DSLRUsers.com

OK, I got bored this afternoon and thought I'd compare a D200 image with a D2X image.

I took the following 2 images with the same lens, same flash unit, same ISO, same f-stop etc.

I applied the same process in Photoshop and resized to the current image dimensions.

I have no idea what I hoped to prove but I will let you compare the two images and see if you can pick the difference......I can't....

Of course, if you look at the EXIF data you will be cheating.

Ummm I am certainly no expert, but would I be right in saying the colour in the first pic is more vibrant?

Would the first pic be the D2X?

(I have not looked at the EXIF data)

Stuart,

What about the underlying wb? What was the baseline colour temperature for each of these images?

I agree with Trieu in that the former of these appears to have slightly better saturation or greater intensity. I've not yet looked at the exif to see which is which, but other than the varying saturation levels (which I'm also seeing as a very slight difference in the white as well) these do look very close.

Given that, I feel compelled to offer you $5 for what is very obviously a faulty and substandard D2X.

Thanx for posting; I look forward to your further comments on this.

Gary, I checked the Exif data to try to get the information you asked for and I noticed that the first image was shot at f/6.3 and the second at f/5.6...just goes to show that I will never make it as a scientist!

Both images were shot at the default flash ISO for the camera, I am not sure if these are exactly the same white balance temperatures for the two cameras but I presume that they would be.

Stuart,
Thanks for the trouble you took with this. Very informative and proves a point. The differences are very minor.

Stuart, I think the D200 photo is absolute rubbish and very sub-par quality wise.. Poor Poor Poor...

I think you should definately stick with your D2X and sell that piece of rubbish D200 to me..

Now let me know where I deposit the $200 cash so I can help you out with this embarrasment of a camera.

Now that is boredom

You have to drag out 2 sub-standard Nikons and compare the two.....how do you do it

More test shots are in order so we can get some controversial discussions started

Overall, to me the top pic looks better so Im guessing its the D2X.

As most of you have guessed, the top image (test1.jpg) is the D2X. There could be a touch more saturation in the first image, I didn't go to the extent of making sure all of the custom settings were the same in each camera. I was bored but I wasn't THAT bored.

Stuart - your test has certainly shown that the D200 is no slouch

smac,
Keep your D200 inside the X5 glove box and showing off the D2X or the newer with the "s" as LostDingo got

Gee the differences are minor.

I can see the difference. And I'm surprised you all have seen it. It's the extra few $100 notes hiding behind the D200 image that you saved.

Stuart,

If you have the raw image files, load them in NCE and set the colour temperature so that they're the same, and then see if there are any differences.

to there appears to be a lot more digital noise in the first pix than the second......... but I am looking using my laptop......

Woohoo, I got it right.

The blue affinity is what gives it away as the D2x in the first image.

The first image appears to have more detail in the fine fibres around the blue woollen hat - I can't really comment on the saturation. Could the detail in the fibres be to do with the aperture difference? And if you changed the aperture, wouldn't the exposure have been longer on the first shot than the second?

There is a more prominent nose hair on the first than the second. I'm not sure what that means but it had to be said.

Peter Mc

The first image is a bit greener, and the red is a bit more saturated. On my work monitor at least (non-calibrated).

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:The first image is a bit greener, and the red is a bit more saturated. On my work monitor at least (non-calibrated).

Cheers
Steffen.

Is it an ACER Little 15 inch

Stuart, thanks for those two images, really proves the value of the D200.

The only noticable differences I could tell was on the first has better fine detail which could be due to the aperture change. If you look at the beanie you are wearing, on the left of the pom pom is a thread which is far more visible in the first. There is also a little fluff ball on the right of the pom pom (1.5cm to the right), its attributes and hairs are more visible in the first.

Great result for both cameras.

LostDingo wrote:

Steffen wrote:The first image is a bit greener, and the red is a bit more saturated. On my work monitor at least (non-calibrated).

Cheers
Steffen.

Is it an ACER Little 15 inch

No, it's actually a Sony 21" (GDM-520, or so). But uncalibrated nevertheless. It has a built-in adjustment feature. I reckon it uses the same in-tube sensor as the Apple 21" studio display, but only does a quick fix of gamma and white balance for sRGB.

Cheers
Steffen.

In fact, now looking at them on a calibrated monitor and on a colour space aware system (the images are in aRGB, so it matters), I find:

- the first image is still a bit greener (apparent in the arm on the left, and by the fact that the yellow hair is less orange)
- the second image seems overall more saturated, esp the black and blue, but including the red (which appeared darker on in the first pic on teh PC monitor) which makes me think it has been less exposed than the first.
- zooming in it becomes apparent that the first image has far more detail than the second.

May I look at the EXIF now?

Ok, so the exposure was identical. The apparent difference in brightness/saturation can have any number of reasons, including the curve used by Photoshop to convert from RAW.

Not sure about the extra detail the first image, don't the D2X and D200 have similar amounts of pixels on their sensors?

Cheers
Steffen.

You can see the fine hairs around the first image much better. Aperture problem or just the wraith of the D2x?