D2X: Noise Box

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.

"Brian Baird" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation. So
poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.

Nice try. Better luck next time...

HMc

On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article ,
"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.

He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:20:22 GMT, C Wright
wrote:

On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article ,
"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.

He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

Look here in a few days for a review:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/

Here's a 800 ISO "arty" D2X image:
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekrit....cgi?id=161188

-espen

--
All generalisering er farlig
http://www.seland.org/

In article , wright9
says...
On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article ,
"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.

He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

"Errors in methodology" my foot!

Those images were HORRIBLE, I doubt a simple "oops" is in order.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:20:22 GMT, C Wright
wrote:

On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article ,
"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.

He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

Look here in a few days for a review:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/

From someone decidedly more pro-Nikon than Michael Reichmann is pro-
Canon?

Here's a 800 ISO "arty" D2X image:
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekrit....cgi?id=161188

-espen

You really need 100% crops to see the damage.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:20:22 GMT, C Wright
wrote:

On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article ,
"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.

He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

Look here in a few days for a review:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/

From someone decidedly more pro-Nikon than Michael Reichmann is pro-
Canon?

Here's a 800 ISO "arty" D2X image:
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekrit....cgi?id=161188

-espen

You really need 100% crops to see the damage.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
says...

"Brian Baird" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation. So
poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.

Nice try. Better luck next time...

HMc

If you saw the photos, you'd see what BS that is.

What a wuss.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:15 GMT, Brian C. Baird
wrote:

In article ,
says...

Look here in a few days for a review:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/

From someone decidedly more pro-Nikon than Michael Reichmann is pro-
Canon?

He's a Nikon-pro, but I can't tell if he's a pro-Nikon (you have to
ask him). Both Rørslett and Reichman are proffesionals in their
respective areas, and use/have used several systems. So IMHO I don't
think they are pro-anything, anything other than they happen to use a
special system and knows a lot about it (and can do subjective reviews
in an objective manner).

-espen

--
http://www.seland.org/

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