soft results from D200

jhob

jhob

Suspended / Banned
Messages
557
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I was comparing the photos that I took at a wedding the other day with those from a fellow 'tog shot on 5D and I have to say that his were a lot sharper than mine.

Now I know that the D200 is known for producing soft results out of the camera and so this is to be expected to some extent. What I'd like to know more about is the techniques that other D200 owners use to achieve the sharpest, crispest results.

I believe that I am right in thinking that I can expect to achieve similar quality results out of the D200 as one would get from a 5D.

I am currently looking at rather more aggressive sharpening and currently prefer the high-pass sharpening method with around 10 radius. I did start off at lower radii but have had to up it for extra crispness as the results were still rather soft. This can become a problem when there is a lot of noise, in which case I noise ninja my photos.

So D200 (and 5D owners), what do reckon?
 
I should add that I was using a tamron 17-50 f2.8 and there was a 28-105 f4 on the 5D.
 
Not sure you are comparing eggs with eggs :)

The 24-105 is image stabilised. The IS gives you confidence to go for a slower shutter speed, smaller aperture and hence greater sharpness.

Same model lens, same apertures and same shot might be an interesting comparison.
 
But I can go to f2.8 and the tamron lens is known for being very sharp. Is it 2 stops of latitute they say IS gives you? I suppose that would make it slightly faster lens roughly equivalent to f2. Not all were low light mind, although the majority were. Actually now that I think of it most of my direct comparison were with low light shots.

Sorry, that sentence rambled along rather.
 
Once upon time sharpness comparisons were made against lenses and films/developers. The camera spec didn't enter into too much. Now that has changed considerably and in-camera processing and sensors have entered the arena. Still, you are not comparing like for like. Full frame against a cropped sensor.... too different IMO.

It would be wrong to compare results under the circumstances you're stating. Canon lens against a Tamron.... you have to be joking!

Compare a Nikkor equivalent against the Canon then you'd get a different story.....

Then there is in-camera processing. Canon have always been more aggressive (exception being 30D) with their sharpening than Nikon. But, then you have to compare tonal range of Nikon against the greater contrast of Canon. Canon's lenses going back 25 years always yielded greater contrast than Nikon which gives an added perception of extra sharpness. Bit like using a high acutance developer. Made the lens seem that bit sharper. Thinking about it, it also produced an "edged halo" effect similar to oversharpening an image.

Then you have to factor in IS/VR which will produce extra depth of field or reduce opportunity for camera shake. Either of which will allude to increased sharpness.

No, sorry. If you want to make comparisons then you have to apply more objective testing.

The two D200s we have produce all the sharpness and tonal range we could ever want and usually straight from the camera too. ;) Would I be a heretic and say the 5D is better than the D200? It is in some ways and it certainly isn't in others. It's also £700 pounds dearer :lol:
 
You have to also remember that the 5D has a much weaker AA filter which would mean that the files are going to be inherently sharper straight from the camera.

Also consider that the Tamron can have soft copies (then again the Canon can have soft copies as well). Can you post some comparison examples of what you call soft form your camera and the "sharper" images form the 5D?
 
jhob said:
But I can go to f2.8 and the tamron lens is known for being very sharp.
Click to expand...

I've had a Tamron f2.8 as well and it is sharp wide open at 2.8 and would stand up well in comparison to other lenses at f2.8. But are you comparing similar apertures?

Stop the Tamron down to f8 and it will be sharper still and have some depth of field. In lowish light you won't be able to operate at f8 because of the slow shutter you need. The IS lens can operate at f8 where it also is very sharp.

You need the same lens in both mounts to make a valid comparison.
 
This is a much discussed subject over on dp review. The D200 does exhibit soft jpegs in my opinion. I tested one for a couple of days a while back. However, as Barry says its tonal range and exposure do make up for that and you can PP some life back into the jpegs with unsharp mask etc. However, I was not pleased with the performance of the Nikkor 17 -55 F2.8 which I thought was soft - especially for a £1K lens.

It seems that the D200 is best used in RAW.

In the end, I liked it, did not love it, but I think I am used to the pin sharp images that my Mark II n and various lenses affords me.

Hope this helps.
 
Blimey! ..... Can you take jpg's on a D200? :lol:

That's a shame about the Nikkor :( .... I was thinking we could use a faster wide-angle zoom for dim churches! Back to the nifty-fifty and using the feet then!
 
I'll see if I can get some comparison pics up here to show you the difference between the two. I'm not so concerned now as I think I just need to do a little more work in PP, all part of the learning process. I was a little worried at the time about back focusssing or a soft copy of the tamron but I don't think I have those problems now.

I only ever shoot RAW so soft JPEGs wouldn't concern me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top