Hi, all. I am new to the forum and am hoping you can help me understand the differences in picture quality between the D200 (DX) and the D700 (FX). Although the D700 is a full-frame camera, the RAW file sizes it produces are substantially smaller than those created by the D200 (10MB vs. 16MB). There is a similar difference in JPEG file sizes. This is such a basic question, I am embarrassed to ask, but why is that? To me, the smaller file size implies lower resolution, more noise, less enlarge-ability. That's probably wrong-headed, but can someone explain how the D700 is an improvement over the D200's images? Many thanks!
D200 vs. D700
- Thread starter kinma
- Start date
Hello and welcome to the forum.
These are totally different cameras and the performance between the two is huge.
The D700 is approx 12mp and not 16mp. That matters when you do heavy cropping or when printing large pictures that you can hang on your wall. Aside from the sensor and it's performance, the D700 or any other FX cameras can be operated in DX mode by using a smaller portion of the sensor.
Re: ISO and noise. You will notice a considerable amount of noise at ISO 800 with the D200 whilst the D700 at ISO 800, it won't even scratch the surface yet.
These are totally different cameras and the performance between the two is huge.
The D700 is approx 12mp and not 16mp. That matters when you do heavy cropping or when printing large pictures that you can hang on your wall. Aside from the sensor and it's performance, the D700 or any other FX cameras can be operated in DX mode by using a smaller portion of the sensor.
Re: ISO and noise. You will notice a considerable amount of noise at ISO 800 with the D200 whilst the D700 at ISO 800, it won't even scratch the surface yet.
I am very sorry for the confusion. I know the sensor size, in MP terms, of the 2 cameras is different, just as Epoc kindly noted. My question related to the sizes of the images, not the sensor. The D200 produces larger RAW files than the D700 (16MB vs 10MB, approx.), even though the D700 sensor is "larger" in terms of its total MP count. I am hoping someone can help me understand why a camera with a sensor with more MP produces smaller RAW files. I hope that helps to clarify my post. Again, sorry to all for the confusion and thanks in advance for your help!
I think the only way this could happen is if the image taken with the D700 was underexposed..
16mb D200 files doesn't sound right to me...I have the D300 it produces 12.8mb images..I'm sure the D700 would be as big as it...
Do you have both cameras...Post the images with exif data...
16mb D200 files doesn't sound right to me...I have the D300 it produces 12.8mb images..I'm sure the D700 would be as big as it...
Do you have both cameras...Post the images with exif data...
Last edited:
D700 is 12.6 and D200 is 10. I don't know where you got your numbers, but they are wrong.
All things being equal, an FX camera will outperform a DX camera in most areas, especially higher ISO performance. The sensor pixel density is not as great for FX as it is for DX. As far as file size, I can't see how a camera with a lower MP rating would have a bigger file size if both are in the same mode, ie, raw vs jpeg and both were taking an image of the exact same thing.
The sensor in a D200 is a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) technology which not only eats up battery power quicker, compared with the CMOS (complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor) sensor of the D700 it is not as capable and is prone to vertically smearing high areas. Apart from being cheaper, because of age and capabilities, I cannot think of a single reason why someone would want to get a D200 versus a D700.
The sensor in a D200 is a CCD (Charge Coupled Device) technology which not only eats up battery power quicker, compared with the CMOS (complementary metal–oxide–semiconductor) sensor of the D700 it is not as capable and is prone to vertically smearing high areas. Apart from being cheaper, because of age and capabilities, I cannot think of a single reason why someone would want to get a D200 versus a D700.
Last edited:
Are the 2 pictures you are comparing file sizes of, exactly the same?? I'll bet that they are not. File size is NO indication of megapixels. File size depends on the image taken. Example:
This "picture" taken with a D700 and a Peleng 8mm fisheye in RAW is 24.6MB
This picture taken with the same D700 and a Tokina 11-16mm in RAW is only 12.5MB, almost HALF the size!!
Get your D200 and D700 and take exactly the same picture with the same exposure, then compare the file size.
This "picture" taken with a D700 and a Peleng 8mm fisheye in RAW is 24.6MB
This picture taken with the same D700 and a Tokina 11-16mm in RAW is only 12.5MB, almost HALF the size!!
Get your D200 and D700 and take exactly the same picture with the same exposure, then compare the file size.
I believe that the D700 uncompressed RAW stores out at around 25 Meg, while the D200 uncompressed is around 16 Meg, so,, that makes sense.
D200 is a fine camera, but does not match up to the D700, by any means, between FX sensor to Dx
D700,, better dynamic range, 12 Meg vs 10, etc,
so,, will see more tonal range, more detail, less noise with the 700..
build quality about the same.
D200 is a fine camera, but does not match up to the D700, by any means, between FX sensor to Dx
D700,, better dynamic range, 12 Meg vs 10, etc,
so,, will see more tonal range, more detail, less noise with the 700..
build quality about the same.
Right, there are lots of ifs and buts.
The D200 manual says 15.8MB Raw, and footnote says that is Uncompressed, and that compression is 40% to 50% less file size.
D700 manual says Uncompressed Raw is 18.8MB 12 bits, or various compressed sizes, 11.0 MB 12 bit.
Uncompressed Raw has to be 1.25x megapixels (12 bits).