Anyone Compared Nikon D200 to SD14?

Hello,

This is my first post, I do not want to start a war but just curious if anyone may own both cameras. For anyone that has both the Nikon D200 and SD14 cameras: How does the image quality compare on similiar/same scenes?

I have not compared directly yet, but I will say I was considering getting the D200 earlier last year but the SD-14 cured me of that thought.

It is a very nice camera though. The things that I prefer are the colors on the SD-14, and the sharpness (though the D200 was pretty good in that regard). Also I really like doing some IR photography and I couldn't do that with anon-modified D200.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/user_home

I have a D200 and previously and SD10. I haven't seen or held an SD14 however I've looked at a lot of images from it. From what I can see, I prefer the SD14 shots however from what I've read here the D200 is more suitable in some situations ie. higher FPS, faster buffer clearing. You have decide based on your personal needs as to which aspect is most important to you. Ideally we could have both!

rbrooks25 said:

Hello,

This is my first post, I do not want to start a war but just
curious if anyone may own both cameras. For anyone that has both
the Nikon D200 and SD14 cameras: How does the image quality
compare on similiar/same scenes?

Click to expand...

I suspect when Phil gets around to his SD14 review the D200 will be one of the cameras the SD14 is compared to.

Phil does a pretty bang up job across the board, resolution, dynamic range, noise, etc. It should not be too long now.

Truman
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Thanks for your comments.

The images I've seen here and elsewhere favor the SD14 (to my eyes) and I'm certainly leaning toward the SD14. I am concerned about various bugs of the first copies shipped. I hope a month or two after the initial release, most problems will have been addressed.

I enjoy this group! A lot of good advice, sharing. Way to go!

rbrooks25 said:

Hello,

This is my first post, I do not want to start a war but just
curious if anyone may own both cameras. For anyone that has both
the Nikon D200 and SD14 cameras: How does the image quality
compare on similiar/same scenes?

Click to expand...

Im sure the SD14 will blow the D200 out of the water...
My brother in law has a D200(only bought one cuz he had all this NikonGlass)..
I would like to go shot for shot with my SD10..and see the results.. .

Think I might win??

There was a comparison of a couple shots a few months ago and opinions were divided.

ToasterFlyer said:

rbrooks25 said:

Hello,

This is my first post, I do not want to start a war but just
curious if anyone may own both cameras. For anyone that has both
the Nikon D200 and SD14 cameras: How does the image quality
compare on similiar/same scenes?

Click to expand...

Im sure the SD14 will blow the D200 out of the water...
My brother in law has a D200(only bought one cuz he had all this
NikonGlass)..
I would like to go shot for shot with my SD10..and see the
results.. .

Think I might win??

Click to expand...

ToasterFlyer said:

rbrooks25 said:

Hello,

This is my first post, I do not want to start a war but just
curious if anyone may own both cameras. For anyone that has both
the Nikon D200 and SD14 cameras: How does the image quality
compare on similiar/same scenes?

Click to expand...

Im sure the SD14 will blow the D200 out of the water...

Click to expand...

I have seen some nice images from the d200.

ToasterFlyer said:

My brother in law has a D200(only bought one cuz he had all this
NikonGlass)..

Click to expand...

It is not uncommon for good glass to make a difference when comparing different bodies.

ToasterFlyer said:

I would like to go shot for shot with my SD10..and see the
results.. .

Think I might win??

Click to expand...

You will definitely not win if there is any sort of action that requires fast burst rate and fast AF. Not to mention that there are some very good Nikon lens that have IS (think Nikon calls it VR). Since Nikon seems to be a generation a head of Sigma in this technology, not to mention a big advantage in body features you are starting at a disadvantage for many types of imaging.

But you attitude seems to be your biggest problem.

except image quality. It's faster, it has better high ISO performance, faster focusing system, better metering, better flash system. It has better glass. It's built better. It has superior ergonomics and instantaneous response. It responds better to mixed lighting. What it doesn't have is pixel level sharpness, because AA filter Nikon used in it is stronger than usual.

SD14 has the following advantages IMO (and yes, I do have both):

1. Pixel level sharpness, beautiful rendering of textures and landscapes. You don't have to sharpen your pictures, ever.

2. Colors at ISO 100 in daylight seem "richer", raw files have more adjustment latitude

3. Doesn't really need ultra expensive glass, achieves great results with relatively inexpensive Sigma lenses due to larger photosites and absence of AA filter. $420 18-50mm lens on this camera totally destroys $1200 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom on D200.

4. I like the way dust protection is implemented. Looks like it will be effective.

5. Viewfinder, while smaller than the one in Nikon D200 somehow works much better for manual focus. Things "shimmer" in it when focus is achieved.

I have also found SD14's focus system more accurate (but slower) in good light. Nikon D200's focus sensor strips extend far beyond the areas on the focusing screen and because of this it sometimes focuses where you wouldn't expect. YMMV on this one, some folks on this forum had front/back focus issues with SD14.

That said, using SD14 after D200 could be a rude awakening because there's no denying of its shortcomings. I like them both, and I intend to keep them both. Sigma will be used where extreme sharpness is desirable (landscapes, textures, scenes with lots of saturated, fine color detail), and D200 will be used for action, low light, portraits and situations where instantaneous response is critical.

returned the SD14 - could not live with a $1599 camera that can't compete with those $799.

Im sure phil will agree with the review comes out.

SD14 has its strong points and it more than holds its own in image quality department, particularly for the applications I've enumerated. It's really hard to describe the feeling that one gets when looking at a carefully processed Foveon image. Compared to an image from D200, it's as if Foveon image was taken in a vacuum - it feels like you're "there". D200 always has a bit of a softness/haze that kills the clarity somewhat.

photogeek said:

Compared to an
image from D200, it's as if Foveon image was taken in a vacuum - it
feels like you're "there". D200 always has a bit of a softness/haze
that kills the clarity somewhat.

Click to expand...

How does the D200 image look if you downsize it to 4.7MP and sharpen? Is it still inferior to the SD14 image (at the pixel level)?

Prog.

Photogeek,

Thank you! That has been my take on the two cameras as well. To me, it's always been "the image". When I mention Sigma SD14 to friends who own Nikon (even my wife) or Canon they act like I've lost my mind. What I think would be the best of worlds would be to own both. Just like you, but too expensive for my budget. I wish the D200 (or variant) had the Foveon sensor.

I appreciate your analysis of the D200 images. I couldn't put my finger on the whys, but the SD14 images simply standout (to me). D200 images (although much better) remind me of the images from the D70 I just sold. No matter the PP, I never obtained the image quality I sought. I know, most likely user problems not mastering the tool.

Thanks for your honest and thoughful opinion.

rbrooks25

Photogeek, Excellent summation of the differences between these cameras! I do not own nor have I used either, biut have read hundreds of threads on both and you sum this up well. thanks. PS, I am considering the SD14

rbrooks25 said:

Photogeek,

Thank you! That has been my take on the two cameras as well. To
me, it's always been "the image". When I mention Sigma SD14 to
friends who own Nikon (even my wife) or Canon they act like I've
lost my mind. What I think would be the best of worlds would be to
own both. Just like you, but too expensive for my budget. I wish
the D200 (or variant) had the Foveon sensor.

Click to expand...

Well you are lucky if you think you would have the best of both worlds by having both cameras.

While I dont have the d200 I do have a Canon 1d2, xti, Sigma sd10, sd14, Nikon CP 950, 450, Pany FZ20, and Oly E100rs. They all have their place and each can do something the others cant do.

For instance the Oly can shoot 15 fps (and yea you read that right). While that is a fast burst rate the real selling point as Steve points is

"The unique Pre-Capture mode allows you to capture up to five images BEFORE the shutter is fully pressed and can be combined with the sequence mode. It's also the only camera capable of capturing 640 x 480 resolution QuickTime movies with sound at 30 frames per second."

Link here

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/e100rs.html

It really does not matter how good the image quality is if you dont get the image at the split second you want it.

On the other hand if you have time to set up the shot by verifying the focus, exposure, composition, and all the rest the the IQ from a sd10 or sd14 compares favorably with the best dslr around.

I dont know of any camera that combines all the qualities I want, even any two cameras. While my 1d2 has great AF and burst rate I often use my xti behind a Sigmonster because the 1.6 crop factor gives me that extra reach the 1.3 crop 1d2 lacks.

And I really like the 1.7 crop factor of the sd10/14 for better DOF when I am shooting macros, as well as the great detail I get. And because most of my macro work is done using flash there is no problem shooting at ISO100.

But the FZ20 really shines here because it has even better DOF, a great Leica 12x optical zoom, and is much smaller and lighter than a dslr.

rbrooks25 said:

I appreciate your analysis of the D200 images. I couldn't put my
finger on the whys, but the SD14 images simply standout (to me).
D200 images (although much better) remind me of the images from the
D70 I just sold. No matter the PP, I never obtained the image
quality I sought. I know, most likely user problems not mastering
the tool.

Click to expand...

One thing you need to keep in mind is that IQ from most modern dslrs are very similar if there are no user problems. The classic test is to take 10 images with a d200 and 10 images with a sd14 (with no user problems) and print those 20 images. Then throw the images on a table and see if anyone can correctly identify which images came from which camera. And I suspect if you went to pbase and did a search on d200 you would find some very high quality images, and some very low quality images.

Unless you have very specialized needs it is unlikely getting a new camera will change things very much.

rbrooks25 said:

Thanks for your honest and thoughful opinion.

rbrooks25

Click to expand...

It all depends on what you are looking for. Phil rated the SD10 at about 6 megs when compared to Bayer. I suspect that resolution wise the SD14 and the current 10 meg cameras are about a wash. We'll know soon.

I did a SD9/D200 shoot out some time back. Since I am primarly a B&W guy I concentrated on B&W. What I found was the SD9 fares much better against the D200 in color than it does B&W.

I'm not a big fan of color simply there is too much knee jerk subjectivity in color. Show most people a stunning image the first thing you hear is "the red is a little off." Show them the same photograph in B&W some will say "it would have looked better in color " many will recogonize that it was a stunning phtotograph. Adam's "Moonrise", Lang's "Migrant Mother" and Weston's "Pepper" would all suffer from being done in color.

One mans "natural color" is another man's "washed out colors": one man's "natural vibrant color" is another man's "unnatural color" - none of the terms having any technical merit nor meaning except to the men involved. The SD9 truns out to be a much better color camera than B&W camera.

That being said I through editing I could get the colors from both cameras the same. I even managed to match the funky red and over saturated blue that the SD9 sometimes produces and over saturated with the D200 and NX.

As far as color the D200 produced a lot more consistent colors and the colors that didnt' shift with under/over exposure in a reasonable + - one to two stops. Hence you could if you wanted develope a standard workflow to get the type of color you wanted out of a D200 and you would get consistent resutls 99% of the time. That was not true with the SD9.

The SD9 color was very dependent on correct exposure. Even as little as + - one stop can make a big difference in the blues and reds. Across the board unless you were extremely accurrate with you exposure I suspect it would be difficult to come up with a batch work flow that gave you anwhere near the consistency I saw with the D200.

That was what I found by comparing the SD9 and D200. All shots were outdoors in good lighting with both cameras set at ISO 100 (actually 125 for the D200).

Like anything - it all depends what you want.

Truman

ToasterFlyer said:

Im sure the SD14 will blow the D200 out of the water...
My brother in law has a D200(only bought one cuz he had all this
NikonGlass)..
I would like to go shot for shot with my SD10..and see the
results.. .

Think I might win??

Click to expand...

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Truman Prevatt said:

SNIP

The SD9 color was very dependent on correct exposure.

Click to expand...

How true that is. While it seems obvious this is something lots of folks forget. I have found when shooting macro flash or when I really nail the exposure with my sd10 (and limited experience with my sd14) very little postprocessing is needed.

IMHO a Foveon sensor is more sensitive to small changes in light temp (read WB) than a Bayer sensor. As a result you need to be more careful with the exposure with a Foveon sensored camera than a Bayer sensor camera or you can wind up needing a lot of effort to WB.

Tom Rowland said:

Tom Rowland said:

The classic test is to take 10 images with a d200 and 10 images with a sd14 (with no user problems) and print those 20 images. Then throw the images on a table and see if anyone can correctly identify which images came from which camera.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's actually not the classic test. The classic test is to do what you said and then ask the viewer to put the prints together if they think they look identical and can't be told apart. And then to set them side by side if they think they are different. Everything will be put side by side, because none of the cameras product identical prints. Are the differences so great that you should buy one camera over the other? That's for each person to decide. But it's simply wrong to say cameras produce identical images. They don't. Two or three times a year for the past several years I've printed identical test photos from this web site and imaging-resource for friends and relatives who want to evaluate prints of various cameras. In no case has anyone ever told me that couldn't tell the difference between photos.

Sure you did.

Truman Prevatt wrote:
.....

Truman Prevatt said:

I'm not a big fan of color simply there is too much knee jerk
subjectivity in color. Show most people a stunning image the first
thing you hear is "the red is a little off." Show them the same
photograph in B&W some will say "it would have looked better in
color " many will recogonize that it was a stunning phtotograph.
Adam's "Moonrise", Lang's "Migrant Mother" and Weston's "Pepper"
would all suffer from being done in color.

One mans "natural color" is another man's "washed out colors": one
man's "natural vibrant color" is another man's "unnatural color" -
none of the terms having any technical merit nor meaning except to
the men involved. The SD9 truns out to be a much better color
camera than B&W camera

Click to expand...

......

I so completely agree that color is very subjective. I've posted a few 'rants' about how in general people are becoming accustomed to psychodelic bright, popped up exaggerated color. I just took some JPEGs out the window with my SD14, now on flickr.com .... some folks will say 'ick, they're yellowy-green..." but the color WAS yellowy-green. You can see about 3 different tonalities in the snow, depending upon light and shadow. A few minutes later I photographed the same scenes with a Pentax DSLR, granted the light had shifted in a few minutes, but overall the Pentax JPEGs were MAGENTA toned. I'm convinced without knowing the technical points how they do it, that various other cameras manufacturers have built-in tonality algorithims or processing built-in, slanted say to magenta, because that's what people like... In that sense, I really do think the Sigma's are more true-to-natural color.

The new JPEG modes in SD14 I think have some color, saturation, etc options included in-cam. I haven't shot much on JPEG or tried those yet.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (most of my SD14s at present)