D200 Group Shot...

[Jono Slack]

Hi Albert

Interesting stuff - and thank you for putting up the samples on pbase, it really does show that the RAW converter is important.

Just one thing which I thought was worth mentioning. On a couple of occasions you've mentioned 'mirror slap' with respect to sharpness. It's a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine, especially as I shoot most of my stuff hand held (I lose the will to live whilst setting up the tripod!).

There was much talk on the Nikon forum about pixel density and camera shake with respect to the D2x, but I firmly believe that the problem was all down to mirror slap, and I also believe that it's an issue with the D200 (but much much less so).

Having the dubious honour of hand holding experience, I think this has a huge, and largely unconsidered, effect on photographs. I firmly believe that the (almost silent) shutter of the E1 gives you at least another stop of hand holding, but it must have effects all the way down the line (unless you lock up the mirror).

Still, if you think the D200 bad, you should have a go with the D2x, it may have a dampened mirror, but you can feel the whole thing shake when you press the shutter!

I'm wondering if the table under my new Epson 4000 shaking is having a similar effect on the prints!

Kind Regards
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

 

[Nirto Karsten Fischer]

There was much talk on the Nikon forum about pixel density and
camera shake with respect to the D2x, but I firmly believe that the
problem was all down to mirror slap, and I also believe that it's
an issue with the D200 (but much much less so).

Having the dubious honour of hand holding experience, I think this
has a huge, and largely unconsidered, effect on photographs.

(...)

Still, if you think the D200 bad, you should have a go with the
D2x, it may have a dampened mirror, but you can feel the whole
thing shake when you press the shutter!

Camera shake would be a problem no matter if you handhold the camera or use it with a tripod as the source of vibration is inside. If you're concerned that there is too much camera shake for high pixel density than you could test it with the camera on a tripod using regular release and another shot with mirror pre-release. I made reproductions of paintings with the D2x mounted with the Really Right Stuff clamp on a very heavy studio tripod and mirror slap was a non-issue. But you could see what differences between lenses occured. Only a few lenses could make the D2x sing. Mount a relly good lens on the D2x like the VR200/2, the Schneider Super Angulon (not shifted), the Zeiss Planar CFi 100/3.5 (with Hasselblad adaptor) or the PC 85/2.8, put it on a tripod and if you then think mirror slap is a problem I throw my D2x into the pond ... or maybe better the SLR/n ...

 

[LVPG]

after reading, I must accept that Nikon manufactured the D200 without measuring vibration resulting from from the mirror rising; and as a result, it causes such a vibration that image clarity is sacrificed.

Additionally, the only processing program to offer quality color and detail, is a beta program which is unusably slow and tedious.

Lastly, the digital image has 'texture.'

hmmm...LOL Just kidding.

I'm with Nirto, the mirror slap topic is easily tested by anyone with the camera. Raise the mirror for one image and not for another.

As far as color and detail are concerned, I'm with most in the Kodak camp. The D200 is not the Kodak [for better and worse]. It took one day for me to realize colors and detail [at base ISO] simply don't compare. Even in prints as small as 8x10 there is a clear difference [at my office]. No offense to Jono's gallery post, which I really enjoyed. But, I do a lot of repetative-type photography. When comparing like images side by side, in print or on screen, there is a difference. The D200, IMO, is a great supplemental camera to the Kodak and am very happy with it in that position. Armed with it and the Kodak, most professional challenges [within reason] can be met.

PS
Nice to see you posting again Nirto.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.

 

[Warren Sarle]

http://www.pbase.com/apy_jr/processing_techniques

It seems to me that RML produces the best texture. "Albert's RML Beta 1.052 Attempt" looks nice for web use. "Paul Spatafora's RML 1.052 Beta Attempt" is about what I would use for printing.

 

[APY_Jr]

Although my brother and his people at the lab would go would either mine or Nirto's for skin density. When we print this on the Frontier we tend to brighten the skin tones as much as we can get away with... which includes layering and brightening further the back rows.

Noise (oversharpening) would also be added as it does't appear that way printed on matte paper. (we use Crystal Archive on the Frontier)

So actually they would also lean towards the SilkyPix version (that everyone seemed to dislike the most)

I want to thank everyone for their contributions and time to this project. It had helped me tremendously in my evaluation of the camera.

For group work.. I still feel the Kodak renders the best possible file for group shots quirks and all.

Albert