A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon to announce new products on Sep. 1



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 26th 05, 08:55 PM
Bart van der Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
SNIP
I wonder how far the resolution of 1.5 crop sensors can be pushed
without seriously compromising dynamic range.


Since Dynamic range is determined by potential well depth and noise,
the well depth limitation of/by small sensor elements seems to be the
issue to me (noise reduction can only be improved to a point). And
well depth is limited by design to roughly scale with sensel
size/area.

Bart

  #12  
Old August 26th 05, 09:57 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pixby wrote:

Obviously you don't have a D2X or you'd know the noise "problem" is not
a problem at all.


Steven has been relentlessly pounding away with his lies about the D2x
"noise problem" since before it was even released, despite people who
(unlike him) have actually used it telling him that no such problem
exists. He is unwilling to let facts get in the way of his mindless
Canon cheerleading.

--
Jeremy |
  #13  
Old August 26th 05, 10:39 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message ,
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

If these are the specs, it sure looks as if it is positioned to
compete with the 20D. The only weird bit is 800 as the top ISO
sensitivity.


I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, but I do think that
in the future, as the bit-depth of RAW data gets deeper, there will be
less need for higher ISOs. ISO 800, cleanly digitized at 14 bits, would
probably be better for pushing to ISO 3200 than the 3200 setting itself
with only 11 bits, as most current DSLRs do it, currently is. There
really isn't much reason to digitize high ISOs past the point where
about 4 RAW levels represents a single photon/electron.
--


John P Sheehy

  #14  
Old August 26th 05, 10:46 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message ,
pixby wrote:


Obviously you don't have a D2X or you'd know the noise "problem" is not
a problem at all. Canon use in-camera noise reduction which, when you
later try to enlarge the image makes it extremely hard to produce detail.

The Nikon approach is much preferred by experienced professionals. Use
of software like "Neat Image" or "Noise Ninja" during editing in
Photoshop produces far more detailed enlargements than from a
plasticized Canon hi-ISO image.


I'm still waiting for some kind of proof of this. The noise
characteristic of the 20D looks full-spectrum to me; just weak. If what
you were saying were true, a histogram equalization of a RAW blackframe
would be dominated by low-frequency-noise, but it isn't.

What the recent Canons are known to do is measure and cancel some of its
own known error; never heard of anything about trying to filter random
noise of the sensor.
--


John P Sheehy

  #15  
Old August 26th 05, 10:50 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

pixby wrote:


Obviously you don't have a D2X or you'd know the noise "problem" is not
a problem at all.


Steven has been relentlessly pounding away with his lies about the D2x
"noise problem" since before it was even released, despite people who
(unlike him) have actually used it telling him that no such problem
exists. He is unwilling to let facts get in the way of his mindless
Canon cheerleading.


Words like "problem" are loaded. I prefer more objective terminology.
I suspect that the intensity of noise in the RAW data is probably a
little bit greater with the D2X, making it a little noisier than
something like the 10D in low, but well-balanced light, but that the D2X
might be competitive in greatly unbalanced light sources, as it
digitizes each color channel separately, so the weakest link in the
chain of noise is eliminated (assuming, of course, that your WB setting
on the D2X is close to what you're shooting under).
--


John P Sheehy

  #16  
Old August 26th 05, 11:12 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Words like "problem" are loaded. I prefer more objective terminology.
I suspect that the intensity of noise in the RAW data is probably a
little bit greater with the D2X, making it a little noisier than
something like the 10D in low, but well-balanced light,


Measurements have the D2x about equal to the 1Ds2 in noise, up to ISO 800.
But the point is that, at low ISO, noise just isn't a factor in DSLRs any
more.

but that the D2X might be competitive in greatly unbalanced light sources,
as it digitizes each color channel separately, so the weakest link in the
chain of noise is eliminated (assuming, of course, that your WB setting
on the D2X is close to what you're shooting under).


On the D70, you could sometimes see the blue channel start to fall apart
if you had to boost it quite a lot (like setting white balance to 2000K,
or otherwise) but I have yet to see that happen on the D2x. You get to
general shadow noise before you get to that point, and the shadow noise
only starts to happen about where you'd expect it to. I can't compare
it to anything from Canon from experience, but compared to anything I've
used, the D2x is very good in wacky light.

--
Jeremy |
  #17  
Old August 26th 05, 11:25 PM
Tony Polson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

Just saw an invitation to a press conference on Sep. 1 where
Nikon is going to announce several new products. No details
yet - just the assurance that this will be interesting.

Hence, the field is open for speculation, which is probably what
Nikon wants. Just a new flash, lens or yet another P&S after
Canon's 5D announcement would be lame - rather than interesting.
The D100 is overdue for a replacement, and the D2x is not, so my
money is on that the main event will be the D200.

The $64000 question (although I hope it retail for less than that)
is whether it will be FF or not.



No, it will not. Nikon has a full frame DSLR under development but it
will be in the pro series (D3?) and won't be announced until PMA 2006
at the earliest. Shipping won't be before Q3/2006.

The D200 is an open secret, thanks to semi-official "leaks". It will
have 12 MP but with a 1.5X "multiplier".


  #18  
Old August 26th 05, 11:31 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message ,
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

wrote:


Words like "problem" are loaded. I prefer more objective terminology.
I suspect that the intensity of noise in the RAW data is probably a
little bit greater with the D2X, making it a little noisier than
something like the 10D in low, but well-balanced light,


Measurements have the D2x about equal to the 1Ds2 in noise, up to ISO 800.
But the point is that, at low ISO, noise just isn't a factor in DSLRs any
more.


It's not perticiularly visible in the lower ISOs, unless you boost the
shadows. At high ISOs, though, all the DSLRs are still lacking, to
various degrees. People who only shoot landscapes or architecture on a
tripod at low ISO, or with studio lighting have no idea how dark the
conditions are for people shooting wildlife under a canopy of foliage,
or at dusk or dawn. Animals generally don't spend a lot of time in
bright sunlight, and when they do, they are usually very spooky. You
can generally get much closer to animals after the sun has set than
mid-day. I arrived at a local park the other day about 2.5 hours before
sunset, and saw a foe and fawn feeding in a field, 150 feet from me.
They immediately took to the woods, as I got within 100 feet of them. I
went to the flower garden, to shoot hummingbirds, and upon my return
after dark, the foe and fawn allowed me within 10 feet of them without
any sign of distress; of course, ISO 1600 shots at the slowest
hand-holdable shutter speed and the lens wide-open, even at 10mm, were
grossly underexposed. Only the flash shots I took were well-saturated,
but they looked like garbage.

but that the D2X might be competitive in greatly unbalanced light sources,
as it digitizes each color channel separately, so the weakest link in the
chain of noise is eliminated (assuming, of course, that your WB setting
on the D2X is close to what you're shooting under).


On the D70, you could sometimes see the blue channel start to fall apart
if you had to boost it quite a lot (like setting white balance to 2000K,
or otherwise) but I have yet to see that happen on the D2x. You get to
general shadow noise before you get to that point, and the shadow noise
only starts to happen about where you'd expect it to. I can't compare
it to anything from Canon from experience, but compared to anything I've
used, the D2x is very good in wacky light.


We probably won't see this feature from Canon for a while, as none of
the reviewers are raking them over the coals for the poor incandescent
and deep-blue-sky-shade performance (poor compared to what it could be;
not absolutely poor compared to other cameras, per se).

--


John P Sheehy

  #20  
Old August 27th 05, 01:49 AM
RichA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:17:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"

wrote:

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Just saw an invitation to a press conference on Sep. 1 where
Nikon is going to announce several new products. No details
yet - just the assurance that this will be interesting.

Hence, the field is open for speculation, which is probably what
Nikon wants. Just a new flash, lens or yet another P&S after
Canon's 5D announcement would be lame - rather than interesting.
The D100 is overdue for a replacement, and the D2x is not, so my
money is on that the main event will be the D200.

The $64000 question (although I hope it retail for less than that)
is whether it will be FF or not.


I sincerely hope they do provide a full-frame camera at some point in the
near future - all this using large and bulky 35mm bodies and mounting toy
sensors in them which limit wide-angle capability has gone on for too
long! G (I don't think they will do that on September 1st, though).


What some people need to do is try not to act like old fogies who for
whatever irrational reason can't seem to let go of the "35mm" film
size. It has NOTHING to do with digital sensors and legacy lenses do
not do justice to a full frame digital sensor anyway.
-Rich


On the ZLR front, I would like to see a move from the 8MP sensor down to a
less-noisy 7MP sensor or something which gains low-light capability, with
an improvement to the telephoto aperture on both the Coolpix 8400 and
8800, and the addition of image stabilisation to the 8400.

David



"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories Henry Peña 35mm Equipment for Sale 2 November 12th 03 03:56 PM
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories Henry Peña 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 November 11th 03 07:20 PM
Nikon 35mm and APS SLRs and related equipment for sale Mike Schnierle 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 29th 03 05:44 PM
Nikon F4s, F90x, 20,60,85,105,35-70,80-200 tony 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 October 19th 03 10:17 PM
Subject: FS: Nikon F4, Nikkor Lens and accessories. FocaIPoint General Equipment For Sale 0 August 29th 03 03:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.