I have a D200 and F4s and so on. My D200 is amazingly restricted contrast and tone wise compared to the F4 with 64 film which I still have some of. So I need a full frame camera with the fewest bells and whistles possible. Not sure that is possible but I really don't need 70% of what is on the D200. So thanks in advance. Lar d'Fotog
I don't think that moving to a different size sensor is going to change contrast at all, and tone by not very much. And I can't think of anything that a D200 has that isn't on a D700. All full frame does is to spread the pixels out over a wider area.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
I left film seven years ago and have used 6 different Nikon digital cameras since and none of them have lacked in contrast or anything else. Are you post processing your D200 images? Most digital images benefit from some processing straight out of the camera. One thing to note is that the latest Nikon digital bodies have more in-camera image adjustments available than the D200 does.
Ernesto Santos esartprints.comErnesto Santos Photography Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
Sat 13-Mar-10 04:35 PM | edited Sat 13-Mar-10 04:37 PM by 41cassis14
Yes I always run my images through PShop. I have multiple templates set up to make sure all look similar. I guess what I was looking for was the real image as opposed to an interpolated one. I was kind of hoping the difference would be as extreme as the difference between 35mm and the RB67. I would give anything to be able to afford a dig back for the RB. And I think I misspoke. I guess what I am attempting to accomplish has more to do with the richness of color between the 35mm and 6x7 negs. Lar d'Fotog
>I guess what I was looking for was the real image as opposed to an interpolated one.
I am not clear what you mean by interpolated, but all the camera does, either D200 or D700, is capture the luminance levels. The colors are calculated against the Bayer filter layout and mapped to various colors spaces, such as adobe RGB, (like you might want to apply to a RAW image), or sRGB for jpeg, (but now the image is limited from an editing perspective).
If you shoot RAW, and use something like NX 2, you can take way more control over the look of the color of an image than anything Photoshop can offer.
>I have a D200 and F4s and so on. My D200 is amazingly >restricted contrast and tone wise compared to the F4 with 64 >film which I still have some of.
Back in the wet sink days I did my own color printing, both from negative and slide film, and from 35mm, MF, and even some 4x5.
I get noticeably - I'm tempted to say far - better color, contrast, and sharpness on 13"x19" prints from my D200, pp w. NX2 and printed with Qimage on an Epson 2200, than I did from 645, much less 35mm. (I no longer have access to my prints from 4x5.) I was using pro-level equipment - Beseler 4x5 enlarger & color head, El-Nikkor and Schneider enlarging lenses, expensive grain magnifier for focusing, etc.
I'd urge you to take a close look at your shooting, pp and how/with what you're doing your printing. Something is wrong somewhere. The D200 is capable of superb results.
There is another alternative which would involve your post processing in Photoshop. Nik Software (http://www.niksoftware.com/index/usa/entry.php) has a suite of software products, which can dramaticaly enhance your photos. There products are available either individually or as a suite. They work in either Photoshop, Lightroom and Apeture. You can download fully functional copies, which will work for 15 days for free. I have Lightroom and Nik Complete and shoot with a D300. You may want to consider this alternative and try it.