Nikon D200 Review has begun

[Gama]

Well im glad to inform the people waiting for the review of the Nikon D200, It has started, all be it in bad enviromental conditions (Raining, as usual).
First initial response was, "Heavy", "Buttons and Switches everywhere", "Nice".
This camera feels like a camera, as its solid, by this i mean it feels beefy..
I put the D200 thru some initial tests, i used an IR (Infra red) source to light up a wall, then i took images from both cameras (Canon 20D, Nikon D200).
I set the cameras to 18mm f5.6 2.5 seconds Exposure at ISO 1600 and clicked away.
The D200 showed nothing (Black), the Canon 20D showed a pink wall. Thus the Canon was more sensitive to IR, but i then changed the Frequency of the IR source (T.V Remote control), and then the D200 detected the source.
So it looks like the D200 has a very very steep I.R cutoff, but unless your main need is I.R work then this is not so important, as you need to remove I.R for Imaging. If it is important to you, then the removal of the Hot CCD Filter will fix everything, after the warranty period of course.
What about Noise ?..
Well im glad to say that it absolutly kicked the 20D's butt at all settings to ISO 1600 (As far as i have tested so far).
Not only is it significantly different, but is also so much sharper.
This really suprised me, but then thats why when they Review the D200, they choose the Canon 5D to compare it too.
Well, thats it so far. I'll upload some images soon so it can give you an idea of how its progressing.

[Jonathan]

Hopefully you can get some clear skies soon. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your tests.:)

[iceman]

Can't wait to see the results.. good report so far.

[Vermin]

Your result seems fair considering that the 20D is two thirds the price of the D200.

Apples and oranges. You get what you pay for.

5D = $4700 / 12Mp
D200 = $2700 / 10Mp
20D = $1900 / 8.2Mp
350D = $1400 / 8Mp

What is interesting is your finding on the sharpness, what did you have it set to? DP review had this to say:

Nikon D200 in-camera sharpness

As we've already commented the D200's default in-camera sharpness (Auto or Normal) is too mild to deliver the detail actually captured. Hence in these comparisons we have provided comparisons to a D200 shot taken using the 'Normal' parameters preset and also one with sharpness set to 'High' (+2) which helps to equalize the difference in sharpening between it and other cameras.

EDIT: Things look worse for the D200 in the luminance noise but better in the chroma noise according to this review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos30d/page20.asp

[Gama]

The D200 was set to "Normal", but one strange thing i found out on the second day was that it was noiser when i used the "NR" (Noise reduction) while i had a few minutes of clear sky (Patches),
very strange... but it was a bit sharper, but i think a little too noisy.
But i'll do it properly once i get some decent sky.
Heres the pics of the noise test on ISO 1600 i did inside.. Both were taken with NO noise reduction, so its basically in lazy mans settings (Less fiddling and setting). I'll do a proper test using the Noise reduction for both soon.

Edit: Second look at the astro images, i think maybe thin clouds may have covered the object i was imaging, thus noise was worse on NR mode..
Again, i will verify it once it clears.

[CometGuy]

Gama,

Noise reduction should really only be used for longer exposures to remove dark current pattern noise. If you perform NR on shorter exposures - depending on how NR is performed - you will increase the noise as the camera is read twice and therefore readnoise is increased.

For astrophotography NR is ususally ditched in favour of dark frames, which are generally more effective.

Another point to look for with the D200 is a way to defeat the incamera 'median' filter that is applied to all raw images. Unfortunately, this is carried over from the D50/D70 (see Michael Covington's blog entry for Aug 26, 2005 - http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/michael/blog/0508/index.html and also Christian Buil's site www.astrosurf.com/buil ) . In the case of the D70 this can be defeated by turning the camera to NR mode, then switching off the camera as its starts the dark frame phase. Perhaps you can find out. Perhaps with the D200's finer pixel pitch it is not as big a problem.

Lastly, you really dislike Canon don't you! Nearlly every comparision I have seen (Phil Askey, Wayne Cosshall, etc) show the D200 as having a marginal resolution edge, but the 20D/30D's forteit being slightly lower noise at higher ISO's.

I for one would like to see Nikon's become more popular for astrophotography (I wouldn't call myself a brand loyalist, btw I own a holden, and before that a Ford!). However, there are several problems in how they treat raw files that they really need to fix ('median filter', 0 offset, etc). Perhaps in the future they can include a 'scientific mode' that allows access to true raw.

Terry

[Gama]

Well, i actually bought a Canon, so thats says something.
But in anycase, i am all for the Best bang for your buck.
In this area, i know the Nikons CCD technology should kill the CMOS hands down. But of course Nikon in there wisdom went from bad to worse to "What Light ?" in their filter design.
The D200 has the worst filter of all the range of the Nikons DSLR, but its only a filter and i will be removing it ASAP if i ever get one.
In any case, i have tonight after waiting for a break in the clouds taken a 340 second exposure with NR thru a cheap 300mm f5 lens. Since the Canon has onboard filtering of the Noise, i also did a quick dip in the Noise removing program "Noiseware Pro" and also attached it to compare.
Im glad to say the image was not very noisy at all, and after the filter program the noise was all gone with no, to little visible effects on image quality.
The image ia huge, MAMA huge, i had to Bin it 3x3 before i compressed it down to 50%, so the image quality is now el crapo, but at a 150K limit i cant do much. Further more you cant see much in terms of noise removal either. But the full image version, 6 Meg is magic.
Oh yeah, i didnt use RAW either. I just used "Fine Jpeg" as the file mode.
I did this for now as the file size would be too massive, and i wanted results fast for now. For sure you can see the IR filter on the Nikon is killing the red, but that doesnt bother me as i said the filter is cactus when i get one.
What is amazing is how sensitive the ccd is. From a light polluted sky i got millions of specs of stars (Sagitarius region) all throughout the image
This is what i was hoping for originally, and so far looks to be on par.
I'll do the Canon as soon as i get a clear night again to compare it too.
Anyway look at the pics and imagine the image is 3x3 times larger !!!

[iceman]

Nice results so far.. looks like some dust on the CCD already? A couple of dark spots across the middle.

[CometGuy]

Gama,

Nice result, actually its the first astrophoto I have seen done with the D200.

As you comment the IR filters really do a number on the H-Alpha response as well as any wavelength longer than about 550nm. Somewhere I read that D200 rendered skin tones very well in comparision with previous Nikons, so presumeably this is a result of the decreased IR response.

Would also be interesting to see a 1:1 crop near say the Lagoon nebula (in the non noisewared version).

A question what options do you have of activating the shutter in bulb mode with the D200 (i.e IR remoted, wired remote, etc).

Terry

[Gama]

Here is a crop of the lagoon, before i noise processed it.
If you look at the heart of the lagoon neb. you can actually see there is no noise at all in the centre. Totally well toned and nice color blending, all be it a poor red sensitivity of it though.
Again, the jpeg compression doesnt do it justice.
But heres the image.
So far i am very happy with the camera, but the filters gota go...

[Gama]

Well, the camera is demo item, that gets passed around for review..
So dont look at me !.

But yes its a hassle when dust gets on the CCD. My canon has a few specs too..

[Gama]

The D200 takes an equivalent shot and then removes it from the shot. Its basically doing a Dark frame for you. It doesnt modify or render any other changes.


T.P.

[Striker]

Keep the Info coming Gama....I'm always interested in new stuff.

[CometGuy]

Thanks for the crop. As Tony said keep the info coming.

As you say the camera would be a lot better without the filter! Like all all standard DLSR images there is an overwhelming blue/green sensitivity.

Regarding noise reduction, if you look closely at the crop you can see dark 'pitts' in the background. I have seen this effect when the dark frame is made at a warmer temperature than the light (it happens in Canons too). The dark frame overcompensates slightly and it is most noticeable if the camera is first switched on from cold. As you can tell I am not big on incamera NR in astrophotography (but it has its merits, as precise dark frame subtraction can be a pretty timeconsuming process). But you may also find a fan blowing air over the camera helps, it certainly does with my 300D.

Terry

[Gama]

I know there is some noise in the dark regions, as do all DSLR, but i find its very acceptable for a single frame. If i stacked the images, then i wont get the same results. I sent an email to the kind people who sent me the loan camera to ask about a pre or after sale option for Filter removal or mod.
Lets hope Nikon see's a market for this, like Hutech does.

[Gama]

OK, I have just finished taking 3 shots of M83 with the cheap telephoto lens i have 300mm fl, and all i can say is WOW.
I took 3 x 3 minute shots with NO NR, in RAW mode with the camera at room temperature then i combined them and enhaced it slightly to look better (just 1 cycle of UNSHARP), plus i also took a crop out before the Unsharp was applied, so that way you can see how good this camera really is.
You can even see some very tiny fainter galaxies around the middle area as well in the full size image, with around 60mm of lens !.
Well, im getting one after this test, i mean, 9 minutes on M83 with a harsh filter... Imagine without... This camera will be the demise for many Astro CCD cameras, even SBIG (Cost wise).
As shown on the image you can see amp glow on the corners, tyhis is to be expected, but thats at 20 Deg, when i took the M8 image yesterday the camera was at 12 Deg, with NO amp glow visible.
Anyway it doest matter much as you can remove the glow with the NR on (Dark Frame).
Well, im going back out and taking some more shots.. Be back soon.

[h0ughy]

amp glow , and dust spores - better learn to do darks, flats and such so that you can really get the best benefit from this camera. i am on that learning curve!

[Gama]

Im not cleaning this camera.. Its not mine.. One nick and i have to pay for it !.
No darks as i want the true noise to show..
Thats the whole point of testing this camera..

[CometGuy]

Gama,

I remember how my old Pentax 300 f4 would reach stars of mag 14 with colour film with exposures of 15 minutes, yours (300 f5?) reaches mag 16 in 9 minutes according to my measurements!

However, I still think you underrate Canon sensors. For example attached is an ISO400 image I made in April 2004 with a standard 300D. Its of M83 at 530mm Focal length at T3.5 (about 1 stop faster than your lens). It was made under good conditions from my backyard in the bayside suburbs of Brisbane. Its noisy, but its just a single 90 second exposure....

Terry

[Gama]

When you stack images, you dont really go deeper very much in Magnitude as youre exposure is the initial period in this case 3 minutes, so stacking will just sharpen and remove noise to the image and bring detail out better. A proper 9 minute exposure will go very deep in magnitude, and go much fainter than a stacked equivalent. But when you live in a suburb with bad light pollution, you arent going to see those specs of faintees of stars..
The good thing about the 300D is its got a better Hot Filter than the D200 in terms Astro work, but i agree the Canon's are are good Astro camera (I own a 20D), i just think that the Nikon CCD sensors are better.
With the image you took, it was taken with a 150mm (6 Inch) lens, not a cheap 60mm (2 inch) telephoto, so you cant really compare timing exposures.
Remember your aperature determines your depth of magnitude, so 60mm isnt going to give you much.
But your missing the point of the whole test, that is the noise. As i already know the CCD sensor is better, it was the noise that had me worried. Well, even with the harsh filter and small exposures, the quality texture and smoothness of the images just verify that it does well. Your image was at 400 ISO, mine at 800 ISO so mine should show more noise in the image, yet your image shows a higher level of noise as you said.
I took a 2 minute exposure of M8 thru my 14" RCX @f5 heres a crop of the centre as i had severe vignetting, again, its smooth and not grainy like most CCD cameras, even my SXV-H9 is not as good in terms of grain and texture.
There is NO enhancement, and the full version had no noticable amp glow either so the threshold for it to be visible is around 18 deg +/- 2 deg (RCX has an ambient temp sensor). Sorry about the tracking errors.
More to come soon if weather holds.

[CometGuy]

My comparision is sort of valid since despite 6x light collecting advantage (the effective aperture is 145mm due to the large secondary), the exposure is 1/6th as long. Given that the sky will be darker with the 300D image due to the shorter exposure, you would then expect it to see slightly fainter stars if the camera performance is similar. This is what you actually see.

As far as extended detail is concerned, your optical system is only a stop slower so there is a factor of 3 against the 300D image. Hence the 300D image looks a lot noiser.

I know this is not precise and doesn't take into account a number of other factors, but it is a ballpark indication.

I disagree re 3 x 3 not being equivalent to a single 9 minute (it will be >90% as good provided it has been aligned correctly).

I am suprised with your observation re the SXV-H9, but then the newest DLSRs seem to have very uniform sensitivity and don't seem to require the same level of calibration many astroccds need. Perhaps this is the reason...

Terry

[Gama]

Well, i'd say 6 times the light grasp is pretty big. With 1 extra stop making a world of difference.
Its not the noise thats making the 300D less superior to the D200, but more its sensitivity. The 300D does not have a very good QE, thus it takes a little longer to accumulate a signal. The D200 has a higher Q.E and in turn is able to produce a image faster in the same given time. Of course the Hot filter will effect the H.a and I.R color signal compared to the 300D.
As for stacking, there is a difference, a 9 minute exposure is different to 3x3. You will as i said get the detail come thru above the noise threshold and a clearer picture. But it will not compensate for going deep in magnitude as long as the sky is dark and tracking is good.
Theoretical and practical are two different things. I agree it comes close, and produces a less noisy picture, but its not the real Mc Coy.
The SXV is a very sensitive camera, but as you said, the newer DSLR cameras are really starting to show their strengths. After i do a LRGB image using the SXV, it just doesnt have that smooth texture you see in books and expensive Astro cameras. This is because of the difference in the pixel count.
A 10 Mpixel image compared to a 1.4 Mpixel is a huge huge difference to image quality. Then binning it will create a very nice image in the end.

[Gama]

OK, i have taken a few images of M83 with the D200 and NR (Noise Reduction) OFF, as i said i want to see the total noise this camera generates including amp glow etc at room temperature.
I took 8 X 2 minute exposures with a room temperature D200 at prime focus of my 14" RCX @f8, i then stacked them (Median) and then done Strech, Unsharp and then a 3x3 BIN to shrink the size down a lot... and then a little crop to get rid of a boo boo i did when i bumbed the scope half way into the exposures... I also over streched the image to show the amp glow better, so its not as bad as it looks.
Any how heres the image. I like it, very good color for 16 minutes of exposure @f8. I also have attached an equivalent from the Canon 20D which i also done the same way except the exposures were done to 28 minutes at ISO400 to reduce noise. The color inbalance in the Canon was due to MaximDL not setting the correct balance.
Remember i over enhanced the Nikon to show the glow, but in reality its not as bad as it here, and remember this is when the camera is at room temp (21 deg). I later took a dark frame and subtracted the noise and the image was fine.

[CometGuy]

Gama,

Very impressive! I like your D200 version not only because of the colour balance but because it looks more natural. But I notice that the 20D has been processed with an unsharp mask or some other filter?

Anyway, woulld you be able to post crops around the galaxy?

Terry

[Gama]

Correct, i used unsharp, as i said i processed both pics the same way so not to imbalance the 2 pictures when enhancing, but i did over stretch the D200 so as to show the actual spots where the glow is found
Here is the crop of the full size, looks crappy when its compressed this much.
I'll do a 1 hour exposure soon on this object in the next few days.

[Gama]

OK, final test i done was a Noise test with the lens cap on.
The camera is going back to Nikon tomorow, and im very sorry to see it leave, with the crappy weather we had the last 4 days i couldnt do 1 more astro image, oh poo.
So i did a noise test with both cameras at 23 deg room temp (I really give them hell with temp). The results speak for themselves, the D200 really comes out very strong with these tests. I did not do any screen streching or enhancing. Its RAW and just saved and uploaded.. Thats it.
Another drawback for the Nikon, is you cant switch off the power while its doing the NR capture, cause all it does is stop the NR image and switch off. It does save the file but removes an equivalent of NR of time that you let it before you switched it off. By this i mean if you wait 10 seconds before switching off the camera, then it only removes 10 seconds of equivalent NR.

Anyway, i'll submit my complete analysis of this camera to Nikon Australia, and hopefully with their permission i could release it to everyone around the globe.
Having said that, i am NOT employed by Nikon or any of its agents nor related to any emploees to the said company. I just beleived that this camera should (And did) have a huge huge impact in Astrophotography.
Problem is the misconceptions out there that Nikon are inferior to Canon.
Well, wake up and smell the coffee, its not. As Comet Guy said and i totally agree, the cost of the camera and its ability was unfair to compare it too a 20D. But hey, thats all i had, and so do many others, plus its only a few hundred dollars more than the 20D and over $1500+ less than the 5D. Not that i dont like the Canon 5D, to which im still confidant the D200 will also be a better Astrophoto camera over it (Up to ISO 1600), just get rid of the Hot Filter.
If Canon wants to send me a 5D for testing, i'll give it the same fair go and also display the results.. Hmmm, whats their telephone number again...

Too much Tech Talk, time for Cave man Talk.
Ugg, 20D Good, D200 much Gooda Ugg.

Me Get one, Ugg.

[iceman]

That's a significant difference in noise there!

I look forward to reading your full analysis, if it's able to be released. Thanks for the ongoing commentary, it's been really interesting.

[Gama]

It is a big difference, but thats what your paying for with the additional costs between the cameras. This was one of my concerns with the Cmos sensor over the CCD sensor. I knew that the CCD should perform better here even though the Cmos has much less heat to vent, but if its designed correctly and heat sunk right, then heat build up on the surface of the sensor wont be as bad.
Further, the CCD sensor design is quite well thought off, it has so many on board functions that dont seem to draw much current compared to the older versions.
But no matter what the hype, the proof is in the pudding !.

[Jonathan]

Great report Gama, thanks for all the info. The results are very encouraging and my next camera is sure to be a D200 now. (If only Nikon could supply enough of them to meet demand :rolleyes: )

[CometGuy]

The reason the D200 dark frame looks so good is:

1. Its well known that Nikon apply a median-type filter to long exposure images.
2. Nikon do not apply a brightness offset to raw images (unlike Canon), this means the dark frame will look much darker with the Nikon.

Both these actions damage fainter detail in an astronomical image.

As a comparision I have attached a dark frames from my 350D, 1020secs at ISO1600 (at 24c) process 2 ways. Version 1 is a straight raw, but with the image offset is brought back to 0 to match the Nikon.

The second image has both 1) 0 offset and 2) a median filter comparable to the built in filter of the Nikon. I have then increased the contrast 10x (i.e push processed the image 2.5 stops in film speak) otherwise it would appear black.

Sorry I disagree, it is not hype that Canon have made a great achievement with their sensors. The noise levels and quantum efficiency are as good as any CCD sensor (its not fair to compare specialised monochrome sensors which have very high Quantum efficiencies but are too expensive/impractical to be used in a digicam).

As a last comment compare this 15 minute exposure of M83 made by Bill Christie using a 350D and an 8" f4 telescope to your image with a D200 and 14" f8 telecscope:

http://www.zodiaclight.com/galleria/galaxyM83SouthernPinwheel.htm

Consider, this was done with 30 second individual frames...

Terry

[Gama]

Firstly, your comment about median filter insertion for the D200 isnt true. It is a Raw output. You are refering to the D70, D50 etc. You can disable it with the D200.
Secondly, if you look at the Histograms for both you will see that the 20D has substantial more signal in noise that fills the entire grid, where as the D200 has very little signal level and only occupies a tiny portion of the Histogram grid. Thus i said that i did not do any stretching what so ever, so the Canon due to its higher noise signal falls over the set points and thus shows up more red. If i adjust the set point for the Histogram levels then im altering the cameras initial signal levels it determines and saves. This is what you did, you modified the histogram to suite your noise levels. It would be good to see the actual histogram for such a long exposure..
Histograms contain your data and noise information, so the less Noise signal you have to start with the better your signal will be and also handle enhancement processing.
Check the images i posted for the 2.
I did this test because it shows just how much noise is actually effecting a real signal comming in. The less signal (Noise) you have here is obviously desirable.
Your exposure of 1020 secs has built up a large noise level. A proper image shows exposure shifts of the histogram to the right more, where as a less signal, the histogram is shifted to the left.
This backround will obviously not show up on your image because you modified the levels to suit your exposure. If there was a signal with that noise then the signal would also be effected in the same way.
The 20D failed, im sorry you just cant accept that. You always trying to defend Canon with conspirecy theorys and counter reasons to everything i test and display here.
No conspirecy theory, no bias to Nikon, as i said i own and use the 20D for Astrophotography. But call a spade a spade. Nikon have brought out a good camera for us Astrogeeks, all be it with a cruddy CCD filter.
As for the Cmos Vs CCD, i was not comparing the monochrome CCD version. In fact i compared it to the SXV-M25 which has the same chip as the D70. This CCD chip has a much higher QE than the Canon Cmos sensor. Again, no tricks, no smoke and mirrors.
The image of the M83 with the 8" f4 is exactly that, f4. What are you trying to say ?, nothing to do with the camera, cause its f4 to f8, makes no bananas that mines a 14" when his is an f4 astrograph. Now if i placed my f.5 reducer to bring my 14" to f4 as well, then what do you think the outcome will be when i place any camera on....
Terry, take my hand and come over to the DARK SIDE .hehe Darth Gamma

8 out of 10 beer drinkers cant be wrong !.

[avandonk]

Do you want to see a 20D compared to a 5DH? There is not even a race. I own both. I don't know how anything compares to a Nikon. I still have an open mind. Nikon though is going to stick to the C sized sensor and unfortunately this is not big enough if you want to do widefields. The alternative is to get the full frame Sbig (if you want a CCD) and from what I have have seen the 5DH holds it own quite well with even this camera at the same temperature!
Don't even mention the price differential. When a Nikon can do this with a 100ED I will sit up and take notice.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~avandonk2/LAGTR_CFA_ON.jpg

Where is the noise?

Bert

[Gama]

Well, you dont know anything about Nikon ?, Im glad to point you to look at what a D70 can do. 5DH images look good, the D70 look as good if not better ..Oh i opened a can of worms !!.
http://www.pbase.com/terrylovejoy/erwins_images .
Again i use the late Erwins images, and very sad he's no longer with us. Because this man had a great passion for his hobby and mainly used a D70. His images have made it to proffesional levels with some of his images posted thru out the proffesional Astronomy communities and papers.
In any case these images are with a MODIFIED Nikon D70. The same sensor as the SXV-M25.
So Bert, stand up and take notice.

But seriously, it doesnt make a hoot in hell what camera does what. In the end its what we can afford and end up using time and time again.
Sure, its good to post a modified version, but then compare it to another modified version.. 5DH is drool material, but wait till i rip the filter of my forthcomming D200, i'll then do another comparison against itself.
Im more than confidant it should do better than the 5DH, but im not making any bets, yet...
Its unfortunate i dont have a 5D or a 5DH to test, i'd really like to see the specs on the Cmos chip inside the 5D, especially its Q.E., and noise level.

Either way, this post was not about Holden Vs Ford, and so i'd like to keep it like that. Cause then we'll have someone with the 6303 or a even better a back illuminated sensor camera throwing their 2 cents in too.
Most good DSLR can take excellent images, as long as you give it enough exposure and software enhance the end result.
Actually could you please do a 330 sec dark (With lens cap on) and take one with NR off and one with NR on and post the images as well as the histogram (Before editing, RAW). I'd like to see the results..

[avandonk]

This may be of interest Gama also check out the rest of his site

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise/

Bert

[CometGuy]

Gama,

In your original post/s you didn't show much tact considering many of us own Canon gear, so are you really suprised by the response? But the questions and challenges coming from me are going to be the same ones you will face on other forums. I know your comment that the Nikon D50 is too noisy will get challenged as well (IMO it could be the true DSLR champion, especially if Duncan Munroe gets his 'mode 3' automation device marketed ).

The ONLY serious testing I know comparing the Canon CMOS and Sony CCD Quantum Efficiency was done by Christian Buil. He found little difference in quantum efficiency between the Canon and Nikon Sensors (if you like I'll point out the specific parts where this is evaluated, but assume you have already done that). He also has determined the transmission curves for both the Nikon and Canon hotfilters, and the outcome is still the same if removed.

The right offset you see in the 20D histogram is not dark signal, it is a numeric offset. Try doing a series of different exposures and you will see that it remains almost constant. Doing what I did and removing this offset is absolutely valid for the comparision. The D200 histograms does look impressive, but again is the filtering at work? A small crop of the dark frame, contrast boosted to clearly show the texture would give au some idea.

At the end of the day I am not interested in a Nikon DSLR until they bring out a camera that allows true raw mode :)

Terry

[Gama]

First, to Terry, in regards to Q.E, how one person tests Q.E (Including me) and what the Q.E specs from the manufacturer are different, unless they are tested correctly. The Sony CCD line have much better Q.E than Canons Cmos, i cannot be definite with the 5D or up models as i and any other person dont have any specs to their Q.E's.

Second, what does the Hot filter have to do with a Dark frame ?, cause you have the lid ON taking no light...I guess you just werent thinking at the time..
Third, Christian Buil's Q.E results are "Relative" values, and NOT absolute, even though the D70 is nearly 3 times higher in Q.E in his report, its not a true indication of the Cmos sensors actual range.
Fourth, i have taken a dark with NR ON for 30 secs and you can see its not as right shifted, in turn the image is darker. I have also attached a copy of the Image from the Starlight Xpress homepage that did the same test as me, except longer exposure and i didnt strech, comparing the KAI2000 CCD over the Sony ICX285 (SXV-H9) for Noise. Same Test, without streching !

Now for Bert, ive read it Bert, mainly headache reading, but really not too helpfull here. Some of the data is assumed (Indicated by ?), which is why i didnt take too much on board with it, and some specs are out, the Full well capacity for the D70 is actually a little worse than documented, and some others estimated.

Secondly, THE D200 AINT IN THERE, hehe, a shame really, he could have done most of the work for me. Still, you really need to test it yourselves.

But Bert, i really would like to see some histograms and pics please. I would like too see just how well it does actually perform. Remember to stay under 1600 ISO, as over this the 5D is leathal.
I came so close to buying one, in fact i bidded on it on ebay, but lost the bid. Then i read about the D200 which is over $1500 cheaper, so i thought i'll test it before i waste my money on a camera no ones tested or poduced any images worth posting.
Thus my position here.

[Gama]

Oh yeah, Terry, it really doesnt matter how much info or data you give some one, cause like you said there are people out their that just wont accept it, being a die hard Canon guys, or Nikon guys, or Pentax guys etc.. Im not really biased, all i did is do some tests side by side the same way, with no hidden techniques. Thats all !.
I took images the same way i did with my SXV-H9 and Canon 20D and prefered the D200.


And HOLDENS RULE BABY !.

mumble mumble but i drive a Ford mumble mumble..

[Gama]

For the old Cmos Vs CCD, heres a paper that goes thru everything on the 2 sensors, very indepth. Tells the pro's and cons for both sensors and why they are better.
http://huhepl.harvard.edu/~LSST/general/Janesick_paper_2003.pdf
Also in fairness it is 3 years old now.

[CometGuy]

Gama,

Near the bottom of Christian's 10D vs D70 page:

"At the 500nm wavelength, isolated by an interferential filter of 20nm range, it appears that the Nikon D70 produces 0.848 times less signal than the Canon 10D in the green channel for a same ISO sensitivity. This being computed by correcting the instrumental effect (pixel size effect, lens type)."

He does not mention he corrects it for differences in amplifier gain which he gives as 2.98 e-/ADU for the D70 and 2.41 for the 10D. So the actual relative green response is:

0.848 x 2.98/2.41 = 1.05x (OK a 5% relative advantage to the Sony :)

In this case he goes on to say that noise is somewhat higher in the D70, etc, etc so the final outcome is that there is similiar performance (but that the camera has to be worked using 'mode 3') .

These tests were done with the hotfilter in place, but what I was saying is that removing them would not effect the above Quantum efficiency result (i.e the hotfilter transmissions are very similiar).

I have seen QE figures for the Sony monochrome CCD's at 67% from the starlight site for the sensor used in the SXV-H9 - I certainly believe that. For the SXV-M25 it is 'equivalent to 60% QE at peak of green filters' and that there is 50% rolloff (I interprete this as 50% QE) at 400nm and 650nm. This sounds like they are describing the underlying monochrome sensor. So you need to consider the effect of the bayer filters, I think.

Terry

[CometGuy]

Update : I also Noticed Christian updated his 5D evaluation (I was looking for QE data for the 5D) with some test notes on the D200 and mentions the presence of the same 'median' type filter as per the D70. The link is:

http://astrosurf.com/buil/5d/test.htm

Gama, I reckon you should try to verify this yourself in the raw files you already have. If it is there then perhaps it should be mentioned to Nikon that this undesirable for scientific applications, and maybe they might release a firmware update.

Terry

[Gama]

Yeah, Christian is sort of right. Like i said it doesnt have Median filtering, but it also does..Politicians talk..
In reality, if the NR is OFF (Not Long Exposure NR), then upto 800 ASA the image is dead raw. If you use a higher ISO e.g 1600, 3200 then it has minor filtering which was tested by some big name reviewers and they confirmed its not anything to worry about, unlike previous models. Thats why i stoped going anymore than ISO 800 on the tests.
I wont use anything faster than ISO 800 anyway, plus i also checked the quality of the image and i cant see any difference. Stars were still pinpoints and nebuale showed up clear and sharp.
I would let others decide if its bad or good when they see the images them selves. All the reviewers say when switched off the images are sharper on the higher ISO's, all be it with a little more noise. But below ISO 800 its 100 % OFF. When the NR is ON then the minimum ISO is 400 before any filtering is done, soo below ISO 400 it again is not touched.

Hehehe i went to the site, but pour le voue Francie NO !. I'll just send you to a Greek site next time !!!!.
Now i think they documented the Spectral response for the 20D and the 5D i dont think thats correct, as i would assume the 5D would be much better than the 20D. But maybe it is..Dunno...
Im sure that it would be a matter of time before there was a patch for the D200 to remove or at least bypass filtering at all ISO levels above 800.
This is why i think many people beleive that the D50 has lower noise, cause i really think theres more filtering going on than the D70 at the same ISO.

[Gama]

One thing i left out.. The Hot filter does make a great difference to Q.E. Just look at the 300 or 350 Mod, and check the spectral purity and response. Huge difference.. Remember even 3% increase is regarded as Huge these days.

[Gama]

Here is info on the dynamic range for both the Canon 5D, plus a link to a comparison of the 2.
http://www.brisk.org.uk/imatest/C5D_MCollins1.html

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-/Performance--Image-Quality.htm
Heres a quick comparison with the D200.
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/images/upload/Image/H2H:%205D%20-%20D200/5D200-DynamicRange-Graph2-D.jpg

[iceman]

Guys, please keep the discussion civil. There's been a few instances of comments bordering on "out of line", and one I just had to delete was out of line.

This is a great and frank discussion between some obviously experienced amateurs who are passionate about their hobby. Let's keep the information flowing, and keep the personal comments out of it.

[CometGuy]

Gama,

Thats interesting about ISO800 and lower being devoid of the median filter (well its some sort of filter). A very interesting development and to me would remove the biggest negative of this camera.

From what I have seen IO400/800 is about optimal unless you do very short exposures.

I agree QE increases dramatically with the removal of the hotfilter, but primarily > 550 nm. Around green it makes a few percent difference.

So you have a hard time understanding French? This is where I got my original information to modify the 300D :)

http://www.seo-e.co.jp/hobby/EOS300D/EOS300D.htm

Terry

[Gama]

Hahaha, i really thought it was a legit site..Stung twice.

With the NR filter, yeah that was good news to me too that they didnt fudge the Raw image at all up to ISO 800. Im in the same boat as you, i cant use anything higher than 800 cause of the sky background where i am. It saturates at around 3 minutes at 1600 and very white at 800.
But at 400 its really nice, and 200 is fantastic. But i needed to make sure they (Nikon) wernt blowing smoke up my dress..(Figure of speach!).
So i tested it up to ISO 800 and yep, they were correct, not a prob.
What is amazing is just how far DSLR has come in the last few years.
I was looking at some images by a Yankee Robotics Trifid II, and comparing them with images from modded DSLR's, and you cant pick it. Just taken for granted that it will take some nice family pics, but as a poor mans Asto camera.
But in fact its now a smart mans tool, does everything you need for getting some really high quality shots.
Boy, i remember buying my first CCD camera when they first started comming out. It was the Meade 216, got it about 9 years ago, and it produce breathtaking images (Which i laugh at now)then, but now would rather use a stone and chisel to image instead of it.
While surfing around i stumbled on a site that showed the CCD's that were made for the U.S. Military, man it was HUGE.. 4" Square.. They reckon it was the largest single CCD in the world. (No Cmos here.. hehe just kidding).
I'll try and find that site again.

[Vermin]

Gama, I get what you're trying to do but you can not convince me to convert now.

I have just spent nigh on $8000 for Canon EF lenses (f2.8 or better from 16 to 200mm @ 35mm frame).

I only had enough left over for the 30D (after adding a GM8, f10 guide scope and guide Toucam, that can also be used for planetary imaging).

I may upgrade the camera body in future but you'll have to pry these lenses from my cold dead hands. :) Nikon, just did not rate when I looked closely at the lens reviews.

[Gama]

This was not meant to convert anyone. The Canon 10D, 20D etc are by all means fantastic cameras for Astro imaging. Why convert.. theres no reason too, they do just as much a good job as any good imager.
The review is just that. If i reviewed a SBIG STL 11000CM, would that mean you would convert and buy one ?..
This is for anyone wanting some info about another good camera for Astro work. Nikon was not looked upon as a viable camera for this sort of work, but i hope now people take a different view, and start posting some good ones with them.

[Jonathan]

Then I wouldn't take too much notice of those reviews. Nikon (and Canon) make superb lenses, but it's all about how much you want to spend. An expensive lens in either brand will perform very well. To say one is better than the other would be like splitting hairs in most cases, to say Nikon lenses "just did not rate" is a bit much I think.
Another thing though, you do have the advantage of being able to use Nikon lenses on a Canon body (with an adapter ring) so you can pick and choose the best each brand has to offer, if you really want to. It doesn't work the other way around with Canon lenses and Nikon bodies unfortunatly.

[acropolite]

Noise levels of an exposure at a given ISO of say 1/250th of a second does not vary with aperture. It will vary with temperature but whether it's taken with a 150mm lens, a 50mm lens the noise level will still be the same. If it did vary there would be no point in dark frame subtraction.

[Gama]

This reference was made for signal, as more signal is built up faster than with a smaller lens. You read it out of context. The image of a 150mm lens will produce a faster image than a 60mm of the same folcal length, as the f ratio is much smaller.