best 200 iso-nikon?

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

end

best 200 iso-nikon?

Elan II
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · best 200 iso-nikon?

chemprof wrote:
Kerry, it's present in your images also. The tonal transitions in the upper right corner of the D200 image are better and the shadows are "slightly" less grainy.

Exactly what I've observed. If you want a low ISO landscape camera the D200 is still the champ. Better highlight handling than D2X, just as enlargeable as D300.

I've printed quite a few 17x25 in prints, and with proper processing they are indistinguishable. The D300 takes more processing, however to get the same result. Also, I still have not come to grips with the colors it sometimes produces, no matter what type of processing is applied. In addition, the added any detail the D300 provides is insignificant at those sizes, given the images are properly upressed using a good program, like Genuine Fractals.

Additionally, I think the "proven" high ISO advantage of the D300 is also a myth. It's, in my opinion, just a little better than the D200, probably less than one stop. My feeling is that the entire difference is in the processing, not a higher quality sensor.

Lastly, I DO find there to be a LARGE difference in focus capability. Even for non moving subjects, the D300's focus is just plain more accurate and more consistent.

This is what I have come up with after making many prints from both, and shooting them in parallel over the course of the last year. And noticing better colors (sometimes) on the D200 in similar images. And finding that matching the colors between the two under these conditions is sometimes very difficult.

If I were to consider upgrading to a new camera now from my D200, would I buy a D300? The answer is MAYBE. It would really depend on how much cash I had stashed, and if I could afford to keep my D200. In my opinion, unless your main consideration is the improved focus, and image quality is secondary, I would NOT spend the additional money on the D300. Don't get me wrong, it's a great camera, but it's not worth 2X the price on the used market if AF is not your primary concern.

Gerald

100% agreed. I actually made very similar observations when the D300 came out, especially regarding the resolution and high-ISO output. You can probably guess what the reaction was at the time. I don't regret getting the D300 since I needed an extra body anyway. But I also made a note to myself not to be tempted to pick up any new body until new sensor technology comes out. I might make an exception for one FX body, for the beautiful grain.

firewireguy wrote:
I think the D50 I had has been better than my D2H and D300 at ISO200.

I never owned one, but a couple of D50 owners told me it produces a noticeably sharper image than the D200/300. One in particular prefers it for all his macro shooting for that reason. I believe the D50 has an extra thin AA filter.

Jan 09, 2009 at 04:01 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · best 200 iso-nikon?

chemprof wrote:
Kerry, it's present in your images also. The tonal transitions in the upper right corner of the D200 image are better and the shadows are "slightly" less grainy.

Interesting post, Gerald. As I said, I'm not very good at distinguishing differences, certainly not as accomplished as you are. I don't see enough difference in the images to make me choose 1 over the other.

Tonal transitions, in theory, should be better on the d300, if 14-bit captures were used. When viewing these images, the main differences that I see are in the colors and the goof I made with the different zoom, making the d300 shot much larger when viewed at 100%.. The color differences should be due to the different sensor types, different color filter arrays, and different demosaicing used in the NEF conversion.

I agree that the 2mp difference isn't significant. When I bought the d300, my main concern was AF. I've not done side by side tests before now and tend to agree with your assessment on high ISO performance, The difference seems to me to be slightly less than a stop. That difference is significant to me and would be enough to make me choose the d300 over the d200 for high ISO work, even without the differences in AF.

Jan 09, 2009 at 04:50 PM

gman1339
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · best 200 iso-nikon?

The D300, D700 and D2X(s) are CMOS, The D200 is CCD.

Jan 09, 2009 at 05:09 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · best 200 iso-nikon?

Chris S. wrote:

Agreed, when I do more robust testing, checking ISO 100 vs 200 is one of the things I should do. Among the things I would like to know: Now that I think see that D200 is better than the D700 at base ISO, and quite the opposite is true at high ISOs, I'd like to find out where the crossover point is.

I should have thrown the d700 into the test as well.... I'd suggest a couple of things for your tests. Use 14-bit captures and use the supposed identical ISO ratings. My tests show that ISO 100 on the d200 is significantly more different than it should be to the ISO 125 on the d300. Either the d300 is more sensitive than 125 or the d200 is lower than 100. Given that I don't see a significant difference in my files, I have no idea where you'd find a crossover point.

But then, I should expect a dramatic difference, right? Am going to shoot my mouth off here without checking facts--am hurrying off to a job. So if I'm wrong, I won't object to being corrected. But if I recall correctly, both the D200 and D300 are CCD cameras, whereas the D700 uses a CMOS chip, as does the D3 and presumably, the D3x. I would expect a CCD and CMOS to render the world in quite different ways. So testing a CCD camera against a CMOS camera at base ISO might well be expected to show dramatic differences.

The d200 is a CCD, the d300, d700 and d3 are CMOS. They will have different color filter arrays and demosaicing, so yes, they will render differently.

I may reproduce the test, using all 3 cameras. dunno. I don't enjoy doing that kind of thing. I can tell where the differences are, when I process normal files and I make any adjustments necessary. I haven't had the d700 long enough to use on an assignment. Being mostly retired, I decided not to take any bookings for a few months.

So, the only shots I have from the d700 are indoor snapshots of my dogs at ultra high ISOs and some lens tests. Not very interesting stuff, that.

If I get bored and have extra time, I'll do the tests, using 14-bit for the d300 and d700, use identical ISOs and try to make sure not to bump the zoom ring again....

Although, I should probably equalize the FOV as close as possible with the d700, to make it easier to compare the color patches.

Jan 09, 2009 at 05:10 PM

Randy Roy
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #5 · best 200 iso-nikon?

F100

Jan 09, 2009 at 07:13 PM

90 5.0
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · best 200 iso-nikon?

Randy Roy wrote:
F100

N75 I tell you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iso 200 :drool:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Jan 09, 2009 at 07:18 PM

omeega
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · best 200 iso-nikon?

wow, this thread is a huge ego-boost for my D200!

Jan 10, 2009 at 04:09 AM

chemprof
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · best 200 iso-nikon?

D200 is the only CCD camera of the ones that have been discussed here. D300 and D700 are both CMOS.

Gerald

Jan 10, 2009 at 04:42 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end