Re: D2Xs versus D200 etc.
- From: Paul Furman <paul-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:56:44 -0700
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
The analog-to-digital encoder used is of greatYeah - and with the benefit of about 3 years of development for the cheap new version.
significance, and they are all apparently custom
designed on a per camera model basis, and are matched
specifically to the sensor, which is also customize
for each model. It is interesting to compare each
version of the top of the line cameras, but much less
so for the lower cost versions simply because the
design criteria is not optimized for the best image,
but for the best image with a strick price limit.
The best example is probably the D100/70(s)/50/40 using the same sensor design with changes perhaps to AA filter, RGB array and in-camera processing. Each evolution went in to a "cheaper" camera, but each evolution seemed to show an incremental improvement in imaging output - mainly in ex-camera jpg, but also in raw. (Possible exception is in outright detail, where the weak AA filter in the earlier models gives an appearance of sharper imaging from raw, at the expense of much more aliasing and moire)
I'd go with Bjorn Rorslett's conclusion - that if there's a difference between D200 and D2x, then it's a "trifle".
FWIW I think the D200 is a significant improvement over the D70. The D50 is supposed to make cleaner images than the D70 because it's newer & has better processing & such. Moving up to a D80/200 there is a hit on dynamic range & noise with more MP but IMO the newer technology can overcome much of that and more MP really does give more detail and less noise because the noise is smaller grained therefore less noticeable (even Roger Clark conceded this and he's a big advocate of larger pixels/low MP/low crop factor) and the processing technology is more advanced in newer models. I'd guess the D2x is not that great for noise & dynamic range due to old technology (although it was top grade technology for it's time), the main difference is in build quality and pro features, just like the D80 & D200 should be nearly identical image quality (about the same release time) but the D200 has a more robust build with more features, knobs, buttons & options. Basically you get what you pay for & the newer stuff is better, and the more pro level models are better and the newer, lower MP versions are better. I would trust Bjorn's observations. The image quality is probably about the same though the D2x has more MP, it has older technology but more pro features & build quality. For image quality the D40x is probably tops but it's short on pro features & build quality. I'd expect the next release to be a D40x sensor or better in a D2x quality body... something to compete with the astounding Canon MIII.
Paul Furman Photography
Bay Natives Nursery
- Prev by Date: Re: Canon 30D vs 400D vs 5D vs 1D MkIII
- Next by Date: Re: Canon 30D vs 400D vs 5D vs 1D MkIII
- Previous by thread: Re: D2Xs versus D200 etc.
- Next by thread: Re: D2Xs versus D200 etc.