Shoot out D200 vs 1D Mark II

[GBRandy]

I have more to post, but this is probably the best head to head comparison shot of the day.

The 1D seemed to shoot about 1/2 to 1 stop faster than the D200 which made direct image comparisons difficult. as posted on the "other" website, the WB at this place was a train wreck.

I had my D200+70-200VR & my friends 1D MKII +70-200 IS....my daughter thought I was insane.

Shot RAW and processed in NX for Nikon and slightly in Bibble Pro for Canon.

D200, ISO 1600 1/160 @ f2.8
http://www.ymcagymstars.com/2006_07_events/MandMCafed/RST_9558.jpg

1D Mark II, ISO 1600 1/160 @ f2.8
http://www.ymcagymstars.com/2006_07_events/MandMCafed/RST1_3308.jpg

...and just for kicks...direct from the Canon's JPG card at 1600 ISO & F2.8 (cropped and resized)
http://www.ymcagymstars.com/2006_07_events/MandMJAlbum/slides/_H0Y3164.jpg

[Keith]

Pretty tough #1 to compare a pro body Canon and semi pro level Nikon, different make up etc, a better comparison would have been the d200 with the 30d, just my thoughts or the D2x and 1dmkIIn.

Secondly the Canon meters differently, so you must have been shooting in manual mode as you will find the Canon will give you higher shooting speeds even at the same f-stop. Always drove me nutz when I was shooting Nikon :)

from what I can see and I dont think anyone would disagree is the Canon looks cleaner. Did you try any noise removal on the D200 in PP? Any difference in PP with sharpening and WB? I personally would have used the same software for PP if you really want to compare as well, such as Adobe to handle the RAW conversion. but just my thought.

Best news is, is that you went out and tried both for yourself. You are shooting for a very specific need, now all you need to do is pick the right tool that is right for you and your shooting conditions :) Thanks for sharing

So regardless of what we think, Im interested in your thoughts.

[GBRandy]

Pretty tough #1 to compare a pro body Canon and semi pro level Nikon, different make up etc, a better comparison would have been the d200 with the 30d, just my thoughts or the D2x and 1dmkIIn.
Perhaps, but I know the D2Xs noise is pretty similar to the D200 so this seems like a pretty good comparison for me anyway. Besides, I played with a 30D and if someone gave one to me the first thing I would do is sell it :) That camera is NOT for me.

Secondly the Canon meters differently, so you must have been shooting in manual mode as you will find the Canon will give you higher shooting speeds even at the same f-stop. Always drove me nutz when I was shooting Nikon :)
I did indeed shoot these two in manual mode as I was chasing exposure setting all over the place. I finally said..."screw it" and metered with the Canon and set the D200 to the same settings. What surprised me was that just straight metering resulted in a constant 1/2 stop and frequently 1 full stop slower SS using Ap Priority at 2.8. Some suggested I change the EV value to center the histogram, but that means an even slower SS....gah....not what i need at place like this.

from what I can see and I dont think anyone would disagree is the Canon looks cleaner. Did you try any noise removal on the D200 in PP? Any difference in PP with sharpening and WB? I personally would have used the same software for PP if you really want to compare as well, such as Adobe to handle the RAW conversion. but just my thought.
I put my best foot forward with Nikon Capture NX on the D200 files. That's the software that should yield the best results for the Nikon images. levels, delighting, noise, sharpen...I putzed for quite awhile. The canon files went through Bibble Pro...very slight noise reduction an sharpening. I choose this method because it is how I would actually work the files....I am not trying to compare a a sterile test, but one that represents a real world example for me.

Perhaps I can toss out a few of the raw files for someone else to tinker with as my PP skills are a work in process.

Still working....but the early returns are surprising me.

[Kevin]

Still working....but the early returns are surprising me.
I'm anxious to hear your opinion. :)

I'm also amazed at the jpg shot you posted. Looks pretty good to my eye.

In looking at the two RAW converted files, I see in the Nikon shot, to a degree, what I saw in my cheerleading shots. I never did a direct head-to-head comparison but I found the Nikon shots lacking finer detail in the type of shots I took.

I'm glad that you were able to shoot side by side in the same venue. That's the best way to make an educated decision about what works best for you.

[David Cramer]

I'll be interested in your opinions too Randy. Even though it's not an even match in performance cameras, I think you are correct about the D2x and D200 being fairly equal in iso noise. Is the D200 focus on the tumbler? It looks like it might be on the blond girl behind her. That jpg shot looks very good for 1600. I just returned from a few hours at Barnes & Noble perusing the photo mags. I was surprised to find a couple of Nikon D80 tests that rated its noise performance as very good at high iso. I never know about those pop mags though.

[GBRandy]

Is the D200 focus on the tumbler? It looks like it might be on the blond girl behind her.

The AF hunts like crazy in low light on th D200. In fact even with good contrast but low light it seems to "miss" by just a little and the whole shot comes out soft.

In the example you reference the center focus was used and pre-set on the "AA" on the black frame underneath the vault. Exact same procedure for the Canon.

Is it on the "tumbler"? Might be....the camera is going back to Nikon tomorrow to have the rubber re-glued and a full checkout.

Good eye David