Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 31, 2006, 12:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 274
Default


For someone coming from a Nikon D50, how would you compare the out of camera JPEGs between the D200 and D50?


Is the D200 more for someone shooting RAW and then post-processing?


agiaccio is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 31, 2006, 1:47 PM   #2
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

I'm sure the the D200 will produce good JPGs at the high settings.

A lot of people probably won't agree with me but using the D200 to shoot JPGs would be a bit like putting a Ford engine in a Ferrai.

That said if I had a D50 I wouldn't shoot anything but RAW as I do on my D70.


Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2006, 7:39 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

Nagasaki wrote:
Quote:
I'm sure the the D200 will produce good JPGs at the high settings.

A lot of people probably won't agree with me but using the D200 to shoot JPGs would be a bit like putting a Ford engine in a Ferrai.

That said if I had a D50 I wouldn't shoot anything but RAW as I do on my D70.

If you do not plan to use RAW do not waste your money and time for the learning curve. Uncompressed RAW filesof the D200 are much better than compressed files of D50. Yes, usining jpeg with D200 is like "putting a Ford engine in a Ferrai".

Here is an example of RAW photo from D200.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2006, 3:02 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
howardleigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 21
Default

RAW v. JPG
It's rather horses for courses - I photographed a school production of Grease recently and finished up with around 600 images...Yes I could have taken them in RAW but JPG suited it for speed of saving and post-processing. Yes I know I could have batch processed them. But the quality of Nikon JPG on fine quality is outstanding so why waste time and energy? Not only that but I would have run out of CF storage! I haven't enough CF cards for that level of image taking.
I took exactly the same attitude over a wedding I photographed. JPG saved me loads of time. Why waste it processing RAW? Sunshine or flash, the results needed virtually no manipulation at all, apart from a slight sharpening.
However my day-to-day images are often in RAW, because I have then got absolute control over the images. But it's rarely sharpness or detail that's the issue then but getting precise colour balance and exposure.

However if you are planning large exhibition quality prints at A3 or even A2, then I agree RAW might be the better way forward. But not essential... I've tried both jpg and raw for A3 print output - and given good photographic files I couldn't see any difference!

Howard
howardleigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 9:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
tommysdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 714
Default

I shoot Raw all the time.I have more control over the final output of the image.If I were to shoot a wedding I would definatley shoot in Raw.My opinion is ,I`d be gettin paid for photographing someones big day.If I shot in Jpeg and for some reason the pics were over or underexposed, I could save them easily with Raw workflow, but then again its the Raw v Jpeg debate again.Whatever you shoot in I think post processing and digital cameras go hand in hand in this digital age.

TD
tommysdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2006, 10:58 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1
Default

ruchai wrote:
Quote:
If you do not plan to use RAW do not waste your money and time for the learning curve. Uncompressed RAW filesof the D200 are much better than compressed files of D50. Yes, usining jpeg with D200 is like "putting a Ford engine in a Ferrai".

Here is an example of RAW photo from D200.
Quote:
Ruchai,
Quote:
Is that bird pic a 100% crop ? If this is not the case, difficult to evaluate focus and sharpness due to resizing and compression. For instance, the orange feathersabove the eye are quite murky and "pastel like" (i.e. like having been painted with a pastel), resulting in a "flat" picture.
Quote:
Please do not get me wrong, I am not questioning you abilities at all. Your posted sample actually highlights that D200 pics are too soft, and require extensive post-processing in order to let details stand out. A major problem isthat any meaningfulincrease insharpening brings along noise and edge halos as anyone can easily verify by downloading the three "brick" samples in Steve's D200 review.
Quote:
I am stil trying to work out an effective technique to properly sharpen my D200 output without having to suffer noise and nasty halos.
Quote:
The D200 is my third DSLR, so I know post-processing requirements quite well also having almost esclusively shot raw with my D70. However, sharpening is a tricky beast with the D200 due to a particularly steep sharpness / noise gradientcoupled with the native low contrast of sensor capture, which tends to clip micro-details. For instance, compared to the D200, the D70 is able to capture more micro-detail (i.e. fine texture, yieldingthat sort of 3D effect lacking in the bird pic) with a minimal increase in contrast. Canon 20D / 30D have sharper native output without edge halos, comparable to Sharpening +2 in the D200 which however adds halos...
Quote:
In any case, the D200 is a superior camera in anything other than the above "feature". I will report back here if I find a good technique to achieve proper sharpening without noise and halos. I do not expect any move from Nikon, though.
Quote:
Glad to see that this issue has been covered by Steve in his comments, as opposed to other reviewers blindly praising the D200 (other exception is DPreview).
MauroB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:56 AM.