OT 8mg digi cameras

Not quite the same. The D200 reads data off the sensor differently which is why it can shoot raw + high quality jpg at 5 frames per sec. Which is ace for model planes, shooting bikes and cars at cadwell! And it focusses faster, more acurately, has less viewfinder blackout time, greater focussing options (far too bloody many if you ask me!) etc

This gives you picture quality identical to the D200,

In the right circumstances it can. But it over processes jpgs and my VR Nikon lenses wont fit! And it feels like a toy.

doesn't cost a

We have been throught the pixel thing. 10 million is as many as you need for even posters and billboards, control, speed, software and things like 3 colour histograms and stuff are what you need.

Do they do VR ones? Because once you try that you will not want another hand held lense without it! And ones that move the sensor about dont compare!

Umm that's image processing, not the sensor. The sensor is identical.

Yes but it costs and the cost goes over my price/performance threshold. Yes the D200 does more, but what it does isn't that useful IMO. If I wanted to track moving things I'd get a decent camcorder.

RAW.

Not everyone has Nikon lenses. I have a Pentax LX so it was a struggle to give up those lenses which include some of the best glass ever made IMO. However I did get an adapter so I can continue to use my 1000 and 500mm catadioptric lenses and those are the ones that I would have missed.

As I said, the Alpha is effectively future proof for a long time to come.

I can hand hold a camera without shake and that's helped by the Alpha being low mass. The sensor business helps to raise a 70% hit rate to 100% at very low speed settings. I thought about image stabilisation but I don't need it. I don't so much action stuff and the ones I have taken I want the background to be blurred.

If that was the reason you bought a camera, why did you choose a Casio?

(c:

To be honest, if one can't tell the difference (or more importantly if the people one shows ones pictures to can't tell the difference) between perfectly allright pictures and good pictures I don't think it really matters what camera one uses.

I bet there's still plenty of noise in shots from a D200 at high ISOs.

Interesting but irrelevant fact.

It's just as easy to f*ck the exposure up on a DSLR as it is to get exposure right on a decent P+S.

Thing is, with the D200, I think you're getting into the semi-professional price range. I know the 350D is plastic, but I wouldn't say it feels plasticky. I know it wont be as durable as the magnesium alloy of the Nikon, but looked after it's still a durable material. I still have an EOS 620 I bought in 1989 made from a similar mat'l. A little shiny in places but otherwise the body and camera is still in very good condition, so I've no reason to think the 350D will be less durable. As for the lenses, for the sort of photography I do, the cheaper lenses are fine. I'm not out to win any competitions, but I do like to be able adjust exposure, focus, depth of field, etc Another thing in favour of the Canon is that it's considerably lighter than the Nikon, with a bigger range of affordable EOS lenses. Mike.

No its not. The D200 sensor reads the data from two edges at the same time instead of one halving the time it takes. Effectively it has twice the connections and two chips to process the data, The D80 is the same sensor as yours. And thats the reason the D200 can fire 5 frames per sec like a machine gun. Image processing happens after this.

Low mass increases shake!

But with VRII you could shoot three to four stops slower or use lower iso or get 3 stops better depth of feild than you are getting now. Every time.

The sensor business helps to raise a 70% hit rate to 100% at very

VR does not have any effect on the bacground only locking on the moving subject as you pan, In fact it helps to blur the background since you can get sharp shots of the subject at slower shutter speeds!

In this dark grey country you do need it! I never turn it off unless on a tripod.

There is noise in all digicam shots. The bigger the sensor size the lower the noise. Compared to the tiny sensors in point and shoots there is a huge difference! Full frame slr cameras have less still but then as cannon found out they get vignetting problems without hugely expensive lenses.

But its not irrelivant. It proves that more than say 5 or 6 million pixels is plenty to print out a big poster at the exact same quality you see on your screen. Since point and shoots only ever get printed at say 6x4 or the odd A4 more pixels simply results in bigger file sizes for no purpose.

No its not. First thing I do is check the three colour histogram on the back. Single histograms used on point and shoots dont allow this so its easy to blow out the red channel say when taking a picture of something red. Plus point and shoots dont have an algo thats trying to avoid blown highlight on "auto" rather they try to give an average brightness to the photo. They ignore the blown histogram result...

You can get them on ebay very much cheaper now. But yes they do cost a little more.

But the cheap cannon lenses are a little lacking really! With dark corners etc being pretty obvious. The good cannon lenses are excellent but stupidly expensive.

Well its all about price at the end of the day, but nikons cheap lenses are definitely better!

Not quite, the D200 has a four channel ADC, the Alpha and the D80 have a two channel ADC, the difference really is in image processing (i.e. the ADC).

And the Alpha and D80 do 3 frames per second. It's not the huge difference you are cracking it up to be. Nor is it much of an advantage other than something to willy wave about.

You also have to suffer the extra noise, banding and blooming that the D200 suffers from compared to the other two cameras.

Umm no, Image processing includes the ADC.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Firth" Newsgroups: uk.rec.cars.modifications Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:06 AM Subject: Re: OT 8mg digi cameras

Analog digital conversion is not image procesing its simply turning the raw data into ones and zeros.

You obviously have not tried capturing bikes on a bend etc then. It really is a huge difference.

Banding? As far as I know only early badly calibrated ones did this. Mine cerainly never has! And yes I tried to make it! As for noise as you say there is no real difference in the sensor itself only the speed that it can be read then there can be no noise difference. I have a D80 shot of my van and a d200 shot both at 1600 taken outside camera shop to compare. The only difference is that the jpg from the D80 is over sharpened and looks to have less noise. But the raw files look exactly the same.

Debatable. Once the data is read and is all ones and zeros (the adc) all the contrast, noise, sharpening, and god knows what is performed on it. Either way the D200 does it faster. .

Untrue, the way that the raw image is processed by the ADC introduces noise in the D200 compared to the D80 because the D200 manipulates the analog image before the ADC and the subsequent ADC processing then leads to slightly more noise because of small mismatches in levels from each sensor type. Nikon themselves admitted that their choice of a a four channel ADC would be "controversial".

FWIW, the output from the Alpha and the D200 can be seen side by side here:

As the summary says, the D200 has a better case and it has faster performance. IMO although that's worth something, it's not worth twice the price. And I'm here and there on the "better case" as well. People like a metal body because it feels more professional. Personally with several cameras weighing close to a kilo each, all with metal bodies, I prefer the Alpha. Yes I know that some claim more mass reduces shutter shake, but OTOH less mass means that you don't get muscle shake affecting the image.

And I pressed send before including this link:

Copied snippet same site

No huge surprises here, a virtually identical resolution/detail response from these two cameras (apart from some subtleties we can put down to the different image processors), as we've already mentioned they both use a 10.2 megapixel Sony CCD chip based on the same design but with some differences. Of course the price difference between the D200 and DSLR-A100 buys you a far more robust camera with a full metal body, weather proofing seals, a wider range of features, faster performance, faster continuous shooting etc.

Note sensor BASED on same design with some differences... Ie it is NOT the same one. And first sentence. The raw files however which have far less processing are so identical you cannot see a difference other than white balance and exposure.

You mean its a bit better (actually in use it feels and is a lot better if the D80 is anything to go by!) but you are not prepared to pay the extra price? Because I am!

Note "apart from some subtleties we can put down to the different image processors" note "image processors" as I said the difference is in image processing, not the sensor itself.

Yes, the difference between using a four and a two channel ADC, that errm it.

You need glasses mate, the D200 raw file was visibly inferior to the Alpha image, and preceisely as described because of the ADC (image processing) differences. The D200 compromises image quality for speed, the Alpha compromises speed for image quality.

You also forgot to quote the assessment on the site that the Alpha image quality was better than the D200, i.e. it's not just my experience.

Still if you're happy with a heavy camera with inferior lenses and a poor ADC then let it be so.

Surely you mean a much better built and more weatherproof "sealed" rubberised metal bodied camera with faster focussing, faster responding, faster shooting, more flexible exposure and focus system, with much better nikon repair centre support, with a far superior flash system with better VR lenses for our dim country?

If you are happy with your cheaper camera (with the same but slower sensor) thats fine!

You take your cheaper choice and I will stick with mine.

I have played with your camera (not your particular one obviously!) and with most of the cannons and they all feel cheap and plasticky. Especially the cannon lenses! Are they plastic or what? Sorry but I prefer the solid rubberised feel and the fast solid feel when the very fast shutter/mirror operate. I like the short blackout time compared to the others. I use all those memory bank channels and focus option, I would be lost with the sony. I use the thing a lot, to me its the only camera apart from the other pro nikons that feel and respond this way.

As for the claimed image differences that take a huge blow up to see, well you get more variation from one camera to another identical one than that! And with crap lenses and no VR you will already be much worse than those lab differences!

In fact I am thinking of getting another for my GF to stop her stealing mine.

Short answer yes, which is why I won't have a Canon. I have a Sigma EX Zoom which is one of the best bits of glass around and a Minolta f1.4 50mm as in the DP Review test. Again a crackingly good lens and IMO better than the Nikon offerings.

I shoot raw with the pocket camera, the results are worth it.

Lol. The cheapest I saw on eBay was £720, body only.

TBH I've not noticed any particularly faults with Canon lenses, but then although I like having a reasonable camera, I don't take my photography very seriously. I'm happy with my snaps, but I've no doubt that a good photographer would think they're crap.

For my sort of photography, I doubt I'd notice the difference. :-) I still reckon that the 350D is good value, and a good choice for someone who just wants a well featured digital SLR, without too much expense. Mike.

All modern digital slr cameras are pretty amazing especiall considering the price. If you need to spend 750 (was 1200!) for a D200 you will already know why. If you dont know why you need one then you dont need one!