D200 and AF issues

Ninfa, “D200 AF issues” is a bit vague – could you say a little more about what modes you use, your settings (Lock-On, AF area mode, etc), and which sensors give you the most trouble?

You have to “learn” the AF on the D200 and there are some pages on the net dedicated to that; a quick search should bring them up.

The key thing to remember is that despite all the nice features of the D200 and its AF customizability, the only AF point that uses a cross-sensor is the center one, as with all cheaper/non-pro SLRs. Pentax is the only exception, I think. A cross-sensor uses contrast on both a horizontal and vertical plane to lock focus; the top/bottom sensors detect only horizontal contrast and the side sensors detect only vertical, which means that you need to point at some area of clear contrast on the respective plane to focus accurately. Also, if you are in C (continuous mode) with ‘release priority’ and “Lock-On” set to Off (or “Short”), it usually means the camera will hunt for focus even with static subjects at varying distances, because it thinks it’s tracking a moving subject, and will fire even when it hasn’t locked focus.

I’m sure that makes a lot of sense.

Seriously, do a search – you can start here: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d200_multi-cam_af and if you still need help, ask again, or just buy a D2X.

Thank’s, Aleph. That is why I noticed so weir the AF. Compared with my D2h, D200 focus sucks!!!

Nina I think there is no problem with focusing, the point is that images are not sharp enough and you think that there is a focus issue. Its a problem of sharpness.

All CCDs have an anti-aliasing (or low pass) filter fitted on the top. The main purpose of this filter is to reduce moire and other undesired artifacts. Apparently, the better the filter (i.e. more effective and more expensive), the softer the image. Therefore it is a trade-off between having less moire or sharper images. I get sharp pictures but sometimes suffer from moire.

Here is what I think you can do. The D200 performs best when you shoot in raw. Set the in-camera sharpening to maximum. This will not affect your raw image. The setting will be recorded in the raw file. If you haven’t already been using Capture NX, I strongly recommend that you purchase a copy. To me, it is the best thing since sliced bread. Capture NX will apply all your in-camera settings including sharpening, when you open the raw file. When happy, you can save your image as a jpg file. Also, you can convert your NEF files to the desired jpg files (i.e. with the in-camera settings) wholesale in Capture NX.

Is Capture NX really worth getting? I only just started shooting in RAW so I don’t actually know what I’m doing but I’ve been using CS2 with Bridge and the DNG converter. Is Capture NX better?

Had a simular problem, it turned out to be the lens,a bit to old in design to cope with the newer camera,try a test with a few len’s in a camera shop,the lens I did have was a tokina 28 – 80 Pro 2.8changed to a sigma ( current issue ) 17 – 35 2.8 no problems, and for a cheap lens price wise,really goood quality and results,yes not a Nikon,but also not the price.

Thanks for all your replies. It was very strange not being able to get the AF to functino with the non-DX lenses on the D200 at first. The focusing whould just be “whirring” around and seem to be searching for something to focus on. However, after a few tries it seems to have come alive and is fine now (and I hope it stays that way!)

Bevis – thanks for the tip onthe in-camera sharpening. I’ll try this out. I’ve been using Nikon Capture 4 and I am really quite happy with the results after processing the NEF files in it. What’s the biggest difference between the version I have and the Capture NX. Is it worth the upgrade?

Eunice – I used to have to convert the NEF to DNG and then process in CS2. Get the Nikon software. Colors/image sharpness is so much better for me.

Thanks all!

Ninfa,
Aren’t you still working on your images in Photoshop after conversion? I still dont understand this corporate pissing contest going on between manufacturers. From what I do understand the DNG format is a free and neutral ground to work from. So many photogs are now caught in this game of musical chair formats. Just send your money to your favorite photo corporation. This was never a fucking issue with film!
G.

But there uus another Issue: the AF sistem can not get the focus. I mean in some areas the focus work, but in another, damn no. This was never an issue with my D2H. And of course with my Fm2 never.

Gregory,

It is a damn annoying pissing contest indeed. I use iView Media to catalog the images and PS to put in the captions and keywords. I just realised yesterday, after sending in photos supposedly captioned in iView Media, that the captions did not register with the image file. The client would have had to have iView Media as well. However, image files I had captioned in PS or through their Browser had captions intact. So I do open the images in PS after NC4; however, there is is much done to the image. Just captioning, keywords, resizing for web and/or watermarking. The question I have is: would it still make sense to convert the NEF into DNG and store each format? That’s alot of storage space and CDs/DVDs. Anyone out there has any thoughts on this?

Every day I heat more and more the digital format!

First of all I find it hard to believe that the D200 produces soft images just because of the anti-aliasing. None of the reviews I read talk about this, and the samples all look sharp. There is a certain amount of softness inherent in digital capture and you need to correct for this in post-processing, but other than that you should be getting sharp pix, very sharp pix.

But here’s the thing: the constant proliferation of new programs intended to enhance digital performance just seems to me a ridiculous enslavement of the photographer to the capitalist system, which would have him buying every upgrade, every new tweak out there, not to mention the lack of standards which then create confusion and panic among the photographers, who worry that they might not be able to read their damn files ten years down the line. Now I am reading that Adobe may abandon psd formatting. I recognize this is an inevitable consequence of the introduction of new technology; digital is all still very beta, just as computers were 15 years ago. But frankly I think there is a bit of disingenuousness, if not outright dishonesty, in all this, and I think people just follow along like sheep to the slaughter. What is the advantage of digital? Speed. That is it. Speed. It is instant photography, instantly transmittable. Nothing more really. This is no insignificant advantage. It has made news coverage instantaneous. On a digital feed I can see what X photographer shot only minutes ago at a battle in Lebanon. Also, digital makes commercial shooting a helluva lot easier: no more polaroids. You set up the lights, shoot, check the LCD monitor, and right then and there you know you got it. Fine. But the quality is not better, the colors are not better (not by a long shot),the black and white tones most certainly are not better, and the need for wider lenses creates all sorts of problems. My point? I am not merely resuscitating the old film vs. digital argument, but I am saying that the manufacturers are asking for a lot of tolerance and some shiteating too just so that we can have the advantage of speed—which for some of us is not even all that useful or important. All this constant production of new new new nothing is just intended to keep you all enchained to consumerism. Fuck that.

Ok, I feel better. Every once in a while I need a good rant.

Sorry, I mean hate, no heat

Yeah, Jon. Digital is just that: cheaper (in they way that you don’t have to develop film) and faster. That is all. Still looking for a Mamiya C330. Is good excercise grab that camera and shoot for a while, not worried about my CF card, the focus or another tech bullshit. Just worried that someone in the lab don’t fuck my film.

Glad you’re feeling better, Jon! I’ve heard of digital hacks out here giving “workshops” claiming pics from digital cams are sharper than film images because of “digital” lenses; that digi is faster and cheaper; that shooting interiors/architecture with a 35mm SLR is easier because you can cut and paste images on PS and avoid distortions of perspectives. Heck, I don’t think they’ve even been near a 4×5, shot film, or been in a darkroom.

I’m keeping my FE and old Nikkor lenses! :-)

Since I can resolver this problem with the AF on my D200 (until i buy a D2X), I will use the old and faster manual focus!!!

A few points.

1) The AF issue is not a sharpness issue! There are a few interrelated issues here instead:

a) the first is that the Nikon D200, like other Nikon pro cameras, uses less sharpening by default. This is because they assume (correctly, I think) any image that is worth using is worth post-processing a bit, because generally speaking the sharpening that is done in post is less destructive and offers more control. You’re unlikely to see the sharpening artifacts (halos, jaggies) potentially caused by in-camera sharpening, and if the image is over-sharpened in-camera (when shooting portraits for ex.) then you can’t reverse it. If you shoot JPEG only you can save a lot of time by just using High Sharpening and forgetting about it. If you like tweaking, Bevis suggests using high sharpening (+2 in “Optimize Image” Custom settings) and shooting RAW, which I do too, and which will not affect the final image – good advice – and also suggests using Nikon software to open images to maintain the sharpening levels – which is a very subjective issue. Nikon software does supposedly give the best looking files, because it treats your in-camera settings and noise better than other converters (according to others) but I think any image worth sharpening should be sharpened later and selectively in your converter/software of choice.

b) The Nikon D200 and D2X etc have a very high pixel density, which means the slightest shake shows up in your images. This has led many people to believe their images are “soft” when in fact their technique was not perfect. I’ve tested this myself on a tripod – if I bang away on the shutter I inevitably see some blur, but if I use a remote cord, self-timer AND mirror lock-up (Exposure Delay function) at ISO 100 I get beautifully clean and very sharp files (must for macro); of course, such techniques are useless in the field, but just remember that when using low shutter speeds (below 1/45s or whatever you feel is the threshold) try using Exposure Delay (mirror lock-up) and/or shooting in Continuous mode so that from a burst of three to five images you can pick the sharpest.

c) The reason that a D2H or D2X acquire and lock focus much faster is that they have more cross-sensors, distributed across the field of view (9 I believe) which detect contrast more easily. The AF motor is also faster. I’ve never used either in the field because they’re too expensive and too bulky for me, but those are technical facts, not usage issues; it’s why you seem to pay so much more for the “pro” cameras. In fact even the F100 apparently had five cross sensors (AF Module CAM1300). The D200 AF Module is named CAM1000. Now I love my camera, but everything can always be better and pricier. To make the best use of a camera, you have to learn how to use it, whereas skipping from one camera to the other is always going to keep one frustrated in search of the next great thing. Leicas, which I’d love to use, and which supposedly “get out of your way” have, in reality, a huge learning curve too – potential for a great many missed shots while you’re still fuddling with focus and exposure etc. My reflexes are often to blame rather than my camera.

2) As for the post-processing workflow, I’ve tried to simplify the whole affair to just one converter/editor – Adobe Lightroom, which is in Beta and is free. In my opinion it is much, much faster than Nikon/ PS + Bridge etc (though it is still slow, like any application that has to handle hundreds of huge files), has enough simplified controls that nothing essential is lacking, and adjustments can be made quickly, and not so many that I’m always in search of the best combination of tools and functions; the software’s made for handling large batches at once so you can file a whole set of images according to the shoot, and make universal changes to the Captions, Metadata etc. It also uses much less memory so it’s more “efficient” and the files look fine – of course everything needs tweaking, but if you don’t like tweaking, shoot JPEG. The software thing is another endless retinue of expenses and reviews and an immense waste of time. The reason film seemed “faster” is that many people never did any post-processing, because over the decades a lot of optimization had been automated and enough people had learned distinct aspects of the craft, like printing, to specialize in them and to provide specialised services. With digital photographers try to learn everything, master everything, and consequently buy everything in the illusory belief that spending more will improve one’s skills. Of course marketing and idiotic, exploitative manufacturer decisions play a role too. But I think it’s mostly psychological. I’m one of the “believers” myself, needless to say, and speak from the experience of many wasted hours.

Digital: the colours seem “better” with slides because they are optimized that way; you can’t do much to change them, but digital colours are far more accurate and instantly tweakable. Shoot with Vivid or similar settings in your camera and you’ll get very similar (never identical) results to slide films. B&W film and negatives are a different story though and digital doesn’t look the same because it records differently, like with slides – you have less dynamic range, you can’t overexpose, there is a lot of detail in underexposed areas, etc.; Alex Majoli, who used an Olympus 8080 for many of his black and white shots, talked about this somewhere. He said the blacks in film are really black, there is a sudden drop. In digital you still see a lot of detail. Of course, this is easily changed in software, but that’s just the point – most people prefer an instantaneous look, and if you think about it, film offers certain kinds of instantaneous gratification too, which is why some people still prefer it. I still like shooting film, but scanning, worrying about wasted frames, scratches, inability to change ISO in camera, etc. remind me of why I went for digital in the first place.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jon however that this constant consumption, and the incredible resources required to gratify it, only remind one of the contradictions of the capitalist system. Each “relatively inexpensive” photography purchase can do so much more for the suffering subjects that are photographed. There’s an inherent hypocrisy there that people refuse to see, because if they did they would no longer be able to adjust to so-called “normal” society – ie the self-centred middle-classes everywhere, with their bourgeois morals, preconceptions and aspirations; everything and everyone would appear to be joined together in a conspiracy to exploit others and live selfishly, even if in reality they are not even aware of, much less think about, the consequences of their chosen lifestyles, ambitions, etc.

Great post Jon and Aleph.

I couldn’t agree more about software. I have been following some of the development of Aperture (forum postings and apple marketing) and I find it intersting that such big names as Vincent Laforet and Bill Frakes are plugging it on www.apple.com, yet some of the reviews are just scathing.

The bottom line of course is that I have Photoshop and Bridge (CS2) and it works for me really well. Sure, it may not be as fast as Photomechanic, but I spend enough time on my computer as it is, so I just go and make a cup of tea while it processes away. As for the reports of Nikon’s software producing superior results, I’m sure this is probably the case, but is it really worth shelling out more for another piece of software that will duplicate so much of what I can already do? I don’t think so.

Sometimes I think that is is a shame that there is so much focus on software and what it can/can’t do – IMHO, it only seems to take away from what photography should really be all about

Thanks again Aleph, that was a great post. T.

Thank you Thomas. A correction by the way – I wrote that I’ve wasted many hours pursuing the best software/etc. – that should be many weeks or months :).