Reading mode: Light Dark

Does the D200 really outperform the D50?

Go to last post
cmvsm said:
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
Click to expand...
Good, now there's an explanation, Macdonalds are good, so is caviar!

on just about every level. So much so that in typical
cmvsm said:
viewing, no one could consistently pick out a D70 image from a D2X
for example.
Click to expand...
Do you want to bet???? I've just printed a 12x8" taken on my D70 on holiday at top res, it's already breaking up. That would not happen with the D2x and size IS very importand to us. 10x8 is the SMALLEST print that we sell. You seem to be saying all these cameras are the same...and are also different. I really don't get what you are on about. We all buy the camera we need (or don't need but can afford going by some people on this forum).

WE need as many pixels as we can get. That is why the D70 is better than the D50 and the D2x is better thab the D200 which is in turn better than the D70.

I know you don't want to categories these cameras and keep bringing in different aspects of certain models and why you like them but we all KNOW that.

I'll say it again and again that with these four cameras you get what you pay for.

As for going by one review. Yes I respect John Hensall and have met him on more than one occasion and he knows what he is talking about. The quality, whether you like it or not of the D50 is the worst of the four (forget photgraphing at ISO 32200 in the middle of the night). That to me says a lot. I understand the noise problem but I don't think this causes the D70 to leapfrog it's bigger brother.
Jules

The D50 is no different. Chris Hartman's modeling
cmvsm said:
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
Click to expand...
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
Thanks Greg. They are my wife's pictures so I cannot take the praise. I do the PS and printing side of the business. But we met thirtyfive years ago at photography colege and have been together ever since, so it's a joint business.
jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
JulesJ wrote:
[snip]
JulesJ said:
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...
[snip]

Wow. Seems you missed the entire point. And seems someone is a little touchy about needing to be better... Plus, when you say the word "better", you clearly don't consider all the factors (price in particular). Please refrain from ignorant comments... It really doesn't help out anyone.

I find it somewhat interesting that you could blindly say that the image quality of a D70 or D200 is better than a D50.

Let's put this in perspective. The D70/D70s have a greater feature set than a D50. So does the D200. But let's not confuse more features with better image quality. There are certian instances where image quality is improved by a greater feature set, but not always.

According to the review on this site (as well as others), it does appear that the D50 handles noise better at higher ISO settings than the D70. It also appears that the D200 gives more detail.

Herin lies the problem. What I may consider "better" image quality, another might not. It's very subjective. Therefore, I don't think it's clear that the D200 creates better images. I think what we can all agree on is that the D200 has more features which many would state allow them to create better images.

For me (and this really doesn't matter), the price of the D200 was too much more than the D50 to justify the extra features (many of which I don't need). Between the D50 and the D70s, I found the images to be very similar and in some cases, I prefer the look of the D50 images over the D70s. Therefore, for me, the features and the upgrade was not worth the price point.

What really annoys me that that people just assume that the D200 is a much better camera. Sure, it has more features. But if you put junk lenses on it, or your personal photography skills are not honed, I'm doubting that the D200 could give better images.

Take it with a grain of salt. If you are in the market for a new camera, get what you feel comfortable with and enjoy taking the pictures.
--
As always, just my $0.02.
 
mjwood0 said:
mjwood0 said:
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...
[snip]

Wow. Seems you missed the entire point. And seems someone is a
little touchy about needing to be better... Plus, when you say the
word "better", you clearly don't consider all the factors (price in
particular). Please refrain from ignorant comments... It really
doesn't help out anyone.
Click to expand...
Jules:

Since there appears to be no edit button, I really can't go back and remove this. In viewing the remainder of the posts to this thread, I see where you are coming from and appologize for coming down a little hard here.

I think that what I'm tring to say through all this is that "better" is very subjective to the user. For a skilled professional relying on his / her camera for their livelyhood, I'm sure the decision is much different than someone like me who truely enjoys photography as a hobby.

No hard feelings?

Mark

--
As always, just my $0.02.
 
Did you even bother to read my post before expressing opinions about it?

Hepful hint: I am not one of those arguing that a D50 is the superior Nikon camera :-)
JulesJ said:
Jules
JulesJ 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.
Click to expand...
 
It does not have the widest dynamic range.

I cannot quote where I saw it but the dunamic range was tested on a number of cameras and the Fuji S3 was at the top with the D50 very close behind. The D70s was two stops less. I have the D70s and I know how limited that dynamic range can be.

Fuji velvia slide film also has a very limited dynamic range so in itself limited dynamic range can make for great images but a wider range is for easier shooting and less missed shots.

Looking at my friend's D2x, the dynamic range is not very wide at all the way the camera is set up.
Happy shooting
--
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna
 
Ouch... it almost sounds like someone is a bit touchy about the OFT mentioned, quoted, and even cited through examples data that the D50 does a better job in-camera with jpgs and produces better high-ISO images than the D70 or D70s are capable of.

Why is it that some people take any comments about a camera model they own personally, as if any discussion or criticism of a camera they own is a personal affront on them?

There's more than one person that came to these conclusions, and they were from reputable sources. Need examples? Google it... there are too many to name here.

Once again, it appears that we have a D70 owner that has their undies in a wad because there's a camera out there made by Nikon that can best it in a category or two while being in a relatively similar price range. There are so many better things to do than argue on the Internet (like taking pictures), especially when you're trying to sell something that everyone knows is not true.

--

 
Edge767 said:
Ouch... it almost sounds like someone is a bit touchy about the OFT
mentioned, quoted, and even cited through examples data that the
D50 does a better job in-camera with jpgs and produces better
high-ISO images than the D70 or D70s are capable of.

Why is it that some people take any comments about a camera model
they own personally, as if any discussion or criticism of a camera
they own is a personal affront on them?

There's more than one person that came to these conclusions, and
they were from reputable sources. Need examples? Google it... there
are too many to name here.

Once again, it appears that we have a D70 owner that has their
undies in a wad because there's a camera out there made by Nikon
that can best it in a category or two while being in a relatively
similar price range. There are so many better things to do than
argue on the Internet (like taking pictures), especially when
you're trying to sell something that everyone knows is not true.
Click to expand...
Take a look around the forum. This issue here is the usual one that every time a D70/s is mentioned, you can guarantee that within minutes, some zealous D50 owner is popping away.
"Low noise performance", yada, yada...
"Extra features not needed", yada, yada...

Even when somebody has made their decision and are asking: "Should I buy a D70 or D200?", some D50 owner pops up "Ooh, ooh, What about the D50?"

This is the first thing I noticed about this forum and it makes it a frustrating place to be.

As I say, take a look around the forum. You'll find these arguments are invariably caused by D50 owners being noisy. It seems the D50 does have an problem with noise after all ;-).

Alan.
--
Spam Filter Reviews at: http://www.whichspamfilter.com
 
JulesJ wrote:
skip
JulesJ said:
WE need as many pixels as we can get. That is why the D70 is better
than the D50 and the D2x is better thab the D200 which is in turn
better than the D70.
Click to expand...
skip
JulesJ said:
Jules
Click to expand...
Your facts are wrong. The D50 and the D70 have the same number of pixels.

The D50 has better dynamic range and lower noise at higher ISOs than the D70. The D70 ha a slightly crisper look, probably due to a lighter anti-alias filter. Overall, I would say the D50 image is slightly better than the D70.
JulesJ said:
The D50 is no different. Chris Hartman's modeling
JulesJ said:
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
Click to expand...
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
D50
Nikon 18-200 VR
Canon 500D close-up lens

Photos
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?
 
More pixels is not better image quality. Lower noise and greater dynamic range is a much better standard of quality. The only thing a D2X has over most cameras is absolute speed, responsiveness and the ability to perform whatever you want it to do. That is what the D2x has over the D200 which has that over the D80 which has that over the D70s which has that over the D50 which has that over nearly any point and shoot.

When it comes to low noise, few cameras beat the full frame Canons (due to a great noise reduction engine) and the Fuji S3. Fuji is simply making better CCDs than Sony which is the coveted supplier of the Nikon CCDs.

My friend has a D2x and the dynamic range is not very good at all. He does wildlife and birding so the camera is great for that. His new D200 has noise in the blacks when shooting on a normal sunlit day with normal exposures. No way he can save a slightly underexposed image diue to noise ruining the shadows. There is one good thing about the D200 when it comes to image quality, the noise looks like filmgrain so it is believable and it looks sharp. Also more pixels mean less demand on upsizing compared to 6 MP cameras.

Absolute noise as can be measured is not very good in any of the Nikons but dynamic range is very good for the cheapest of all of them the D50.
Happy shooting.

Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna
 
Alan I think you have a keen grasp of this forum.

The d50 owners seem to have a chip on their shoulders. I don't kow why it is because I'm sure the D50 is a great camera for what it costs.

I've got an Olympus point and shoot that I bought four years ago and it still produces great picture. i don't get upset about the E1 or whatever it was that came out later.

But the trouble is that somebody somewhere finds out that a feature on the cheaper D50 is better than that on it's bigger brother the D70 and they can't let go of this. Considering that the D50 has a couple of year extra research it's not really surprising that something might be better.
But the bottom line is that OVERALL it is an INFERIOR camera to the D70.

That is why it is CHEAPER! At the highest quality level on bothe cameras the image from the D70 is considerably better than that of the D50. Fact.

That is the end of the story really.......
...............well it would be nice if it was wouldn't it????
Jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
The D50 has better dynamic range and lower noise at higher ISOs than the D70. The D70 ha a slightly crisper look, probably due to a lighter anti-alias filter.

Hmmn..slightly crisper look. That's a kind way of describing it. have you tried doing a 20x16 print fromm both cameras. i think you'll find the D50 is a little bit more than 'less crisp.

Jules

How much longer can these D50 owners keep taking this diatribe?
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
Uhhm? And if you put a junk lens on the D50 and your skills are no good what happens? I hate to think.
jules

Keep em coming! This is fun.

What really annoys me that that people just assume that the D200 is a much better camera. Sure, it has more features. But if you put junk lenses on it, or your personal photography skills are not honed, I'm doubting that the D200 could give better images.
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
Mark don't apologise, I enjoy a good discussion.
jules

--
Black holes do not destroy information.
 
That could be interesting. I'm guessing that you'd have similar problems. I guess I think that the majority of photos here that aren't up to snuff have less to do with the camera body and more to do with the body holding the camera...
JulesJ said:
Uhhm? And if you put a junk lens on the D50 and your skills are no
good what happens? I hate to think.
jules

Keep em coming! This is fun.

What really annoys me that that people just assume that the D200 is
a much better camera. Sure, it has more features. But if you put
junk lenses on it, or your personal photography skills are not
honed, I'm doubting that the D200 could give better images.
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
Click to expand...
--
As always, just my $0.02.
 
I'm a D70 owner as well. Hmmm....your logic is flawed. Again, a sound resident of Wonderland Jules? And furthermore, I still never heard back from you regarding your "ability" to choose a D70 image over a D50. I have both...you want to try your luck? I'll be sure to eliminate the exif data for your challenge.
--
http://cmvsm.zoto.com/galleries/favorites6227
 
I have never made 20x16 enlargements from any camera, even when I had my Hasselblad. However, my research on net shows no evidence that the D70 is more capable than the D50 with respect to such big enlargements. The quality of this size enlargement from the D70/50 6MP sensor will depend far more on the skill of the person making the enlargements than any difference due to the anti-alising filters.
JulesJ said:
The D50 has better dynamic range and lower noise at higher ISOs
than the D70. The D70 ha a slightly crisper look, probably due to a
lighter anti-alias filter.

Hmmn..slightly crisper look. That's a kind way of describing it.
have you tried doing a 20x16 print fromm both cameras. i think
you'll find the D50 is a little bit more than 'less crisp.

Jules

How much longer can these D50 owners keep taking this diatribe?
--
Black holes do not destroy information.
Click to expand...
--
Frank B
D50
Nikon 18-200 VR
Canon 500D close-up lens

Photos
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?
 
Jules,

You have this warped perception of reality that objects with a higher price tag are always better; guess that's why marketing is so successful these days. A first rate Measurebator. Your first mistake is that the word "better" is very hard to define, what's better for you is not always better for everyone. Case in point, your much praised D2x. I personally would not own a D2x unless you gave me one, not interested, sorry. High ISO noise is not acceptable and it's a DX camera. In no way would I pay 5 grand for a stinkin' DX camera. Remember, that's my opinion only. In this case, the D200 would be a better camera because it's cheaper and will satisfy 98% of what I'd need until such time as Nikon brings us a FF DSLR at which time, any DX camera I own goes out the window. Good riddance.

Concerning the D50, despite what you proclaim, almost every review of the D50 and D70 rate them very close. If you'd close your trap and read the reviews posted here, and actually look at the images, you'd see that the IQ between these two cameras is essentially the same. Also, the D50 does indeed have a wider dynamic range and has better high ISO noise. Surely this can't be possible, it's a cheaper camera right? Wrong, it's a newer camera with a more advanced image processor. You think Nikon just sits around twiddling their thumbs? Nope, they improved upon the D70's IQ and reduced the price. The D80 may just have better IQ than the D200 when it arrives, so what! Sorry if that's a bitter pill to swallow, but that's life, Suck it up buttercup. Actually, there again, despite the D50's lower noise and higher dynamic range, the D70 is still an excellent camera that will produce excellent images that you or I would be hard pressed to tell from those of a D50, or Rebel XT or D200 etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps you may want to read this, "Why your camera does not matter". Enjoy.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
 
JulesJ said:
The quality, whether you like it or not of the D50 is the
worst of the four (forget photgraphing at ISO 32200 in the middle
of the night). That to me says a lot. I understand the noise
problem but I don't think this causes the D70 to leapfrog it's
bigger brother.
Click to expand...
Again...yawn...I'll repeat my challenge as you so obviously avoid it like the plague. I have images from my D50 and D70...lots of them. I'll bet you a cash challenge that you cannot pick which images are which on a consistent basis. Let's say 10 images. Not too hard right? You seem so hard set on saying that the D70 images are SO vastly different in most every regard than the mere poor old casket of a camera D50, and that anyone who has a brain can pick them from one another.

Well, the time has come. Put your money where your mouth is. Or are you going to quickly back pedal as I'm predicting?

--
http://cmvsm.zoto.com/galleries/favorites6227
 
I swear, if I hear one more person blathering on about the high ISO noise on the D50, I'll scream. WE GET IT! Enough already.

By your own admission, the resultant images are hard to tell apart. WE GET IT!

The D70 has more features, is a higher camera in the range and costs more. WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT?!! And why the hell can't you just live with it?

Again, look around the forum. It's always the D50 people feeling they have to make the noise every single time the D70/s is mentioned.

You guys have no reason to defend your position, or start these ridiculous threads. The D70/s people aren't attacking the D50. Why would they? They have nothing to prove. They have the higher model. They're simply defending against the relentless attack from below that is the hallmark of this forum.

Alan.

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