Want resolution? Nikon D200. Want dynamic range? A D50!!!!

According to one review in a Brit mag called, "Digital Camera."
The pixel density of the D200 (in addition to putting it well behind
the Canon 5D in terms of image quality) means it doesn't have
the dynamic range of the lowly D50! Part of the gains it has
in-terms of resoution (10M versus 6M for the D50) are lost
due to the dynamic range compression!
I guess you can't change the laws of physics, even with a beautiful
magnesium weather-sealed body.
-Rich

 

Or the $2000 price difference of a 5D.

 

In message <l55Qf.2161$>,

What kind of $? In the US, the 5D is only $1K more than the D200.
--

 

So only people in the US can buy them? Expand your universe, only 6% of the
worlds population lives in the USA.

 

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

That was probably why JP was asking what kind of dollars. Aussie dollars
are smaller than American dollars, which would account for a larger
difference in price, I guess. Actually the price difference in the US is
more like $1200-1400, but, hey, who's counting...

 

Yeah I did know that of course and of course everyone should know that
Douglas lives in Australia, mind you it is a bit hard to keep up with his
hundred aliases.

 

Want noise at High ISO's? Get a Nikon.


**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"


David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/

 

Only? The D200 body sells for less than $2000. That is more than a 50%
premium. Nothing only about it.

 

In message

You are a jerk. Why do you think I *ASKED* "What kind of $"?

PRECISELY because I am aware that the US is not the world, and I was
bring to the OP's attention the fact that his country is not the world.

What is your problem?
--

 

In message <44118149$0$79517$>,

Is there a general problem with reading comprehension in this thread?
One person said $2000, not stating the currency, and said that in one
currency, it is "only" $1K more (i.e., much less than $2000).

No opinions at all on my part about pricing. I think they all cost way
too much.
--

 

The last time I commented on the difficulty of keeping track of Douglas, he
unleashed an unwarranted personal attack on me. I wonder what he'll do this
time.
So far, he's appeared as Douglas, Ryadia, go go dancer, Tropical Treat (my
personal favorite), wraped (sic) in canvas, D-Mac, Technical Aussie, and at
least two more that I've forgotten.

 

I've used the D50, and bought the D200, the image quality on the D200
very good, WB is great, flesh tone are excellent, but what sold the
camera to me is the viewfinder, bright and accurate, one of the big
letdowns on the N80 based cameras, even the Fujis is the viewfinder is
very inaccurate as to placing the subject. Not to bad for regular
photos but I'm working with macro and the N80 based cameras just don't
hack it. The D50 and D70 both have mirror, not prism viewfiders so
they are very dim, again something you don't want with macro. Thought
the D20 (D30) was OK but the D200 felt like the film cameras I'm used
to Leica, Canon F1 and Nikon F3 (by far the best viewfinder ever). So
for what a Canon 5D would cost I have a Nikon D200, 24mm f2, 70-210 f4
(not the 4.5-5.6) via ebay, and a Tokina 12-24, and a 50mm Sigma macro
(yes would prefer a Nikon but 60mm is just too close to the 70mm) I
also photograph art work so a shorter lens is more advantageous.
Also brought the D200 into the clinic where I work, did a couple of
patients, so much better than the Fuji S2 I'm used to, image
placementwise and tonality, the added brightness of the viewfinder made
hand held 1:1 images much easier.

Tom

 

"Maddy" was the best.

;-)

 

Is that just theoretical or they did some kind of real world comparison?
It seems they have broken the laws of physics if it has twice the pixels
at the same size & (nearly) the same dynamic range. The D200 is supposed
to have about the same dynamic range as a D70 and yes the D50 is a tad
better. It depends what you are measuring exactly and that doesn't
necessarily translate into real world usefulness:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PIMATEST.HTM
scroll down about half way...
Dynamic Range (in f-stops) vs Image Quality
(At camera's minimum ISO)
Model 1.0 (Low) 0.5(Medium) 0.25(Med-High) 0.1(High)
Fujifilm S3 (RAW)12.1 11.7 10.7 9.0
Fujifilm S3 Pro -- 9.9 9.4 7.94
Nikon D50 10.7 9.93 8.70 7.36
Canon EOS 20D 10.3 9.66 8.85 7.29
Canon Rebel XT 10.3 9.51 8.61 7.11
Olympus EVOLT 10.8 9.26 8.48 7.07
Canon Rebel 10.1 9.11 8.47 6.97
Pentax *istDs 10.2 10 8.87 6.9
Nikon D2x -- 8.93 7.75 6.43
Nikon D70S 9.84 8.69 7.46 5.85
Nikon D70 9.81 8.76 7.58 5.84

 

Gosh. And here Phil Askew on DPReview was saying that picture quality
was better than the 5D.

And even the most diehard "laws of physics" guys here are saying that
there is still room for the number of pixels to be doubled or even
quadrupled before the quantum limits of gathering photons are reached.

Given that "Digital Camera's" review represents a minority of one out
of all the reviews so far published about the D200, I guess it says
more about "Digital Camera" than it does about the D200.

Perhaps the reason you don't have a camera, Rich, is that none of them
are perfect enough for you.

 

Actually John I had been going to apologise but then I reread your post, you
should have known the poster was Douglas and it appears that your treat the
rest of the world just like he does, as though they are idiots so I am not
going to apologise.

Cheers.

 

Offtopic.

But it's a silly thread anyway. Nitpicking about resolution and
dynamic range at these levels is of little point - if people are fussed
they will read the reviews for themselves, without Rich having to
repost information (or non-information in many cases) simply to get his
numbers up.

Actually, it's getting close to 50 identities now - you really should
check *everyone* you are talking to, he could be anywhere, as...(deep
breath):

ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug,
douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested
bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones,
alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on
canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt,
healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong,
wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple
of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple,
not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas...

He's giving me much to consider as I do my psych degree.... I
particularly like the misspellings - the 'raped in canvas' one is quite
apt, having seen his prints..

But he doesn't think he has a problem... (O: Just call him Sybil. Or
maybe Sybil³...

(By the way, I don't think Douglas' 'justintyme' is related to a Justin
Thyme character I have seen around the groups..)

 

Phil didn't say the image quality of the D200 was better than the Canon 5D,
he said the build quality was better, to wit:
" Which brings us to the competition, from a build/features point of view
it's clearly ahead of the Canon EOS 20D/30D and in my opinion a step above
the EOS 5D, a baby D2X."

Quite the opposite, there has been speculation that the limit, if not
already reached, is definitely on the horizon.

 

Oh? How many of the remaining 94% are in the market for a $1600 dslr?

 

Consider your paranoid belief that I'm many different people. And
consider you simpleton's
belief that resolution and dynamic range questions are nitpicking.