Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Started Jun 2, 2007 | Discussions
egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Hi!

I'm going to purchase a new camera and have been looking into D200, D80 as well as EOS 400D (sadly, there is no 10 mpix successor to 20D/30D yet).

When looking at noise levels in pictures from the cameras, the difference between 400D and D200 was really large at ISO1600. D200 exhibits much more noise. D80 is, however, not that much noisier than 400D. The level of detail doesn't differ much between d80 and 400d either. On the other hand, detailt seems to be lost on D200 at iso1600 compared to 400D.

The strange thing is that D200 and D80 have nearly the same sensor, yet the noise levels differ substantially.
Why?

If it is because of different noise reduction algortithms in D200 and D80 I just don't understand why the much more expensive and in all pretty much all aspects better D200 have a noise reduction algoritm that is much worse? Why doesn't Nikon upgrade the noise reduction algoritm in D200 to the better D80 variant?

As this is strange, I'm beginning to wonder if it is something else that makes it impossible for Nikon to reach the same low noise levels in D200 as in D80. Maybe the sensors differ more than just the number of read out lines? Maybe there is some sort of noise reduction signal processing in D80 before the AD-converter?

Comments!

David Grabowski Veteran Member • Posts: 7,291
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

Have you checked RAW files ? Often the later and greater camera has better jpeg control ( the D80 is a bit later body than the D200), thus as you say maybe better noise reduction etc. Also even using RAW the process can make quite a difference as is obvious even at the D100 platform with Jpeg vs RAW and then again RAW with various processes applied.

I can't speak for the Canon camp but be assured they have their own issues !!

David

egrc wrote:

Hi!

I'm going to purchase a new camera and have been looking into D200,
D80 as well as EOS 400D (sadly, there is no 10 mpix successor to
20D/30D yet).

When looking at noise levels in pictures from the cameras, the
difference between 400D and D200 was really large at ISO1600. D200
exhibits much more noise. D80 is, however, not that much noisier
than 400D. The level of detail doesn't differ much between d80 and
400d either. On the other hand, detailt seems to be lost on D200 at
iso1600 compared to 400D.
The strange thing is that D200 and D80 have nearly the same sensor,
yet the noise levels differ substantially.
Why?
If it is because of different noise reduction algortithms in D200
and D80 I just don't understand why the much more expensive and in
all pretty much all aspects better D200 have a noise reduction
algoritm that is much worse? Why doesn't Nikon upgrade the noise
reduction algoritm in D200 to the better D80 variant?
As this is strange, I'm beginning to wonder if it is something else
that makes it impossible for Nikon to reach the same low noise
levels in D200 as in D80. Maybe the sensors differ more than just
the number of read out lines? Maybe there is some sort of noise
reduction signal processing in D80 before the AD-converter?

Comments!

Yves P. Forum Pro • Posts: 18,664
Great First post ...

It is not actually noisier ...

egrc wrote:

Hi!

I'm going to purchase a new camera and have been looking into D200,
D80 as well as EOS 400D (sadly, there is no 10 mpix successor to
20D/30D yet).

When looking at noise levels in pictures from the cameras, the
difference between 400D and D200 was really large at ISO1600. D200
exhibits much more noise. D80 is, however, not that much noisier
than 400D. The level of detail doesn't differ much between d80 and
400d either. On the other hand, detailt seems to be lost on D200 at
iso1600 compared to 400D.
The strange thing is that D200 and D80 have nearly the same sensor,
yet the noise levels differ substantially.
Why?
If it is because of different noise reduction algortithms in D200
and D80 I just don't understand why the much more expensive and in
all pretty much all aspects better D200 have a noise reduction
algoritm that is much worse? Why doesn't Nikon upgrade the noise
reduction algoritm in D200 to the better D80 variant?
As this is strange, I'm beginning to wonder if it is something else
that makes it impossible for Nikon to reach the same low noise
levels in D200 as in D80. Maybe the sensors differ more than just
the number of read out lines? Maybe there is some sort of noise
reduction signal processing in D80 before the AD-converter?

Comments!

-- hide signature --

Yves P.
Share the Knowledge

PBASE Supporter

Some pictures I like:
http://www.pbase.com/yp8/root

 Yves P.'s gear list:Yves P.'s gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Apple iPhone 8 Plus
OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Great First post ...

That would certainly be good, but in the pictures I've seen it looks like D200 is noisier than D80. I'm not talkning about raw here, but jpegs. To me it seems that at the same level of noise D80 retains more detail than D200. D80 thus seems to have a better noise reduction algorithm than D200.
Maybe I'm wrong but it would be nice to se some pictures that proves it.

erik

LilKnytt Veteran Member • Posts: 7,213
AS a Swede.......... Re: Great First post ...

Erik,

as a Swede I have to tell you. Careful with such statements. As far as I understand the D80 is more of a consumer camera while the D200 is more of a serious amateur to pro camera. The D80 would therefore be geared towards people with less interest in PP. While the D200 loves to shoot RAW. Much has to do with the settings in the D200, but it really wants to be in RAW or have the highest quality settings for jpg.

I could do this in a far more direct manner in Swedish for you. But as a D200 shooter you've "ticked me off" & I would be anything but kind to you. So therefore I'm choosing my words carefully.

Post examples of how the D80 is superior to the D200 & the forum will be most happy to work you.

Med vänliga hälsningar

Lil

jb_va2001 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,741
Your 1st post! Welcome to dpreview! /nt

egrc wrote:

Hi!

I'm going to purchase a new camera and have been looking into D200,
D80 as well as EOS 400D (sadly, there is no 10 mpix successor to
20D/30D yet).

When looking at noise levels in pictures from the cameras, the
difference between 400D and D200 was really large at ISO1600. D200
exhibits much more noise. D80 is, however, not that much noisier
than 400D. The level of detail doesn't differ much between d80 and
400d either. On the other hand, detailt seems to be lost on D200 at
iso1600 compared to 400D.
The strange thing is that D200 and D80 have nearly the same sensor,
yet the noise levels differ substantially.
Why?
If it is because of different noise reduction algortithms in D200
and D80 I just don't understand why the much more expensive and in
all pretty much all aspects better D200 have a noise reduction
algoritm that is much worse? Why doesn't Nikon upgrade the noise
reduction algoritm in D200 to the better D80 variant?
As this is strange, I'm beginning to wonder if it is something else
that makes it impossible for Nikon to reach the same low noise
levels in D200 as in D80. Maybe the sensors differ more than just
the number of read out lines? Maybe there is some sort of noise
reduction signal processing in D80 before the AD-converter?

Comments!

David Grabowski Veteran Member • Posts: 7,291
Re: Great First post ...

egrc wrote:

That would certainly be good, but in the pictures I've seen it
looks like D200 is noisier than D80. I'm not talkning about raw
here, but jpegs.

There is the key to your problem. As I said it's possible the D80 is a better jpeg camera ( at least out of the box) and as others have said it is more consumer oriented vs pro or semi pro. It still may very well be cleaner shooting like the D50 is a clean shooter. A D50 or D80 is still not a D200 though.

To me it seems that at the same level of noise D80
retains more detail than D200. D80 thus seems to have a better
noise reduction algorithm than D200.

It might have, but it also clips the highlights more. If you dig back in the archives I think you will find backup info to this statement. Still, I would put the D80 as more user friendly out of the box if shooting jpegs. With the D200 you need to know more about post processing and it will revel in RAW.

Maybe I'm wrong but it would be nice to se some pictures that
proves it.

You should be able to find pictures all over dpreview on these two cameras between this forum and the D70/D80 forum or whatever they call it ( the next forum up the drop down list)..

FWIW, todays cameras are all able to take pisser images, it's a matter of what preferences you have. If you want out of the box jpeg performance in a Nikon Mount look at the D80 or D40X. With the D200 you will have to learn to set it up right away and shooting RAW is always a plus. If you want really clean ISO 1600 shots out of the box buy a Canon 5D !!

David

erik

Tom Christiansen Senior Member • Posts: 2,239
If noise bothers you, wear earplugs

egrc wrote:

That would certainly be good, but in the pictures I've seen it
looks like D200 is noisier than D80. I'm not talking about raw
here, but jpegs.

Then you aren't really talking about what the camera's capturing.
You're talking about what post-processing you apply to the
capture afterwards. And it appears you may now be talking
about whatever Nikon decided the default PP settings were.

Turn off all processing and then compare, if you must. But
don't just let each camera have its way with the shot,
irreproducibly biasing one shot one way and another another,
without you really ever knowning what is what.

I'm afraid I'm a little wary of a 1st posting that threatens to
grab hold of the perennial obsession over noise on the screen.
Print out the picture, and THEN judge what you're looking at.
It is unreasonable to (mis)judge a camera's ability to create good
prints if you do not look at any.

-- hide signature --

tom
--tom

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: AS a Swede.......... Re: Great First post ...

LilKnytt wrote:

Erik,

as a Swede I have to tell you. Careful with such statements. As far
as I understand the D80 is more of a consumer camera while the D200
is more of a serious amateur to pro camera. The D80 would therefore

I agree.

be geared towards people with less interest in PP. While the D200

If the D200 is noisier than D80, it isn't really different from the situation when D50 arrived and was compared to D70. D70 was the more expensive camera, but the noise levels were worse than D50.
See for example:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page17.asp

The image processing was taken a step further with D40, see
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page25.asp

Signal processing gets better with time as camera manufacturers are doing research, and D80 was released almost a year after D200.

Thus, it is in no way impossible that the noise reduction algorithms differ between the two cameras and maybe is better in D80.
This is ofcourse no proof.

loves to shoot RAW. Much has to do with the settings in the D200,
but it really wants to be in RAW or have the highest quality
settings for jpg.

But ofcourse. But there is some really heavy signal processing going around in moderna cameras. Even the digitized signal from the alleged low noise sensor of the canon cmos in 400D is going through noise reduction.
See:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page18.asp

I could do this in a far more direct manner in Swedish for you. But
as a D200 shooter you've "ticked me off" & I would be anything but
kind to you. So therefore I'm choosing my words carefully.

In what way? No camera is best in all respects. The D200 stands out as a very good camera in many ways, but noise levels at high iso is not one of them, as for example the review here at dpreview says. At the Canon side, both 5D and 30D are less noisy and 400D seems to be less noisy as well. 5D is nearly twice as expensive and 30D as well as 400D are inferior in almost all aspects but high iso noise.

To me D80 seems a little better than D200 when it comes to noise levels at the same level of detail.

Post examples of how the D80 is superior to the D200 & the forum
will be most happy to work you.

See the pictures at http://www.cyberphoto.se for example. Ofcourse this could be due to a number of reasons, as for example camera settings, and differences in ambient light (which obviously differ in the pictures at http://www.cyberphoto.se ).

But non the less, to me it seems like D80 retains more detail at the same levels of noise reduction. See also the reviews here at dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp

Look at the queens faces at iso800 and iso1600. To me the D80 picture seems to have a little bit more detail and the noise levels are about the same.

But no one will get happier than me if I'm wrong.

Med vänliga hälsningar

Lil

Med vänliga hälsningar,
Erik

David Grabowski Veteran Member • Posts: 7,291
True Tom but

A whole new generation of people out there are not interested in prints !! Some judge solely by screen viewing and then they want 10 MP cameras to shoot with, go figure.

I'm not saying the OP is in this boat but they are around.

What you say is very true , a print tells all although then you can get into how big a print !!!!!!!!!

David

Tom Christiansen wrote:

egrc wrote:

That would certainly be good, but in the pictures I've seen it
looks like D200 is noisier than D80. I'm not talking about raw
here, but jpegs.

Then you aren't really talking about what the camera's capturing.
You're talking about what post-processing you apply to the
capture afterwards. And it appears you may now be talking
about whatever Nikon decided the default PP settings were.

Turn off all processing and then compare, if you must. But
don't just let each camera have its way with the shot,
irreproducibly biasing one shot one way and another another,
without you really ever knowning what is what.

I'm afraid I'm a little wary of a 1st posting that threatens to
grab hold of the perennial obsession over noise on the screen.
Print out the picture, and THEN judge what you're looking at.
It is unreasonable to (mis)judge a camera's ability to create good
prints if you do not look at any.

Bill Karadimos Veteran Member • Posts: 4,675
Here we go again.

I know what the D80 and the D200 are capible of doing and I would never get rid of my D200, I shoot raw and convert in Nikon Capture and get great results. The D80 is a great camera but you can't compare the two, It depends what you are looking for, If you want great pictures out of the camera get a D80, If you want fantastic pictures get a D200 and shoot RAW.

egrc wrote:

Hi!

I'm going to purchase a new camera and have been looking into D200,
D80 as well as EOS 400D (sadly, there is no 10 mpix successor to
20D/30D yet).

When looking at noise levels in pictures from the cameras, the
difference between 400D and D200 was really large at ISO1600. D200
exhibits much more noise. D80 is, however, not that much noisier
than 400D. The level of detail doesn't differ much between d80 and
400d either. On the other hand, detailt seems to be lost on D200 at
iso1600 compared to 400D.
The strange thing is that D200 and D80 have nearly the same sensor,
yet the noise levels differ substantially.
Why?
If it is because of different noise reduction algortithms in D200
and D80 I just don't understand why the much more expensive and in
all pretty much all aspects better D200 have a noise reduction
algoritm that is much worse? Why doesn't Nikon upgrade the noise
reduction algoritm in D200 to the better D80 variant?
As this is strange, I'm beginning to wonder if it is something else
that makes it impossible for Nikon to reach the same low noise
levels in D200 as in D80. Maybe the sensors differ more than just
the number of read out lines? Maybe there is some sort of noise
reduction signal processing in D80 before the AD-converter?

Comments!

-- hide signature --

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

GaryDeM Veteran Member • Posts: 6,297
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

egrc-

you should also note that the shots are both in dpreview's reviews of the 2 cameras. all cameras that are reviewed anywhere have the same problem. they are tested as they come from the box. there is no attempt to optimize the settings of each camera to give max image quality.

either camera might be able to wipeout the other in terrms of IQ. just test one as it comes from the box and the other after it is properly setup and adjusted. therefore, what is unknown is how much more potential image quality is available in the 2 cameras if both are setup to the max. if the d80 is performing at say the 75% level as it comes from the box while the d200 is setup from the factory so that it is at the 40% point. it is hardly a fair test when both are later in the hands of their owner's. because then you would have a situation in which the camera that was at 40% will blow away the other; or viseversa if the percentages were reversed.

it has long been my view that the testers in magazines and websites presetup all cameras to be tested so that they are performing as well as they can get them, THEN TEST. in this way the consumers could see what the true IQ would be after owning them for a while. the way that is currently done is to test from the box; so the results of the test is really at the whim of the factory engineer who put it together, and we do not know what his image quality tastes are.

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Great First post ...

David Grabowski wrote:

egrc wrote:

That would certainly be good, but in the pictures I've seen it
looks like D200 is noisier than D80. I'm not talkning about raw
here, but jpegs.

There is the key to your problem. As I said it's possible the D80
is a better jpeg camera ( at least out of the box) and as others
have said it is more consumer oriented vs pro or semi pro. It still
may very well be cleaner shooting like the D50 is a clean shooter.
A D50 or D80 is still not a D200 though.

Well, I haven't ever said that D80 is better than d200.

I'm just interested in why Nikon isn't porting the presumed (but in no way proven) better jpeg engine of D80 to D200.

If the difference is just in software it should be possible and I guess not to hard. The sensors differ however and maybe some pre AD signal processing as well. I don't know. The only thing I see is maybe somewhat better jpeg quality from D80, and I can't see any good reason why Nikon doesn't fix this if it's only in software. Thus I find it interesting if maybe the reason is some difference hardware.

FWIW, todays cameras are all able to take pisser images, it's a
matter of what preferences you have. If you want out of the box
jpeg performance in a Nikon Mount look at the D80 or D40X. With the
D200 you will have to learn to set it up right away and shooting
RAW is always a plus. If you want really clean ISO 1600 shots out
of the box buy a Canon 5D !!

Well, 5D is to expensive, 30D is not very interesting (because I will get upset when Canon releases the successor possibly already this fall), 400D is just inferior to D80 and D200 in almost every aspect (but noise levels).
D200 seems to be more of the camera I want than D80, but I just hate noise

Another strong reason not to buy Canon is that I already have some Nikon lenses, but, as I said, I hate noise.

David

Erik

LilKnytt Veteran Member • Posts: 7,213
Re: Here we go again.

Bill Karadimos wrote:

I know what the D80 and the D200 are capible of doing and I would
never get rid of my D200, I shoot raw and convert in Nikon Capture
and get great results. The D80 is a great camera but you can't
compare the two, It depends what you are looking for, If you want
great pictures out of the camera get a D80, If you want fantastic
pictures get a D200 and shoot RAW.

I second Bill's comment.

Lil

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: If noise bothers you, wear earplugs

Tom Christiansen wrote:

egrc wrote:

That would certainly be good, but in the pictures I've seen it
looks like D200 is noisier than D80. I'm not talking about raw
here, but jpegs.

Then you aren't really talking about what the camera's capturing.
You're talking about what post-processing you apply to the
capture afterwards. And it appears you may now be talking
about whatever Nikon decided the default PP settings were.

The post processing of the captured signal, wether analog or digital, is very much part of what the camera delivers. Pre A/D singal amplification certainly have impact on image quality as well as for example Canons sensor noise reduction, D2x's per channel signal amplification etc. The stuff you see from the AD converter isn't the signal captured by the sensor.
Differences in raw converters impacts image quality, demosaicing differ etc.

The postprocessing is certainly in every possible way pivotal to image quality and whithout post processing you just don't have any picture at all.

Turn off all processing and then compare, if you must. But
don't just let each camera have its way with the shot,
irreproducibly biasing one shot one way and another another,
without you really ever knowning what is what.

At the end of the day it's a tiff, jpeg or whatever you want. If the jpeg is done in the camera or in the computer doesn't really matter as long as it is done well. If the camera can produce good jpegs, let it (take out raws as well). Many of the jpeg engines in modern cameras are very good and it is hard to produce the same level of for example DR, see for example:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page19.asp

I'm afraid I'm a little wary of a 1st posting that threatens to
grab hold of the perennial obsession over noise on the screen.
Print out the picture, and THEN judge what you're looking at.
It is unreasonable to (mis)judge a camera's ability to create good
prints if you do not look at any.

If the picture is intended for the screen, the screen is the place to judge the picture. If it is intended to be printed, the print is where to judge it.
I see no reason to be biased towards one or the other.

-- hide signature --

tom
--tom

Erik

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Here we go again.

Bill Karadimos wrote:

I know what the D80 and the D200 are capible of doing and I would
never get rid of my D200, I shoot raw and convert in Nikon Capture
and get great results. The D80 is a great camera but you can't
compare the two, It depends what you are looking for, If you want
great pictures out of the camera get a D80, If you want fantastic
pictures get a D200 and shoot RAW.

Well, as I tried to say, I'm mostly interested in if the quality difference I perceive between D80 and D200 is real, and, if it is real, why Nikon isn't porting the thus better jpeg engine of D80 to D200. I can't see what they possibly could loose by doing so. Could the reason be that the cameras differ more than we believe? Are the sensors more different than just the number of read lines? Maybe there is differences in pre A/D signal processing? I don't know.

erik

OP egrc Junior Member • Posts: 32
Re: Why is D200 that much noiser than D80?

GaryDeM wrote:

egrc-

you should also note that the shots are both in dpreview's reviews
of the 2 cameras. all cameras that are reviewed anywhere have the
same problem. they are tested as they come from the box. there is
no attempt to optimize the settings of each camera to give max
image quality.

either camera might be able to wipeout the other in terrms of IQ.
just test one as it comes from the box and the other after it is
properly setup and adjusted. therefore, what is unknown is how much
more potential image quality is available in the 2 cameras if both
are setup to the max. if the d80 is performing at say the 75% level
as it comes from the box while the d200 is setup from the factory
so that it is at the 40% point. it is hardly a fair test when both
are later in the hands of their owner's. because then you would
have a situation in which the camera that was at 40% will blow away
the other; or viseversa if the percentages were reversed.

it has long been my view that the testers in magazines and websites
presetup all cameras to be tested so that they are performing as
well as they can get them, THEN TEST. in this way the consumers
could see what the true IQ would be after owning them for a while.
the way that is currently done is to test from the box; so the
results of the test is really at the whim of the factory engineer
who put it together, and we do not know what his image quality
tastes are.

I agree in every detail. I think they should compare the best possible result when optimizing the camera and raw as well. Then one could see how well the sensor and pre A/D signal processing work as well as the cameras potential for post processing.

For example EOS 400D seems to have better in camera noise reduction than D80, but even Phil Askey didn't compare the noise levels in raw (with the same raw converter) between the two, but just commented shortly on the noise levels in the 400D raw.

erik

LilKnytt Veteran Member • Posts: 7,213
Some more thoughts. Re: AS a Swede.......... Re: Great First post ...

egrc wrote:

If the D200 is noisier than D80,

That'a HUGE IF to me.

Signal processing gets better with time as camera manufacturers are
doing research, and D80 was released almost a year after D200.
Thus, it is in no way impossible that the noise reduction
algorithms differ between the two cameras and maybe is better in
D80.
This is ofcourse no proof.

How logical of you.

But ofcourse. But there is some really heavy signal processing
going around in moderna cameras. Even the digitized signal from the
alleged low noise sensor of the canon cmos in 400D is going through
noise reduction.

Again, many have posted this - - the D80 is made more to shoot jpgs while the D200 is aimed for RAW. With RAW there are lots of noise software which can be used.

In what way? No camera is best in all respects. The D200 stands out
as a very good camera in many ways, but noise levels at high iso is
not one of them, as for example the review here at dpreview says.
At the Canon side, both 5D and 30D are less noisy and 400D seems
to be less noisy as well. 5D is nearly twice as expensive and 30D
as well as 400D are inferior in almost all aspects but high iso
noise.
To me D80 seems a little better than D200 when it comes to noise
levels at the same level of detail.

That's your opinion & you're entitled to it. It is however based upon a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that the D80 is made more for the jpg shooter & therefore out of the camera produces probably better jpgs. The D200 is made more for RAW & that requires PP. Something we can't be sure even the DPR tester did in the test. Therefore your logic is mute.

Therefore my suggestion is this. Go to a camera store & bring a CF card. Shoot some shots with both cameras at the ISOs you choose. Shoot with the SAME camera settings. Either shoot RAW or JPG, though I would HIGHLY recommend RAW as that's where you'll see the camera's true colors.

Go home, check the shots on your computer - then decide.

But non the less, to me it seems like D80 retains more detail at
the same levels of noise reduction. See also the reviews here at
dpreview:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page21.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp
Look at the queens faces at iso800 and iso1600. To me the D80
picture seems to have a little bit more detail and the noise levels
are about the same.

My eyes are 47 years old & probably need an upgrade & improvement. I see no huge difference.

If you wish for High ISO - go with a Canon since I keep hearing how great they are at high ISO. Personally I rarely shoot higher than ISO 400. I take the easy route, faster lenses 50 f/1.4 or any f/1.4 comes to mind. Or I just use the on board built in flash or just one or both of my SB-800s.

With the light you have available to you right now in Sweden you should not have to shoot at such high ISOs. I live in Los Angeles & I can tell you I KNOW you have MORE LIGHT than I have most of the time this time of the year. This is not mid winter - we're heading for Midsommar.

If you are truly considering a semipro camera, then at least spend the money on fast lenses.

Med vänliga hälsningar
Lil

Bill Karadimos Veteran Member • Posts: 4,675
Re: Here we go again.

egrc wrote:

Bill Karadimos wrote:

I know what the D80 and the D200 are capible of doing and I would
never get rid of my D200, I shoot raw and convert in Nikon Capture
and get great results. The D80 is a great camera but you can't
compare the two, It depends what you are looking for, If you want
great pictures out of the camera get a D80, If you want fantastic
pictures get a D200 and shoot RAW.

Well, as I tried to say, I'm mostly interested in if the quality
difference I perceive between D80 and D200 is real, and, if it is
real, why Nikon isn't porting the thus better jpeg engine of D80 to
D200. I can't see what they possibly could loose by doing so. Could
the reason be that the cameras differ more than we believe? Are the
sensors more different than just the number of read lines? Maybe
there is differences in pre A/D signal processing? I don't know.

erik

I have never had a prob with noise in my D200, I am sure it is there like all digital camera's, To be honest I have never had to shoot over 800 ISO I will use a tripod if needed. I have tried 1600 and then again it was fine to me. As members have already told you the D80 is aimed at someone that wants to shoot jpg with great results, And the D200 is more aimed for the person that wants better results than a JPG, Thats why one shoots in raw and does some PP. You can get a lot better results shooting in raw with the D200 than the D80 jpg.
jmo
--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

LilKnytt Veteran Member • Posts: 7,213
Well written yet again....... Re: Here we go again.

Bill Karadimos wrote:

I have never had a prob with noise in my D200, I am sure it is
there like all digital camera's, To be honest I have never had to
shoot over 800 ISO I will use a tripod if needed. I have tried 1600
and then again it was fine to me. As members have already told you
the D80 is aimed at someone that wants to shoot jpg with great
results, And the D200 is more aimed for the person that wants
better results than a JPG, Thats why one shoots in raw and does
some PP. You can get a lot better results shooting in raw with the
D200 than the D80 jpg.
jmo

Again Bill, excellent words. Erik's starting to seem like a Troll to me.

Lil

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads