Giovanni Bertelli , Feb 06, 2012; 04:19 p.m.
I've been using a Nikon D200 since july 2011. While using it I noticed a certain "dullness" in photos taken with this camera. Before july 2011 I had been using a Canon 1000D for a while and comparing the two cameras the dullest one is the d200.
I never asked as I thought it was just my fault or a stupid idea... all this until today when I saw this:
D2X ->> (link)
D200 ->> (link)
The d200 looks duller than the d2x one indeed.
So I've been asking myself: WHY THE HELL DOES IT MAKE PHOTOS LOOK SO DULL?
Also looking around on the Internet I noticed here (http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm) that u see the same difference u see in the images above at pixel level between d200 with aa-filter and w/o aa-filter...
The difference is also similar to the one on this page (http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d300HR.htm).
So: how can I solve this "problem"? Is it only a matter of "lack of unsharp-mask" or something else?
Please help me fixing this dullness...
Giovanni
(sorry for my poor english)
Wouter Willemse 
, Feb 06, 2012; 04:44 p.m.
It has nothing to do with AA filters or anothing like it. Nikon tends to have a somewhat 'duller' default setting, especially on the older bodies. Neither sharpening nor saturation was very excessive.
A good thing. Adding sharpening is easy. Making colours more lively is easy. Boosting contrast, no problem. The way back, though,... not so easy.
Especially compared to Canon, Nikon images tend to look softer.
And to be clear: the problem is with the default settings shooting JPEG. Otherwise, the images you linked too... the D200 is capable of what the D2x shows there in terms of colour.
The simple cure is shooting RAW and 'developing' your images to your own taste. And if you really do not want to spend time behind the PC to get the best out of your camera, fiddle around with the camera settings for sharpening and saturation. But it's easy to overdo, and difficult to verify on the smallish LCD screen - the PC is really better for it.
Leslie Cheung 
, Feb 06, 2012; 05:14 p.m.
Matt Laur 
, Feb 06, 2012; 05:19 p.m.
Download a trial copy of Capture NX2. Shoot in RAW to NEF files, and then open them up in NX2. Work with the camera settings features in the software until you get what you like. You can do this non-destructively as much as you want. Once you note how much saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc., you like for the look you're after (and you will be able to get there if you expose correctly), then you can simply replicate those same values in the camera, for when you want it using those same rules when you have the camera making JPG files for you.
Donald Whirlow , Feb 06, 2012; 05:25 p.m.
My D200 gives similar results. This is very easily fixed in even a simple photo editing program such as Faststone, which is available as a free download. A bit of contrast and saturation increase, as well as a very moderate amount of USM, generally will do wonders. For your particular photo, the histogram indicates that this a well-exposed shot but is low contrast, with the great portion of the pixel values concentrated in the middle of the histogram and rather large tails on either side. An expansion of contrast to eliminate or greatly reduce these tails will make this photo look much more as you desire.
Dieter Schaefer 
, Feb 06, 2012; 06:35 p.m.
Doesn't the D2X have some preset color modes that the D200 does not have? Are those images shot in JPEG or RAW. If JPEG, then this could explain the differences. If RAW, then you just need to process them with the same D2XMODE (they are available for LR and ACR).
Giovanni Bertelli , Feb 06, 2012; 07:00 p.m.
I've been shooting raw since I first bought a dslr, but the difference u notice on those two images I linked in the question are affecting raw performance between 1000D and D200... I know that processing in d2x mode improves very much the image but I was just asking myself what is coming out of the camera since the difference in very noticeable also in a default-settings lightroom session.
maybe it's just the way LR decrypts the image, but that seems a quite strong difference to me...
anyway I tuned saturation, color mode (gone from srgbI to srgIII), and contrast, and the images are a bit better but the problem is still there: photos coming out of the camera look dull, without depth...
the only way I can improve the image rendition is by applying an USM with big radius (100 to 200 pixels), but still the image looks bit different to those shot by 1000D
well, I'll simple get on with it...
Jerry Litynski , Feb 06, 2012; 07:01 p.m.
It is now 2012, the D200 was "brand new" several years ago. Not everything in the digital world has the life span of a Nikon F body....
[Please be sure to compare your images on your computer's monitor and not the back LCD of the D200 vs. what you think you saw on the LCD screen of your Canon.]
ross b , Feb 06, 2012; 07:02 p.m.
After going into the menu and improving the contrast, sharpening and so on my D200 has jpegs that are not quite good enough for printing. So all photos need a little adjustment in photoshop. Usually just a levels adjustment makes the photos look fine for my purposes. However I figure since I have to go to photoshop anyway why not just shoot RAW. So that is the deal for me. If I ever buy another camera I would hope I could take nice jpegs straight up. I have no other digital camera's so I cannot compare to what other makes or models would look like. Not sure what I would buy but I would take a look at the Fuji X-Pro 1
Michael Axel , Feb 06, 2012; 09:30 p.m.
It is the same reason it takes longer to drive nails with a screwdriver: you have to know how to use your tools.
