D200 vs. 30D - A Review

[Sidebyte]

I have no axe to grind with either N or C, I own both but after reading the thread you posted, the author has to be the No. 1 Canon "fanboy" in the universe.* He rides on the fringes of the truth and his examples are not in any way accurate or scientific.* He has to be the president of the USA Canon fanclub.

All the reviews and articles concerning any of the current crop of digital cameras, DSLR's included, EVERYONE is making such a big deal out of high ISO performance to the point it's becoming ridiculous.* I of course started with film and never shot any ISO (ASA) over 800 EVEN in the worst conditions, I have never shot a digital over 800 either.* I wonder outside of the techies that frequent these forums how many people on a day to day basis actually use over iso 400, not many unless you're shooting concerts in available light or maybe basketball or hockey, but what percentage of people are into that....10% maybe.* So the entire industry must comform to this 10%?* I make it a practice to shoot at the LOWEST ISO practical and could care less if my camera is squeekie clean at 3200, it's like WHO CARES, that's why I have several good flash guns.
I have witnessed literally hundreds of new photo's from both the D200 and the 30D and the 5D and to tell you the truth, they are ALL magnificent.* What is the compulsion to try to pick out maybe one minuscule weak spot on any of them....To me it's all a bunch of TECHIE BRATS that couldn't photograph a Marrying Sam Two Dollar Wedding.

[JDArt]

I certainly appreciate the ability to shoot at high ISOs, although, like you, I rarely do push any camera over 800 ISO, even the cameras that are supposed to be very low noise at high ISO.

Other things being equal, I would always choose a camera that performs better at high ISO.

Having said that, the way that the camera achieves low noise at higher ISOs interests me as well. I suspect that some of the noise-lowering algorithms result in image "smearing."

[Mr. Pickles]

I read it awhile ago, and spent a few days with it wallerin' around in my head. My initial thought was the author was a Canon Homer, but he does have a few good comments about the Nikon.

I think the high ISO thing is overblown. I wonder how many people actually want to take pictures in the dark nowadays, compared to the old film days. When I shot 800 speed film, it was grainy. Bad film? Bad camera? In todays world, if there is one speck of "grain" or "noise" in an 800 or 1600 ISO image, your camera is crap and you need a new one.

I have shot 800 on the old beater D60, and when I see the image fit on the screen, or printed, I don't see any noise. When I look at the pixels at 100% I do. How big is your monitor?

[Nikonfreak]

There are a very select few that really need to shoot at ISO 1600 and beyond.* One group I can think of is sports shooters who do not have the stadium, court, etc... strobed, high school type sports at night, etc..

For fun, I took some pictures at my daughter's cheerleading practice the other day.* It was in a gymnasium, under the sodium lights so WB is a real treat to get right; however, the D200 images at ISO 800 are quite clean.* Even the images I shot at ISO 1600 without noise reduction being on are very decent.

Here's a shot at ISO 800, downsized for the board, but still quite good.

I should mention that all of them were taken with the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR lens

It's unedited otherwise out of the camera.* I'll also post one at ISO 1600

Julio

[Nikonfreak]

Here's a shot at ISO 1250 with the D200.

No noise reduction in camera or otherwise, size reduced for presentation here.

Darn good if you ask me. I'm impressed by the D200's ISO performance, but I rarely even at concert shoots go over 800 ISO and on the D100, I'd try to avoid going over 640 ISO...

Julio

[DavidRM]

I guess pushing the ISO is cheaper than buying fast glass

-David

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by DavidRM

I guess pushing the ISO is cheaper than buying fast glass

-David

Can't get much faster at 200mm than the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8... well... the 200mm f/2.0 NIkkor VR, but that's about $5,000 USD.

I think those 1,000,000 candle power spot lights are on sale at Bass Pro Shops for about $29

Take those ISO worries right out of the picture. LOL

Julio

[Mr. Pickles]

What do you think these would look like if you used film?

[Paul Shields]

I think Mr Pickles and others got it right. Once you print you really don't see the noise unless printing really big. Pixelpeeping will make you go blind, and end up clearing out your wallet. I shoot with the noisiest digital camera format in the world (according to some zealots) and yet I never see noise when printing (currently up to A4), and the images are nice and sharp edge to edge. There is more to photography than low-noise high-ISO. I'd still love to have the cleanliness of the Canon 5D/20D at that ISO, but it's more to satisfy my pixelpeeping rather than to help with printing (where colour rendition and image sharpness are more important in my book).

[Mr. Pickles]

You finally agreed with me and it has only been 9 months or so. Yippee.

Pixelpeeping is right. Been guilty of it before. Long time ago I used an old beater P&S Fuji and took images at 800 of an Mickey Mouse ice show. Pixelpeeping at 100% made me barf on the desk. Printed the image at 8x10 and the dumb thing was clean. Dang printer. Amazing.

Now, since we are off topic, and I was gonna buy one, I'd buy the D200.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

What do you think these would look like if you used film?

ISO 1000 film is grainy....

You hit the nail right on the head !

Julio

[Mr. Pickles]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Its not pixelpeeping (the new most overused term on the net) my friends when I want a useable high ISO setting so as to get acceptably fast shutter speeds to capture indoor action of my children moving around. That is not 'pixelpeeping' that is practicality.

Glad digital came along. Apparently with film, you'd have to turn the lights on, or use a decent flash. Yikes.

And, I like the D200 better. Maybe just because I like a company that caused another company to move the D from the front to the end of the cameras name, thus creating a D30 and a 30D by the same company.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

You finally agreed with me and it has only been 9 months or so. Yippee.

Pixelpeeping is right. Been guilty of it before. Long time ago I used an old beater P&S Fuji and took images at 800 of an Mickey Mouse ice show. Pixelpeeping at 100% made me barf on the desk. Printed the image at 8x10 and the dumb thing was clean. Dang printer. Amazing.

Now, since we are off topic, and I was gonna buy one, I'd buy the D200.

I always agree with you Mr P, just don't like to admit it as I know it goes straight to your head .

Anyway, hurry up and buy that E-1 - a lot less than a D200 and you can then get some great lenses too (isn't it great to talk about Nikon and Olympus on the Canon forum - couldn't get away with that on some sites I could mention...).

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Paul

Anyway, hurry up and buy that E-1 - a lot less than a D200 and you can then get some great lenses too (isn't it great to talk about Nikon and Olympus on the Canon forum - couldn't get away with that on some sites I could mention...).

...if that makes you more comfortable, we could ask that you get 'flamed' here too for mentionning the N and O word on the C forum ))

) the 20D/30D are also 'a lot less than a D200', and you can get some great lenses for them too! )

With KINDEST regards and HIGHEST repects,

Max@Home

[eClix]

Ok I've looked at the review, and he must have done something to the Nikon's pics, because my D1x isn't even that noisey at 1600. My camera's range is 125 to 800 and you boost it to go to 1600 and 3200, but I find myself not going to 1600 much, I just find ways to brace to camera instead of shooting above 800. Yeah agree that the guy's review seems to have quite bias toward canon. Yeah for now canon beats nikon at higher isos' but for me that isn't enough to make it a better camera.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by bauerman

I don't need clean high ISO shots so that I can post them on forums for review and ooooooh's and aaaahhhhh's from the Nikon crowd - I need them because flash shots (even bounced) of my kids don't look good to me in a lot of cases. I try to get the shot without flash ANYTIME before deploying the pop-up or strapping on the 420EX.

The 'Nikon crowd'? Interesting pejorative phrase. Hopefully we don't have the 'crowd' mentality on the Camel.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Paul - insert your own manufacturer.......was not 'picking on Nikon'.......just making a point........no alarms need to go off regarding my mentality. I love all cameras and their owners.

Uh, oh... check your heart, you may be bleeding to death. LOL just kidding.

Seriously, the intent wasn't to "Ooh and aahh" anyone. It's simply showing that the images are fairly clean. If I pixel peep, sure I see noise. All the newer cameras are going to be good and chances are if you shoot at high ISO's you're going to run the image through noise reduction software anyway.

Dude, there's nothing wrong with using flash. Yes, flash is harsh, but you can bounce it, diffuse it, etc... You can get perfectly pleasing results by bouncing the flash off the ceiling and you might not even be able to tell that you used a flash at all. There's even some mini softboxes that wrap around the front of your flash and they give wonderful results. Get an off camera cord and take your flash off camera for even better results.

There's lots of options, but to say you aren't going to shoot with flash is not a good solution.

Julio

[Nikonfreak]

Hi, my name is Julio and I'm a flash-a-holic.

I'm flash free for 2 days now

[Sidebyte]

Originally Posted by Paul

The 'Nikon crowd'? Interesting pejorative phrase. Hopefully we don't have the 'crowd' mentality on the Camel.

Gee!, I hope not because I own both and then I would have to be a schizophrenic.

[PJW]

It's sad that people should limit themselves to using their cameras in ways that were forced upon us years ago when you couldn't make clean images at ISO 1600. Now that we can make clean images at extremely high ISOs, it opens up all sorts of possibilities. You can shoot birds while flying and stop their wing beats with high shutter speeds that used to be impossible. You can shoot your kid's soccer game at high shutter speeds on heavily overcast days. You can get great depth of field by stopping way down for landscapes shot after sundown. Only a fool would stubbornly refuse to make use of such great technology when it's available by simply pressing a button.