Kind of dissapointed with my D200

[JerryPH]

It was never meant to be pulled out of the box and, just shot as is.

OMG no... and no one knows that better than I.

The first 2 weeks I had the D200, I could not even get a single shot that was in focus becuase I did not know the camera nor how to optimize it's settings. A quick order to Thom Hogan and 2-3 days with his PDF e-book and I had some *drastic* positive improvements.

I know we say that no camera is "out of bounds" for a new dSLR user, and I still agree with that, however, the higher up the scale you go, the mode demanding things get. Things do not get easier the more you spend, they increase in complexity exponentially. Sure you can give a D3x to someone that never held a camera and they can use it... but they will never get satisfactory results out of it until they improve their knowledge of photography and master the intricacies of their camera.

 

[Mike_E]

Panocho, just as a point of curiosity, which image settings do you have your D200 set to in the menu?

 

[panocho]

Simple... because the D200 *doesn't* have an automatic mode. It has a P-mode for those times you want to limp through in lazy mode... but you pay the price. If you wanted an automatic mode camera, the D200 is the wrong choice. This camera was designed for being the scalple in the surgeon's hands. In the hand of an undeducated person, it is no better than a club for intricate work.



Absolutely! Of course, I would need to change a few settings in the D200 to optimize the picture for the situation. Knowledge is power and there is *no* situation that a D40 will give me better results than a D200.

I insist: the D40 was NOT in auto mode, it was in Program mode, the same as the D200. And I know very well that one's control of the camera may imply better pictures, otherwise I would never have spent the money in the D200, in the first place. But that was never the point here.

I'll say it again: I never said I wanted an auto-mode camera. Quite the opposite, if you read my "wish" on a "digital F2". That's quite far away from an auto-mode camera, is it not? But since the D200 offers program mode (by the way, along with a lot of auto -yes, auto- functions that you yourself surely benefit from, such as auto focus, metering, etc), there are times when for whatever reason I don't want to really take a picture myself, and want instead to have the camera do it, so to speak, my question arises: how come the D40 with exactly the same settings (program mode, large fine JPG and the same lenses -actually I tried with 2 different in both cameras) may give a better JPG?

I'm very glad if you're so good with your D200 , but this has NOTHING to do with one's skill with a camera. I would definitely never question myself having the D200 just for this stupid little thing, but still it does surprise me -and not pleasently.

Panocho, just as a point of curiosity, which image settings do you have your D200 set to in the menu?

I guess you mean the "optimize image" settings: the D40 had "auto", but since the D200 offers not such thing, I tried some of the ones it offers, appart from custom, the one I normaly have. None of them would render the blueish night sky that the D40 easily gave. And the sky was blueish to my eyes, so I guess it has little to do with "auto image optimize" giving artificial extra saturation or contrast, which some people love.

But I'll add again, I don't mean to imply that this single image comparison can be taken as a prove for anything. I know that. It only surprised me when I saw it, that's why I posted. Basically, it made me wonder whether there was any difference between the two cameras in how processing the JPGs in-camera, appart from the settings the user may choose.

 

[djacobox372]

Here's how to think about it:

The hardware of the d200 is significantly better then the d40.

The software of the d40 is significantly better then the d200.

The photographer is the same--the more skilled/experienced the photographer, the less the need for helpful software.

Also, digital post-process is just as much a part of photography skill/experience as darkroom techniques for film.

 

[anubis404]

Auto is great... for people that lack understanding and skill. Manual is where true mastery (or lack thereof), of a camera is displayed.

The D200 doesn't even have an auto mode, just a P-mode... and let me tell you, as an owner of a D200, the P-mode of this camera is... WEAK.

I will happily put up my D200 in full manual or aperture priority mode against the auto mode of the D40 any day of the week, and my pics will come out better. My understanding of this camera is SOLID and my understanding of photography is not half bad either.

One has to know what they are doing with the D200, it is VERY unforgiving and if your "kung fu" is weak... this camera will make that blindingly obvious.

I have to agree with Jerry here. If all you want to do is snap a couple of photos in AUTO, then the D40 is for you. The D200 is meant for a serious amatuer or professional, and is not meant to be shot in P mode. The D200 may be old, however it is far superior to the D40. One must know how to use it to its full potential, and snapping old town pics in P mode is not what the D200 was designed for.

 

[Micah]

This thread has made me realize how far I've come since buying my D80 last september. I didnt even think about it much untill now, but I never shoot in aything but manual and aperture priority. I still dont have it down, but every time I shoot I learn a little bit more.I was nothing but p&s untill a few months ago. I may have to shoot in some of the auto modes to compare.

 

[panocho]

Over and over again. Sorry, but that's what some replies here say to me. You keep insisting in me wanting to shoot auto with a D200 and things like that; assuming that I must be stupid for having an expensive and bulky D200 in order just to "snapping old town pics in P mode" when I would be just so happy with a D40 and my so-called beloved auto mode :er: and so and so :chatty:

I never said that and that was never the point, as I -hopelessly- keep repeating. What I intended to point was in THIS direction:

Here's how to think about it:

The hardware of the d200 is significantly better then the d40.

The software of the d40 is significantly better then the d200.

The photographer is the same--the more skilled/experienced the photographer, the less the need for helpful software.

Also, digital post-process is just as much a part of photography skill/experience as darkroom techniques for film.

Thanks, djacobox372, for listening!

That kind of thing, as I previously said, was what I first suspected. And it does bother me, even though it is something that only affects 1% of my use of the camera. So no big deal, definitely, but still was an unpleasent surprise.

Do you, djacobox372, know that for sure or just suspect it? In case that is actually the explanation, and it definitely looks like it is, my question is, has it something to do with an upgrade Nikon made in the lapse of time between the two cameras, an upgrade precisely worked out in order to release the D40, or they just saved themselves that software in the D200? Because the latter, although not really important, still would be disapointing to me.

 

[JerryPH]

Personally I do not agree with it and the specs deny that.

The software is *far* from even close between the D200 vs D40. Look at the focus points on a D40 (3 maximum) vs the D200's more than 3 times more focus points.

The menuing system of the D200 contains several options that do not even exist in the D40.

Again... the D40 is a beginner's toy compared to the D200, which is a serious camera for the serious photographer. It takes expereince and knowledge to get the superior results out of the D200, but it *is* there, and once you know how, it is very easy (near thoughtless).

If all you want is nice JPGs without effort, get a canon G9 or G10 and that makes nicer SOOC JPG shots than a D40 for less money, but if you want superior control and results from a professional grade camera, that is the D200.

You guys are comparing a stone club to a custom made Ping golf club to play golf with.

 

[schumionbike]

I'll explain a little more: I put both cameras in "P" mode and shot the excelent old-town view I have from my appartment. Both cameras were also set for JPGs. It was a night shot. So, the D40 treated it wonderfully, giving it a really beautiful blueish-night tone, whereas the D200's shot had a dull brownish tone to it. The JPG direct out of the camera was far better from the D40.

It sound like the white balance is off on your D200, did you check that? Given that all the setting are the same such as white balance, saturation, sharpen and all that stuff, the image quality shouldn't be that much different from one camera to another weather the image is from D40 or D200. I have been shooting raw lately in the D40 and sometimes I couldn't get the same effect from processing my raw file as I got from the D40 jpeg of the same picture. Most of the time, I like my own processing better but sometime it seem the camera default setting got lucky.

 

[panocho]

I wonder, who is comparing two cameras?? Me, at least, I'm just trying to find out whether the D40 has a better in-camera JPG process software than the D200. Period.

Whether that's important to you or not, that's not the point. As a matter of fact it is of minimal importance for me myself, but I am still interested to know about it. And not to compare any cameras.

Another thing: processing software, or whatever you may call it, has very little to do with the amount of AF points and the like, I suspect.

And a final note, since you seem so concerned about the superiority of the D200: that other stupid little camera still has some things that surpass the D200. Yes it does. Flash sync.? 1/500 the D40; 1/250 the D200. Is it important, is it not? That depends on the photographer, but it is.

 

[panocho]

It sound like the white balance is off on your D200, did you check that? Given that all the setting are the same such as white balance, saturation, sharpen and all that stuff, the image quality shouldn't be that much different from one camera to another weather the image is from D40 or D200. I have been shooting raw lately in the D40 and sometimes I couldn't get the same effect from processing my raw file as I got from the D40 jpeg of the same picture. Most of the time, I like my own processing better but sometime it seem the camera default setting got lucky.

Well, I just put both cameras on AUTO white balance, and I guessed both cameras would give a similar JPG, or the D200 a better one. So be it in the white balance or in the JPG process or wherever, I do suspect there is some difference as far as software is concerned. And with this one picture in particular, my surprise was the better was the D40.

 

[JerryPH]

I am going to keep shaking my head and laughing... sorry but if you are getting better results from a D40 than a D200, you are simply not knowledgeable with your D200.

Look, I wish you well and hope you sell your D200 and pick up a D40. Maybe you will one day be happier... but I doubt it.

Good luck.

 

[panocho]

I am going to keep shaking my head and laughing... sorry but if you are getting better results from a D40 than a D200, you are simply not knowledgeable with your D200.

Look, I wish you well and hope you sell your D200 and pick up a D40. Maybe you will one day be happier... but I doubt it.

Good luck.

Definite: there is no way you understand what this is about. So just keep laughing and praising yourself. I just hope one day you'll become so so self-satisfied with your insistent "knowledge" of the camera that you'll decide try then on the knowledge of reading, for a change.

 

[Tolyk]

I am going to keep shaking my head and laughing... sorry but if you are getting better results from a D40 than a D200, you are simply not knowledgeable with your D200.

Look, I wish you well and hope you sell your D200 and pick up a D40. Maybe you will one day be happier... but I doubt it.

Good luck.

You know, you really can be an idiot Jerry. He's not talking about wanting to own a D40, he's just shocked that ONE SINGLE PICTURE came out better with all similar settings between the two cameras. He's asking about the in camera processing, not if he should sell his D200 and get a D40. Stop insulting him and read what he's freaking saying man. You're the guru of Nikon cameras, you should know the answer to his actual question. And he wasn't shooting on AUTO (and stop saying that with such a snear, geez) he was on PROGRAM, but with Auto white balance, and the auto optimize image setting the D40 has. He's said it many times now, and yet you keep insulting him by saying "Buy a D40 and shoot on auto."


Panocho, I don't know if the software rendering in the two cameras in question are different. I'll ask my bosses at work tomorrow, they'll more than likely know.

 

[tsaraleksi]

Some of you have really poor reading comprehension.

Panocho-- the d40 is optimized for providing out-of-camera jpegs (aimed at the "wants better snapshots" market) , and is a year newer than the d200, so I would be willing to bet that you're right, the jpeg engine in the d40 is probably a little better than the d200's in some circumstances. The differences in color do sound like a white balance issue more than anything else, which could be explicable by simply some vagaries of the color sensors or differences in programming of the AWB settings, or it could just be bad luck. Chances are the modes of the d200 could be tweaked until you could get more or less the same image, but you'd have to play around with manual white balance or altering the jpeg parameters.

Differences in software between camera generations means that entry level cameras can on occasion have software features that outshine older higher-end cameras in surprising ways.