[To D200 users] Switching to Nikon...

[davidphoto]

I need to replace the 2 abused Fuji S2 bodies we currently use with great satisfaction (mostly RAF+HUS, but JPGs for events reportage).

A month ago I started peeping the Fuji and Nikon forums, so I decided not to buy a S3 (to be buffer upgraded?) and started to wait for the S4.... well, it's time to place the order, and, since we are shooting more events and concerts lately, I would like:

• brighter viewfinder
• better autofocus
• more reliable auto exposure

I also wouldn't like to give up the great "Fuji skin tones", and I wouldn't use a slower camera. I personally shoot "high constrast" so extended DR might not be a major upgrade...

My question to whom use both the S2/S3 and D200 cameras is: should I go for the buffer upgraded S3 (when available) or for the D200? Or, in other terms, is the S3's viewfinder/autofocus/light meter somehow better than the S2's?
TIA,
davide
--
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com

 

[KTH170412]

My experience with the Nikon D200 after one week has been:

1. Viewfinder

Much larger, and brighter than the S2, but not necessarily more accurate.

2. Autofocus

Definetely better. Much faster, and dead on. (there is almost no or very little shutterlag which makes life easier for action photography)

3. Autoexposure

I can't tell because I 've been shooting in mannual mode, but I can tell you that the auto white balance is more accurate than the S2, at least when it comes to purple, the color worn by the Los Angeles Lakers on the road. I shot the Lakers v. Clippers game last Friday, and could not get my S2 to give me the purple color of the jerseys worn by the Lakers, either with auto or custom white balance. The D200 gave me that color on auto white balance.

Here are some photos from that game:

http://www.pbase.com/kiettuanhuynh/lakers_v_clippers_feb_24_2006

4. Skin Tone

I love everything about the D200, except for the skin tone. I am trying to figure out how to get D200 to give me the skin tone that I 've been getting from my two Fuji S2's, straight out of the cameras. I will ditch my S2's when I am able to do that (if I ever will). In the mean time, I will hang on to my S2's for portraits or anything that emphasizes a person's skin/flesh; and use the D200 for actions/sports.

Here are the skin tone that I have been able to get from the S2's, without any post-processing (except for resizing by ACDsee).

http://www.pbase.com/kiettuanhuynh/barbara_nguyen__makeup_by_tiffany_trang_pham

 

[Anthony32599]

The D200 is a good, near great, camera. The viewfinder is much, much better than the S2pro and S3pro, and the AF is superior to the S2pro and S3pro, although not as good as more expensive Nikons, which have more cross sensors.

I have gone away from using "auto" white balance, generally preferring a fixed WB or a custom WB, depending upon the situation. In my experience, the D200 seems okay on Auto, not any better or worse than the S2pro. With regard to purple, it's the most difficult color for a digital SLR to accurately capture and reproduce. I can only suggest that you actually print the image, as screen display of purple and actual printing can be two different things, even in a color-managed workflow.

You are 100% on the skintones issue. To get images as close as possible to an S2pro, here's what's been working for me: I up the sharpening to medium-high (+1). That makes for sharp out of camera jpeg.

Next, I switch to color mode III, which is an sRGB color space with expanded green sensitivity. Forget extra saturated or vivid modes for skintones. People end up looking like sunburned red clowns. Just leave it in the default saturation setting.

I end up with a jpeg that is snappy out of camera, but slightly favoring a red shift in the skintones. The jpegs look good in print, until you stick a print from an S2pro next to it. Then the D200 prints look slightly on the other side of red; the S2pro slightly on the side of green.

I have found there's a "hue" setting in the custom menu; I will have to experiment with altering that next, in my next photoshoot with a caucasian skin tone model. It might remove some of the red in the skintones.

I try to expose to the right as much as possible.

With regard to the D200 vs. S3pro, it will depend upon the kind of shooting the original poster does--if it's portraits and under controlled lighting, the S3pro is probably just fine. If it's shooting of events or sports or things like little league ball team photos, then the D200 is a good choice because of the great viewfinder and incredible responsiveness. Wedding camera...tough choice, because the S3pro makes great images. I'd ask Walter Matthews or David Miller for their opinions (although Mr. Miller would probably tell you the S3pro).

Anthony

My experience with the Nikon D200 after one week has been:

1. Viewfinder

Much larger, and brighter than the S2, but not necessarily more
accurate.

2. Autofocus

Definetely better. Much faster, and dead on. (there is almost no
or very little shutterlag which makes life easier for action
photography)

3. Autoexposure

I can't tell because I 've been shooting in mannual mode, but I can
tell you that the auto white balance is more accurate than the S2,
at least when it comes to purple, the color worn by the Los Angeles
Lakers on the road. I shot the Lakers v. Clippers game last
Friday, and could not get my S2 to give me the purple color of the
jerseys worn by the Lakers, either with auto or custom white
balance. The D200 gave me that color on auto white balance.

Here are some photos from that game:

http://www.pbase.com/kiettuanhuynh/lakers_v_clippers_feb_24_2006

4. Skin Tone

I love everything about the D200, except for the skin tone. I am
trying to figure out how to get D200 to give me the skin tone that
I 've been getting from my two Fuji S2's, straight out of the
cameras. I will ditch my S2's when I am able to do that (if I ever
will). In the mean time, I will hang on to my S2's for portraits
or anything that emphasizes a person's skin/flesh; and use the D200
for actions/sports.

Here are the skin tone that I have been able to get from the S2's,
without any post-processing (except for resizing by ACDsee).

http://www.pbase.com/kiettuanhuynh/barbara_nguyen__makeup_by_tiffany_trang_pham

 

[Fotomat]

My question to whom use both the S2/S3 and D200 cameras is: should
I go for the buffer upgraded S3 (when available) or for the D200?
Or, in other terms, is the S3's viewfinder/autofocus/light meter
somehow better than the S2's?
TIA,
davide
--
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com

After viewing your site I'd have to say .. you'd benifit from an upgrade ...forget Fuji
on the D-200 everything is better than S2/3

when I first got the S3 I let a few frends who have S2 borrow my S3..... and NONE of them wanted to upgrade...to slow not much of an image upgrade(still 6mp) and it was to slow . did i mention it was to slow?
Look here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=16588127
I thread I posted about fuji vs nikon skin tones

most of my friends are going 5D .. kinda becoming a cult camera the way the S2 was.

Fotomat
http://www.fotomat.net

 

[mmmmmmmm]

Hi David,

I had a three week fling with the D200, I tried about every setting I could think of and decided to stay with the S3. I was really hoping for a great camera(D200), which it may well turn out to be.

Anthony has done some of the best skin tones I have seen with the D200. At first I thought that the D200 was going to be a RAW(NEF) camera only but after seeing some of Anthony's portraits using Jpegs I may have been wrong.

My problem with the D200 is too many different settings. This is the beauty of the S3-fewer settings. It seems that with so many settings it is hard to make minute changes in output(D200). I either had files too flat or files that were to vivid.

I was hoping for a new Fuji camera this year but it doesn't look like this is going to happen. Right now the only logicial choices in this price range is the 30D, 5D, or the Nikon D200. If you own lots of good Nikon glass it would make sense to go with the D200, at least for now.

I would keep in touch with Anthony as he has been experimenting with the hue adjustment, which just might make the D200 a great Jpeg camera, especially for portraits and weddings.

Wather seems to be much happier with the D200 since he has been shooting the D200 in NEF. Actually RAW is not that difficult as I have been experiment with this more and more- the D200 might just be the way to go.

Good luck no matter which way you go!

Respectfully,
David Miller

 

[Anthony32599]

I disagree somewhat. First of all, the D200 is not better than the S2/S3 at skintones. Owning both the S2pro and the D200, I can definitely state that the D200 doesn't do as well as Fujifilm cameras in this regard. It's not just me that feels this way, either.

The S2pro and S3pro are definitely slower than the D200. However, a glance at David's type of photography doesn't show subjects that require a fast camera like the D200. His shots show a thoughtful, deliberate process. The S3pro definitely would not cramp his style.

So, how would he benefit from an "upgrade" the way you're suggesting? The D200 is a faster camera, with more megapixels. Built-in mirror lockup, Stronger body. Built-in intervalometer. None of those things seem like things which appear in his style of photography. There's the improved flash system (i-TTL), but given the beauty of his work already, I don't know that i-TTL would be much of an improvement for him.

The viewfinder and AF systems are IMHO the best ways he'll benefit, particularly in low light with the D200.

Anthony

After viewing your site I'd have to say .. you'd benifit from an
upgrade ...forget Fuji
on the D-200 everything is better than S2/3
when I first got the S3 I let a few frends who have S2 borrow my
S3..... and NONE of them wanted to upgrade...to slow not much of an
image upgrade(still 6mp) and it was to slow . did i mention it was
to slow?
Look here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=16588127
I thread I posted about fuji vs nikon skin tones
most of my friends are going 5D .. kinda becoming a cult camera the
way the S2 was.

Fotomat
http://www.fotomat.net

 

[Anthony32599]

Yes, in the default settings out of the box, I find the D200 to be too flat.

The best way to judge a camera is ultimately through the print and not via the screen. And how well an image prints is a function of your printer, your paper, and a zillion other things not connected to your camera. Example: printing on Red River Arctic Polar 62lb satin paper gives me a great D200 image, slightly red, but still great. Switching to Generations satin paper (while using default printer profiles) results in an image that has skintones that look like clown makeup. Absolutely surprising and amazing difference--something that just can't be totally predicted from viewing an onscreen image. So, quite literally, I would have to profile not only for the monitor and printer but also for the paper and ink as well. That's a lot of variables to monitor and control. You can make profiles or download profiles for your paper or ink from various online sources.

A couple of other annoyances with the D200. 1) when the highlight blow, there's a real tendency to go yellow, at least in some of my images. Very D70-like in that regard. The S2pro and S3pro tend towards white highlights when they blow, in my observation. 2) The focus mode switch on the front of the D200 is too easily to hit accidentally, and already I've accidentally switched it to manual during shoots (resulting in out of focus images).

Anthony

Hi David,
I had a three week fling with the D200, I tried about every setting
I could think of and decided to stay with the S3. I was really
hoping for a great camera(D200), which it may well turn out to be.

Anthony has done some of the best skin tones I have seen with the
D200. At first I thought that the D200 was going to be a RAW(NEF)
camera only but after seeing some of Anthony's portraits using
Jpegs I may have been wrong.

My problem with the D200 is too many different settings. This is
the beauty of the S3-fewer settings. It seems that with so many
settings it is hard to make minute changes in output(D200). I
either had files too flat or files that were to vivid.

I was hoping for a new Fuji camera this year but it doesn't look
like this is going to happen. Right now the only logicial choices
in this price range is the 30D, 5D, or the Nikon D200. If you own
lots of good Nikon glass it would make sense to go with the D200,
at least for now.

I would keep in touch with Anthony as he has been experimenting
with the hue adjustment, which just might make the D200 a great
Jpeg camera, especially for portraits and weddings.

Wather seems to be much happier with the D200 since he has been
shooting the D200 in NEF. Actually RAW is not that difficult as I
have been experiment with this more and more- the D200 might just
be the way to go.

Good luck no matter which way you go!

Respectfully,
David Miller

 

[Fotomat]

I disagree somewhat. First of all, the D200 is not better than the
S2/S3 at skintones. Owning both the S2pro and the D200, I can
definitely state that the D200 doesn't do as well as Fujifilm
cameras in this regard. It's not just me that feels this way,
either.

What ever Antwanay
can you not SEE the link I pro-vide

on color is .......................ON COLOR!

So, how would he benefit from an "upgrade" the way you're
suggesting? The D200 is a faster camera, with more megapixels.
Built-in mirror lockup, Stronger body. Built-in intervalometer.
None of those things seem like things which appear in his style of
photography. There's the improved flash system (i-TTL), but given
the beauty of his work already, I don't know that i-TTL would be
much of an improvement for him.

I ment no dis..respect just the opposite

I bought my first digital in late 98 i had already been shooting digital 2 years ......leaf/scan back/c-mos ETC

those images from my first digital are not good enough to be used for anything now cuz they are to small a file. If I had more MP then I have more to show from then .. when I said he could benefit from an upgrade I ment that more of his images could be used for more things....in the long run... he has a serious pool so to have a crappy camera is not doing him any good.
oH! am I saying the S2 is crappy? .. by today standards.....yeah
move up or shut up
upgrade or move over
get with the program
leave Fuji where it is and will allways B.... BEHIND

Canon in becoming the studio standard .. the Fuji forum is NOT full of professionals..Nikon/Canon have more ......see for yourself!

The viewfinder and AF systems are IMHO the best ways he'll benefit,
particularly in low light with the D200.

Anthony

After viewing your site I'd have to say .. you'd benifit from an
upgrade ...forget Fuji
on the D-200 everything is better than S2/3
when I first got the S3 I let a few frends who have S2 borrow my
S3..... and NONE of them wanted to upgrade...to slow not much of an
image upgrade(still 6mp) and it was to slow . did i mention it was
to slow?
Look here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=16588127
I thread I posted about fuji vs nikon skin tones
most of my friends are going 5D .. kinda becoming a cult camera the
way the S2 was.

Fotomat
http://www.fotomat.net

 

[Anthony32599]

I did indeed see the link you provided. I also read the WHOLE thread, and it's more apparent when you put the photos side by side exactly what I'm talking about. The color on the D200 looks fine...until you stick a print from a Fujifilm camera right next to it.

I do differ from you about claims that the S2pro is a crappy camera, but that's a matter of opinion. As I've written in another thread, I'd rather be a good photographer with a "crappy" S2pro than a lousy photographer shooting RAW with the latest and greatest from Canon or Nikon. I think the photographer plays a greater role than your post would have us all think.

And a cruise through the Nikon SLR forums tells me that it's definitely not full of professionals--witness the threads on banding, the thread on "how do I turn my shutter sound off on my SLR", and the people who think processing RAW makes up for bad technique. And it's no different in the Canon SLR forums.

Anthony

What ever Antwanay
can you not SEE the link I pro-vide

on color is .......................ON COLOR!

I ment no dis..respect just the opposite
I bought my first digital in late 98 i had already been shooting
digital 2 years ......leaf/scan back/c-mos ETC
those images from my first digital are not good enough to be used
for anything now cuz they are to small a file. If I had more MP
then I have more to show from then .. when I said he could benefit
from an upgrade I ment that more of his images could be used for
more things....in the long run... he has a serious pool so to have
a crappy camera is not doing him any good.
oH! am I saying the S2 is crappy? .. by today standards.....yeah
move up or shut up
upgrade or move over
get with the program
leave Fuji where it is and will allways B.... BEHIND
Canon in becoming the studio standard .. the Fuji forum is NOT full
of professionals..Nikon/Canon have more ......see for yourself!

 

[Artichoke]

but of course the Canon/Nikon forums have more pros ...they have many, many more posters in their forums

I think one of the reasons folks with other cameras post here is that their posts don't get buried so quickly as is the case in the bigger Canon/Nikon forums

I suspect FSLRT has higher percentage of pros than the other forums, though I don't know how this matters

regarding skin tones, I find it amusing that so many folks with non Fujifilm DSLRs compare their skin tones with what we get with Fujifilm DSLRs
I did see your comparison & in particular I note these baby photos you posted
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=17388376
as examples of outstanding skin tones from a D200

I note that you posted this series twice & got not a single response, which I think speaks for the politeness of folks here

since you have embarked on the low ground, I will offer my opinion, which I believe is shared by the silent majority who viewed these: the skintones in these shots you offered are mediocre at best & I suspect not the best the D200 can do, much less what one routinely gets from a Fuji DSLR
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji SLRT forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 

[Bernie Ess]

oH! am I saying the S2 is crappy? .. by today standards.....yeah
move up or shut up
upgrade or move over
get with the program
leave Fuji where it is and will allways B.... BEHIND

The S2 is crappy when the photographer is crappy. Here you can see a few S2 shooters that show excellent work, of course it also can be done with the S3.

I look at your website, and have not found ONE photo that cannot be done with a slow Fuji camera.

But why don't you sell your Fujis on Ebay and get the brand of the real pros? Then you will be part of the black family. Maybe you will feel more comfortable and less agressive then.

Bernie

 

[mmmmmmmm]

There is more to digital cameras than this camera better than that camera or you should use this camera instead of that one.

Questions that need to be asked should be; do you do commercial photography? Stock photography? weddings? seniors? How about carriage trade Photography? How big is your end picture going to be? If you are a carriage trade photographer doing large wall portraits all the time then maybe you need a medium format digital camera. But what about the wedding photographer that is doing PJ work making coffee table albums? the pictures in these coffee table books are really quite small, probably most are 4X5 or smaller with the "faded" background picture.

Now the S3 works perfectly in some of these cases. The last year Gary Fong used the S2 and S3 doing weddings in made over $760,000 dollars from 46 weddings. Not bad for a substandard camera!!

I personally think it is silly to shoot 17meg files when a 2.8 meg file will work just as good. I also think this RAW and Jpeg thing is overblown!

If you are shooting mostly weddings and your pictures are small, then Jpeg is so much faster and requires little computer space fosr storage. I think you choose your camera for your needs, not just because it takes big files.

The real critics are our customers, they could care less about what camera is used or the type of file used. Anthony is 100% right-it's the photograper that counts, not the camera. My partner is red-blue color blind and is already turning down weddings for 2007. He is a master salesman who has never color corrected his monitor. His Net Yearly Income is in the six figures.

Respectfully,
David Miller

 

[john651]

I looked at your site - very nice images, you have truly mastered the Fuji S2.

And IMHO, you will do even better with the D200.

I had the Fuji S1 then the S2 when they first became available and now I own the D200 and feel that it is everything I wanted my Fuji to be. The IQ is better on the D200 and you can get great skin tones from it. I persoanlly shoot both RAW + Jpeg now and love the flexibility of a system like that.

I recommend playing with one if you get the chance. Also, I could send you some NEF's to play with if you wish. I could send them via yousendit.com

--John

 

[Walter S Matthews]

Trying to focus on the original poster's question

I need to replace the 2 abused Fuji S2 bodies we currently use with great satisfaction (mostly RAF+HUS, but JPGs for events reportage).

First, are the S2's somehow breaking down and not working now? That happens, shutter mechanisms fail somewhere over 100K actuations, CCD's die and I guess cameras get dropped and cease to function but if your S2's are still working I don't think there is another camera on the market that matches it for available light shooting when there is enough light for it to focus. The AWB on the S2 is second to no other camera-I'll state that another way, the AWB on the S2 is as good as the D2X or the D200, a lot better than the 5D etc.....It does not deliver the most accurate rendering of color, the Fuji color gammet is terribly biased and it tends to make the color "nicer" but if strict color rendering is your ticket, then stay with the Nikon series of cameras. The Nikons deliver almost exact and usually flat and dull color. As Anthony says, you have to look at the print and compare the print to what you were photographing to be sure but the S2 does not deliver faithful and accurate color. I happen to like the color the S2 gives me and I find it to be as good as or better than any other camera I have worked with.

So if your S2's ain't broke, you just might not go about fixing them because you will have a long and difficult search that I believe will lead you back to your S2's. If they are actually not functioning properly and you need to replace them for truly functional failures, then that is a different proposition. If you take your S2 into open shade and shoot, or, out into a cloudy day and shoot you will get very good images. If you do that with the S3 you will be bitterly disappointed .

The S3 does not deliver pleasing images in open shade or on cloudy days with available light photography. Stick a flash on it, even a small amount of fill flash, and voila, great images. But, alone with no flash, available light shooting with the S3 is a hit or miss proposition and you will miss a large number of shots, or at least will be stuck at your computer trying to figure out what color to add or take away to get a print that looks acceptable. I'm not really sure why that statement is true but for me it is. When it has flash on the camera the WB works and I get great images, with no flash the S3 moves all over the place in AWB.

If you are shooting Flash with the S2's and have been successful I salute you. I was never able to get mine to behave properly. I did struggle through with flash and the S2-probably more than 50 weddings with it-and it can be done, but you fight over exposure and blown highlights all the time.

A month ago I started peeping the Fuji and Nikon forums, so I decided not to buy a S3 (to be buffer upgraded?) and started to wait for the S4.... well, it's time to place the order, and, since we are shooting more events and concerts lately, I would like:

• brighter viewfinder
• better autofocus
• more reliable auto exposure

If these are your criteria, the D200 is the perfect camera. The D2x also fits the criteria but for me it is just too heavy to carry around and I don't like the quality of the image the D2X gives me at iso 1600. The D200 is not perfect at iso 1600 but it is usable. Moreover, I like the image the D200 gives me more than the D2X when everything else is equal. That is a subjective opinion. I shoot my D200 now in RAW compressed mode and I have an action that lets me "DEVELOP" my RAW images into JPGS and they are in every way comparable to the best images I get from my S2 or S3. Anthony seems to have mastered the JPG rout and I will investigate his findings later but I have settled on RAW because it gives me more lattitude, it can be changed later and here is the most important point about shooting with the D200-

FOCUS AND EXPOSURE WITH THE D200 ARE BOTH VERY ACCURATE AND VERY CONSISTENT AND THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED WHEN SHOOTING EVENT PHOTOGRAPHY. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE CAMERA PUTS THE COLOR BALANCE AS LONG AS ALL THE IMAGES IT MAKES ARE THE SAME, YOU CAN MAKE THE CORRECTIONS IN A BATCH FILE THAT TREATS EACH IMAGE THE SAME AND WILL DELIVER YOU USEFUL JPG IMAGES.

So far though, I have to adjust the RAW image from the D200 with a few tweaks, albeit in a batch file, it happens to every image automatically, but I stil cannot match the JPG quiality of images that I take with the S3 using Flash. However, the consistency of the D200 allows you to batch process all your images and you can get essentially ready to print JPGS from one batch processing operation. The D200 is a lot more consistent than the S3 in terms of exposure uniformity in shot to shot varriance.

I also wouldn't like to give up the great "Fuji skin tones",

The D200 can give you great skin tones and I am not willing to concede any more that the S3 is better. It is just different. And, a note of caution here to S3 shooters, if you need to shoot images of a person or people who have a lot more yellow in their skin while they are standing next to other people who have that ever present and relatively colorless caucasian skin, you will not have an easy time with the S3, and that is especially true for the S3 and available light shooting. The beautiful skin tone the S3 gives to a basically pale and colorless brides face, ends up making the decidedly more yellow and red skin of her Asian husband look --well-set it up and give it a try....

My question to whom use both the S2/S3 and D200 cameras is: should I go for the buffer upgraded S3 (when available) or for the D200? Or, in other terms, is the S3's viewfinder/autofocus/light meter somehow better than the S2's?

 

[Walter S Matthews]

I am in the same position and I need a new camera before May and am trying to decide.

We own, and use, the S2, the S3 and the D200. I leave the 85mm lens on the S2 and use it exclusively as a candid-portrait-available light camera for after ceremony candids. I do not struggle any more with the S2 and Flash and would not go there unless forced to. The S3 and Flash is a dream and gives almost perfect images all day and all night, or at least till they roll the last drunk out at the reception. The D200 is now delivering me images that I rate to be as good as the S3 and it also works very well indeed in available light shooting. Its AWB in available light shooting is significantly better than the S3, it focuses faster, more accurately and in a lot lower light than the S3 and, by the way, the S3 is a lot better than the S2 in all of that except for AWB where the S2 is really very good.

So, in conclusion, I wil probably just pick up a $500 Nikon D50 and wait it out. If the D50 gets broken because it isn't "professionally rugged" ...
Oh well.....
It should last till more of the smoke has cleared.......

 

[Markus Richter]

I also wouldn't like to give up the great "Fuji skin tones"

The "great Fuji skin tones" are a myth!

It's individual. Some like it more reddish, some other like it more golden brown. But thats what you can choose when you shoot RAW.

I use Fuji and Canon. There is NO difference in shiny shiny colours and the little bit lack of DR is not a big problem when I shoot RAW what I always do.

;-)

--
Markus

 

[Bernie Ess]

The D200 can give you great skin tones and I am not willing to
concede any more that the S3 is better. It is just different.

I believe that many cameras can deliver great skin tones: It is mostly a question of a good monitor, good eyes and experience. I find the following examples very good and "true":
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=17215213

On the other hand I have seen many bad skin tones from Canons, so it doesn't mean too much which camera you use but how good you are at it...

bernie

 

[davidphoto]

Thanks for sharing your opinions KTH.

4. Skin Tone

I love everything about the D200, except for the skin tone. I am
trying to figure out how to get D200 to give me the skin tone that
I 've been getting from my two Fuji S2's, straight out of the
cameras. I will ditch my S2's when I am able to do that (if I ever
will). In the mean time, I will hang on to my S2's for portraits
or anything that emphasizes a person's skin/flesh; and use the D200
for actions/sports.

Here are the skin tone that I have been able to get from the S2's,
without any post-processing (except for resizing by ACDsee).
http://www.pbase.com/kiettuanhuynh/barbara_nguyen__makeup_by_tiffany_trang_pham

great out-of-the-camera results KTH! Were those shot in JPG?

--
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com

 

[davidphoto]

[...]

Great D200 tips Anthony.

I try to expose to the right as much as possible.

Raight. Do you find quick metering on the field easier with D200? Or do you always have time to doeble check histograms?

With regard to the D200 vs. S3pro, it will depend upon the kind of
shooting the original poster does--if it's portraits and under
controlled lighting, the S3pro is probably just fine. If it's
shooting of events or sports or things like little league ball team
photos, then the D200 is a good choice because of the great
viewfinder and incredible responsiveness. Wedding camera...tough
choice, because the S3pro makes great images.

Everything you said except sports: mostly concert and theatres, weddings (PJ style), executive business events. More and more often company portraits of CEOs where you are always limited to 10 minutes per session on location, and you got to get it right in 5/6 minutes after the pose is set. The latter case is theoreticcal under controlled lights, but the session is so quick that IMHO you must leverage on your PJ-style attitude to get it right.

--
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com

 

[davidphoto]

My problem with the D200 is too many different settings. This is
the beauty of the S3-fewer settings.

I second your opinion, even though...

It seems that with so many
settings it is hard to make minute changes in output(D200). I
either had files too flat or files that were to vivid.

...I find it hard to belive this: if you have tons of settings and at least a couple of preset, you should be able to teach the camera your colour style. Am I wrong?

Good luck no matter which way you go!

Thanks David.

--
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com