D200 + 300 F/4

[Argent]

I had a chance to test shoot a D200 last night to see if I liked it

It had the battery grip as well - and I felt the balance and handling of the whole rig was very comfortable....but it seemed that the shots weren't as crisp or clear as the ones from my D50 - and I also found that in lower light situations it seemed to have focus lock problems and would constantly 'seek' (thus resulting in OOF shots)

Are there settings or something that may have been set that I could change - or did I have just a bad experience - or might there be something wrong with the D200?

*frustrated between trying to figure out what camera to get now*

 

[Jeff Lee]

D200 with standard settings require significant Post to get color and resolution in RAW. Were you using a tripod, few folks can hand hold 450mm and get critically sharp images...what focusing model were you using....were you one Continuous or single focus mode and was focus release set to "in focus"?

D200 requires a little more "thought" when using than a D50....perhaps it was just the learning curve.

 

[Argent]

No tripod - all handheld shots in Manual - and I was shooting 300mm not 450? (or am I missing something) also all the shots were Fine JPG just like I shot with my D50 (to make favorable comparison)

and I tried with the switch on the front of the camera body (next to the lens) on C and on S

the rest of what you said - I haven't a clue

 

[fotographik]

300 X 1.5 DX crop factor = 450

 

[Argent]

whats a DX crop factor?

 

[shanelu87]

Digital camera sensors are smaller than film sensors. The 300mm f/4 was made for full frame (film) sensors, so the DX (digital cameras) utilize a smaller area of the viewing area on the 300mm. Nikon DX cameras are cropped at 1.5 times the size of film cameras, so 300 * 1.5 = gives you a 450mm equivalent. When choosing your shutter speed, its good to choose around 1/500 or higher for consistantly good shots

 

[Argent]

Hmm - theoretically then my D50 had this same crop factor though (being digital as well)? and I was able to hand shoot with it no problems (see my One Prime Challenge post for examples)

 

[rgordin]

Hmm - theoretically then my D50 had this same crop factor though (being digital as well)? and I was able to hand shoot with it no problems (see my One Prime Challenge post for examples)

Yes - no difference between D300, D200 or D50 (or D70, D40, D60, etc) in this respect. There will only be a difference when comparing a full frame camera - D3 or D700 - to the rest of Nikon's SLR digital line.

 

[Argent]

so then handholding between the two bodies wouldn't be the problem - I could do it with the D50 I should be able to do it with the D200

still thinking I may spring the few extra hundred for the D300 - just because it's newer tech and the DBS problems seem to have been solved with the new firmware update

 

[Walter Rowe]

I would definitely recommend the D300 over the D200 if you are moving up from a D50. The D300 produces significantly cleaner images at higher ISO, and you get 20% more data and 14-bit color depth vs 12-bit color depth.

 

[Argent]

and I'd shoot higher ISO in lower light situations?

 

[Panda51]

and I'd shoot higher ISO in lower light situations?

Hi again Paul,

before I bought my D200 I read many and many threads dealing with it. I was not interested in buying a D300 since it was clearly out of my budget. However my feeling was that the big improvement from the D200 to the D300 was the lower noise of the D300 at high ISO . If you're not specifically a low light shooter I am not sure it is worth to pay the extra money to get the D300.
Again it is my feeling from all the stuff I have read, not from personal experience since I never used a D300.
Well informed people, tell me if I am wrong:wink:

 

[Nuteshack]

must be something wrong ..all my glass works better on my d200 vs my d50. and i like the colors from it a lot better than the d300....;-)))

 

[Argent]

well I can see using the higher ISO's with the F4 on my 300 for animals in the bushes or birds in trees (not in direct sunlight) where they could be darker or in deeper shadows

if there IS something wrong with that D200 - I certainly don't want to buy that one - I really was not impressed with the shots I got under the same situations and settings that I used to shoot my D50 under

 

[Nuteshack]

well I can see using the higher ISO's with the F4 on my 300 for animals in the bushes or birds in trees (not in direct sunlight) where they could be darker or in deeper shadows

if there IS something wrong with that D200 - I certainly don't want to buy that one - I really was not impressed with the shots I got under the same situations and settings that I used to shoot my D50 under

try a different one and go from there:biggrin:

 

[Argent]

Don't know anyone else local with one I can borrow

I could just buy a new one from B&H but that's a big pill to swallow if the results are the same......

 

[Triggaaar]

theoretically then my D50 had this same crop factor though (being digital as well)? and I was able to hand shoot with it no problems (see my One Prime Challenge post for examples)

Great shots in your One Prime Challenge post. You obviously know how to produces sharp images - perhaps there was a slight focus issue with the D200 you tried? The problem clearly isn't you (unless you were having a particularly senior moment) or the lens, and the D200 is a great camera - but it could have been the one you tried.

 

[Wail]

D200 with standard settings require significant Post to get color and resolution in RAW. Were you using a tripod, few folks can hand hold 450mm and get critically sharp images...what focusing model were you using....were you one Continuous or single focus mode and was focus release set to "in focus"?

D200 requires a little more "thought" when using than a D50....perhaps it was just the learning curve.

Interesting pointers here ... are you suggesting that the shots would be sharper if I set my focus release set to "in focus"?!

 

[Argent]

Thanks Triggaaar for the comments - maybe it was just a bad D200

 

[senna]

This was a comon isue when the the d200 first came out. many people moveing up to the 10 mp from 6 mp plus the different anti aliasing(sp) filter, there was a lot of talk about lack of sharp images.

The higher mp seems to magnify the need for better long lens tachnique.

The AA filter is also different, this has an effect on the sharpness of the image.

Also the software in the d50 is geared more towars entry level, i.e. less post processing.

the D200 is geared more towards the experienced photog, who will want more control over PP.

This is not to say you can't set up the D200 for better out of camera images. But it does not cure the higher MP and longer lens technique.