DSLRUsers.com

Comments from Thom Hogan:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=23764457

Thanks for posting that - always interested in new equipment, even if I'm never likely to own it!  BTW, if people keep speculating about release dates for Nikon's new camera/lens/software, sooner or later they'll be right!

... Obsolete ...

if thom is talking, i'm listening. that's all i got to say!!!

<yawn>

More boring than MySpace.

Although I am not going to read the article, Thom does have more credibility than that 'Ken' fellow.

Usually thom is a good source and is well connected in the Nikon world although often under NDA, so we will see

I'm sure I'm not the only one who is more interested in Nikon releasing new lenses than a new camera. We need:

1. A fast wide angle. Re-release the 28/1.4, or if they are going to stick with DX crop, make it a ~20/1.4. Both should be AF-S, which leads me on to...

2. Classic primes need to be redone in AF-S. 24mm, 28mm, 35/2, both 50mm, both 85mm, and the 135/2 should be redone with AF-S focussing and the same or better optics. Canon hold a huge lead in this area, Nikon has been very poor in updating lens designs.

3. A camera which can actually utilise these fantastic optics at high ISOs where fast lenses are designed to be used.

If Nikon don't make some big steps in this direction in the next ~6 months, they will lose my purchase. Having a play with the 1D3 was great fun, and eye-opening as to what I am missing out on

gstark wrote:<yawn>

More boring than MySpace.

rooboy wrote:3. A camera which can actually utilise these fantastic optics at high ISOs where fast lenses are designed to be used.

sorry if i am wrong, but isnt high iso essentially a replacement for fast lense? or at least a band aid fix...

i was always told that canon users were lucky as they could get away with using a f4 lens rather than f2.8, as the iso performance on canons was superior to nikon...

i am of course ignoring the shallower dof of a fast lense (obviously if you increase iso dof stays the same), and only taking into account the fact that high iso increases light sensitivity and faster lenses deliver more light to the sensor/film.


or am i missing the point??/?

I think you're missing the point.

High ISO is not a fix for a fast lens. The two are very different.

And the word is "lens".

jamesw wrote:

rooboy wrote:3. A camera which can actually utilise these fantastic optics at high ISOs where fast lenses are designed to be used.

sorry if i am wrong, but isnt high iso essentially a replacement for fast lense? or at least a band aid fix...

No, they're different things apart. But when combined together, they're lethal *speed*

jamesw wrote:or am i missing the point??/?

Go have a play with a 1D Mark 3 - the ISO3200 shots look much better than ISO800 shots from my D200. The difference is quite ridiculous when the 2 are directly compared.

When combined with a fast prime, the difference is 'lethal' as Yi-P described. The problem is, Canon have all the decent fast primes I would like to use (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2). Nikon offer nothing fast and wide, and the longer primes are crippled by slow focussing. Hence my desire to use the brand superior in both regards

Patrick, you're also comparing a camera of different leagues to each other. How much did you pay for your D200? Now how much would you pay for the Canon?

I don't disagree that Canon's do have better ISO algorithms, but comparing apples with anvils doesn't work in that way.

And I'm not going to comment on which one is the anvil (before you ask).

Fair comment Leigh. However, the D200 is probably the best Nikon in terms of noise control - the comparison would be even more dramatic if I referred to a D2X

Yes, then I'd blatantly tell you that the D2x is at least made like an anvil whereas the Canon is made like an apple.

rooboy wrote:Go have a play with a 1D Mark 3 - the ISO3200 shots look much better than ISO800 shots from my D200. The difference is quite ridiculous when the 2 are directly compared.

so is the price difference. you are comapring a $2000 camera with a $7,000 camera...

its like comparing a boxter and a 911.

Oz_Beachside wrote:so is the price difference. you are comapring a $2000 camera with a $7,000 camera...

its like comparing a boxter and a 911.

So where is Nikon's $7000 camera that can compete ISO-wise? The point is that there isn't one.

macka wrote:

Oz_Beachside wrote:so is the price difference. you are comapring a $2000 camera with a $7,000 camera...

its like comparing a boxter and a 911.

So where is Nikon's $7000 camera that can compete ISO-wise? The point is that there isn't one.

That's what rumours are for!

rooboy wrote:the D200 is probably the best Nikon in terms of noise control -:

Patrick

You obviously haven't seen any images from the D2Hs I guess?
FAR better than the D200 or D2X IMHO.

There's also a side to the noise argument that most photographers don't think about: a lot of the noise issue can come down exposing correctly.

That said, most photographers don't know how to expose their images correctly and will automatically blame the sensor, but that's the problem with a lack of edumacation. Anyone can pick up a digital camera and claim they're a photographer these days: it's the 80's problem of "anyone-can-be-a-painter" all over again.

Or a Tiler

Nnnnsic wrote:There's also a side to the noise argument that most photographers don't think about: a lot of the noise issue can come down exposing correctly.

I agree that the importance of getting the exposure right in the first place is generally underestimated.

And the problem of noise is generally overestimated, especially by people over-concerned with their camera gear and not concerned enough with the whole point of said gear - photos!

That said, Canon are doing a better job at this, and Nikon seemingly aren't even trying to compete. Why?

Nnnnsic wrote:Yes, then I'd blatantly tell you that the D2x is at least made like an anvil whereas the Canon is made like an apple.

Heh, you can certainly knock the Canons as their user interface appears to have been designed by an 18-fingered monkey, but you have to admit that the 1 series are solidly built

marc wrote:Patrick

You obviously haven't seen any images from the D2Hs I guess?
FAR better than the D200 or D2X IMHO.

True, I've never played with a D2H or D2Hs. I really hope Nikon will use an LBCAST sensor in the future, so they're not dependent on Sony for parts (I know some senior people at Sony Australia through work contacts, and trust me, I don't want my camera to have anything to do with them ).

All that said, you could do a heap of noise reduction to a high resolution image and still end up with more than the 4MP image from a D2H body. I don't want to enage in a MP race, but for my purposes, 4MP simply isn't enough. YMMV.

FWIW nobody has mentioned the fact that noise on the d40x and d80 beats the d200 and d2x, and apparently comes close to the 5d. well close enough to be in the same ballpark, kind of thing.

if the next nikon pro body comes out and its crap... well, then you can start writing nikon off and saying they arent trying to compete.

for now, keep holding your breath... or not holding your breath... or whatever...

leigh is right, a lot of iso issues come down to incorrect exposure. however, there are some of us who could genuinely do with less noise at high iso....

having said that, im hardly going to run out and buy the next flagship model. i dont think many people on these forums are. but as nikon users we do have a vested interest in the next pro model... one would expect much of the technology and R&D to flow into pro-sumer and consumer models...

plus, the price of d2xs will hit the floor once the brand newie is released...

rooboy wrote:

Nnnnsic wrote:Yes, then I'd blatantly tell you that the D2x is at least made like an anvil whereas the Canon is made like an apple.

Heh, you can certainly knock the Canons as their user interface appears to have been designed by an 18-fingered monkey, but you have to admit that the 1 series are solidly built

Yeah, but after using a lot of the Mark 2's and teaching people how to use them, I do find tha the D2x is built better. The poor designs of Canon bodies really does kill the overall weighting and quality in my opinion of their equipment.

The 1 series are built well... but I'd say not as well as Nikon build their high-end gear, red rubber triangles excluded of course.

These threads remind me of how good it was in the ”good old days” - can you imagine Chuck Beemer watching the Wright Bros take off and saying to his mate ”I’ve heard that they are releasing a jet version later this year”. In the good old days, when a camera was released no one, absolutely no one, went on like washerwomen about the next release.

In honour of the above, let's all start a discussion about how the Leica digital rangefinder will kick the living crap out of both the new Nikon & Canon! (That's more like the good old days )

Forgive my intrusion here...

But is High ISO noise really that much of an issue? With the current versions of noise reduction software out there this is becoming less of an issue.

Another thing I was thinking about and also upon reflection of a couple of responses in this thread, I think that in some cases the noise can add to the appeal of the image depending upon the subject and feel you want.

How many people are starting to put grain back into their images during PP to get a feel or look they want?

Sorry just my humble feelings.

With respect to Canon versus Nikon in high ISO noise, yes Canon handle it better, but just like using noise reduction filters you loose some of the sharpness of the image (if you pixel peep). So it almost becomes a moot point.



Brett

But mate, maaaaaate.......

The problem is, if Canon can produce clear images at high ISO, Surely a Nikon Pro body should be able to. The less PPing you need to do to an image, the better. You should be (technically) able to print the images straight from the camera, not have to stuff about on your laptop.

I can see why so many pro's choose Canon, they have it all over nikon. If I was starting out just now, I would be looking at Canon first. That being said, I'll be sticking with Nikon.

Raskill wrote:But mate, maaaaaate.......

The problem is, if Canon can produce clear images at high ISO, Surely a Nikon Pro body should be able to. The less PPing you need to do to an image, the better. You should be (technically) able to print the images straight from the camera, not have to stuff about on your laptop.

I can see why so many pro's choose Canon, they have it all over nikon. If I was starting out just now, I would be looking at Canon first. That being said, I'll be sticking with Nikon.

Yeah should, would, could, but doesn't...

I'm not concerned about doing PP to an image, the whole convenience factor of digital is starting to get too much, people are becoming more demanding and I think the quality of images that are sold on site immediately at an event suffer because of it. But in saying that what is so hard about running a batch process for noise reduction when you download from card to computer in readiness to print? I'm an I.T. nerdie so nothing is impossible, it just depends on how much time you have to devote to development

In my opinion unless you run a specific in camera curve the images off camera from motorsport are all a little lacking for that traditional high contrast, saturated look, and no even Canon doesn't get that right

We have the trade off, better flash system and easier control combinations, they get better high ISO noise and a system that comes out first  PS I'll be sticking with Nikon too As much as I like the Canon gear as my two partners both use it and I do get to have a play with their gear every now and then, I am still a Nikon person at present.

bwhinnen wrote:Forgive my intrusion here...

How many people are starting to put grain back into their images during PP to get a feel or look they want?

Brett, this is very subjective, but IMO there is a BIG difference between digital (especially colour) noise and film grain. The latter can be aesthetically pleasing, the former is extremely ugly.

bwhinnen wrote:you loose some of the sharpness of the image (if you pixel peep). So it almost becomes a moot point.

After seeing test shots I disagree with this. The level of detail retained is excellent.

jamesw wrote:FWIW nobody has mentioned the fact that noise on the d40x and d80 beats the d200 and d2x,

That comment is NOT true....i have seen (i will try and find results and the website is saw this info on) of comprehensive testing of noise between all the Nikon cameras and the D200 has it all over them for noise control. I used to be obsessed about having "plastic" clear looking images, i now add grain and texture to my images....gives them some life. The other thing besides exposing properly is the GLASS you use, for my some of my lenses produce far less noise than others, this may be 'artifacts not noise' but it is still a better result, don't underestimate the glass you use

Dan

Cre8tivepixels wrote:

jamesw wrote:FWIW nobody has mentioned the fact that noise on the d40x and d80 beats the d200 and d2x,

That comment is NOT true....i have seen (i will try and find results and the website is saw this info on) of comprehensive testing of noise between all the Nikon cameras and the D200 has it all over them for noise control. I used to be obsessed about having "plastic" clear looking images, i now add grain and texture to my images....gives them some life. The other thing besides exposing properly is the GLASS you use, for my some of my lenses produce far less noise than others, this may be 'artifacts not noise' but it is still a better result, don't underestimate the glass you use

Dan

dan,

i've never read that and would be keen to see where you got your info from. are we talking the JPEG engine or actual sensor/raw output???

i have seen a jpeg comparison on another website that showed that of the 10mP sensors, the d200 was worse, followed by the d80, followed by the d40x. this would go in line by what a lot of people are saying - nikon has been working on its NR engine and it is getting progressively better along the way.

this goes along with what commentarists like thom hogan have been saying in their reviews. check out his website, he's said about the d80 and then the d40x that he is really happy that nikon has been working on noise issues with the sony ccd.

i'd really like to see where you got your info from, if you wouldnt mind sharing.

jamesw wrote:

Cre8tivepixels wrote:

jamesw wrote:FWIW nobody has mentioned the fact that noise on the d40x and d80 beats the d200 and d2x,

That comment is NOT true....i have seen (i will try and find results and the website is saw this info on) of comprehensive testing of noise between all the Nikon cameras and the D200 has it all over them for noise control. I used to be obsessed about having "plastic" clear looking images, i now add grain and texture to my images....gives them some life. The other thing besides exposing properly is the GLASS you use, for my some of my lenses produce far less noise than others, this may be 'artifacts not noise' but it is still a better result, don't underestimate the glass you use

Dan

dan,

i've never read that and would be keen to see where you got your info from. are we talking the JPEG engine or actual sensor/raw output???

i have seen a jpeg comparison on another website that showed that of the 10mP sensors, the d200 was worse, followed by the d80, followed by the d40x. this would go in line by what a lot of people are saying - nikon has been working on its NR engine and it is getting progressively better along the way.

this goes along with what commentarists like thom hogan have been saying in their reviews. check out his website, he's said about the d80 and then the d40x that he is really happy that nikon has been working on noise issues with the sony ccd.

i'd really like to see where you got your info from, if you wouldnt mind sharing.

Cool mate, will try and find the info, it was really obscure and it was sometime ago.......i will try and hunt it down......i think bottom line is if its CMOS sensor as oppossed to CCD it will be less noisy fullstop, but i also think Cannons images seem a little soft, where as you get sharper but a more noisy image with Nikon. I used to have both, its just MHO.

Actually, james is probably right with the D40x being better. The d40x has some improvements over the D80 sensor. I would mostly expect it to be from worst to the best: D80, D40x, D200, and I say D200 for the last if only because of the way the channels are being interpreted.

It also depends on the way you've shot the image and the age of the D200 you have.

I agree with the noise issue in Nikon cameras are getting better as date advances.

Shooting at over ISO 1000 on the D2H is dreadful on the out of the box output compared to the D70 or D40, but once NR is applied on PP, it looks just amazing...

The D2Hs does not really have noise problems - but again it comes down to correct exposure in the first instance.

Nnnnsic wrote:Actually, james is probably right with the D40x being better. The d40x has some improvements over the D80 sensor. I would mostly expect it to be from worst to the best: D80, D40x, D200, and I say D200 for the last if only because of the way the channels are being interpreted.

It also depends on the way you've shot the image and the age of the D200 you have.

i did quite a bit of investigation some time ago on what the deal with the sensors are, ie differences between the d40x, d80, d200.

from what i could gather, the d40x, d80, d200 use essentially the same sensor, with a few cosmetic differences. the d200 uses a 4 channel output, the other two go with a 2 channel, and there have been minor improvements to the actual sensor over time.

however, the raw output from the three sensors is similar if not the same.

what has changed is nikon's NR engine for jpegs.

this is by no means gospel, if you have contradictory information please tell!