Kind of dissapointed with my D200

[panocho]

Both last posts: thanks! It's consoling finding people who can read, and won't just find the occasion to kind-of-supposedly-show-off-or-who-knows-what.

I did suspect something like that. The fact that Nikon had decided "save" (?) something like that on the D200 just didn't make much sense, no matter how unexpected to be used it might be.

Anyway, now I've become really curious about this, and once I have some time to do it, I'll try to compare this with some different shoots to check whether this really is an improvement on the part of the D40 or just something that may happen occasionally.

 

[schumionbike]

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.

hmm yeah, that's really weird. Can you just post the pictures, I like to see them. You would think if the setting are the same on both camera, the jpeg is gonna be similar. But like others has say, the D40 might have a better processing engine gear toward a market that aren't big into photoshop so perhaps that explain it.

 

[JerryPH]

You know, you really can be an idiot Jerry.

Edited. You are right, sometimes I can be, though I do stand by the fact that there is no circumstances where a D200 will be outshot by a D40... none, if the D200 holder knows what they are doing and in ANY mode.

I'm out of this thread.

Apologies to the op.

 

[panocho]

:lmao: You really got annoyed, didn't you?

I wonder why in the world am I replying, but anyway...

So I am an idiot, Oh, Your Lordship!, because I am wondering about the difference there may be in the software that processes the JPGs in-camera. And for that reason I don't deserve a D200 because I have no idea how to handle it. Mmmmm... sharp reasoning, Your Lordship of the Knowledge!!

And since AF control is software operated that means that the software in a camera that has more AF points is superior in every respect to the software of the one with less AF points. Mmmmm... clever! of course it makes sense!

Oh, and having a D200 or whichever camera doesn't allow you to question it, or to wonder how it functions. Hmm.... Or maybe you wouldn't complain at all if instead of the D40 it was the D3 which provoked the thought of in-camera software processing? Maybe the problem is simply mentioning a stupid camera for non-knowdeables like the D40!

Beware, people: if you just set your D200 in P mode one single time in your lifetime, you're immediately sentenced to be an idiot and a complete incompetent who doesn't deserve that camera. The lords of knowledge sentence you!

et cætera

OK, I am an idiot. And precisely because I am an idiot, I want to know my camera, instead of worship and idolize it. I want to use it from manual mode, spot-metering the light meticulously, manually focusing.... to occasional fast direct AF, P-mode direct JPG shots.

Does this mean I am an idiot, I don't have any idea of how to use the camera and should send it to you right away because I don't deserve it at all? It seems it does -to you. But I sincerely suggest you to reconsider. Maybe you could just start by READING this post and thinking about what you wrote in it and what the others wrote.

 

[panocho]

Edited. You are right, sometimes I can be, though I do stand by the fact that there is no circumstances where a D200 will be outshot by a D40... none, if the D200 holder knows what they are doing and in ANY mode.

I'm out of this thread.

Apologies to the op.

Oh, I see you edited!

Nice.

 

[JerryPH]

Yeah I did. Hence the word edit. What I initialy said was wrong. I still stick to my gins about the technicalities, but that did not excuse what I wrote, so I changed it. For the record, I changed it well in advance before I read your retort... and "my lordship" thinks if one compares time stamps, it was before you completed your answer. Yup... 5:27 to your 5:49.

 

[Ejazzle]

OH YEAH!!

Kidding

 

[panocho]

Yeah I did. Hence the word edit. What I initialy said was wrong. I still stick to my gins about the technicalities, but that did not excuse what I wrote, so I changed it. For the record, I changed it well in advance before I read your retort... and "my lordship" thinks if one compares time stamps, it was before you completed your answer. Yup... 5:27 to your 5:49.

True, and I just found out once I posted. When I started posting, it was in reply to your original post.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, to me. And as a side note to the question of the thread, I understand very well your point about the evident superiority of one camera to the other, but think about it: it does not mean that it has to be superior in every single feature.

The D40 is "superior" (or whatever we may call it) in being smaller and lighter. It is "superior" in having a faster flash sync. speed. These are actual facts of the cameras, and (may be some other, I did not check) of course don't make the D40 outshine the D200, but if we were talking about these things, only these things, I think it would be completely out of the point insisting in the superiority of the D200, which no one ever denied here, I believe.

And the point of the thread is trying to find out about another single thing. Alone. And that is the in-camera JPG process of the D200. The D40 was only what made me suspect and try to find out. And all that about the P mode was just a way to equal the shootings, never any claim of how to use the D200 or how I use it or anything the like. And I said it clearly more than once. But you replied that way once, twice, then continued and went further, so I tried, instead of keeping explaining (which I, along with others here, had already done repeatedly), a little sarcasm -and self-defence.

It's perfectly OK if you don't care at all about in-camera JPG process. But I do use it some times. It is a feature the camera has and I like benefitting from it now and then. I think it's legitimate to wonder about it and I think it's far from making me an idiot who don't deserve the camera. If only you had read what I wrote, you would know I shoot mainly in A mode, mostly MF lenses, and RAW files. And all I want is a digital F2! :sillysmi:

 

[mrodgers]

Think of it this way, which is a fancier vehicle? A Ferarri or a Ford Escape? Which vehicle would take more skills to drive in a professional sense or as a hobby such as track running? The $$$$$ Ferarri of course. Now take that Ferarri that takes so much more skill to drive and take it down a twisty mountain road in Pennsylvania in 20 inches of snow. Which vehicle works better now, the Ferarri or the POS Ford Escape?

 

[JE Kay]

This is an amusing thread... ;-) The D200 is not a very forgiving camera, that said it's an excellent camera ..... in some respects. It's not an easy camera to use properly and get consistent results. It was a step up for Nikon for sure, but it has issues.

The only thing I would say to the OP is learn to shoot RAW and learn how to use PS. :thumbup:

Shooting jpg's is for tourists.

The D40 is a P/S camera, and that's the way you use it.

Continue on...... :mrgreen:

 

[LWW]

This is kind of like a base model Buick against a Corvette isn't it?

If all you want to do is set the cruise and drive 500 miles on the interstate the Buick is a better car.

If you get into a test of driver skills on a challenging road, the comparative flaws of the Buick suspension will quickly become apparent.

And, as noted, in the skills of a really god driver the Vette will make awesome time. In the hands of a teenager trying to make the same time it will end up in the ditch.

LWW

 

[mrodgers]

Shooting jpg's is for tourists.

The D40 is a P/S camera, and that's the way you use it.

Continue on...... :mrgreen:

Very interesting. I shoot completely in manual and don't have RAW capability. I guess I'm just a lowly tourist. Here I thought P&S means you just point and shoot it, not set things in manual mode just the same as you do with your "I'm a photography god because I have a D200+."

This is kind of like a base model Buick against a Corvette isn't it?

What a fantastic analogy, comparing the 2 different cameras as if comparing 2 different cars. How did you come up with such an original idea? Did you come up with that all on your own?

 

[tsaraleksi]

Shooting jpg's is for tourists.

This is flat wrong. Every format has an application. Those that do not don't make it onto the next generation of cameras (look at the fact that most digital cameras used to give you the option to shoot tiff files in-camera. No one used it, so it's gone. )

 

[dpolston]

I'm going to get in on the bandwagon too. I have friends who always jump in on me and ask me about cameras since I am the resident photographer in the bunch. I own the D200 and see the shots taken from their D60's and D80's and D40's and D50's (you get the point). Sometimes I am very envious of their photographs until I start seeing some of the "work" intended for the more beefy D200 and beyond cameras. When there are lower light situations or faster, lower light situations or frankly just the accessibility to change stuff on the fly (without going through the menu options), the D200 far surpasses the others.

But! Technology being what it is now, the newer cameras are superior from the start. I once tried to compare what I thought would be a good buy a few months ago, the D2X or the new at the time D300. I thought the D2X would be better but technically it was inferior to the newer D300.

There's always going to be newer, faster better. Face it. The D200 is old and according to B&H, now discontinued. Economics keep me from the D3 so I look myself to the D700 and by the time I get that, they'll have a newer, faster, better consumer grade camera.

 

[JE Kay]

Hmmmm..... Perhaps my tourist reference was a little harsh. :hug::

If jpg is the only format your camera is capable of shooting, well then I suppose you have to work with that. However......

I have noticed a great deal of the time with people I know, and don't know as well, they complain about how their 'new' camera isn't good, or that there is something wrong because they can't get a decent image from it. I've shown a few friends the benefits of shooting raw files, everyone has been amazed at how much more control they have. That there isn't anything wrong with their camera.

I do believe that if your camera is capable of shooting raw and you aren't doing so, you're not taking advantage of it.

Why shoot files that are degraded right out of the box? You have next to no control over it.

JPG files are web files, that's their application. Yes you can print from JPG files, just not if you want high quality.

You grab the D40 when you want to shoot to on the fly, quickly and have fun doing so, that's how they market it...like a P/S. I know people that have one and that's how they use it. They point and shoot... It's an easy camera to use.

I actually don't own a D200, but I've used one enough to know what it can do and can't do.