A200 - samples posted - but disappointed me

[Herb]

I don't know whether this makes a fair comparison, but I've adjusted the A200 part of the picture (and removed the Starling from the Nikon picture) to see how close I could get them. I incline to think that the A200 loses.

[Santos]

Herb wrote:

I don't know whether this makes a fair comparison, but I've adjusted the A200 part of the picture (and removed the Starling from the Nikon picture) to see how close I could get them. I incline to think that the A200 loses.

Herb:

That definitely is not a fair comparison. The chimney in the 8800 image has greater magnification than in the A200 image, thus it has more "pixels per brick" and it will produce greater detail.Enlarging the A200 image issimilar to taking a 4MP image and blowing it up to compare it with an 8MP image. That's why the Steve will shoot comparison images at the the same focal lengths for his reviews.

A better test might be to reduce the image size of the 8800 pic so that the chimneys are the same size, then compare them with unsharp mask used on the A200 pic.

That's what I've done with the attached pic...it's not terribly scientific or rigorous, but it comes closer than my original comparison. The A200 pic comes closer, but the 8800 still looks better to my eyes. Note the increase in grain in the A200 pic, this is due to the unsharp mask. If I tried to get the A200 pic closer to the 8800, the grain becomes objectionable.

I'm going to print both pics if I get a chance tomorrow to see if this differenceis actually significant in the real world...

cheers....Santos

[Herb]

Santos - I'm looking forward to reading about your print results. I hardly ever make prints, so I tend to favour whatever version looks best (to me) on the screen.

There's another thread posted by Catbells that has an A200 portrait of a guy starting to grow a beard - or at least showing a lot of stubble. I tried applying Unsharp Mask (around 200) to that - and it then seemed to me that the A200 resolution was first rate.

Incidentally, in the matter of making prints, there's an article in the January 1 issue of Macworld that indicates that for printing purposes (if you're using an inkjet printer) it's best to oversharpen a bit with Unsharp Mask.

[Santos]

Herb wrote:

Santos - I'm looking forward to reading about your print results. I hardly ever make prints, so I tend to favour whatever version looks best (to me) on the screen.

There's another thread posted by Catbells that has an A200 portrait of a guy starting to grow a beard - or at least showing a lot of stubble. I tried applying Unsharp Mask (around 200) to that - and it then seemed to me that the A200 resolution was first rate.

Incidentally, in the matter of making prints, there's an article in the January 1 issue of Macworld that indicates that for printing purposes (if you're using an inkjet printer) it's best to oversharpen a bit with Unsharp Mask.

Hi Herb:

I saw Catbell's pictures in the other thread. The portrait looks very good. I think the default settings on the A200, with its more neutral colours and lower contrast, will produce more pleasing portraits.

Re: extra sharpening for printing, I've read that in several articles. Apparently the ink drops will spread as the ink soaks into the paper and will soften fineedges. The better printerswith their smaller ink drop size, andglossy paper will minimize this somewhat.

And speaking of prints, I did manage to print full size selections from both chimney pics at an image resolution of 300 ppi to produce an 8 x 10 print. The 8800 pic was downsized in Photoshop to 2200 by 1650 pixels so that the bricks are the same size in both versions. The A200pic wasn't resized, but I did use the unsharp mask as before.

The results on the prints were much closer than on the monitor. The 8800 still had slightly more contrast, the A200 had slightly more shadow detail. I'm sure I could push either one to look like the other.

This finally removes image quality from my mind as a major factor. Both will produce excellent prints. The A200 will require more post-processing at the default settings, However, both cameras have extensive adjustments on contrast, sharpness, and colour saturation which I did NOT test, so post-processing may not be that much of a chore. As for a purchase, it's now goingto depend on the combination of features and ergonomics that seem to be a better fit for my use.

I'll have to go down to the camera shop over the next few days and fondle both cameras again.... heh

regards..... Santos

[Catbells]

I retook the Nikon CP8800 using Auto Mode at 50 ASA to provide a more direct comparison with the A200 which resulted in the CP8800 retaining much more detail in the white washed gable end of the building.

Straight out of the camera, the CP8800 still provides more pleasing results BUT I noticed that at 100 ASA, the CP8800 started to look noisy.

[Santos]

Catbells wrote:

I retook the Nikon CP8800 using Auto Mode at 50 ASA to provide a more direct comparison with the A200 which resulted in the CP8800 retaining much more detail in the white washed gable end of the building.

Straight out of the camera, the CP8800 still provides more pleasing results BUT I noticed that at 100 ASA, the CP8800 started to look noisy.

Very good comparison photos Catbells... exposure does make a big differences. Re: the noise levels, I think they're pretty close at iso 50 and 100, but the A200 definitely has lower noise at iso 200 and 400.

I have a similar comparison, but at full telephoto, so the A200 was shotat 200mm, the CP8800 at 350mm. I reduced the size of both, but with less reduction on the A200 so that the bagel sign was the same size. The A200 pic was reduced to 1600 x 1067 pixels. The CP8800 was reduced to 1000 x 750 pixels. The picutre below has 100 % crops from each. ThisSHOULD give a significant advantage to the A200, but I'll let you judge for yourself... no other post-processing was done.

The difference in contrastis not entirely due to the cameras, there was snow on the ground whenI took the A200 pic...(see the Christmas wreath?) and the snowwas reflecting light back onto the store fronts...

cheers....Santos

[Herb]

Catbells - The first difference I noticed between the 2 pictures of the Victory Telecom & Fish & Chips shops was that the Minolta one had less exposure & less contrast than did the Nikon one.

After slightly reducing the brightness and contrast of the Nikon version & adding a bit of blackpoint it brought out the detail in the pale coloured wall - & (I thought) it made the 2 pictures quite close in appearance.

The two don't seem to differ much in quality of resolution? They were presumably taken under slightly different sky and general light conditions?

Herb

[Catbells]

Here's my last post on the comparison between the A200 & CP8800. Whilst I prefer the ergonomics, appearance and features of the A200, the bottom line is that even after post processing, the A200 doesn't quite come up to the CP8800.

Having read at length, the problems experience by some CP8800 owners in the Nikon forum reference shutter lag, low light focus )or lack of) and manual focus, I'll have to do some decision making to determine if these impose limitations on my use.

I really liked the A200 & would have been prepared to accept some post processing to achieve acceptable results but it's been without success; reluctantly, it's off the short list.




Happy New Year to all

[pavlovspooch]

Santos wrote:

His conclusion was that the A200 pics were sharper than the 8800. And a he posted some pictures to show that. Yeah, I find that hard to believe as well, but that's what he says...

Hi all, this is a very interesting discussion.

Is it possible that inconsistencies in reviews are due to reviewers getting early samples of new cameras and there maybe some tweeking of the firmware right up to (and even after) the release date?

BTW it's interesting that the 8800 and A200 are considered competitors. Here in the Uk the retail price of the 8800 is about 25% more expensive.

[Santos]

pavlovspooch wrote:

Santos wrote:

Hi all, this is a very interesting discussion.

Is it possible that inconsistencies in reviews are due to reviewers getting early samples of new cameras and there maybe some tweeking of the firmware right up to (and even after) the release date?

BTW it's interesting that the 8800 and A200 are considered competitors. Here in the Uk the retail price of the 8800 is about 25% more expensive.

I think that quality control for most camera manufacturers is generally quite good. Plus, I wouldhope that the camera companies are careful that any camera they send out for review is working properly.

The prices for the A200 and the CP8800 are the same in Canada...approx 1200 $CDN, or 520 UK pounds.

cheers...Santos