras give some.
jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
JulesJ said:
Grig, I'd be happy to but you are not contactable from this forum
because your email is hidden. if you contact me I will send you a
link where you can see our work.
Click to expand...
Jules,

I found your web site by looking at your previous posts. Great shots!!!

Thanks,
Grig.
--
Real photography - it's just the ability to see what was already created by God!
http://www.pbase.com/grig
 
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