D200

L

lawrenceots

Banned : Trading/Abuse of Classifieds
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,395
Name
Lawrence
Edit My Images
Yes
My new (to me) D200 just arrived today, and first impressions, cmopared to my D5000, were awesome. I love the build and ruggedness, and the mass of options and customisation in the CSM menus, it's just brilliant! Buttt... I'm not too pleased with the image quality, compared to my D5000. I stuck it on the 600 AIS, as that was one of the main reasons for getting it so it'd work in Aperture priority. But the images just aren't as good as I'm used to with the D5k, despite my having to do a lot more work with the D5k in terms of adjusting exposure manually etc. Am I simply expecting too much for a 5 year old pro DSLR compared to todays entry level?
 
What's wrong with the images?

Is it just that the images need a bit more work? I think that newer cameras give more "user ready" images whereas older cameras tend to give a flatter looking image that need a bit more processing.
 
lawrenceots said:
I stuck it on the 600 AIS,
Click to expand...

I had one and was never disappointed with it. Maybe the default sharpening in JPG is one click less than what consumer cameras give and hint of saturation wouldn't go amiss. Do that and you're back in "consumer land". ;)
 
Last edited:
D200 was, IMO, always better when shooting raw (.NEF) for large printout - just better sharpness and clarity for some reason - although I ended up shooting JPEG all the time on it and didn't notice to be honest. Great camera - brilliant build quality
 
The D5000 has the same sensor as the D300s therefore the image quality will be the same as that. The D200 has a much lower tech sensor which is quiet noisy compared with the latter generation 12MP sensor. If you are only interested in image quality the D5000 is way better.
 
woof woof said:
What's wrong with the images?

Is it just that the images need a bit more work? I think that newer cameras give more "user ready" images whereas older cameras tend to give a flatter looking image that need a bit more processing.
Click to expand...


I think you've (sort of) hit the nail on the head there. If you cast your mind back, Stu_the_flat was complaining about the exact same thing after going from a D60 -> D300.

It's more to do with the entry-level cameras being set up to produce acceptable jpeg images straight from the camera, without any processing, rather than the age of the D200.
 
All my old 20D needs is maybe a tweek to levels and saturation.

I've never used a D200 but I'd be surprised if it needed much more than my 20D.
 
Thanks for the replies. I should point out that I always shoot in Raw on the D5k anyway and process in iPhoto or CS3. I'm going to do a proper test tomorrow with both cameras and post up the results. IMO the images just look much less sharp - even when I turn up the sharpening in camera and/or after compared to the razor sharpness I seem to have been getting with the D5k. Tomorrow will tell :)
 
I've been using all sorts today - 400 - 1000. :( I'll do comparisons about 500 tomorrow so I know for sure :)
 
lawrenceots said:
I've been using all sorts today - 400 - 1000. :( I'll do comparisons about 500 tomorrow so I know for sure :)
Click to expand...


Shoot them both at the D200's native iso 100, that's what it was designed to shoot at, it was not designed to shoot iso all over the shop like the d5000 is, sensor tech is a long way in advance of the 5 year old D200 but it will still shoot as good as anything if you don't give it 2010 high iso performance hoops to jump through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top