Nikon D200 and Nikon P5100 image quality compared

It may seem stretching things to compare these two cameras. One is a dSLR weighing the best part of two pounds (1kg) without lenses, while the other can be hidden in one hand.

The size of the sensor on the P5100 is bigger than on some compacts but it is nowhere near the size of the sensor on the D200. And the size of the sensor is key to image quality. Other factors aside, the bigger the individual microlenses set into the surface of the sensor, the better the image quality.

But received wisdom is one thing: testing and seeing the results for oneself is another.

So here are the two cameras compared. Of course, what I did not do is to set the ISO on the two cameras to ISO 800 for example, because I already know that the images quality on the P5100 starts to fall apart at sensitivities below that. But how would the images compare at ISO 100?

Methodology
I set both cameras to ISO 100. I shot with a Nikon 50mm f1.8D lens on the D200, which meant that in 35mm terms, the field of view of the lens was 75mm. I tried to set focal length of the Nikon P5100 to the same focal length but the only way to do it was by estimation (knowing that the 35mm equivalent of the lens on the P5100 is 35 – 123mm), so in the end I set it by framing the scene to imitate what the D200 had framed, once I had the camera in position.

I could have set both cameras on a tripod but I chose to set them on a counter top, which was stable enough. I had to raise the P5100 a little by propping it on a book, as its lens is lower than on the D200 simply because it is a smaller camera.

I shot with the D200 first and then judged where to put the P5100 by looking at the mark on the top plate of the D200 that shows the plane of focus where the sensor is located, and then setting the P5100 in its place with the same plane about half way through the thickness of the body.

All cameras shoot RAW; it is just that some cameras can output their files as RAW – as can the D200 or other sSLR cameras. Others convert the raw data in the camera and can only output the data as jpegs. Professional labs can print from PSDs or TIFFS and other formats, but many people convert RAW files to jpegs before they send them to the lab to be printed.

So I think there is every reason to say that for the majority of people, a well-exposed jpeg is a perfectly acceptable end product.
I mention this because I shot the D200 as RAW and converted it. It was then a PSD. I then opened the jpeg on the P5100 and then set one image next to the other and enlarged them to 100%. I then used the GRAB utility on this Macbook pro to grab a section of the screen and make a tiff which I saved and then opened in photoshop and saved for web and devices, first at full size and then at 500 pixels wide so it would fit within the WordPress page template.

I think the differences are clear.

Here are full frame shots, then a 500 pixel-wide image of the ‘comparison’ shot, and then finally thumbnail that opens to a larger version of the comparison shot.

Nikon D200 full frame