Nikon D200 vs. Fujifilm S3 [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page Forums

View Full Version : Nikon D200 vs. Fujifilm S3

thins

04-04-2006, 06:56 AM

I am awaiting shipment of the D200 here in Australia. Its been three months and they just cannot get any stock down this way. So with the extra time I have started to consider alternatives...

Does anyone have any experience with both these cameras. if so I would be very interested in your experience & knowledge.

I am a semi pro, mainly working in fashion as an assistant but am now looking at doing my own thing. I am looking for a functional, simple and high quality camera to shoot editorial's with.

In some cases I will be mixing it up between film and digi, opting to use the digi as a 'polaroid' tool.

File size quality, skin tones and response time are what I am interested in.

I look forward to you response...

thank you

A

www.adrianmesko.com

Rhys

04-04-2006, 07:29 AM

coldrain

04-04-2006, 07:54 AM

I continue to be unimpressed by what I see from the Nikon D200. I know this again will trigger a very long response from a certain forum member here that owns a D200 and who is a big Nikon fan, but time and time again the colours seem not right at all. They are either too dull, too magenta, just lacking contrast, with different lenses too (I am basing my opinion on all the photos you can find in reviews and such).

Take a look at this website, it compares the EOS 5D with the D200. Both have a good reputable lens from their respective manufacturer, taking into account the difference in crop factor.
http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200F.htm
On the top you find a link to a comparisson from a 20D and a D200, look at what the D200 does in shadows between face and hair for instance, or how noisy it gets. The D200 seems to have a very limitted dynamic range.

I know the above mentioned member will say that you can adjust it all in NEf format, but that is half nonsense and half undoable, you can not easily recreate skin tones (or tones of other materials, like metals and such) and you can not overcome a lack in dynamic range.

The same can be seen in the photos made by Jeff Keller, he made some photos with the 200D and 5D on the same day, both cameras with a prime lens. The difference in dynamic range and contrast is huge.

The S3 Pro has a good name in dynamic range, it just is a very slow camera with its fair share of quirks.

For your application I would go for a EOS 30D if funds are too tight for a EOS 5D. And if you own quite a few Nikon lenses, I'd first look at the Nikon D50, even though it has lower resolution, per pixel the image quality to my eyes is better.

Rhys

04-04-2006, 09:18 AM

I think if you're going Nikon then the D70s is fairly good. The next really decent Nikon dSLR is the D2X.

If you're prepared to look at Canon then I'd suggest the 1DsMk2. Although people can get away with the 20D/30D and XT, it is better.

George Riehm

04-04-2006, 11:21 AM

Since this is a general forum, you may not get specific answers from people who have actually used either camera in a professional or semi-professional role. This is evidenced by the responses, so far.

While there is little doubt that Canon makes some fine dSLR's, experience using the Canon XT, and then extrapolating that experience as it applies to every other dSLR, including other Canons, may not be what you were looking for. I shoot a D70, have never shot fashion, my only professional experience is as a wedding tag-along, and have sold a few landscape prints, so I disqualify myself as well.

For information from photographers, with actual professional experience shooting the Nikon D200, or Fuji S2/S3, dSLR's I recommend posting this querry on those dSLR forums, and making it clear that you plan to shoot professionally, maybe better yet check out the Nikonians site (there are several people there that shoot both the S2/S3 and Nikon dSLR's (D100, D2H, D2X, D200).

coldrain

04-04-2006, 12:32 PM

You could go to a Nikon only club like George suggests, or you could go to the comparative link I gave above and trust your own eyes, to really see the difference between what that Canon EOS 5D can do compared to the D200. I huge difference. Or how the 20D compared to the D200 in skin and dynamic range.

Trust your own eyes, fan clubs of one make are almost never an objective source.

Rhys

04-04-2006, 12:57 PM

I always try to be objective. I can criticise the 350D/XT, the D70 and the Pentax *ist DL. Equally, I can find good things about all of them.

I'm still in year 1 of my Canon dSLR experiment. Thus far I find the image quality is excellent. The rest of the Canon system ranges from so-so to downright awful.

Jason25

04-04-2006, 01:04 PM

I don't know if you're interested in Canon's lineup, or how it got into this thread, but go to the forum George suggested if you want opinions from people who have used the D200 and/or S3 Pro for your stated purpose. It's a great resource.

coldrain

04-04-2006, 01:15 PM

I think it is very obvious how Canon got into this thread. The therad is super short anyway, and it got into this thread to show how unimpressive the D200 is in this respect (texture, skin tone, contrasts).

Jason25

04-04-2006, 01:37 PM

Well yeah, when comparing it to a $3,000 full frame camera. I'd be interested to see a similar comparison to a 30D :D

coldrain

04-04-2006, 02:04 PM

Well, just follow the link. On the top of the page is a link to a comparisson to 20D. You will see that the 20D's dynamic range does a better job in skin and skin/hair shade areas too. The 30D it very close to the 20D anyway. And comparing a D200 to a 5D (which is below 3000$ anyway) is just as fair as comparing a D200 with a 30D, pricewise.

cdifoto

04-04-2006, 02:08 PM

Nikon and Canon are both fine camera manufacturers. Neither is better than the other because every lens, camera body, flash unit, etc has trade-offs. If Nikon was that bad, no one would buy their products and the company would have failed by now.

jeisner

04-04-2006, 04:04 PM

I would guess the reason two nikon lens mount cameas were put up as options was due to a ready collection of Nikon glass???

So if I am right and this is the case and the OP just wants comparisons of these two cameras by people with first hand experience of them, I would also suggest asking the same question on a Nikonian forum may garner more on-topic responses...

Good luck finding the right camera for you :cool:

George Riehm

04-04-2006, 05:45 PM

I'm thinking that thins has already started a meaningful dialog at the Nikonians site. 13 responses (11 excluding mine) and not a single input from someone who knows jack about the D200 or S3.

missued

04-13-2006, 09:51 PM

Im attempting to determine this my self owning both the d200 and S3, and don't be fooled by the "EOS advantage" of having severly restricted dynamic and tonal range along with a crap set of lenses available for top dollar from cannon. The S3 is very good at flesh tones, and is far simpler than the D200 to use. The "film simulation modes" allow excelent color reproduction and an exceptional dynamic range, I will post pictures as soon as i am able to. The dynamic range of the d200 is far superior to most nikon and cannon models, of a good lens and IF the approproate color mode is used (which is the hardest thing to remember to use when using the camera). The s3 has more noise than the d200 at high isos though the S3 does seem to capture more detail in the extrene ends of the highlights and shadows. Though if you are using strobes you may want to use the D200 because of the commander mode, and ability for the camera to control all flash heads simulataneously and wirelessly.
Im going to disregard the test of the 5d vs the d200 offered as proof on the basis that it is blaitlantly obvious that there is a shit load of sharpening in the 5d,I worked with an MI unit so i know what I am talking about, and the lighting/white balance/lens and possibly ISO is different between the two cameras. In the D200 pics It looks like th ISO was cranked up and the NR was on or the focus point was on another part of her face. My final comment will be that CMOS censors were rejected by astronomers in the 70's as being too noisey and having a low dynamic range as upposed to CCD censors. If you compare a niko/epsonn film scanner to a cannon one
there is an obvious difference in quality.
I am awaiting shipment of the D200 here in Australia. Its been three months and they just cannot get any stock down this way. So with the extra time I have started to consider alternatives...

Does anyone have any experience with both these cameras. if so I would be very interested in your experience & knowledge.

I am a semi pro, mainly working in fashion as an assistant but am now looking at doing my own thing. I am looking for a functional, simple and high quality camera to shoot editorial's with.

In some cases I will be mixing it up between film and digi, opting to use the digi as a 'polaroid' tool.

File size quality, skin tones and response time are what I am interested in.

I look forward to you response...

thank you

A

www.adrianmesko.com

erichlund

04-14-2006, 09:46 AM

I'm thinking that thins has already started a meaningful dialog at the Nikonians site. 13 responses (11 excluding mine) and not a single input from someone who knows jack about the D200 or S3.
OK, George. I can take a hint. ;) I've really been trying to stay out of "which camera should I buy debates".

I have a D200. There you go, step one, eleven steps to go.

Let's start with the S3. I have never used an S3, but I have heard it is capable of capturing great images, and may have the best dynamic range of any dSLR. I've also heard it's slower than molasses in winter, so if you are looking for responsiveness in a camera, perhaps not the best choice. There. That's what I've heard. I don't know, because I've never even seen one.

How will you use the camera? To quote you, "File size quality, skin tones and response time are what I am interested in." The D200 raw photos are very large, about 10mb, but this is clearly the best mode for the camera. To get good jpg, you have to forget the D70 ever existed (can blow highlights if overexposed very slightly), and be willing to push your jpg exposures to the very edge. It's capable, but it's just not designed to be a great jpg machine. However, it does give you RGB histograms and a composite histogram to help get your exposure perfect.

OTOH, in raw it does very well and you have much more control of the end result. Except for the D50, Nikons seem designed specifically for use in raw, with jpg slapped on as a necessary evil.

You will have to be the judge of skin tones. I think they are excellent, but my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. dpreview.com (the d1, d2, d100, d200 forum) is a much better place to look for that than here, because there are lots of Nikon portrait/wedding photographers there using this camera every day. Look at the photos posted there over the last several weeks and make up your own mind. There are lots of links to pbase and smugmug galleries that you can view.

IQ. Shoot jpg for your "polaroids". I'd presume this is just to test your lighting setup anyway. Shoot raw for your keepers. Are you shooting 35mm for MF? If you are shooting 35mm film, you will find that raw will have you giving up film. My local retailer regularly does a customer survey. A year ago, 80% of his pros were still shooting film. This year, only about 20% are shooting film. His store (Orange County, California) is smaller than the Los Angeles store, and he has stopped carrying film in stock except for B&W (for the local colleges). To get color film at his store is an overnight order. Again, don't take my word for the quality. Look at the work of pro D200 users on pbase and smugmug.

Responsiveness is excellent. When you turn the camera on, it's on. When you want to shoot a bunch of photos in a row, it's no issue. In raw, you can shoot 22 frames at 5 frames/second without slowing down. Tests have demonstrated that this number from the manual may vary a bit, but some have been higher, some lower. Probably depends on content and therefore file size. The jpg number is 37, with the same caveats. Of course, there are two continuous shooting modes. One is strictly 5 fps. The other is user programmable at 1-4 fps. So you can choose your shooting rate. A slower rate will allow more frames because there is more time for the buffer to clear.

Another area of responsiveness is camera handling. The D200 doesn't bury the important stuff in menus. There are buttons/dials for every critical user function. Once you learn where they are, you never have to take your eye from the viewfinder, because the critical information is also displayed in the viewfinder. Want to change ISO. Press the ISO button and rotate the command dial. The buttons are also big, like they are on the Nikon Pro D2 line of cameras. You can operate this camera with gloves on. You get a function button and 10 options to what you want it to do. For me, it's set to spot meter. I leave the camera in matrix, but for any photo where I want spot metering, my right hand ring finger just holds the function button down and I'm in spot metering. Of course, if you want to use one of the other 10 options, the metering switch is on the back of the camera, not buried in a menu, so it's a very simple matter to change metering mode. There's lots more, and I could go on forever, but you can get all this from www.nikon.com, just by downloading the manual. Without a serial number, you won't be able to print the manual, but you will be able to read it online.

BTW: In studio, you can shoot the D200 tethered to a computer using Nikon Capture. The photos go directly to the computer instead of the card in the camera, so you get instant feedback. Now that's "polaroid". I'd assume the S3 can do that as well, but I don't know. Perhaps through Phase One's Capture One software.

One last thing. Remember what your final output will be. Unless your final display media is on screen, you really need to print some photos to get a real idea of what your end result will be. A lot of people forget that.

coldrain

04-14-2006, 01:04 PM

What a confusing (confused?) post, missued.
1. Nice to know in the 70's there already were CMOS and CCD sensors. Oh wait, there were not
2. And nice to know technology never advances. that is 30 years ago.
3. And nice to know that you disregard the comparison with totally unfounded arguements (it is not a secret the 5D has a very good dynamic range). I guess you are a Nikon fan and do not like what you see in the comparison photos?
4. And nice to know you think scanners have anything to do with cameras.

Misguided? Or just flaming (I see this is your first post, you joined to post this.)

T06

04-15-2006, 01:08 AM

cdifoto

04-15-2006, 01:40 AM

...but why do you hate Nikon so much?I've noticed that if anyone gives their opinion swaying towards Nikon you can be very defensive against their views.Again this is not a flame, just an observation.

I don't know if he was serious or not, but on another thread he stated that he worked for Canon.

coldrain

04-15-2006, 04:13 AM

I have recommended people Nikon, I have recommended people Sony, KM, Pentax, Canon, Fuji, I have told many that in my opinion for instance a Nikon D50 is a fine choice. When probably to you seem to hate Nikon, I just react to baseless claims that others make.
Like in this case, I can not help that a Canon 5D has great image quality (if you do not take stronger vignetting on full frame into account), and that its dynamic range is very good. I did not just conclude that, many reviewers and photographers have said so too. So, it stands out like the Pro 3 stands out, and like the Sigma SD10 stands out.
And since the OP did NOT state he owned a lot of Nikkor lenses, I wanted to put the 5D and its performance to his attention. And that THAT gets the reactions from Nikonians it did get, is not my doing, I merely react to the posts.

Just look at the original link I posted, everyone can see how the 5D performs compared to the D200, and in particular in the OP's field.

And no, I do not work for Canon, some flamer with a KM 5D once suggested that I 1. work in a camera store and 2. that I work for Canon. And I said "of course I do".
One camera is precious to me, and it is not my XT, it is my Nikon Nokkormat FTn. It is what I grew up with, it was my dads.
My current choice for Canon merely is based in the products qualities, not on misplaced loyalty. It is the same reason I chose for the Canon EOS 300 (Rebel 2000) in 2000, it stood out in the entry SLR class back then (needed something lighter than the FTn + lenses for traveling, and I did not want the FTn to get lost or damaged).
And the same reason I chose for the Canon Powershot S30, it was unequaled in image quality back then for 3mp compact cameras.

so, if I were to choose a camera now, would I choose the 5D over the D200? Yes. Because it is a Canon? No. Why then? Image quality advantage. What about the 30D? Still image quality advantage. If I were to go to a rough climate? I might consider the d200, for its weather sealed design. would I recommend the D200 to someone else? Yes, but that does depend on their situation and requirements.