Rockwell Nikon D200, 300 vs Cannon 5D

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Alan Calan, Dec 1, 2007.

  1. Alan Calan

    frederick Guest

    Lately (2007) they haven't been in Japan.
    The rest of the world? Wait and see.
    frederick, Dec 4, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. When UFRAW added the ability to convert D3 images, I
    downloaded several NEF files to give it a whirl. I had
    no problem at all generating images that looked the same
    as had been done with Nikon's software.

    They *are* as noise-free as has been advertized. ISO
    3200 is mind boggling. But what really blew me away was
    that not only was 6400 very useable, but 12800 and 25600
    were vastly better than the 1600 and 3200 (Hi-1 and
    Hi-2) on a D2x.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 4, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Calan

    frederick Guest

    Ahh - the D2x.
    I'll give you that the D3 and D300 are good for noise.
    But I don't think that they're in a new league.
    Comparing to a D2x gives false promise I think.
    5d and 1dIII images are pretty darned good at high iso as well, but sure
    the D3 looks a little better even. The D300 and 40d look matched for IQ.

    One thing I noted with D300 raw files converted with no NR is that the
    noise cleans up very well even with free "Noiseware" community edition.
    The cleaned up jpegs from raw looked better than with NR in CaptureNX,
    and a lot better than ex-camera jpegs.
    frederick, Dec 4, 2007
  4. jean wrote:
    They used to mainly because of better advertising and marketing.

    David J Taylor, Dec 4, 2007
  5. Well. My point of course was exactly that simply
    because above you said the opposite. You implied that
    using other than Nikon's CaptureNX would not provide the
    same result. But my experience is that with UFRAW the
    results are at least as good.
    Early indications are that the D3 is. But since they
    only hit the stores on Friday, obviously it will be a
    few hours at least before we have a ton of good data...
    or maybe even weeks.
    It's a known entity.
    I came to the same conclusion regarding D3 noise
    reduction. And compared to the D2x, an apparently equal
    amount of noise (at a much higher ISO) from a D3 is much
    easier to deal with. For example, I simply don't find
    the HI-2 setting for ISO 3200 useful at all on the D2x,
    and the HI-1 is only marginally useful on rare occasions;
    but my initial impression the D3 is that ISO 25600 is actually
    going to be useful, mostly because the noise it does have
    is much easier to deal with using post processing software
    than is the noise on D2x images. (It will be really interesting
    to see what happens when the multiple image option is used
    to get the effect of less noise at even higher ISOs.)

    But of course at this time I'm limited to playing with
    a dozen or so NEF files downloaded from the net.

    I'll have my hands on a D3 within a day or so though. I
    initially pre-ordered one from Ritz Camera, simply based
    on the fact that they sell more Nikon cameras than any
    other US dealer, I figured their allocation would be
    larger and my chances of getting one in the first
    shipment would be high. But they flat refused to give
    me any information about when it would be shipped, so
    over the weekend it occurred to me that early Monday
    morning would be the last best opportunity to find a
    small store with one camera left... And at 8:01 AM I
    called Stewart's Photo in Anchorage. They weren't open
    yet, but the manager answered the phone and sold me D3
    number 3 of his allotment of 3. (Every real
    photographer that's been to Alaska has probably dealt
    with Stewart's, and they are a class act from top to
    bottom, with a truly Alaskan history that dates back to
    the 1940's. So I was not at all unhappy to spend my
    money with them.)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Dec 4, 2007
  6. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    I can't totally disagree what you said. It seems stupid to think that
    the d200 or the D300 cannot produce sharp focused images. Are there
    any other comparisons besides Rockwells?

    But I have to tell you where I am torn. I canot for the life of me
    understand why the D300 is not Full Frame. Nikon was pushing the DX
    format and Canon one upped them, in my opinion.

    I have an F5 and if I buy DX lenses, there are good chances that there
    will be vignetting?

    So my dependent tie to Nikon is not so strong.

    I would just keep the F5 if not for the fact that I want to see what
    my shot look like. My investment in Nikon is worth about $600 on
    Ebay, if that much.

    Forget about the D3, there is no way that ever comes into the picture.

    But it really is pretty simple, what takes better pictures, the D200,
    the D300 or the 5D. Until I see some kind of definitive answer, I'm
    not doing anything.
    Alan Calan, Dec 4, 2007
  7. Alan Calan

    acl Guest

    Converted with what? If the noise in the raw file between two cameras
    is significantly different, it's the result of processing the raw file
    in the camera (I exclude patterned noise here). Well, to a first
    approximation at least.
    acl, Dec 4, 2007
  8. Alan Calan

    Guest Guest

    there are plenty of samples on pbase, flickr and other hosting sites,
    and a lot of threads at dpreview touting the various advantages and
    disadvantages of various cameras. unfortunately, many of those threads
    degenerate into fanboi wars. however, there is still plenty of good
    info there along with a lot of sample images.

    also, dpreview's d200 and 5d reviews are available. phil has already
    completed the hands-on portion for the two new nikons, and hopefully a
    full review will appear soon. he is extremely thorough, and he spends
    several weeks evaluating a single camera.
    because the d200 was a top selling camera and the d300 improves upon it
    in many ways and should sell equally well, if not better. it's only
    been out a week and it has already found some very favourable opinions.
    making a full frame sensor is *not* that cheap (yet), and the d300
    competes with other offerings such as the canon 40d, so there isn't
    that much of a need to go full frame at the moment.

    also, keep in mind, canon initially introduced a full frame camera for
    $8000, and it took a few years until they could make one for $3000 (now
    lower, as the 5d nears the end of its life). the canon 5d is basically
    a canon 20d with a full frame sensor.
    with some lenses yes, but you don't need to buy dx lenses if you don't
    want to.
    it has more to do with the photographer than the camera & lenses.
    Guest, Dec 4, 2007
  9. Alan Calan

    Paul Furman Guest

    Because it would still cost $4,000 or so. They will in time...
    The 5D takes better images. In good lighting there isn't much difference
    but even then, some shadow detail will be lost to noise and highlights
    will blow a little sooner.
    Paul Furman, Dec 4, 2007
  10. Alan Calan

    acl Guest

    Did you actually try? There isn't any difference in the shadows, below
    iso 400 or so... If anything, the d200 has less patterned noise than
    the particular 5d I saw. And why would the highlights blow out sooner?
    acl, Dec 4, 2007
  11. Alan Calan

    Paul Furman Guest

    No I didn't try but underexposure (shadows) always has more noise, so
    yeah, maybe similar on the 5D.
    More dynamic range. Perhaps only usable converting from raw.
    Paul Furman, Dec 4, 2007
  12. Alan Calan

    acl Guest

    The DR is practically the same at low isos...
    acl, Dec 4, 2007
  13. Alan Calan

    Alan Calan Guest

    I just don't understand why Nikon has taken these steps, no Full Frame
    for the D300 and the heavy emhasis on lenses which are not great for
    full frame cameras. It's hard to find reasonably priced Nikon lenses
    that are not DX. Yes there are older slower focusing lenses that are
    not DX and are reasonbly priced but I think DX was a mistake unless
    you are going to have a cheap line of cameras and a proline. The DX
    lenses that people are buying for their prosumer cameras will not be
    great for the D200 and the D300.

    Whether Rockwell is a joker or not, I haven't seen any comparative
    studies that show photgraphs taken with the D300 are equl to the 5D.
    Maybe it's stupidity on my part but I saw great wedding pictures taken
    with D200s but at closer look, they could have been sharper. Color
    saturation was incredible but focus or resolution could have been a
    little better. Even if that was an incorrect conclusion and if and
    the Rockwell photos were not apples to apples I still need a little
    resolution on these issues.

    Because of laziness and inertia, I am looking for a reason to stay
    with Nikon and I will check out the dpreviews articles.

    ok, I just went on dpreview where the 5D was compared to the D200. I
    have a wide screen on my laptop and I filled it and then went to 400%

    Check it out

    Here is another difference that shows the 5D sharper than the D200. I
    didn't see a comparison for the D300
    Alan Calan, Dec 4, 2007
  14. Alan Calan

    RichA Guest

    It has less chroma noise for sure, Nikon has basically eradicated most
    of it. But, the D200 overall noise is still higher, it's higher than
    the D80, D40/x, etc. The little 6 meg D40 produces very clean images.
    RichA, Dec 4, 2007
  15. Alan Calan

    acl Guest

    I'm not talking about jpegs, nor about high ISO. I've tried it
    (systematically only at 100 and 200) and there is no difference. I
    don't understand why people have such a hard time believing this (ok,
    I do, but never mind).

    Look, you can even look at the numbers Roger Clark measured: at ISO
    100 he finds the 5d has 3 times the read noise of the d200 in
    electrons; so, if the 5d has a full well capacity of 100000 electrons,
    they'll be the same. And I don't think it does!

    But above, say, 400 or so, there is a difference.
    acl, Dec 4, 2007
  16. Alan Calan

    RBrickston Guest

    Not an accurate comparison; the exposure looks better and the picture is
    larger for the Canon.
    RBrickston, Dec 4, 2007
  17. Alan Calan

    Paul Furman Guest

    OK, I guess that's why cameras like the D2x sold to pros for studio use.
    "At higher ISOs, it is obvious that large pixel cameras have
    significantly better dynamic range than small pixel cameras, but at low
    ISO there is not much difference. If 14-bit or higher analog-to-digital
    converters were used, with correspondingly lower noise amplifiers, the
    dynamic range could increase by about 2 stops on the larger pixel
    cameras. The smallest pixel cameras do not collect enough photons to
    benefit from higher bit converters."

    BTW, a friend forwarded this message to me from an astrophotography
    email list... it claims the D40x beats a 5D :) I can't say how valid
    that is:

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Duncan Munro <dmunro [email protected]>
    Date: 4 Dec 2007 13:25
    Subject: [RASCals] DSLR Gain values.

    I have calculated preliminary gain values for the Nikon D40X:

    Full well = ~55700e
    ISO100 IG = ~13.6
    IS0800 IG = ~1.63
    ISO 100 read noise = ~18e
    ISO800 read noise = ~9e

    I have to recheck my figures and do some plots for ISO200, 400 and
    1600, but this seems like a very efficient sensor.

    The ISO400 Gain values are probably on the order of ~3.3 which
    actually exceeds the D300 or 40D but these values verify the DR data
    from the 40D Images Resources Imatest results:
    Model 1.0(Low) 0.5(Medium) 0.25(Med-High) 0.1(High)
    Fujifilm S3 Pro
    (Adobe Camera Raw 2) 12.1 11.7 10.7 9.0
    Nikon D40x
    (Adobe Camera Raw 4.1) 12.0 10.9 10.3 8.9
    Nikon D40
    (Adobe Camera Raw 4.1) 11.9 10.9 9.89 8.3
    Pentax K-100D
    (Adobe Camera Raw 3.6) 11.3 10.3 9.51 8.23
    Pentax K10D
    (Adobe Camera Raw 3.7) 10.6 10.0 9.29 8.19
    Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
    (Adobe Camera Raw 3) 11.2 10.3 9.4 8.14
    Nikon D40x 10.8 10.0 9.42 8.04
    Fujifilm S3 Pro -- 9.9 9.4 7.94
    Canon Digital Rebel XTi
    (Adobe Camera Raw 3.6) 10.8 9.88 9.18 7.84
    Canon EOS-5D
    (Adobe Camera Raw 3) 11.0 10.4 9.21 7.83
    Canon EOS-40D
    (Adobe Camera Raw 4.2) 11.2 10.1 9.26 7.72
    Canon EOS-5D
    (Camera JPEG) 10.2 9.68 8.82 7.65
    Nikon D200
    (Adobe Camera Raw 3) 10.6 9.65 8.96 7.61
    Nikon D80
    (Adobe Camera Raw 3.6) 11.1 10.4 9.42 7.51

    ( )

    I can confirm that the D40X does, indeed, have 12 stops of DR, in the
    Low (engineering) category as measured by IR. This makes the D40X
    sensor one of the most efficient sensors on the market, and at low
    ISOs it will exceed the performance of the D300 and 40D:

    camera: 5D,20/30D,40D,300D,400D,350XT,D50,D70,D200,D3,D40x,D300
    Pixel size(PS): 8.2,6.4,5.7,7.4, 5.7,6.4,7.8,7.8,6.05,8.4,6.05,5.5
    pixel area(PA): 67.2,41,32.5,55,32.5,41,61,61,37,71,37,30
    relativePixelarea(RPA) 2.1,1.3,1,1.7,1,1.3,1.9,1.9,1.1,2.2,1.1,.93
    IG 4.1,3.1,3.1,2.7,2.8,2.6,3.7,3,2,8.3,3.2,2.7
    IG/RPA 2,2.46,3.1,2.7,1.6,2.7,2,1.6,1.8,3.8,2.9,2.9

    (Ranking is alphabetical when equal)

    Camera rank order by RPA
    5D, 2.1
    D50, 1.9
    D70, 1.9
    300D, 1.7
    20/30D, 1.3
    350XT, 1.3
    D40X, 1.1
    D200 , 1.1
    D300, .93
    40D, 1
    400D, 1

    Camera rank order by IG. Inverse Gain is a measure of effective QE, or
    more properly, system throughput.

    D3, 8.3
    5D, 4.1
    D50, 3.7
    D40X, 3.2
    20/30D, 3.1
    40D, 3.1
    D70, 3
    D300, 2.7
    400D 2.7
    200D, 2

    Camera rank order by IG/RPA:

    D3, 3.8
    40D, 3.1
    D40X, 2.9
    D300, 2.9
    400D, 2.7
    20/30d, 2.46
    350XT, 2
    5D, 2
    D50, 2
    D200, 1.8
    300D 1.6
    D70 1.6

    This is a measure of the camera's QE/pixel area and demonstrates
    effective QE per unit of surface area. It shows the D3 ahead, but not
    by an amount which would require more than incremental changes in
    technology, such as fill factor, dye transmission, etc. We can see in
    this table, that Canon has made large gains in QE/RPA, and the 40D
    remains outstanding in this area, but that Nikon has caught up, and
    surpassed Canon, with the D3. We also can see, for example how the
    D50, was able to match the 350XT and 5D in IG/RPA, and now the D40X
    has caught up to its competitors.
    Note the strong relationship between pixel area and IG, when comparing
    cameras of similar development age.


    Paul Furman, Dec 4, 2007
  18. Alan Calan

    acl Guest

    That's interesting, thanks. Do you have any idea how he measured the
    read noise for the nikons?
    acl, Dec 4, 2007
  19. Alan Calan

    ASAAR Guest

    Your tie is not so much to Nikon as it is to your film camera. No
    matter which DSLR you get, whether D40x, D200, D300 or even Canon's
    5D, after a short while it's very unlikely that your F5 will get
    much more use. It's been years since I've put film in any of my
    Nikon cameras, and for the rare instances that you'll be using your
    F5, you can make do with your current lenses. I bought two
    additional lenses for my DSLR. One is a DX lens, but even though
    the other isn't, and it is fully compatible with my old Nikon film
    SLRs, I doubt that I'll ever even try mounting it. Is it really all
    that important that you be able to use any or all new lenses with
    your F5? Getting a 5D won't change that desire. It'll just insure
    that lens compatibility with your F5 won't even be an option.
    ASAAR, Dec 5, 2007
  20. Alan Calan

    Will Ritson Guest

    The D3 is said to be in a league of its own wrt high-ISO noise. I don;t
    think anyone is claiming the D300 is vastly superior to the D200 in
    low-light, low-noise images. Same goes for any other aspect of IQ.

    To get the most out of captures with any Nikon digital, (IMHO) you need
    to hang it on the back of a Nikon lens. Buying a bunch of Tamrons,
    Sigmas, Tokinas etc., defeats the whole purpose. Even if you go with
    some other system (Canon or anyone) you need to ask yourself "am I
    satisfied with the look of JPEGs straight out of the camera, or am I
    going to invest time and money in post processing?" If the latter,
    you're cheating yourself if you don't learn Adobe Photoshop--and I mean
    LEARN, not look for some shortcut like you did with a video
    game--because success shouldn't be defined as trying every tool in a
    weekend, and saying "I got to Level Twelve! Next app please." It is
    true that you can learn about ten facets of the program--pretty much
    scratching the surface--that will come in handy for ninety per cent of
    all images, both scans and camera output, but there's a lot of ways to
    do every task, and actions to save you time, and subtleties to keep
    your work from looking "Photoshopped."

    Just my two cents worth.
    Will Ritson, Dec 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.