D200 or 5D

I am currently camera-less due to a problem upgrading the firmware on my D200. Nikon UK are taking their time doing the repair, awaiting spares! I like the camera, handling, everything available without going into menus, good metering, etc,. But I don't seem to be getting the quality I would have expected from a £2000+ camera and lens (Nikkor 17 - 55mm f2.8). Now it could be the photographer, I don't know, but the images I get look 'ordinary' not exceptional. I'm not talking about subject matter or composition, I mean primarily sharpness and depth of field sharpness. One of my recent posting "Leaves on Rocks" taken with the setup above was criticised for being soft in the FG, this was the sharpest part of the image.

Having been a member looking at the posting I have noticed rhe number of members using 5D's and the quality they are getting. Basically I'm asking if anyone has experience using both cameras and their opinions on them.

Geoff Crow.
Derbyshire, UK

Geoff, I think the primary criterion is whether or not you already own other parts of the system. Sounds like you already made an investment in a lens and possibly other items.

Barring mechanical or optical defects in the camera or lens, sharpness is usually more about technique than gear. Using a tripod, hyperfocal focusing when needed, a cable release, mirror lock-up etc. can all improve sharpness.

When you get your camera back I suggest you mount it on a tripod, find a flat detailed surface (e.g. brick wall or wood fence), place the camera parallel to it, use AF, mirror lockup and a cable release and then check the results. If they appear sharp then the issue is likely not the camera or lens.

Also, for prints and web images post-processing technique is critical to getting the right color, contrast, and sharpness. If you're not quite comfortable with Photoshop I suggest that's an area more worthy of investment (get books or training etc.) than switching to a different system.

Guy

Geoff, it's going to be hard to decide whether your camera+lens setup is really up to snuff unless I use it myself, so I'll leave that part for you to decide (but you could always send in both the camera and lens back to the factory for defect testing - which is free when under warranty I presume).

I just fished out your posting "Leaves on Rocks". Here it is: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=56589&b=se&st=0&la=12&ph=6&sid=23520&u=23520

From a technical standpoint, I see a few problems.

1) The D200 doesn't have a full-frame sensor, so using an aperture of F22 is fraught with the danger of running into hyperfocal issues. I would stick to between F11 and F16 for the D200.

2) Mirror Lock Up (MLU): I don't know if the D200 has MLU, and you don't mention it in the post either. Using this feature and waiting for atleast 2-3 seconds before pressing the shutter to record the image is very important, the slap from the mirror can cause vibrations that last upto 2 seconds from some tests I've seen.

3) Sharpening: I would reccomend you do not use the in-camera sharpening, but rather do it manually after having worked with all aspects of the image, like levels, saturation, etc.

4) Sharpening for Web: whenever you re-size an image (either upsize of downsize), the image conversion algorithms lose their sharpness, and you have to sharpen the image again in order to regain the edges. I would reccomend an Unsharp mask of 200/0.3/0 at the barest minimum, and sometimes 300/0.3/0. (where the 200 and 300 stand for Amount in %, 0.3 for Radius, and 0 for threshold).

If you don't mind, I can use your original photograph and post a re-worked sharpened version of it for comparison purposes.

Regards, Ashutosh

IMHO a web-sized picture should never be soft if taken & post processed properly, no matter whether you use a 5D or a D200, as long as technique and focus are right. Maybe your lens suffers from back focus (have you tested that?). I've taken shots that are plenty sharp viewed @ web size (properly sharpened of course, but every image requires that when downsized, I guess) with a D50 and cheap lenses. So I don't think the D200 and 17-55/2.8 should be limiting for this application. If you do huge prints, well, maybe then you'll scratch the D200's limits, but not with web-sized pictures.

Basil

If you actually used f22, I'd say that's your problem right there. The ONLY time I use it is on my 4x5 lenses. Guy is on the right track asking about your use of a tripod. If you want sharpest photos possible with great DOF, tripods aren't an option.

I'm not sure exactly what you're expecting from a camera body, or even what kinds of photos you like to take. You didn't really give much detail. Seems to me that sharpness is rarely function of the camera (with exception of MLU, which I think the D200 has a form of.) To me, sharpness has more to do with an excellent tripod AND head (not merely good--excellent,) a good lens (which the 17-55mm is,) and as Guy pointed out your technique.

I've just now finished looking for a DSLR myself. I looked at the Canon 5D mainly because it has somewhat lower noise for night photography, something I do a fair amount of. I decided to pass on it because of the price. I honestly don't think my photos are going to look any better if I use a $3,000 5D or a $1,000 D80. I'm putting money on lenses (already have an excellent tripod.)

From my experience, it's easy to get caught up in the thinking that "If I only had a better camera my photos would be better." For me, this has rarely been true. I saw no difference in my photos when I went from a Nikon N6006 to N90s to N80 to F100. I did see a difference when I went from F100 to 4x5, but that's another story. Other people seem to be getting excellent results from their D200, or even their D50. Maybe you need to investigate if your camera is focussing correctly? Try some shots of a flat brick wall, straight on, from a solid tripod using f8 and at least 1/250. If those are sharp, it ain't your gear! Getting something else isn't going to help, either.


Kent in SD

Geoff, I have the D200, but have never used the 5D. I have heard many wonderful comments about the 5D, but it is about twice the price. I had some sharpness problems until I realized that f-22 is going to cause some problems in that area. I used to use f-22 quite frequently until I realized that. I have recently tried to be much more conscious of the f stop I use, and rarely go beyond f-16 now. The D200 does have MLU, which I use all the time. I'm getting extremely sharp images now, and have been very pleased with the D200. There are times occasionally when I notice that my image is not as sharp as I would like, but usually it's the result of wind, trying to balance on a log, etc. I would work on the suggestions that everyone has posted here before deciding to switch. Good luck!

Just found your photo...it's possible also that the 8 second SS was a problem. If there was any breeze, or your tripod was not rock solid, there could have been some movement during that time. And the mirror lock-up is a must! I bought an inexpensive cable release and always use it.

To add to the good advice you've already been given Geoff, perhaps you should consider renting or borrowing a copy of the camera and lens you're wondering about, whether that be a 5D or a different D200. That way you could see how the particular camera works for you which ultimately is the only thing that matters.

(I'm a fairly devout Canon-ite but until you can tell the brand of the camera by looking at a posted image... who cares )

Good luck.

Thank you all for your advice/comments, they are much appreciated. Ashutosh re-worked the "Leaves on Rocks" image and it was much improved, thanks Ashutosh. I believe there is something in the f22 theory, I had taken some indoor shots for work, and used f22 for those and found all the images to be soft. I was aware of the MLU feature on the D200, but it can't be used with the self timer which I use when the camera is on the tripod(I don't have a cable release, sounds like I need to get one ASAP). The other thing I need to get to grips with is hyperfocal focusing, I think you focus about a third of the way into the scene and aperture takes care of the rest. It's probably not as simple as that. I shall have to get out more to practice what you preach.

Once again thank you for taking the time to try to set me straight and hopfully you will see the results in the forums.

Regards,
Geoff.

"The other thing I need to get to grips with is hyperfocal focusing, I think you focus about a third of the way into the scene and aperture takes care of the rest."

It's far more precise than that. People routinely calculate the hyperfocal distance for the aperture they're using, then compose the image with the nearest foreground object at one-half the hyperfocal distance (so as to maximize its apparent size and impact while still keeping it shap). So if the hyperfocal distance is 3 feet, place the foreground no closer than 1.5 feet. In "Leaves on Rocks" it looks as if the foreground leaves may be very close indeed, as foregrounds often are with wide-angle lenses. By the way, when you focus at the hyperfocal distance, the image will often look unsharp in the viewfinder. You need to stop-down to see the effect. And of course, you want to turn off autofocus. Unfortunately, the distance scales on modern AF lenses are not detailed enough to be of much help with hyperfocal focusing.

Hi Geoff.

I'm with the others on f/22. I almost never go beyond f/11 with digital.

Here's a perspective for you on comparing the D200 and 5D- I'd only make the switch if you can also afford the selection of L-series lenses that meet your needs. They're certainly worthy, but the consumer grade lenses from Canon aren't necessarily going to bring out the best in a 5D. I toy with a switch to Canon now and then, but the combination of body and top-end lenses I feel would be needed to improve the level of performance over my current Nikon kit is daunting.

Geoff--

You need to do a Google search on "f22 diffraction." Apparently, it's a concept no one has explained to you yet. Specifically, this one looks like a good read for you:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm


Kent in SD

I agree with all the replies above. I had a 350D for some time and was thinking of getting a 5D. Unfortunately 2200Euro for a body was just too much for me. I rarely print my digital images above A3 (30x40cm) and for that a 8mp+ camera and proper technique is enough. You can check out the prints I have put up for the exhibition here.
Many images are from 350D or D80. Both consumer grade cameras. I had three L lenses to go with Canon. The last image is made with D80+18-70(which again is a consumer grade lense).
If 5D is affordable to you with atleast one good L zoom lense or couple of primes then go for it. FF will always be better than cropped. If sharpness is your real concern and then get a 350D kind of camera for digital and 4x5 for 'big' images.

I have to disagree with the comments about f22 being necessarily soft. I use f22 often for my high speed flash photographs of birds in flight and have routinely achieved very good sharpness. Sure there will be some image degradation due to diffraction, but, depending upon the lens used, it may not be a big factor in the softness of your images. I've found that some lenses do better than others at small apertures, so testing the lens with newsprint or resolution targets is probably a good idea. My manual focus 600mm f4 is sharper than my AF 200-400 at f22. With my high speed flash images in bright midday sun, I have to use ISO 100 and f22 to eliminate ghosting from ambient light.
Camera used is a D2X and MF 600mm f4 lens. Attached is an image of a Great Crested Flycatcher in flight.

Hi Darren. It's a habit I developed with the old Canon D30 and some of their consumer lenses. They simply began to soften, especially at the horizon, if I went smaller than f/16. Come to think of it, I haven't even tried smaller apertures with my D-series and later Nikkor lenses on either the Fuji S2 that replaced the D30, or the Nikon D2X that replaced it. Call it a bad habit developed early. High time I did some testing!

But back to that early experience with Canon digital, I was simultaneously shooting film with my Nikon gear and those D-lenses. I never noticed any diffraction issues, so shot with smaller apertures and no concerns.

Hence my distinction between digital and film--- mistaken or not. And soon to be tested!

Thanks!

Ed, defraction really only shows its ugly head with wide angle lens. Long lenses are always much sharper than their wider counterparts. This has been a know fact for years and years! This is what makes my TS-E 24mm lens work so well over a fixed prime or zoom. Where one must use f/22 to get a desired DOF I can use tilt and usually f/8 to f/11 for the same DOF.

Hank, your first hand diffraction observations between 35mm film and a cropped digital sensor is supported by this very complete tutorial on the physics of diffraction.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm#

Go to the the diffraction calculator, keep everything else constant and see at which f-stop each format becomes diffraction limited.

At the "standard" 10 inch print size and default viewing distance.
35mm film or FF digital are not diffraction limited at f/22
1.5 and 1.6 crop sensors are diffraction limited at f/22

I've checked out f/22 vs f/16 on the 1DsMk2 on several occassions. I could only detect minor differences at 100% screen view, and those would be hard to observe on a print.. With a FF sensor, I therefore don't hesitate using f/22 IF the DOF is needed.

Of course, the entire diffraction limit game depends on print size and view distances.
The calculator will tell you that a 22 inch wide LF(4x5) print viewed at 10 cm is diffraction limited if shot at f/22.

Thanks Bill. That's a good read.

I suspect I was experiencing a jumble of comparing Canon's consumer lenses to Nikon's D-series, FF film to cropped digital (D30), and specifics of landscape details at the horizons. There's also quite a difference in contrast and saturation in some settings comparing consumer grade lenses with mainline like Canon L or Nikon D, and that could also have been a contributor. I was writing it all off to diffraction, when in fact there is likely much more to the explanation.

Hi I own both Nikon & Canon gear including : Canon 5D, Nikon D70s, Nikon D200, Canon 16-35 2.8L, Canon 24-105 4L, Canon 70-300 4-5.6IS, Nikon 18-70DX, Nikon 12-24 DX, Nikon 18-200 VR. I think I can usually tell which photos have been taken by Canon or Nikon systems from the slightly different colour palettes. I shoot at f22 frequently (if needed), always with a tripod and feel my images are sufficiently sharp with my wide-angle lenses, Canon & Nikon. Both the 5D & D200 are great cameras but I think the difference in price reflect their worth. The ISO performance on the 5D is much better as you would expect. Also the superior resolution of the 5D seems greater than the 2 megapixel difference when blowing up prints greater than 8 by 12". The Nikon 12-24mm seems better than the 16-35 2.8L and 17-40mm 4L in terms of sharpness and much better flare control.