D2X: Noise Box

In article , t
says...
In article , andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
than sorrow.

Andrew.

Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.

Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.



YUP!

Thats a slammer...

Will we ever know who brought pressure to bear???


Im sure it was Nikonian pressure BUT... Was it from Nikon, or from Nikon
USERS????


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Brian Baird wrote:
In article , andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
than sorrow.

Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.

Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under
Nikonian fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.

You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
"enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.

Andrew.

In article ,
says...
Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.

YUP!

Thats a slammer...

Will we ever know who brought pressure to bear???

Im sure it was Nikonian pressure BUT... Was it from Nikon, or from Nikon
USERS????

I don't know. Honestly, there were some things about the "preview" that
were a little flaky, but it wasn't meant as a definitive test. All I
saw was the camera had a lot of noise at ISO 800 (in keeping with other
shots I've seen) and a HELL of a lot of noise in H1 & H2 (ISO 1600 and
3200 respectively).

So I'm pretty sure ISO 400 performance will be better than what we saw,
but I haven't seen any indication that ISO 800+ will look any better.

In article , andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under
Nikonian fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.

You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
"enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.

But what methodology?

By his own admission, he stuck the camera towards his subject and
snapped off some frames in successive order. He wasn't trying to do an
end-all test with gray cards and signal to noise ratios.

Even if he made a mistake somewhere along the line, what could account
for the awfulness of the ISO 800 pictures from the D2X we've seen
elsewhere? Surely Reichmann's "results" (observations is a better word)
weren't out of line with that.

We'll get the final say when/if Phil Askey gets a D2X to review.

Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

Too many pixels in too small an area.

And ugly software noise reduction.

Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
from publishing such results. The D2X was announced in September'04 and
Nikon didn't have it on display in the Photo-exhibition I went to in
Manila in early Feb'05. All other recently announced products were
there from other manufacturers - Pentax *istDs, Canon 1Ds Mark-II, and
Minolta Maxxum 7D. Hmmmm....

- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

Too many pixels in too small an area.

And ugly software noise reduction.

Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
from publishing such results. The D2X was announced in September'04 and
Nikon didn't have it on display in the Photo-exhibition I went to in
Manila in early Feb'05. All other recently announced products were
there from other manufacturers - Pentax *istDs, Canon 1Ds Mark-II, and
Minolta Maxxum 7D. Hmmmm....

- Siddhartha


It was on display at PMA with big enlargements.

In article .com,
says...

Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
from publishing such results.

Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."

When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

As was pointed out in DPReview though.... He had two different ISO samples
that pretty clearly came from the same shot image... A mistake like that
should be enough to cause him to pull the comparison. IMHO.

I never saw the original article, but many of his images are mirrored and
reffered to in a DPReview thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=12376560

I personally don't care much about any of this... just enjoying a good
sh!tstorm... =)

Al...

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article .com,
says...

Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
from publishing such results.

Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."

When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian Baird wrote:
In article , andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under
Nikonian fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.

You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
"enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.

But what methodology?

I don't know. You're assuming he was being cowardly, when it is quite
possible that he was being honest.

By his own admission, he stuck the camera towards his subject and
snapped off some frames in successive order. He wasn't trying to do
an end-all test with gray cards and signal to noise ratios.

Even if he made a mistake somewhere along the line, what could
account for the awfulness of the ISO 800 pictures from the D2X we've
seen elsewhere?

Beats me, but I haven't seen the pictures you're talking about.

We'll get the final say when/if Phil Askey gets a D2X to review.

I don't know that we will.

For example, the EOS-1D Mark II tests use Default Parameters, JPEG
Large / Fine. So, the noise figures are distorted by JPEG processing
and whatever sharpening and noise reduction happens to be applied by
default. A camera that does aggressive NR by default would appear to
have lower noise. Conversely, a more "professional" camera that does
little in camera processing by default would appear worse.

Andrew.

Hi Brain,

Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

I feel sorry for anyone who believes in "tests" done by someone that is
supported by one party
http://www.pikto.ca/gallery/inline/reichmannweb.jpg

Furthermore Michael managed to mix up the post-processing, posting the
same image twice, stating these are two pictures made at different ISO.




Benedikt