A reminder to eat well...

[APY_Jr]

Just a quickie from 2 days ago... heavy on the post processing but that's my mood right now D200 & 70-200VR lens.

http://www.pbase.com/apy_jr/image/57099003/original

thanks for looking,

Albert

 

[Garen]

Hi Albert,

Very Nice as always so, you are in hi-saturated and hi tone mood right now I 'm on the other hand in rusty mood LOL.

Best regards,
Garen
--
Who says it can't be done?

 

[Flick]

That's wonderful, Albert. LOL, and me a vegetarian!

 

[Gabriele Sartori]

Just a quickie from 2 days ago... heavy on the post processing but
that's my mood right now D200 & 70-200VR lens.

I'm thinking about buying a D200 myself. I was wondering how a Kodak user perceive the picture quality of the D200 vs the Kodak. DR and colors in particular but resolution as well.

Your opinion is greatly welcome!
Gabriele

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA

 

[Petes]

DR and colors in particular but resolution as well.

I think Albert's work is proof that color and even DR can be a function of PP as much as what the camera captures. The resolution is certainly close; diff may show up in very large prints.
--
Pete Smith
http://www.photographsbypetersmith.com
http://www.pbase.com/petersmith/

 

[Petes]

Hi Albert,

A great picture of a piece of America that is slowly disappearing. And I'm sure the preceeding turkeys would agree with the sentiment!
--
Pete Smith
http://www.photographsbypetersmith.com
http://www.pbase.com/petersmith/

 

[APY_Jr]

I'll ramble off what I think is important... sorry if I jump around here

The Kodak colors are better straight out of the camera.

The D200 is kinda funky... flat midrange (low contrast) and the blues in the shadows go to gray (very strange)

shadow noise is minimal... and DR is good as well ( a ittle less than the Kodak but with less shadow posturization) Hightlights blow easier too so oposite the Kodak... I underexpose the files and pull exposure back up in raw conversion (noise isn't a problem).

Not as sharp as the Kodak (10.3 mp vs 13.89 mp with a very good AA filter added) prints just great on the Epson for larger prints.

I think the Kodak has better rez but with more aliasing,,, moire and artifacts along with it

No color shifts that I can detect on the sD200 ensor with very little aliasing due to the AA filter.

Interesting side note.. all the D200 files write as 15mb raw where the Kodak fluctuates between 12-15mb in file size depending on scene density.

Big LCD... feels great in my hands... lots less "color fixing" in post.

I miss dual card slots though (only one card) and the file numbers (font size) is small and hard to read on the LCD. And it has no luminometer for "spot" exposure reference on the files like the Kodak.

I also tend to "bump" and change the focus selection switch (C. S. & M) inadvertantly sometimes. Just in a bad place for me I guess.

My 70-200 VR in VR mode works better on the Kodak than the D200 also... doesn't stabilize very well before the shot and I get a lot of double image shots because of it... have to work on that one... may not be able to resolve it though.(I think it has to do with the separate focus button on the back of the D200)

Files write fast and the camera boots up and is ready to fire instantly

View finder is also bright and large and it focuses faster than the Kodak.

that's all I can think of for now,

Albert

 

[APY_Jr]

Well it's like riding a bike... you never forget

Albert

 

[APY_Jr]

I guess it should have said "treat yourself.. eat Veggies"

sorry about that,

Albert

 

[Shelby Frisich]

Ah, a new kind of place for a burger bar . Like the composition and colors.

regards,

Shelby

 

[APY_Jr]

Yeah, this stuff is slowly disappearing to collectors and progress.

I've seen such growth in population lately over here that I can't help but sadly reminisce of quieter times.

Albert

 

[APY_Jr]

What a great idea for a hamburger stand

Albert

 

[Petes]

There used to be a lot of barns and interesting stores here in New England but the developers have destroyed most of them.

By the way

And I'm sure the preceeding turkeys would agree with the sentiment!

My comment was in regard to the pictures of turkeys, the big bird that goes gobble gobble, in your gallery and not an editorial comment on the pictures or preceeding posters to this thread

--
Pete Smith
http://www.photographsbypetersmith.com
http://www.pbase.com/petersmith/

 

[tashley]

Another classic Albert shot. Hmm, I'm gonna go dig out my Genuine Fractals and my roll feeder and make me some hugely long enlargements, sell them without telling you in some fancy gallery and retire to Barbados...
--
http://www.pbase.com/tashley/

 

[Gabriele Sartori]

I'll ramble off what I think is important... sorry if I jump around
here

Albert, sorry for the late reply but thank you very much. I think I will buy one.

--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA

 

[the signatory]

I'll ramble off what I think is important... sorry if I jump around
here

Albert, sorry for the late reply but thank you very much. I think I
will buy one.

Gabriele, you may not already know this as I don't think you are a RawMagick beta tester? If not, then only yesterday one of the chief developers of that software, Iliah Borg, sent out a round robin announcement on some findings they have made about the reported lack of sharpness with D200 images. It went as follows:

"Dear All,

We think there are 2 reasons there are complaints that D200
is not sharp.

First is anti-aliasing filter, and second is mirror slap.

It seems that with D200 you will have sharper pixels on any
shutter speed in Mup mode.

If the shot was taken from a tripod with mirror up, USM
should be pixel-level, equivalent to 400/0.3/0 on L channel
only (Lab mode).

If mirror delay was not used, it is 2 passes, 300/.3/0 and
150/1/10

In both cases thresholds are pretty exact, amounts may vary
+ -50, radius for the first pass may be 0.4.

To check effect of the mirror slap, you can take 4 images
with a camera mounted on a trpod, two in landscape
orientation, and 2 in portrait orientation. In each pair
one image with Mup, the other is straight. Compare the
images within each pair, and compare the direction of
motion blur between images taken without Mup." [Unquote]

OK, so that is the problem, but no solutions suggested, particulalry with respect to mirror slap. I guess you can draw your own conclusions.

--
Kind regards,
Nigel

A bad workman always blames his tools. But in the light of all that I have written above, I am definitely blaming my keyboard!

 

[the signatory]

OK, so that is the problem, but no solutions suggested,
particulalry with respect to mirror slap. I guess you can draw your
own conclusions.

That was not very clear of me.

I meant to say that apart from locking up the mirror each time , it would appear that there is no software solution to correctting soft images as a result of this mirror slap.

OTOH, the AA filter issue by implication, can be largely corrected by using their excellent software, I've no doubt.

--
Kind regards,
Nigel

A bad workman always blames his tools. But in the light of all that I have written above, I am definitely blaming my keyboard!

 

[Gabriele Sartori]

I'll ramble off what I think is important... sorry if I jump around
here

Albert, sorry for the late reply but thank you very much. I think I
will buy one.

Gabriele, you may not already know this as I don't think you are a
RawMagick beta tester? If not, then only yesterday one of the chief
developers of that software, Iliah Borg, sent out a round robin
announcement on some findings they have made about the reported
lack of sharpness with D200 images. It went as follows:

I was almost buying a D200 today than I decided to jump on an earlier flight and I skipped the shop. Wow that is a big one. I've to investigate.
Thanks

Gabri
--
Regards
Gabriele
California, CA