Latest Nikon D200 Argentina pics from the http://forum.xitek.com/ forum Photo Gallery by David Chin at pbase.com

Nikon D200 - Let the pictures do the talking | Reviews from Nikon D200 users | Nikon D200 Image Samples from nital.it forum | Latest Nikon D200 Argentina pics from the http://forum.xitek.com/ forum | Other Nikon D200 Image Samples | Nikon D200 Production Samples | Nikon D200 samples from it.nikkei.co.jp | Around the time of the launch of the Nikon D200 (started: 26-Oct-2005)

Latest Nikon D200 Argentina pics from the http://forum.xitek.com/ forum

Note: For the latest of my personal picks of noteworthy D200 pics, hop over to :> http://nikond200.dpnotes.com/category/amazing-nikon-d200-image-samples - feast your eyes on the truly superb images that Nikon D200 users are taking! Get the lowdown on the equipment that they used, together with settings, workflow and tips that might be additionally revealed.

A kind soul named Jeff Chen emailed me about these pics and requested me to host them

You might prefer to read about this topic in my Nikon D200 blog.

Don't forget to view the images in the original size by selecting the appropriate option under the image.

D200_0001.jpg, with the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 G DX lens	D200_0002.jpg, with the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 G DX lens	D200_0003.jpg, with the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 lens
D200_0004.jpg, with the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8 lens, Color Mode III	D200_0005.jpg, taken with the AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED lens	D200_0015.jpg

post a comment

Guest		01-Dec-2005 16:23
Read here why your cameras don't matter http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

kadamopo		01-Dec-2005 12:01
A basic noise comparison between D200 and 5D: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=15693640 Two more D200 samples using Nikkor 18-200mm with VR on and off: http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_vr_zoom18-200mmf_35-56g_if/ Cheers

kadamopo		01-Dec-2005 11:43
Follow the links below to see some more Nikon D200 samples. The pics talk for themselves. In my opinion some of them are crystal clear and very impressive. I don't understand all this attitude of some Canon people here. Canon make amazing cameras, but Nikon make amazing cameras too. I am not a professional but can definitely say that I've seen a lot of Canon shots out of an 1DMarkII or 20D look very poor when the photographer doesn't know what he/she is doing. So what's the point of all this bad attitude? Cheers. More D200 samples: http://www.photosium.com/bbs/zboard.php?id=d200 A very basic comparison between Jpeg and Raw: http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=newproduct_nikon&page=1&sn1=&sid1=&divpage=3&sn=off&sid=off&ss=on&sc=off&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=13475 Some night shots (for iso comparisons check also galleries 3 to 10: http://it.nikkei.co.jp/pc/news/index.aspx?i=20051124dp000da&cp=2

Lou Giroud		30-Nov-2005 11:56
It makes me laugh when I see comments like "stick to film or analog, forget digital" or "a Canon 20D and 350D makes good quality picture". It seem to me that most people ignor what digital photography is and what's about. First of all, digital photography is not photograpy in pure sense of the term. Diogital photography is nothing more than computer works, in this context pictures seen on a PC Screen are numerised in files with the help of a photocamera or a scanner. One can not compare a film made photo to a digital one by comparing printed pictures. Magnifying those will let you see dust-corns or grain on a classic film and square shaped tiles on a digital picture. The game of "more or less pixels" is the most controversed subject and leads to mistakes. Those mistakes are even bigger due to the commercial brainwash of the marketing people who never tell you what's about, but just what you want to hear on one side and what they want you to know about it on the other. Analyzing cameras with different amounts of pixels, you just look what is the basic picture size. Imagine that all cameras had the same frame size, let's say 3000x2000. In that case we could talk about resolution improvements by higher pixel amounts due to the fact that all that pixels would be present on the same surface and in that case the higher pixeled chip would produce a finer resolution then the low pixeled chip. Now, why does a higher pixeled chip gets better results then a low pixeled chip. The answer was given in what I said before. At same viewing size, the higher pixeled picture looks better on your screen and the reason is the magnification factor. Looking every picture taken at 100% of size, you could find out that none of all those pictures has indeed a better resolution but just better details shown. The main reason is magnification in positive way and size. A Nikon D70 picture that is printed on DIN A3 size will be magnified by 1.95 while a D2X picture will be magnified by 1.25 only, a Canon 5D by 1.12 a Canon 1DSMk2 by 0.85 and so on. The result is that any shot taken by any of all those cameras will result in a magnification limit before the tiles of the mosaic could be seen on the print. Here the tiles will do the same what dust-corns or grain do on a film shot print. Now, since most people never print anything bigger then DIN A3, this pixel competition must be useless. But, there is also the advantages and disadvantages of high and low pixeled chips. First, let's see what pixels are. A chip is composed of a mosaic of photosensors which are aligned on the chip in a grid pattern in a 2-1-1 style where the 2 are green sensors, the other 1 + 1 red and blue. This is normal since 2/3 ds of what we see in colours all over is green. On the D200 with 10.2 millions they are in an allignement of 3872 x 2591 pixels, thus every pixel has the size of 6.0 mu in size. Let's compare pixel sizes yet : Canon 5D = 8.2 mu, 20D = 6.4 mu, 1Dmk2 = 8.2 mu, 1DSmk2 = 7.2 mu, NIKON D2X 5.5 mu, D70/D50,Pentax*stD,Dynax7 and 5 series all have 7.8 mu and the D200 6.0 mu. Now, consider a pixel being nothing else the a tube with a lens on it or compare it to a window where light falls in. We all know that the bigger a window is, the more light comes in, the smaller it is, the less light falls in. On argentic film cameras we know that a high diaphragm rate, thus a smaller hole incrases sharpness and on the other side it will reduce sensivity to light, one of the reasons why we all seek for 1.4 to 2.6 lenses when it becomes to make speed shots or shoot in the darker areas. Our pixels do the same and consider the finer pixel to acquire better détails in lighted areas and weaker deatils in the darker spots. The more the pixel takes light, the better he is in the dark, the less he takes light, the better he performs in the high lights. A Canon 5D is propbabely among the best cameras one could use in the Dark and the way Canon pushes it's ISO rates proves the hability of "eating light" of this sensor. On the other side, no need to say that this ability of eating light will turn into a disaster when it becomes to get a good resolution in high lighted areas. So is a Camera like the 5D then a step forward. A camera that eats light in a way to make excellent night shots and burns high lights in the daytime is not a bargain and in exeption of being proud to ow a cheep full sized sensor camera, there is no good reason to buy a Canon 5D since a 20D performs much better in basic resolution and highlights details. Now, is Nikon D2X a bargain since it has the best resoltion due to it's smallest pixel size. For sure not. The D2X works fine up to 400 ISO. Nikon limits it's use to 800 ISO and any shot over 400 ISO is unusable as such, because of high noise rates. Also, the sensivity of the CMOS and Nikon's inexperience with this kind of device makes the D2X burn a lot of highlights as well despite of the small pixel size. Here, it is the rework software in the camera that causes the trouble and Canon's processors are quite a lot netter to handle those sensors. Future firmwares of the D2X will make this better for sure. So, no wonder that Nikon will use CCD sensors for the D200. Military systems use only CCD sensors and they know why. A Cmos is 2.5x cheeper to produce the a high quality CCD and has a separate adressing of each sensor what makes no need to wait for the full picture to be scanned to start the rework. A CCD needs to discharge the complete scan before a rework can occur by the software. I have tested the final D200 and must say that she is real hughe camera and she will be an allround tool that performs well in the dark and in light with all advantages and disadvantages and both are here in very acceptable range. Some people claim it to be a pitty not to use a full size sensor. Using such a device is useless anyway. One needs a full 24 mpix to get a film 24x36 quality. With a 12.4 mpix half size, which equals 25 mpix full size, Nikon reaches that goal or is close. The disadvantages of full sized chips are known. A film and a sensor are two very different objects. While a film is a flatt matt surface, a sensor is nothing more then a crystal plate and anyone who knows about physical laws knows that a light that is broken at a certain angle in a crystal plate is split into the colours of the rainbow. Also, flare is a high risk since the glass of the sensor reflects light to the lens and back, one reason why D lenses with APO Glass grinding has taken place at all lens manufacturers. A half sized sensor stays in the center of the magnification that the lens projects on it, thus edges with unsharp areas and extreme light breaking angles and resulting colour fringing as well as vignetting are out of limits. But, real wide angle lenses that are in ranges between 10 and 18 mm will enter in this risky class as well and fortunately RAW tools in modern softwares like Adobe Photoshop have tools to remove vignetting and colour fringing effects. A Canon technical told me about the ability to use a park of more then 180 lenses on there full sensored cameras. This made me reply that it is not necessary to offer 180 lenses while a good photographer needs 4 only, and if only a dozen of the 180 will only make the job and all others are useless in digital this kind of publicity is obsolete. Nikon is perfectly able to manage a full size sensor but until now has not made any step in this direction and there is certainly many reasons why they don't. So, this explained and said, let's wait for the D200 to be on the market and make our choice and I think that a D200 will at the actual state of technology be one of the better ones. Hope that now, many of you understand a bit more of the digital "game".

Guest		22-Nov-2005 05:27
Learn more about Nikon D200 see here >>>> http://www.nikondigital.com/main.html?page=d200

Ron Jeremy		22-Nov-2005 05:04
These images are from pre-production d200. Don’t panic people!! Some review good from www.DPreview.com by Phil Askey The D200 has the robust build quality of the D2X The most immediately noticeable however is the build quality, the D200 feels like a professional tool *It would be fair to describe the D200 as a 'compact D2X' And the price: $1,699 Excellent price!!! I am buying one for damn sure!!

P. Focker		22-Nov-2005 04:46
See more of D200 http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/nikon/d200/dslr_EN8.html

P. Focker		22-Nov-2005 04:42
I do agree with ocphotog. Whoever took these photos f them. I am buying Nikon D200 for sure. Knowledge and Technique!!!! See more of Nikon D200 here ))) http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/nikon/d200/dslr_EN1.html

Bill		22-Nov-2005 04:31
These images were taken with Nikon D70 and Canon 350D. See here >> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/juza_portfolio.htm Cheap cameras, but the quality of the images are excellent.

Guest		22-Nov-2005 02:26
Very nice photos Dave! I see some noise at high iso, but not bad for 800 iso.

Guest		22-Nov-2005 01:13
$199 point and shoot or $7000 DSLR. Guess after viewing. No cheating! http://www.pbase.com/image/51778430

Guest		22-Nov-2005 01:11
Yes. D70 is such an aweful D series camera it became camera of the year and best seller. I'm confused.

Guest		22-Nov-2005 01:10
QUOTE: "Guest 19-Nov-2005 01:08 Shows again Nikon is way behind in digital.....One good advice to Nikon: stick to analog, forget digital. The F6 is wonderful, the D-series a disaster. For a moment I thought (reading the specs) the D200 would be a first serious step (hoping that at least product quality and service would be better than on my D2X!). But no. After a number of years being loyal, I get more and more the feeling that I should follow many of my colleague Pro´s in switching to Canon. Full Frame, they get better service from CPS (Canon Professional Services), larger and brighter viewfinder (important if you're looking though it all day), etc. Sad but true.... " Love, Idiot

Guest		22-Nov-2005 00:56
QUOTE: "Guest 19-Nov-2005 01:08 Shows again Nikon is way behind in digital.....One good advice to Nikon: stick to analog, forget digital. The F6 is wonderful, the D-series a disaster. For a moment I thought (reading the specs) the D200 would be a first serious step (hoping that at least product quality and service would be better than on my D2X!). But no. After a number of years being loyal, I get more and more the feeling that I should follow many of my colleague Pro´s in switching to Canon. Full Frame, they get better service from CPS (Canon Professional Services), larger and brighter viewfinder (important if you're looking though it all day), etc. Sad but true.... " Love, Idiot

Bill		20-Nov-2005 03:57
Thes pictures are worse than D200s. Taken with $7000 camera. look here http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/eos_1ds_mark_ii

Guest		20-Nov-2005 03:52
Nikon or Canon....who cares? It's all about your technique people. But I kind of like Nikon's quality better than Canon though. http://shutterpoint.com/Photos-BrowseUser.cfm?user_id=WILDERNESS&page_id=1

Guest		20-Nov-2005 03:48
I ordered mine. The pictures posted here came right out from camera maybe not from raw mode. If edited with Nikon Capture I bet you these pictures would look like pro. People don't let these pictures or stupid comments get to u. D200 is like a compact D2X. See the pictures => http://shutterpoint.com/Photos-BrowseUser.cfm?user_id=WILDERNESS&page_id=1

Guest		19-Nov-2005 01:08
Shows again Nikon is way behind in digital.....One good advice to Nikon: stick to analog, forget digital. The F6 is wonderful, the D-series a disaster. For a moment I thought (reading the specs) the D200 would be a first serious step (hoping that at least product quality and service would be better than on my D2X!). But no. After a number of years being loyal, I get more and more the feeling that I should follow many of my colleague Pro´s in switching to Canon. Full Frame, they get better service from CPS (Canon Professional Services), larger and brighter viewfinder (important if you're looking though it all day), etc. Sad but true....

Guest		16-Nov-2005 19:55
These are some of the best images I have ever seen in 32 years of photography. Digital has far surpassed film, and Nikon has dug the grave for Canon. Canon may as well get back to making the equipment they know how to make.....copiers. Anyone buying a Canon over Nikon needs their head examined. Thank you, Nikon, for answering my prayers!!!!!!

Planesa		16-Nov-2005 07:59
I traveled all over the world and I always had my sweethearts Nikon cameras with me, I never seeing such bad pictures in over twenty years as a pro. I been using NIKON Cameras SLR or 35mm, the photographer who took those pictures needs first to get his checked and also his brian too, what in the world your thing for sake, who ever you are, I think you should read the manuel for the camera and Understand what is it saying, Not knowing it those are two different things, so please dont give any bad info or show picture by Nikon, get real for god sake whats wrong with

Guest		14-Nov-2005 08:31
Those pics are so bad as photographer who made it. Give me random DSLR to my hands and I can make so bad shots with every one :-)))) Those shots are not about camera, but about eye behind viewfinder ;-) Juraj, Happy Nikon D70 user and D200 candidate :-)))) http://www.fotoaparat.cz/index.php?r=25&rp=1&gal=vis&galvis=2110850

Teila K. Day		13-Nov-2005 06:01
I can't believe that so many people are so gullable and small minded, to accept these photos as gospel. I suppose canceling an order over a rash of photos is akin to ordering a camera body sight unseen... Lets just be smart men and women, and wait until the camera comes out before passing judgment.

Guest		13-Nov-2005 02:17
This seals my decision. CANON for me. : )

Mark Weber		13-Nov-2005 02:15
I had a Nikon D200 pre ordered from Ritz however after seeing these and other D200 images I cancled it. I will wait and see the actual reviews before I buy. PMA may reveil yet another smashing Canon DSLR. I believe I see Canon in my future.

Guest		12-Nov-2005 23:17
I dont not liketed these pictures any at all. Canon is farther the superior maker of cameras by far than Nikkor. Nikkor users does not get it yet and wait for changing to Canon in the future. You know it, don't not lie to your self!!!! The above garbled jargon is exactly how the previous whining posts sounded to me as I perused them. Thought I'd entertain other's as well.

Guest		12-Nov-2005 23:13
Incedintally, when browsing Pbase images from the 20D and 5D one can find images equally as crappy as these, if not worse in many cases. Don't knock the D200 just yet, knock the photographer. Neither Canon nor Nikon are wholly superior to one another when it comes to photographic equipment. Where Canon may excel in one area, Nikon bests Canon in another, and so it will be for decades to come. However, admittedly, Canon does make better copiers.

photowerks		12-Nov-2005 21:57
I can't imagine that these are representative of what the D200 can do? If so, Canon is smiling right now.

Guest		12-Nov-2005 20:41
Oh c'mon ... you act like childs! Or why don't you see the fact that these are cropped, resized, resaved pictures. They for SURE don't look that brilliant at a 10th of their original resolution and with a mid-quality photoshop JPG save. I really had to laugh reading all those comments, do you really think THAT's how the pics come out of the camera .... jeez? Let's wait and see the original photos first!

ThomasX		12-Nov-2005 19:34
You guys are asking for this abuse! Just wait until the camera gets a real review. Worst case scenario is that it will be plagued with similar banding problems that the Fuji S3 Pro has, limiting the D200’s resolution to around 7mp!

mysterymeat		12-Nov-2005 08:23
worthless pictures - very low quality with splotchy noise poor showing from the Nikon D200 I really hoped for more!

ocphotog		12-Nov-2005 08:04
these pics suck. its not the camera its the kook that took them. anybody that knows what they're doing could have made them look ok.

dpreviewmemeber		11-Nov-2005 21:10
I cant believe how bad these pictures are. Whats wrong with the D200? Im new to DSLRs but I dont think ill be getting this one from nikon.

James Geib		11-Nov-2005 19:01
http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikond200imagesamples

Guest		11-Nov-2005 18:21
Trolls

BobP		11-Nov-2005 18:17
I suspect the quality of these shots has more to do with the photographer than the camera. They are all, to varying degrees, underexposed. I am on my 3rd Nikon DSLR (D100-D70 and D2X) and they all underexpose if you don't pay attention.

Markus		11-Nov-2005 12:15
Ill wait until the camera is reviewed but every picture ive seen from it looks piss poor. Cross your fingers and pray for Nikon!

wumpuscut		11-Nov-2005 12:13
Canon for me I guess. I dont see any way to beat a FF sensor. What happened to nikon? 3 years to produce this camera and they couldnt get a decent sensor from Fuji or Sony or Kodak?

ZOBOTboy		11-Nov-2005 12:03
Some of the worse DSLR pictures ive ever seen. These cant be real. Someone please post a link to real D200 pictures. These are fake.

David Patin		11-Nov-2005 12:02
Please tell me these pictures are a joke. Very poor quality!

Alison Mathers		11-Nov-2005 11:29
These are aweful! Makes me want to cry. I had to cancel my preorder and go Canon. I love everything about the cameras body and was thinking "this" would be what I wanted. My nikon D50 is up for sale and im going 5D. Ive always liked Nikon but this isnt acceptable. Sad.

click on thumbnails for full image