D200 + 70-200 VR + 1.4x vs D70s + 70-300g.... SURPRISING!

[MattyO]

Okay, i hope this is the correct section. Me and my dad were down at the V8 supercar racing on the weekend, and we were comparing pictures taken with the different gear.

Matt:

D200
70-200 f/2.8 VR + 1.4x Teleconverter

Dad:

D70s
70-300g

He is giving away 4 mp and a lot in cost. Here is an image taken of the same car from the same place probably at the same time.

To be fair, i have cropped mine down to 6mp, this hasnt been resized but cropped from 10 to 6mp and the car fills a similar section of the frame. Not exactly scientific... but close enough, i don't think it should really make a difference to the outcome.

Exif Info:
Dad:

D70s, ISO 200, F/11, 300mm, 1/500s

Matt:
D200, ISO 100, F/9, 280mm, 1/250s

the images

Dad: (all images are full res and about a meg each)
Dad Unprocessed
Dad Processed
Dad Processed + Noise Reduction

Matt: (all images are full res and about a meg each)
Matt Unprocessed
Matt Processed
Matt Processed + Noise Reduction

I will let you decide the results for yourself. For the very bad name the 70-300g has, it sure puts up a hell of a fight!!!!

You can see the noise that teh d70 has over the d200 so thats the reason for the noise reduction.

Both images have undergone hte same processing, same sharpening, autolevels, and contrast adjustment.

There is one point to note on the Images, to be fair on the d200, the photo was taken with a shutter speed half that of the d70, but thats a matter of technique, in which similar results could be had.

Worth the $3500+ difference in price??? Decide for yourself.

I hope you've enjoyed this. If there is enough interest i will try and fix it up a little bit to make it easier to read.

Regards
MattyO

[Alpha_7]

Interesting one thing it definitely shows, which we already knew is how the D70 likes to oversaturate the red. The Holden Winscreen sticker is very obviously a different shade of red in each shot.

[Glen]

MattyO,

Good comparison. I think the point with quality lenses is they allow you to get shots at the end of the spectrum eg f2.8 using VR in low light, which could not be got with a lesser lens. There have been a number of good shots the 70-300, from memory most were f8 and up

[BullcreekBob]

G'day

To my eye and on MY monitor, I prefered the colours in the "Dad" set, they just seem a bit brighter especially in the rendition of the reds. Compare the colour of the background to the Holden signs on the windscreen, or the Kenworth advert on the side.

With the Donut King advert, the colours in the "Matt" series struck me as too pink compared to the picture I have in my "Minds eye" for a product I've never bought. Being in a time wasting mood, I went to donutking.com and guess what, the rendition in the "Matt" shots IS too pink compared to the logo on the companies web site.

To me, all three of the "Dads" shots are more pleasing to my eye than the corresponding "Matt" shots. The colours are different between the sets of images, why this I don't know. It could be a function of the teleconverter, it could be the different ISO, it could be the shutter speed. Either way, I'm feeling $3,500 better off.

Thanks

Bob in Bull Creek

[gstark]

because I'm not using a calibrated monitor, I'm not going to comment too much on the colours, except to say that the differences that may be evident are probably due to wb issues more than anything else.

It really shouldn't be too difficult to bring these back to commonality in this realm.

Where I'm seeing differences - and this is what you're paying for with the 70-200 - is that the D200 images do seem to me to be sharper. This is not immediately apparant, but look closely at the signage on the car - the number on the windscreen, for instance, os the decal forward of the Donut King decal. There's a few other points too where the 70-200 seems to me to be sharper as well.

And Glen's point about the optical speed of that lens is quite valid here. The lens starts being several stops faster optically, and then adds VR to boot! In less than optimal conditions you'll have given up trying with the 70-300 hours before you'll make that same decision with the 70-200.

Now, we need to remember too that the vehicle was moving. Not too fast mind you; it's a V8.

But it was moving at the time of making the shot, and this subject movement too can have an an effect on the image.

Great stuff, Matty; thanx for posting these.

[MattyO]

Its more meant to be a feild comparison of someone using a d70 and 70-300 which is what most people start off with, compared to a much higher end setup of a d200 and 70-200 plus converter.

The difference in noise and color rendition is teh biggest difference, the sharpness is pretty close, but at 280mm hand held at 1/250s it holds up pretty well, but its not obvious that the shutter speed is twice that in hte d70s picture.

But really, in general use, and in the right conditions, the 70-300 + d70 can produce decent images.

[Kyle]

I can spot the differences in sharpness, and the d200 combo is quite a performer here


Thanks for the comparo matty

[Yi-P]

To be fair, i have cropped mine down to 6mp, this hasnt been resized but cropped from 10 to 6mp and the car fills a similar section of the frame. Not exactly scientific... but close enough, i don't think it should really make a difference to the outcome.

Exif Info:
Dad:

D70s, ISO 200, F/11, 300mm, 1/500s

Matt:
D200, ISO 100, F/9, 280mm, 1/250s

Difference is very slight if you really look through sharpness at a smaller scale. See both lenses, shot at peak performances? f/8 - f/11 ranges? There should not be a REAL big deal in sharpness given a relatively cheap lens at this aperture.

There is one point to note on the Images, to be fair on the d200, the photo was taken with a shutter speed half that of the d70, but thats a matter of technique, in which similar results could be had.

Worth the $3500+ difference in price??? Decide for yourself.

I hope you've enjoyed this. If there is enough interest i will try and fix it up a little bit to make it easier to read.

Regards
MattyO

The thing is, if you ever planned to do shooting in full condition daylight and focus is predictively at one spot. The 70-300g *CAN* do what is required. But what if condition changes?

If it gets overcast, starts to drip down light patches of rain, light drops down considerably. Will the D70 + 70-300g combo still be up to pace? I don't really think it will be.

A D200 and 70-200VR has their own very aspect in being qualified as professional grade gears. I don't think its necessary to mention every technical aspect of it compared to the 70-300g and d70.


Just summing up, the 70-300g can perform very well under good sunlight conditions and stopped down to its maximum peak performance aperture. Tho if these condition ever changes to not very suitable or ideal conditions, it will struggle to make your shot. Try it, go out one overcast day with the respective combos, shoot them under demanding lights and speed conditions, see who can win? You decide...

[Kyle]

The 70-300g does not too badly in overcast conditions!

here's a shot a friend took at EC in low light and smoke haze from a burnout by another car: http://www.gunnamotorsport.com/ben/dai18t/dai18t001.jpg

[Escapism]

I must say a big thanks for posting that Matt.

I found it very interesting as i am just starting to make money from my photography, by way of freelance and commisioned work. This includes several double page spreads in glossy mags through to company prospectus reports and individual print sales. I admit, its small fry stuff but its a definate step up from pure hobby status which i held for many many years. Whats changed...only my skill set and my desire. My kit is still extremely basic and my employers and customers would not have a clue.

Cheers Matt