Reading mode: Light Dark

5D/D200 can o' worms... :)

Go to last post
First of all, never use sharpening at that big a radius in PS! Try one of the lab sharpening actions like the Lonestar lab sharpening...available free on his site...no halos. I usually sharpen in lab, only the lightness channel at about

100 .4 0 and get great files suitable for really large prints. For my special images, I sharpen once moderately in 16 bit tiff mode and then again for my final print size in 8 bit. This file is from a 1Ds...but you will see what I mean in terms of detail:

http://www.pbase.com/echelonphoto/image/40304779/original

the resulting 20x30 print looks good even at 3" viewing and really looks like it was taken with a 4x5 camera.
--
Andy C
 
Qwntm said:
Kabe Luna said:
That in itself will account for some difference in quality as
you've left the color information of the D200 file, theoretically,
intact. And which the gross amounts of sharpening you've applied,
it could very well make a significant difference.
Click to expand...
How? All I did in DPP (and capture) was turn the sharpening off.
All the other info should process in the conversion just like in
capture.
Click to expand...
...leaving less of a distinction between "them that can and them that can't." You said yourself something to the effect of after sharpening (both?) the 5D file didn't seem to contain more detail.
Qwntm said:
Qwntm said:
Qwntm said:
Qwntm said:
if possible - use a single converter for both files
Click to expand...
I disagree. The Canon software should be optimal for Canon and the
Nikon software should be optimal for Nikon. I think you should
elimnate the possibility that a 3rd party software may favor one
RAW file over another.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's just silly. Honda's stock fuel injection system isn't the best that can be fitted to a Honda. BMW's standard wheels aren't necessarily the best that can be put on a BMW. Better lenses than Canon's can be fitted to a Canon and produce superior results. Canon's software is a best compromise, as is much OEM gear. There's always a third-party alternative that gives higher performance in a single or many many regards. And this makes sense, because Canon isn't by any stretch of the imagination a software company. Why would you expect them to be capable of producing superior software?
Qwntm said:
Qwntm said:
Not even close to being true. Canon's software gives superior color
accuracy, but by no stretch of the imagination does it always yield
optimum luminance data processing. In particular, if there is any
CA in the image, things can go sideways with DPP very quickly,
resulting in not-so-attractive blooming-type artifacts. ACR,
Lightroom and Aperture are all, generally, superior in this regard.
Likewise, while the various incarnations of Nikon Capture generally
give the best conversions of well-exposed NEF files, there are
myriad third party converters out there that do a better job of
suppressing noise, dealing with highlight recovery, rendering
smoother tonality, etc.
Click to expand...
The idea that Canon does not provide software for optimal raw
processing of their own files seems weird. Not that I am
disagreeing with you, but jeez if they can't get it best, that's
just odd.
Qwntm said:
If you want to have a meaningful evaluation of the resolving
capabilities of either camera, you need to standardize the RAW
processor.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I would like to use the BEST raw processor for each
type of file. It's what I would do if I actually had to shoot with
each camera, and I'm interested in the practical application of the
cameras, not the theoretical.

--
Edward
http://www.wildlightgallery.net
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
 
TOF guy said:
more will come. Don't you dare compare the godly Canon 5D to the
insignificant Nikon D200.
Click to expand...
Why that stupied comment ?, Do you think that anyone have that opinion ?

If I thought Nikon only produced cr@p, I wouldn't be here.

I'm very interested in what Nikon produce, since I've not settled on a system yet.

Unfortunate I don't think Nikon will ship a D200 (or D80 !) type of camera with 36x24mm sensor any time soon. Nikon will probably upgrade the D2x type of cameras first. Hopefully both at same time then ... :-)

--
Henrik
 
So, the detail isn't a world apart from FF 5d to APS D200.

Now take the same shot in a dim room at ISO3200 ;) The megapixel myth has been largely busted for MOST applications once you hit 8-12MP. Certain people have certain special requirements but the majority do not.

Sure X is nice and Y is better, but until I see fantastic images that are noticably more fantastic than other fantastic images, coming from only one camera... I don't think I'll be jumping anywhere.

Truth is that, arguably, the camera you use is only a fraction of the photograph.

Easy for me to throw fuel on the fire, I shoot with a Fuji S2! :D
 
Qwntm said:
This thread was more of a "hey, this is interesting, not sure what
to make of it" kind of post. And the discussion has been
interesting.
Click to expand...
I did a lot of pixel peeping when I was deciding on the D200 and I looked very carefully at the comparisons to the 5D, too. I didn't find any big differencies - and certainly not enough to justify the leap in cost...

Umm.. Did I have a point, here.. Err.. No. :D

PS: I ended up with a D80 :)

--
regards
Janne Mankila, Finland

26.1.2007: One of the most beautiful sunsets I've seen in a while:
http://jannemankila.googlepages.com
 
Steven Noyes said:
Qwntm said:
No offense Steve, I know you are very pro Canon.
Click to expand...
And likewise, you are very anti-Canon/pro-Nikon as seen here that
you see the D200 crop as having almost no halos:-)
Click to expand...
Never said I didn't see halos, just that the Canon image had worse halo-ing.
Steven Noyes said:
Steven Noyes said:
At 100% maybe, but at native size the comparison is valid IMHO.
Click to expand...
If you are going to pixel-peep, you have to at least do it right.
You don't make 15% errors and announce a "winner".
Click to expand...
Never announced a winner. Just thought the results were interesting.
Steven Noyes said:
Steven Noyes said:
Even at 100%, 3MP should make them equal, not make the Nikon look
better.
Click to expand...
It doesn't? It is way way over sharpened with about 20% more over
and under shoot. It boils down to different PP and there is
substantially more sharpening applied in the D200 process.
Click to expand...
No there isn't. The PP-ing was exactly the same for both image, after the manufacturers propritary conversion.
Steven Noyes said:
Steven Noyes said:
The bottom line for me, based on my personal testing, is that both
cameras are EXCELLENT and that PP skills and solid technique far
outweigh any differences in equiptment when it comes to these two
cameras.
Click to expand...
On that I agree. Personally, I will take the handling/system of
the Canon's (yes I have used Nikon and moved from them when going
digital). IQ is mostly a wash between all the DSLRs and it boils
down to MP. They are all about the same and the more you have, the
more detail you get.
Click to expand...
On handling, I used 20D's in 2005 for 40,000 images worth at weddings. I have a list of about 50 items that I basically can't stand about the handling of those cameras. Poor ergonomics for sure.

On the d200, which I've used in 2006, there are about 3 things I'd change, and a list of about 50 things that I think are just excellent design. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and I respect yours, but you are one of the few people who say they actually prefer Canon ergos over Nikons, at least from all that I've read on the subject.

--
Edward
http://www.wildlightgallery.net
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm
 
Marco Birri said:
Well I would never have thought a FF viewfinder could be so
attractive.

In all honesty, that and the shallower depth of field are the only
two characteristics of full frame that would get me to buy (not
switch) a 5D and a few lenses.

I'll never part with my 17-35 AF-S though... that lens is a marvel.
And since I got the D200 and used it with, I decided that nothing
in the world would make me switch (except for a Nikon leaving DSLR
type of thing.)

Blah blah off. Quality wise, I've worked with the D200, I've worked
with the 5D... I still can't distinguish them unless I look at the
exif or pixel size of some other info. The image itself is the same.
Click to expand...
I found the 5D finder to be bigger, have less eye relief and to be dimmer.

Having said that, in switching back and forth while shooting I didn't really notice one being superior to the other. I concluded it's a non factor, both viewfinders are equally usable, and equally pleasurable to use. (Not like the D70 finder which is not so much fun to use. :) )

--
Edward
http://www.wildlightgallery.net
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm
 
wilkman said:
Why go there...

I think you're going to find more and more enthusiasts begin to
experiment with, and use, multiple brands. People with eyes and
ears will learn something and find equipment that best suits their
shooting tasks. Others, with their bias, will keep telling those
of us who experiment that we're full of ....

best, mark
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have tested the Canon unless I was interested. I really couldn't care less what name is on the front of my camera as long as it's doing what I want it to do at a price I want to pay.

My testing proved to me that I'm good to go where I'm at, and that was worth my time. Too bad some of the people that have an emotional investment in thier gear aren't happy with that... :)

--
Edward
http://www.wildlightgallery.net
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm
 
Led566 said:
Slough said:
Led566 said:
Greg Terzian said:
Your post is not only useless, but baseless as well.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't be SO sure...
Just compare the Imatest for the 2 cameras in
http://www.imaging-resource.com , where they test the MTF of the sensor,
and you'll discover something very interesting.
Click to expand...
Care to give the link? I can't find the article you refer to.
Click to expand...
Compare 5D Imatest here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D/E5DIMATEST.HTM

with D200 Imatest here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D200/D200IMATEST.HTM

And the summarize: "...Bottom line, the D200 captures excellent
detail, really making the most of its 10.2 megapixel sensor. This
was borne out by our own playing about with the D200's images in
the lab: Careful sharpening in Photoshop produced images that held
up remarkably well, even at sizes as large as 20x30, showing plenty
of detail and virtually zero artifacts."
Click to expand...
I just had the time to read through all that. It is VERY interesting. Kind of explains what I'm seeing. Thanks!

--
Edward
http://www.wildlightgallery.net
http://www.pbase.com/qwntm
 
I wouldn't recommend anyone make a decision based on what you've posted.

I have the 5D along with the 24-70 2.8 L ("the pig"). I shoot in raw with zero sharpening and at the most apply these parameters to my Photoshop USM:

100, 1, 0

The results impress me.

Haven't had a lot of time with the D200, but there have been many comparisons which point out the strengths and weaknesses of each camera.

I would refer those confounded by the D200 and 5D choice to look here:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-.htm

And you'll probably still be confounded.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA

I should probably take more photographs instead of hanging around here posting.

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
The one thing I would change in the D200 is the poor sensor. I think the D200 with the fuji sensor will make a killer wedding camera and bring the D200 to an all new level. I will now have the best of both worlds, the Nikon body and the Fuji sensor.

I am first on the list!!
 
You are trying to fit a square toy into the round slot.

Most dSLRs need a lot of sharpening when shot RAW and converted with zero sharpening. The 5D has a different sensor filter which require LESS sharpening to be applied to get a good looking sharp picture. I throughly enjoy not having to apply so much sharpening to my pictures.

If you over sharpening an image, of course it won't look as sharp as a properly sharpened image. This is what you are doing to your 5D picture - applying the same amount of sharpening to your d200 shot as your 5D and hence over sharpening the 5D shot.

If you are not seeing additional resolution with the 13MP 5D you must be comparing apples to oranges. If you fill your frame, in the field, with the same view with a 5D and a d200 the 5D will obviously have more resolution.

Also I don't apply anywhere near USM of 500 amount radius 1 to 5D shots. I do convert RAW with zero sharpening and then it's usually 0.3, 330,1 USM settings.

This is the thing about "trying out" a different model camera for a day or a weekend. You don't really get to understand the camera or how its files may need to be processed differently from what you are used to. Once you learn and understand whichever camera you have, you're much better off than when you first picked it up. :)
 
There is a different field of view, but "somehow" the rock in the 100% crop is the SAME size for each camera. How can that be?

Something is wrong here. You may be mistaking resolution to DOF as with a d200 you are cropping the center of what your lens sees which means you are likely taking the area most in the DOF if focusing on what's in the center of the frame.

If you had the same FOV for each camera, the rock in the 100% crop would be bigger in the 5D shot, but the rocks are equal size.

Try properly sharpening each image from each camera to suit the picture's needs. You are obviously over sharpening both pictures. Apply what is needed for each brand independently, don't apply a blanket setting.

Did you have the same appeture and ISO for the 5D and d200 shot? If your appeture was different between the camera that will affect DOF and apperance of "resolution".
 
Qwntm said:
Mi_Ri said:
this comparison is not very good
if you are going to pixelpeep do it the right way - the 5d image is
overdeveloped
Click to expand...
Thats the point, both images were developed equally. The 5D image
couldn't handle it, thus was less resilient.
Click to expand...
Wow, what a load of bull. What are you talking about "resilient"? Different sensors, with different filters! Process each image SEPARATELY for the best method each picture requires!

So when you buy your wife a silk dress, you wash it with your bath towels and dry them both on hot? That would make your wife's silk dress no good because it is not resilient and therefore of no use to you. Each fabric must be washed and treated differently. Or maybe your towels and toilet paper are made of silk, because your "review" of the 5D vs.d200 is most useful for toilet paper.
Qwntm said:
Qwntm said:
use the right lenses!
Click to expand...
Like what? I think the 17-55DX nikkor vs. the 24-70 L Canon is a
logical comaprison. I'm interested in real world applications and
testing what I'd use in liue of one for the other if I were to use
one brand over the other.
Click to expand...
No. He meant if you are using 70mm on the 5D, use 47mm focal length on your d200 to get the same FOV.

And really to get the same DOF, you'll have to use a wider appeture with your nikon since you are really cropping the center of what the lens is seeing. I believe you'll have to use 1 full stop wider to equal the DOF on a FF camera. :)
 
..you have no practical experience and knowledge of the 5D sensor and filter. Ask any user that came up from a 1.6x Canon dSLR to a 5D and they will tell you what I have told you. Thanks.
 
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