More photos from both cameras on my Flickr: flickr.com/mikaelrphoto/ Raw files can be found on my Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/108052640 About the methodology: Cameras set to RAW + JPEG (standard) -> Same scene shot with same settings -> D700 RAW-file edited to my liking -> Settings copied to the D200 RAW-file -> Export as JPEG -> (Video compiled in Davinci Resolve in 4K) The reason for this methodology is to test the cameras in a way I would actually use them, by taking photos in the field and edit them how I would normally. (There was a difference in the D200 output from the D700, which I had to compensate with 2/3 exposure increase on the D200 files. I’m not sure why this happened, but it didn’t cause any problem for editing the files. The RAW files are very flexible from both cameras.)
Hi Mikael , Nice comparison. If you have the 35mm 1.8 DX try it on D700 in FX mode (DX crop OFF ) you will be surprised with results . You get perfectly usable images from f2 to f4 with slight vignetting. I have both the cameras, the D700 was bought last week and the D200 about a year back. While i agree the D700 is a better camera overall. But i like the mechanical shutter sound and feel of the D200. Also i find the D700 back LCD screen on the bluish side. Both are excellent cameras to use if you know their limitations and weaknesses. I don't think i will ever part with these two cameras.
Hi, thanks! I used to have that lens when I was shooting with a D7000, I didn't know it could be used on FX!
4 месяца назад+2
I concur...your description between the two is as I would describe 100%. I've got the D200, D700 and the D750.....my favorite hands down is the D200 ...It's easy and predictable....great feel, great sound, files and colors outstanding ...manual lenses are cheap and work beautifully ....low light right up to max 1600 ISO are beautiful as long as you know how to work the available light ....put it in a tripod and it's really outstanding ....fantastic colors. ..the grain is similar to film from 1935 up through 1959....think national geographic..... The built in flash is a game changer for night shooting bands and stuff....the camera has everything u need to produce stunning unusual photos ....be a photographer again get a d200 ...love it
Thank you very much for your video. In my opinion, there was not much difference between the Nikon D200 and the D700 to be expected. You may have taken the wrong camera, I mean the D700. The D700 was positioned strictly against Canon's very well known 5D Mark1, which is characterized by extremely pop colors. This is due to a joint venture between Canon and Kodak. As a result of the 5DMark1, Nikon then launched the D700 with extremely poppy colors, i.e. the D700 is very poppy for a CMOS sensor in terms of colors and not representative of an ordinary CMOS sensor. You should have taken the Nikon D200 versus the Nikon D300 (CMOS sensor) for the test. Then the advantage of the D200 would have been much greater. I have all the old Nikons like Nikon D200, D300, D3, D3s and D700 and D800 and see clear advantages in the colors of the D200 compared to D300 and D800.
The D200 should be used mostly at 0.0Ev it's meter is one of the best configured from the factory. The D700 is set to overexpose to push its dynamic range. Nikon set all of its CMOS cameras meter higher. Like especially the D500 which is really bright at 0.0Ev. I'd put the D200 jpeg files up against the D700 raw files. In the D200, copy the Portrait settings to custom, then turn up the saturation in camera. Leave NR on Norm or High. I personally use High.
I currently own D200, D300, D700, D7200 and D850. I purchased them all brand new when first released. For me there is something going on with the D200 CCD sensor camera files that I really love. I currently use the D200 and D700 the most which covers my FF and Crop sensor needs. If the D300 was FF I would use this also as there is something going on with the files and I prefer it over the D700. I think the D300 colours are closer to the D200 than the D700. I can go through files in Lightroom and can really notice the colours popping when I see D200 files I've taken even even back in 2006. The D850 and modern digital cameras are great if you want a hires "digital photocopy" of a scene but for me they really are sterile and lack character compared to my older cameras.
I have or have had all those from new too, plus d810 and the D70. The D70 will surprise you with its files. Much more noisy, but very appealing with some sunbjects. The rest are all the same to me.
@@lensman5762 Spot on. I had a D70 before my D200 and have many files still from that camera. Colours are fantastic from that also and so easy to process.
I feel the same way about D200, I don't even own this model, but since I liked photos that shot on film, when I knew that there's case between CCD vs CMOS, I've been looking into a lot of D200 sample photos (of course on internet) compare to modern CMOS cameras, the difference is distinguishable. D200 is obviously better color rendition. I have D3400, color from any profile looks dead, like there's no variant in the color tone, while colors in D200 photos have variant color tones, makes it vibrant and glowing. Not sure I describe things right, but yeah I just an amateur anyway.
The D700 and D200 are also my most used Nikons - When it comes to unique color rendition the Fujifilm S2 and S3 Pro are my favorites, but they are not so smooth to shoot with, the user experience is terrible in comparison to the Nikons!
@@mikaelrphoto I have been shooting with a gfx50r and picked up a d200 as a 'minimalist' camera, it's a great camera! I'm starting to feel like the camera tech wheel is cancer.
Arguably the reason you think the D200 CCD sensor is hype compared to the D700 CMOS sensor is because the D700 sensor (a Nikon/Toshiba) was perhaps designed and programed to be as close to the CCD sensor characteristics. As sensor technology evolved, more and more we see that the D200 and D700 image rendering became unique in comparison to cameras that followed. The D600/D610 would be the next closest to the D700, from there it all became almost homogeneous.
The comment about the Tokina 12-24 working well on the D700 after 18mm was very useful. Thanks. I have the same lens and am looking at buying a D700 again at some point. Used to own one but sold it which I regret now. Thanks, Mikael. I have just subscribed too.
Great that you found my video useful! It's definitely an interesting lens to use on an FX camera. Still It does show some flaws like vignetting at 18mm. The Tokina 11-16mm also works on both FX and DX but I haven't tried that one yet. Thanks for subscribing!
My theory about the current CCD hype is how cameras of that era interpreted colors for SOOC JPGs, which is an instant starting point for that 'film-like' vibe. Personally, I don't think it looks like film at all, but it's still very pleasing for persona work. 😊Also new tech is so sterile and expensive, it's exciting to think that there are multiple system out there for everyone, at a fraction of what the cost of what it was then & now.
I was quite confused when I first saw comparisons between film and early digital - I started shooting film, around 2009 or so, because I couldn't get a "film-look" from cameras that now get praised for having a "film-look". I guess my definition of a "film-look" was quite different from the popular definition today. Well, anyway, I agree that new cameras can give very sterile results, these old cameras can give very interesting results!
I believe "film-like" has become an over-used cliché phrase (I use it myself, haha) and rather means "unique" or just old-school in any way. I remember using my first digital, the Canon Powershot A80, which felt oh so digital. 😅 Agree, it's more about re-discovering fun and still cabable cameras. While less perfect, they have more personality than new cameras.
I'm not even sure about that. Canon has the same profiles today as is used in the 5D classic from 2005. If you see them to faithful and -2 contrast, that should be perfectly neutral color if you get the white balance set right. I'm trying to compare the 5D, 6D, R6 doing this in the computer software to see how much the color actually varies and which has actually better color from the sensor..
Hallo Mikael, thank you very much for this interesting comparison. Which one would you suggest for “Black + White” photography? Does the ccd sensor really take advantage on cmos for B&W purpose? Thank you
Hello, thanks for watching! I haven't seen any big difference other than noise levels. CCD sensors tend to have much more noise at high ISO which can give the impression of film grain.
Thanks for sharing your experience with interesting comments...I use a Tokina 12-24mm lens on my D7100 & am happy with the results... cheers from Australia 🦘🦘😊
Just a small footnote, Nikon uses other manufacturers to make their sensors based on an existing architecture , but the design and the tweaks are Nikon's. This is true of the Sony sensors, Toshiba sensors, and Panasonic sensors which Nikon has used in the Past.
Thanks for the video, interesting. For your information, the D700 CMOS sensor is the same one as the D3. It was totally designed by Nikon engineers and the actual chip was manufactured by Matsushita for Nikon. The D700/D3 are still wonderful cameras, I still have one and use it alongside a Df and a Z8. The D700 files render colour beautifully, a little warm but great natural saturation. The CCD chip in the D200 is a typical CCD type in that it can create great images but only in very good light. Larger versions of that type of chip are still used in studios and for product photography and produce amazing files under studio, controlled lighting.
Interesting comparison. I think the D700 has a bit of a smoother transition between light and dark parts (e.g. 3:05, 4:50) and it obviously knocks it out of the park when it comes to ISO. Would be cool to see a similar comparison but with compacts. 😁
i can see the difference over HD YT video in crop mode , in window , how can you not see the difference . Im not saying its massive , but micro contrast even DOF is different on CCD , i do not know why , cant explain it . But it is so .Maybe micro contrast makes it look like its deeper DOF .
@@mikaelrphoto It was made by Panasonic, 100%. OFC Nikon colour science was added while in camera processing. The D3 has the same sensor albeit with a bit different colour science. These are the only 2 Nikon cameras with Panasonic sensors.
it was designed by Nikon but manufactured by Panasonic , It was one of the last sensors designed by Nikon and from there onwards Nikon started using Thoshiba (D7100) and Sony .
More photos from both cameras on my Flickr: flickr.com/mikaelrphoto/
Raw files can be found on my Patreon: www.patreon.com/posts/108052640
About the methodology: Cameras set to RAW + JPEG (standard) -> Same scene shot with same settings -> D700 RAW-file edited to my liking -> Settings copied to the D200 RAW-file -> Export as JPEG -> (Video compiled in Davinci Resolve in 4K)
The reason for this methodology is to test the cameras in a way I would actually use them, by taking photos in the field and edit them how I would normally.
(There was a difference in the D200 output from the D700, which I had to compensate with 2/3 exposure increase on the D200 files. I’m not sure why this happened, but it didn’t cause any problem for editing the files. The RAW files are very flexible from both cameras.)
Hi Mikael , Nice comparison. If you have the 35mm 1.8 DX try it on D700 in FX mode (DX crop OFF ) you will be surprised with results . You get perfectly usable images from f2 to f4 with slight vignetting. I have both the cameras, the D700 was bought last week and the D200 about a year back. While i agree the D700 is a better camera overall. But i like the mechanical shutter sound and feel of the D200. Also i find the D700 back LCD screen on the bluish side. Both are excellent cameras to use if you know their limitations and weaknesses. I don't think i will ever part with these two cameras.
Hi, thanks! I used to have that lens when I was shooting with a D7000, I didn't know it could be used on FX!
I concur...your description between the two is as I would describe 100%. I've got the D200, D700 and the D750.....my favorite hands down is the D200 ...It's easy and predictable....great feel, great sound, files and colors outstanding ...manual lenses are cheap and work beautifully ....low light right up to max 1600 ISO are beautiful as long as you know how to work the available light ....put it in a tripod and it's really outstanding ....fantastic colors. ..the grain is similar to film from 1935 up through 1959....think national geographic..... The built in flash is a game changer for night shooting bands and stuff....the camera has everything u need to produce stunning unusual photos ....be a photographer again get a d200 ...love it
I have the 35mm 1.8 D on my D40.. So you are saying I could upgrade to this nice fullframe camera and already have a lens.. Nice
@@GenX_in_the_wild Yes , the 35 mm 1.8 DX will work perfectly with any full frame camera albeit with some vignetting at higher apertures.
Thank you very much for your video. In my opinion, there was not much difference between the Nikon D200 and the D700 to be expected. You may have taken the wrong camera, I mean the D700. The D700 was positioned strictly against Canon's very well known 5D Mark1, which is characterized by extremely pop colors. This is due to a joint venture between Canon and Kodak. As a result of the 5DMark1, Nikon then launched the D700 with extremely poppy colors, i.e. the D700 is very poppy for a CMOS sensor in terms of colors and not representative of an ordinary CMOS sensor. You should have taken the Nikon D200 versus the Nikon D300 (CMOS sensor) for the test. Then the advantage of the D200 would have been much greater. I have all the old Nikons like Nikon D200, D300, D3, D3s and D700 and D800 and see clear advantages in the colors of the D200 compared to D300 and D800.
Interesting information, thanks! I would like to try the D300 as well, I'll surely do a comparison between the two if I get one.
Weird, i have both and nikon d300 is a better camera in everyway possible 😂
It has better colors too
so is the D200 a good camera to go with even though it is old
I still have both of them but indeed high ISO on the D200 results in barbecued pics😅
Amen! White balance on D200 goes to red in auto, 3200 on the D700 is still good, and 800 on the D200. Both are great cameras in their time.
The D200 should be used mostly at 0.0Ev it's meter is one of the best configured from the factory.
The D700 is set to overexpose to push its dynamic range.
Nikon set all of its CMOS cameras meter higher. Like especially the D500 which is really bright at 0.0Ev.
I'd put the D200 jpeg files up against the D700 raw files.
In the D200, copy the Portrait settings to custom, then turn up the saturation in camera. Leave NR on Norm or High. I personally use High.
This video is comparing the exact the two cameras and lens combo (DX on D700) I'm looking for!! 😭📸💪 Thank you, Mikael!!
Happy to be of help! Thanks for watching!
I currently own D200, D300, D700, D7200 and D850. I purchased them all brand new when first released. For me there is something going on with the D200 CCD sensor camera files that I really love. I currently use the D200 and D700 the most which covers my FF and Crop sensor needs. If the D300 was FF I would use this also as there is something going on with the files and I prefer it over the D700. I think the D300 colours are closer to the D200 than the D700. I can go through files in Lightroom and can really notice the colours popping when I see D200 files I've taken even even back in 2006. The D850 and modern digital cameras are great if you want a hires "digital photocopy" of a scene but for me they really are sterile and lack character compared to my older cameras.
I have or have had all those from new too, plus d810 and the D70. The D70 will surprise you with its files. Much more noisy, but very appealing with some sunbjects. The rest are all the same to me.
@@lensman5762 Spot on. I had a D70 before my D200 and have many files still from that camera. Colours are fantastic from that also and so easy to process.
I feel the same way about D200, I don't even own this model, but since I liked photos that shot on film, when I knew that there's case between CCD vs CMOS, I've been looking into a lot of D200 sample photos (of course on internet) compare to modern CMOS cameras, the difference is distinguishable. D200 is obviously better color rendition. I have D3400, color from any profile looks dead, like there's no variant in the color tone, while colors in D200 photos have variant color tones, makes it vibrant and glowing. Not sure I describe things right, but yeah I just an amateur anyway.
The D700 and D200 are also my most used Nikons - When it comes to unique color rendition the Fujifilm S2 and S3 Pro are my favorites, but they are not so smooth to shoot with, the user experience is terrible in comparison to the Nikons!
@@mikaelrphoto I have been shooting with a gfx50r and picked up a d200 as a 'minimalist' camera, it's a great camera! I'm starting to feel like the camera tech wheel is cancer.
I'll take the D200 any day. I love the CCD sensor of the D200 and the D80.
Arguably the reason you think the D200 CCD sensor is hype compared to the D700 CMOS sensor is because the D700 sensor (a Nikon/Toshiba) was perhaps designed and programed to be as close to the CCD sensor characteristics. As sensor technology evolved, more and more we see that the D200 and D700 image rendering became unique in comparison to cameras that followed. The D600/D610 would be the next closest to the D700, from there it all became almost homogeneous.
The comment about the Tokina 12-24 working well on the D700 after 18mm was very useful. Thanks. I have the same lens and am looking at buying a D700 again at some point. Used to own one but sold it which I regret now. Thanks, Mikael. I have just subscribed too.
Great that you found my video useful! It's definitely an interesting lens to use on an FX camera. Still It does show some flaws like vignetting at 18mm. The Tokina 11-16mm also works on both FX and DX but I haven't tried that one yet. Thanks for subscribing!
My theory about the current CCD hype is how cameras of that era interpreted colors for SOOC JPGs, which is an instant starting point for that 'film-like' vibe. Personally, I don't think it looks like film at all, but it's still very pleasing for persona work. 😊Also new tech is so sterile and expensive, it's exciting to think that there are multiple system out there for everyone, at a fraction of what the cost of what it was then & now.
I was quite confused when I first saw comparisons between film and early digital - I started shooting film, around 2009 or so, because I couldn't get a "film-look" from cameras that now get praised for having a "film-look". I guess my definition of a "film-look" was quite different from the popular definition today. Well, anyway, I agree that new cameras can give very sterile results, these old cameras can give very interesting results!
I believe "film-like" has become an over-used cliché phrase (I use it myself, haha) and rather means "unique" or just old-school in any way. I remember using my first digital, the Canon Powershot A80, which felt oh so digital. 😅 Agree, it's more about re-discovering fun and still cabable cameras. While less perfect, they have more personality than new cameras.
I'm not even sure about that. Canon has the same profiles today as is used in the 5D classic from 2005.
If you see them to faithful and -2 contrast, that should be perfectly neutral color if you get the white balance set right. I'm trying to compare the 5D, 6D, R6 doing this in the computer software to see how much the color actually varies and which has actually better color from the sensor..
What I found interesting when comparing D700 with Zf files is that you can match D700 look almost exclusively by changing WB and some clarity
Hallo Mikael, thank you very much for this interesting comparison. Which one would you suggest for “Black + White” photography? Does the ccd sensor really take advantage on cmos for B&W purpose? Thank you
Hello, thanks for watching! I haven't seen any big difference other than noise levels. CCD sensors tend to have much more noise at high ISO which can give the impression of film grain.
@@mikaelrphotoThank you very much Mikael. I appreciate your answer. Please go on with such kind of videos and comparisons
The difference is clear in the photos under artificial (poor) light, indoors, where the D700 images display much less noise.
Thanks for sharing your experience with interesting comments...I use a Tokina 12-24mm lens on my D7100 & am happy with the results... cheers from Australia 🦘🦘😊
Thanks for watching!
Just a small footnote, Nikon uses other manufacturers to make their sensors based on an existing architecture , but the design and the tweaks are Nikon's. This is true of the Sony sensors, Toshiba sensors, and Panasonic sensors which Nikon has used in the Past.
Thanks for the video, interesting. For your information, the D700 CMOS sensor is the same one as the D3. It was totally designed by Nikon engineers and the actual chip was manufactured by Matsushita for Nikon. The D700/D3 are still wonderful cameras, I still have one and use it alongside a Df and a Z8. The D700 files render colour beautifully, a little warm but great natural saturation. The CCD chip in the D200 is a typical CCD type in that it can create great images but only in very good light. Larger versions of that type of chip are still used in studios and for product photography and produce amazing files under studio, controlled lighting.
Thanks for the information, very interesting to know more about the sensor types!
I still use my Tokina 12 - 24mm f4 on my D200 coming up on 20 years. Fantastic landscape lens.
Interesting comparison. I think the D700 has a bit of a smoother transition between light and dark parts (e.g. 3:05, 4:50) and it obviously knocks it out of the park when it comes to ISO. Would be cool to see a similar comparison but with compacts. 😁
That's true yeah, the D700 has very nice transitions! I'm actually doing a comparison with compacts at the moment, but a bit different concept 😀
i literally lover this stuff! keep it up!!!
Thanks for watching!
i can see the difference over HD YT video in crop mode , in window , how can you not see the difference . Im not saying its massive , but micro contrast even DOF is different on CCD , i do not know why , cant explain it . But it is so .Maybe micro contrast makes it look like its deeper DOF .
You have question mark for d700 sensor - it was made by... Panasonic - that's what few sources say
The sources I found said it was made by Nikon, but I wasn't entirely sure, since I've seen different information.
@@mikaelrphoto It was made by Panasonic, 100%. OFC Nikon colour science was added while in camera processing. The D3 has the same sensor albeit with a bit different colour science. These are the only 2 Nikon cameras with Panasonic sensors.
it was designed by Nikon but manufactured by Panasonic , It was one of the last sensors designed by Nikon and from there onwards Nikon started using Thoshiba (D7100) and Sony .
I did a D3, same sensor as D700, and D200. Results same as yours.
The D700 produced the more pleasing photo's to my eyes.
Love my D200 but I think the D700 has the edge.
Yeah the low light performance is quite impressive on the D700, but otherwise they are surprisingly similar!
The Nikon D200 is so cheap to get it is incredible..
nice music
D200 no match for the d700 or the d60 fòr that matter ..