 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005If the Canon 5D is real...
There are going to be a sh.t-load of unhappy 1DMkII owners! I've had another look at the PDF and although the logo looks a bit dodgy, I think it might be legit. In which case the ante gets raised again! One thing I know for sure is I ain't getting caught again! I will wait for Nikon to bring out their full-frame DSLR before I ever buy another one. Or maybe it would be feasible to buy a D2x and a 12-24mm DX lens when that happens (falling prices). Hmm...  SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces I agree about waiting. The full frame version surely is something that will happen. And what happens to those D spec lenses? Do they then work on a full frame sensor? > There are going to be a sh.t-load of unhappy 1DMkII owners! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hmm... > I agree about waiting. The full frame version surely is something that > will happen. > > And what happens to those D spec lenses? Do they then work on a full frame > sensor? If you mean the DX lenses, then yes, they wouldn't be compatible with a full frame sensor, except for the 12-24mm which would be fine from 18-24mm. I think this may catch Nikon R&D by surprise (assuming it's legit), because everything from Nikon seems to suggest that they are sticking with the 1.5x multiplier format. If the sales of the D2x start slipping as a result of the 5D then they will have to bring in a counter. That picture on the 5D PDF looks dodgy, but the specifications all seem to tie up. As a Nikon shooter I would have to say it's definitely time to play "wait and see" rather than going for the D2x (unless you are happy with the 1.5x multiplier and DX lenses). Personally I would love to see a digital full-frame version of the F100 offering the same spec. That's when I will upgrade. Who knows, maybe Nikon will surprise everyone and bring out digital backs for all their current SLR's. Imagine that! ;-) SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > I agree about waiting. The full frame version surely is something > > that will happen. I'm not sure, respectively I definitely doubt that. > I think this may catch Nikon R&D by surprise (assuming it's legit), > because everything from Nikon seems to suggest that they are sticking > with the 1.5x multiplier format. I think Nikon has a lot of good reasons to do so. > If the sales of the D2x start slipping as a > result of the 5D then they will have to bring in a counter. Will they? I doubt > As a Nikon shooter I would have to say it's definitely time to play > "wait and see" rather than going for the D2x (unless you are happy with > the 1.5x multiplier and DX lenses). Personally I would love to see a > digital full-frame version of the F100 offering the same spec. > That's when I will upgrade. I own a D100. I most probably get the mystical D200, when it comes. The D2x is just too big, too heavy and also to expensive for me. The 1.5 multiplier is no issue for me. Yes, there are some purely theoretical and some more practical reasons favoring a multiplier of 1, but let's face it: - Digital sensors with a multiplayer smaller the 1.3 or so need new glass, especily WA lenses. Look at the results from the side-by-side shootout Bjorn did on http://www.naturfotograf.com/. Bee it old Nikon or old Canon Lenses, both are not perfectly suited for digital sensors larger than multiplier 1.3 or so. - With a multiplier 1.5 all the good old lenses remain very well usable - Yes, you need a new WA, but that's one new lens compared to all new lenses Furthermore, look what Canon needed to do to get something comparably priced to a D2x with a multiplier 1. This camera is in many aspects cheapish, even when compared to the 20d (FPS, X-Sync). Furthermore they pack some pure amateur features in the cam, like digital filtering. This is an other reason for me for hoping Nikon sticks to the 1.5 multiplier for the model below the D2x. I want a complete camera, lighter, smaller and a little bit less expensive. Not a stripped down thing. Not stripped down like the 5D. Stipped down to the abolute minimum, except for the sensor size. Benedikt PS: I'm waiting for the first comments "my new 5D and the 17-35/17-35/17-40 makes much worse pictures than my D20 and the 10-22" (and then some of the Canon maniacs will insult this cap for not understanding what he's doing. "FF is always *far better* than anything else" > Will they? I doubt I think that if the consumers want it they will have to build it. > - Digital sensors with a multiplayer smaller the 1.3 or so need new glass, > especily WA lenses. Look at the results from the side-by-side shootout [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - With a multiplier 1.5 all the good old lenses remain very well usable They do, but the effective focal lengths change, so a 28-70mm lens becomes not such a useful 42-105mm zoom. Personally I would prefer a full frame sensor that I can use my existing lenses on instead of a half frame one. Something else that Nikon MUST address if they are going to bring out a semi-pro DSLR is that of metering with older non-CPU lenses. That is a big draw for me. As nice as the D70 is, it truly sucks that they didn't include metering for non-CPU lenses. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > As a Nikon shooter I would have to say it's definitely time to play "wait > and see" rather than going for the D2x (unless you are happy with the 1.5x > multiplier and DX lenses). Personally I would love to see a digital > full-frame version of the F100 offering the same spec. That's when I will > upgrade. I don't get it. Look at the specs for that alleged 5D. It's *way* below the D2x in every way except pixel count, and the fact that it's full-frame. It's not a pro-level camera. It wouldn't have turned my head one little bit when I was looking to buy a D2x. On the other hand, I have no desire to go full-frame; I don't see the attraction. The minor benefits don't interest me compared with the problems that will likely invalidate half of my lenses. I really hope Nikon figures out how to stick with 1.5x for the long haul. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> As a Nikon shooter I would have to say it's definitely time to play "wait >> and see" rather than going for the D2x (unless you are happy with the 1.5x [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's not a pro-level camera. It wouldn't have turned my head one little > bit when I was looking to buy a D2x. I'll take the 5D's bigger pixels over the D2X: thermodynamics is on my side. http://news.techwhack.com/1878/canon-5d-is-finally-unveiled/ The 5D is just a larger 1DMkII sensor (which was fairly clear from the initial leak), and probably some bogus cripple-ware demanded by their marketing departments. > On the other hand, I have no desire to go full-frame; I don't see the > attraction. Buy a wide angle lens. > The minor benefits don't interest me compared with the > problems that will likely invalidate half of my lenses. I really hope > Nikon figures out how to stick with 1.5x for the long haul. Canon is increasing the yields on FF sensors; I'm pretty sure Nikon can do it too. Then all this childish talk of "well, _I_ don't need a full frame sensor, no sir!" will evaporate faster than a puddle in the desert. Why just last year or so we were all sternly told by the kooky market prognosticators that dominate this newsgroup that EF-S wasn't a dead end ... and now it seems likely it is. How many of these put their money where their mouth was? HA HA HA. > I'll take the 5D's bigger pixels over the D2X: thermodynamics is on my > side. Maybe so, but thermodynamics isn't enough to convince me to give up all of the other advantages, given the lack of any noise issue on the D2x. >> On the other hand, I have no desire to go full-frame; I don't see the >> attraction. > > Buy a wide angle lens. I have one... > Canon is increasing the yields on FF sensors; I'm pretty sure Nikon > can do it too. Then all this childish talk of "well, _I_ don't need a > full frame sensor, no sir!" will evaporate faster than a puddle in the > desert. It's not just the yields; if they solve the angle-of-incidence problems as well, I'll be a lot more enthusiastic. Until they do, I really don't want to have to buy a bunch of new lenses just to get full-frame without suffering endless chromatic aberration and edge falloff and such. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > given the lack of any noise issue on the D2x. What? Try shooting over ISO 400 on that camera and watch your detail magically disappear due to the noise-cancelling algorithms. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> given the lack of any noise issue on the D2x. > > What? Try shooting over ISO 400 on that camera and watch your detail > magically disappear due to the noise-cancelling algorithms. I have, and it didn't. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > >> given the lack of any noise issue on the D2x. > > > > What? Try shooting over ISO 400 on that camera and watch your detail > > magically disappear due to the noise-cancelling algorithms. > > I have, and it didn't. Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction and detail preservation. Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the D2X's high ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction and > detail preservation. Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the D2X's high > ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired. I take it you have used a D2x then? No? Didn't think so. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction and > > detail preservation. Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the D2X's high > > ISO performance leaves a lot to be desired. > > I take it you have used a D2x then? I don't need to use it. Look at the output. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction >> > and detail preservation. Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't need to use it. Look at the output. Where did you go to school? Did you graduate or matriculate? Maybe you were in an accident and suffered some form of brain trauma? I don't need to use a lot of things either to form an opinion, but the difference between you and I is that I tend to shut up when I don't know what I'm talking about. Looking at your output on Pbase I'm surprised at half the things you say here. You have no room to comment. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > Looking at your output on Pbase I'm surprised at half the things you say > here. You have no room to comment. Looking there sure explains a lot... If my need for ISO 1600 was to produce -his- avalible light shots, I'd go find another way to spend my time. Funny that I don't see any shots done at higher than ISO800 there anyway! Must not be too big a need or there is something lacking about using ISO1600 after all? SignatureStacey > Looking at your output on Pbase I'm surprised at half the things you say > here. You have no room to comment. Thanks for using the weakest argument, Dallas. Shows you can't actually fight me on valid points. Thanks for playing. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Looking at your output on Pbase I'm surprised at half the things you >> say here. You have no room to comment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for playing. You kicked off the game, Brian. I just put your argument into touch for you (again). By your own admission you have never used a D2X but you have formed a very biased opinion of it based on its output. Where do you see this output? On PBase? Looking at your output on PBase and your method of "argument" I suppose there exists a very good reason to never use Canon equipment for fear of eye-watering mediocrity. If you want to talk the talk, please walk the walk. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > Thanks for using the weakest argument, Dallas. Shows you can't actually > > fight me on valid points. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You kicked off the game, Brian. I just put your argument into touch for > you (again). And what a poor job you did, Dallas. > By your own admission you have never used a D2X but you have formed a very > biased opinion of it based on its output. Where do you see this output? On > PBase? Looking at NOISE output versus CREATIVE output are two different things, Dallas. If you were smart, you'd realize this. And of course, you'd also be smart enough to notice that I say plenty of nice things about the D2X. I'm just not wild about it's noise performance in respect to its cost and target market. I don't need to use the camera to substantiate my opinion. Hell, you haven't used the 10D or 20D extensively, nor the Digital Rebel, yet that didn't keep you from mouthing off about Canon for months on here. I guess the difference is I don't have an axe to grind. Even Mr. Nixon (who had the beef with my statement, remember) admitted the main point of my critique - namely the D2X output isn't that great over ISO 800. > Looking at your output on PBase and your method of "argument" I suppose > there exists a very good reason to never use Canon equipment for fear of > eye-watering mediocrity. > > If you want to talk the talk, please walk the walk. Is your argument against me really so weak? I'm flattered. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > And what a poor job you did, Dallas. In the world according to Brian Baird. > Looking at NOISE output versus CREATIVE output are two different things, > Dallas. If you were smart, you'd realize this. Yes, I do and that's what I asked you. Where did you see the noise that the D2x is allegedly full of? > And of course, you'd also be smart enough to notice that I say plenty of > nice things about the D2X. I'm just not wild about it's noise performance > in respect to its cost and target market. Why should the performance of the D2x be of any concern to you at all? All you want, but won't readily admit, is a whipping boy so you can feel good about the camera you bought. > I don't need to use the camera to substantiate my opinion. Clearly. > Hell, you haven't used the 10D or 20D extensively, nor the Digital Rebel, > yet that didn't keep you from mouthing off about Canon for months on here. What I say about Canon and what I say about their products are two different things altogether. Pay attention, you might learn something by doing so. > I guess the difference is I don't have an axe to grind. Even Mr. Nixon > (who had the beef with my statement, remember) admitted the main point of > my critique - namely the D2X output isn't that great over ISO 800. I never saw that admission, but I'll have another look for it. > Is your argument against me really so weak? I'm flattered. Fact of the matter is that none of the work on your gallery is representative of a level of photographic expertise that could qualify you to make statements relating to the virtues of any camera system at all. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > And of course, you'd also be smart enough to notice that I say plenty of > > nice things about the D2X. I'm just not wild about it's noise performance [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you want, but won't readily admit, is a whipping boy so you can feel good > about the camera you bought. Why is anything a concern to anyone? Why are we posting in a 5D thread? Why do you bitch about Canon so much? Those are a lot of questions that should be answered before you trying asking that one. > > Hell, you haven't used the 10D or 20D extensively, nor the Digital Rebel, > > yet that didn't keep you from mouthing off about Canon for months on here. > > What I say about Canon and what I say about their products are two > different things altogether. Pay attention, you might learn something by > doing so. Really? Because when you were ragging on the 300D you lambasted both the camera and Canon for making it. > > I guess the difference is I don't have an axe to grind. Even Mr. Nixon > > (who had the beef with my statement, remember) admitted the main point of > > my critique - namely the D2X output isn't that great over ISO 800. > > I never saw that admission, but I'll have another look for it. You don't see a lot of things. You basically jump into this without looking, just so you can rag on my photographs and feel big. Feel bigger now? > > Is your argument against me really so weak? I'm flattered. > > Fact of the matter is that none of the work on your gallery is > representative of a level of photographic expertise that could qualify you > to make statements relating to the virtues of any camera system at all. Again, what a weak argument. Where are your photos online, Dallas? That way I could make the same baseless statement to discredit your opinion! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Again, what a weak argument. Where are your photos online, Dallas? > That way I could make the same baseless statement to discredit your > opinion! The difference is you'd say these things out of spite, he's just stating a fact. SignatureStacey > > Again, what a weak argument. Where are your photos online, Dallas? > > That way I could make the same baseless statement to discredit your > > opinion! > > The difference is you'd say these things out of spite, he's just stating a > fact. Ha! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Why is anything a concern to anyone? Why are we posting in a 5D thread? > Why do you bitch about Canon so much? Those are a lot of questions that > should be answered before you trying asking that one. Not that I feel the need to justify my anti-Canon stance, but for your benefit the reason I don't like Canon is because of the extremely poor performance I got when using the equipment I paid a LOT of money for and couldn't even recoup 25% of when I went back to using Nikon. In my opinion they make very poor consumer level photo equipment. > Really? Because when you were ragging on the 300D you lambasted both the > camera and Canon for making it. Yes I did. And for good reason. People on the rpe35mm forum were saying that it was as good as, if not better than the D70, which we all know was a lot of bullshit. For the price of it, 300D owners were getting ripped off. Typical Canon tactics. > You don't see a lot of things. You basically jump into this without > looking, just so you can rag on my photographs and feel big. Feel bigger > now? Is that how you feel? I see you making idiotic statements without any basis in reality, so I question you on them and now I get accused of picking on you. > Again, what a weak argument. Where are your photos online, Dallas? That > way I could make the same baseless statement to discredit your opinion! My photos (a few of them) are on my website, Brian. Do you know where it is? Here's a link: www.dallasdahms.com. FWIW there are even a few of them that were made using Canon equipment, see if you can spot which ones. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >> Again, what a weak argument. Where are your photos online, Dallas? That >> way I could make the same baseless statement to discredit your opinion! > > My photos (a few of them) are on my website, Brian. Do you know where it > is? Here's a link: www.dallasdahms.com. Like the shot of the surfer! SignatureStacey >>> Again, what a weak argument. Where are your photos online, Dallas? >>> That way I could make the same baseless statement to discredit your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Like the shot of the surfer! Thanks. I have a lot better surfing photos, but they are mostly shot on film, which is why I am currently looking for a decent scanner. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > Why is anything a concern to anyone? Why are we posting in a 5D thread? > > Why do you bitch about Canon so much? Those are a lot of questions that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > couldn't even recoup 25% of when I went back to using Nikon. In my opinion > they make very poor consumer level photo equipment. But we've seen your opinions be WORSE than any statements I've made Dallas. And I don't rag on your photos - ever. > > Really? Because when you were ragging on the 300D you lambasted both the > > camera and Canon for making it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a lot of bullshit. For the price of it, 300D owners were getting ripped > off. Typical Canon tactics. Again, you are so deluded you can't see that the bias you accuse others of having is actually your own. I think the D70 is a fine camera. Is it better than the 300D? In some respects, yes. However the 300D isn't as bad as you describe it, it is no where NEAR as bad as you describe it. > > You don't see a lot of things. You basically jump into this without > > looking, just so you can rag on my photographs and feel big. Feel bigger [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > basis in reality, so I question you on them and now I get accused of > picking on you. You're the one making the idiotic statements Dallas. See your proceeding paragraphs. Keeping digging, I'm sure your hole will get smaller at some point. > > Again, what a weak argument. Where are your photos online, Dallas? That > > way I could make the same baseless statement to discredit your opinion! > > My photos (a few of them) are on my website, Brian. Do you know where it > is? Here's a link: www.dallasdahms.com. FWIW there are even a few of them > that were made using Canon equipment, see if you can spot which ones. I don't care what you used to get your shots. Are you happy with your results? Great. Neither will I comment on your galleries in a negative manner, or even dismiss the photos I don't like. Why? I'm not a dick and I don't have an axe to grind. Have a nice day Dallas, I'm sure this post will find a way to infuriate you. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > I don't care what you used to get your shots. Are you happy with your > results? Great. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Have a nice day Dallas, I'm sure this post will find a way to infuriate > you. Whatever, Brian. Whatever... SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > Have a nice day Dallas, I'm sure this post will find a way to infuriate > > you. > > Whatever, Brian. Whatever... Whatever indeed. I win! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > Have a nice day Dallas, I'm sure this post will find a way to >> > infuriate you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I win! Sure, you do. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > Whatever indeed. > > > > I win! > > Sure, you do. You don't have a leg to stand on Dallas. Just admit it and this will all go away. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > Whatever indeed. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You don't have a leg to stand on Dallas. Just admit it and this will all > go away. Are you trying to bait me? Quit deluding yourself about what you think you know about cameras and admit when you are wrong. You might find a friend or two that way. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > You don't have a leg to stand on Dallas. Just admit it and this will all > > go away. > > Are you trying to bait me? No, I'm telling you to admit you don't have a leg to stand on. That will end this once and for all. We'll know you're full of sh.t and I'll constantly rub it in your face if you ever bring it up again - which you won't. > Quit deluding yourself about what you think you know about cameras and > admit when you are wrong. You might find a friend or two that way. Well, quit making statements you can't back up with any sort of reasonable evidence, Dallas. When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong. You've never admitted you went overboard with any of your statements at any time. So, when you start acting humble you'll probably see I'm a bit more reasonable than you currently perceive me to be. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Are you trying to bait me? > > No, I'm telling you to admit you don't have a leg to stand on. That will > end this once and for all. We'll know you're full of sh.t and I'll > constantly rub it in your face if you ever bring it up again - which you > won't. Are you crazy? What am I supposed to be admitting to? That I know more about the two main camera systems (Nikon & EOS) than you do? That I have used both of them extensively? That I asked you for evidence of the noise you claim is inherent in Nikon images (which you couldn't produce)? Who's full of it, Brian? >> Quit deluding yourself about what you think you know about cameras and >> admit when you are wrong. You might find a friend or two that way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when you start acting humble you'll probably see I'm a bit more reasonable > than you currently perceive me to be. Au contraire, my dear fellow...I have backed up all the statements I made with reasonable arguments and evidence (where necessary). It's you who opened the door on this "noise" issue, so it's you who will have to close it. I'm sure you are a nice guy. Deep down. Really deep down. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > No, I'm telling you to admit you don't have a leg to stand on. That will > > end this once and for all. We'll know you're full of sh.t and I'll [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > used both of them extensively? That I asked you for evidence of the noise > you claim is inherent in Nikon images (which you couldn't produce)? I've produced evidence numerous times for numerous folks, get with it, Dallas. Additionally, I'm not putting the D2X down. I've said lots of nice things about it. But you think you can jump on the Jeremy Nixon "stick up the a.s" bandwagon and use this as an opportunity to refute my statements. Too bad neither you, Stacey or the Polson twins could actually do that. So you decided to attack my photographic output instead. f.cking weak. Also, you're the one who thought you knew everything about the 300D but regularly got the specifications wrong when you tried to put it down. Should I dig that thread back up? It would make for some interesting reading, all those times you incorrectly described features... > Who's full of it, Brian? You're still full of it, Dallas. You're doing a piss poor job of convincing me otherwise. > >> Quit deluding yourself about what you think you know about cameras and > >> admit when you are wrong. You might find a friend or two that way. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > opened the door on this "noise" issue, so it's you who will have to close > it. Oh, so when you put down the 300D you had a completely reasonable argument behind it? I don't remember it that way at all. I remember a loud mouth South African concrete contractor who thought he knew it all and got his a.s handed to him when he didn't. Yet to this day you persist with your unfounded opinion of that and many other cameras. So stop dodging the bullet Dallas - you're full of sh.t. You try to make me look like I'm full of sh.t and it just keeps making you look worse. Like I said, you don't have a f.cking leg to stand on. Admit it and this will all go away. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > I've produced evidence numerous times for numerous folks, get with it, > Dallas. Incredibly, you haven't. Did you actually *read* Phil Askey's conclusion on the D2X regarding high ISO (1600 & 3200)? > Additionally, I'm not putting the D2X down. I've said lots of nice things > about it. But you think you can jump on the Jeremy Nixon "stick up the > a.s" bandwagon and use this as an opportunity to refute my statements. Where is the NOISE, Brian? Show me the NOISE! N.O.I.S.E. Noise!!!! Where's the D2X noise!!!????? Can you see any in this output you claim to have based your esteemed opinion on? > Too bad neither you, Stacey or the Polson twins could actually do that. So > you decided to attack my photographic output instead. f.cking weak. Your lack of talent goes hand in hand with your lack of evidence regarding the NOISE of the D2X. You come across as this know-it-all, yet looking at your photos we can see that if you did know-it-all you might be able to produce better "output". As I said before, walk the walk, dude. > Also, you're the one who thought you knew everything about the 300D but > regularly got the specifications wrong when you tried to put it down. > Should I dig that thread back up? It would make for some interesting > reading, all those times you incorrectly described features... I stand by my lambasting of the 300D as being an over-priced toy camera, devoid of any redeeming features. >> Who's full of it, Brian? > > You're still full of it, Dallas. You're doing a piss poor job of > convincing me otherwise. Puh-leez. This is getting embarrassing for you. Let it go. > Oh, so when you put down the 300D you had a completely reasonable argument > behind it? I don't remember it that way at all. I remember a loud mouth > South African concrete contractor who thought he knew it all and got his > a.s handed to him when he didn't. Do you remember what my argument against the 300D was? Seems you need to go and read those threads again. C-ya later... Actually, to save you time, let me remind you of what I had to say about the 300D. I think it was over-priced and under-specced COMPARED to the D70. I never said it wasn't capable of producing great images in the right hands. BTW, I am not a "concrete contractor" (whatever that is). I manufacture pre-cast concrete products and retail them to building contractors and other relevant parties. Take another swipe, but before you do, tell us what *you* do for a living? > Yet to this day you persist with your unfounded opinion of that and many > other cameras. So stop dodging the bullet Dallas - you're full of sh.t. > You try to make me look like I'm full of sh.t and it just keeps making you > look worse. Reverse thinking, even at high speed, still makes you look like you're going backwards, Brian. Any opinion I have ever put forward on any group has been based on my experiences actually using the camera/lens in question. Unlike you, I base my opinions on experience. You base yours on heresay and bias, it would seem. And before you go shouting about how much I hate Canon, please read the OP to this thread. Canon make some great products. I just don't like their hyped-up marketing strategies (or their consumer grade equipment). > Like I said, you don't have a f.cking leg to stand on. Admit it and this > will all go away. Unbelievable. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > I've produced evidence numerous times for numerous folks, get with it, > > Dallas. > Incredibly, you haven't. Did you actually *read* Phil Askey's conclusion > on the D2X regarding high ISO (1600 & 3200)? "A check of the detail crop however shows that at ISO 1600 and 3200 we're losing detail to the smoothing effect of noise reduction. A quick scan of the graph below shows that noise levels between these cameras are actually quite similar up to ISO 800 (with or without noise reduction), with noise reduction switched Off the D2X's ISO 1600 noise is marginally higher than that of the EOS 1Ds Mark II." From his conclusion: "Higher noise at ISO 1600 and 3200 than we would hope (with NR off)" From the 20D review: "Very low noise levels even at high sensitivities, fully usable ISO range (100 - 3200)" So what's your fuss, Dallas? > > Additionally, I'm not putting the D2X down. I've said lots of nice things > > about it. But you think you can jump on the Jeremy Nixon "stick up the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the D2X noise!!!????? Can you see any in this output you claim to have > based your esteemed opinion on? Yes, look at the samples, doofus. Compare that to the noise of 1D Mark II, a 20D or a 1DS Mark II. > > Too bad neither you, Stacey or the Polson twins could actually do that. So > > you decided to attack my photographic output instead. f.cking weak. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your photos we can see that if you did know-it-all you might be able to > produce better "output". As I said before, walk the walk, dude. Again, f.cking weak. You can't even discredit my output specifically as it might relate to this. Why? There's no correlation. You're out of ammo. You're at the end of this. > > Also, you're the one who thought you knew everything about the 300D but > > regularly got the specifications wrong when you tried to put it down. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I stand by my lambasting of the 300D as being an over-priced toy camera, > devoid of any redeeming features. Dallas, you're a f.cking moron. Thanks for showing the world what I already know. > >> Who's full of it, Brian? > > > > You're still full of it, Dallas. You're doing a piss poor job of > > convincing me otherwise. > > Puh-leez. This is getting embarrassing for you. Let it go. If it was embarrassing for me, I'd stop. So far you're making yourself look like a bigger tool than you normally are. > > Oh, so when you put down the 300D you had a completely reasonable argument > > behind it? I don't remember it that way at all. I remember a loud mouth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Do you remember what my argument against the 300D was? Seems you need to > go and read those threads again. C-ya later... Oh I did, much more entertaining that I thought they would be: http://groups- beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/d0994538f519bdb6 Sound familiar? http://groups- beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/eb94dd3f12390f55 > > Like I said, you don't have a f.cking leg to stand on. Admit it and this > > will all go away. > > Unbelievable. I'm still waiting for your scathing review of my photos, by the way. I'd like a list of photos, your excellent critique that diminishes my reputation vis a vis technical issues and how you would have done differently. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Incredibly, you haven't. Did you actually *read* Phil Askey's conclusion >> on the D2X regarding high ISO (1600 & 3200)? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reduction switched Off the D2X's ISO 1600 noise is marginally higher than > that of the EOS 1Ds Mark II." Errr...does the word "marginal" have any meaning to you in your little kettle of a world? > From his conclusion: > "Higher noise at ISO 1600 and 3200 than we would hope (with NR off)" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So what's your fuss, Dallas? I think I am dealing with someone who would rather argue until they're blue in the face than admit they are wrong. Dead wrong. >> Where is the NOISE, Brian? Show me the NOISE! N.O.I.S.E. Noise!!!! >> Where's the D2X noise!!!????? Can you see any in this output you claim >> to have based your esteemed opinion on? > > Yes, look at the samples, doofus. Compare that to the noise of 1D Mark > II, a 20D or a 1DS Mark II. I repeat, Brian...show me the "noise". I'm looking at the samples on Dpreview right now and I'm thinking that the D2x actually looks better at high ISO than the 1Ds does. In fact, the D2x looks better at everything than the 1Ds does. If only it had a full frame sensor... but then again, I'd rather spend the extra $3000 on an F6 which is full frame and a years supply of film, along with a film scanner. Your criticism of the D2x at high ISO is complete fabrication based on personal bias. >> Your lack of talent goes hand in hand with your lack of evidence >> regarding the NOISE of the D2X. You come across as this know-it-all, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it might relate to this. Why? There's no correlation. You're out of > ammo. You're at the end of this. Look closer, buddy-boy. That's your torso lying lying on the pavement about six posts back. >> I stand by my lambasting of the 300D as being an over-priced toy >> camera, devoid of any redeeming features. > > Dallas, you're a f.cking moron. Thanks for showing the world what I > already know. Only a pleasure, Brian. > If it was embarrassing for me, I'd stop. So far you're making yourself > look like a bigger tool than you normally are. No...you're just being thick-skinned. > Oh I did, much more entertaining that I thought they would be: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://groups- > beta.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/eb94dd3f12390f55 Links don't work, even when pasted in. > I'm still waiting for your scathing review of my photos, by the way. I'd > like a list of photos, your excellent critique that diminishes my > reputation vis a vis technical issues and how you would have done > differently. Okay, seeing as you took the time to gather your "ammo", here's one to begin with: http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/image/31748588 This images suffers from a lack of contrast and any real meaningfulness. Are you trying to show us the texture of the leaves or is the image about the water droplets on them? Either way it fails to obtain my attention. How would I have shot it differently? For starters I would have gotten a lot closer to an individual leaf and tried to emphasize the contrast between the leaf and the water on it. Perhaps shooting with a flash off camera would have done the trick, but I would have preferred a tonal variation that looks something like this: http://www.dallasdahms.com/Photos/baird.jpg I'm not big on flowers and fauna, but sometimes they're all there is to shoot. Here's one I did a few weeks back: http://www.dallasdahms.com/Photos/flower.jpg This was shot on the D70 with an Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 lens. It's hand held at 1/20, aperture f/4.5. I can't seem to find the ISO value in the EXIF, but I would imagine it was around 400 or 800 as this is taken indoors. The objective of this image is to show the softness of the petals and how the background colour compliments, but doesn't overpower the flower. Your sunflower shot against the sky is okay, but again, I would have gotten closer and I would have tried to frame the sky with the flowers, not just have them running away at 45 degrees. But then there would have to be something about the sky worth showing in a frame... SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > Okay, seeing as you took the time to gather your "ammo", here's one to > begin with: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are you trying to show us the texture of the leaves or is the image about > the water droplets on them? Either way it fails to obtain my attention. Actually, I was just trying to show the pretty effect the raindrops had one the leaves. If it fails to retain your attention, great. > How would I have shot it differently? For starters I would have gotten a > lot closer to an individual leaf and tried to emphasize the contrast > between the leaf and the water on it. Perhaps shooting with a flash off > camera would have done the trick, but I would have preferred a tonal > variation that looks something like this: Flash would have ruined the effect. I had framed the shot differently and snapped some pictures. I ended up choosing the one I liked best. > http://www.dallasdahms.com/Photos/baird.jpg Thanks for ruining the photo! There's a very specific reason I didn't boost the contrast - I didn't want the leaves to have a harsh effect. To me the photo says "soft, rainy day" not "evil contrast nightmare!" > I'm not big on flowers and fauna, but sometimes they're all there is to > shoot. Here's one I did a few weeks back: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > EXIF, but I would imagine it was around 400 or 800 as this is taken > indoors. Did you do anything special for lighting? I like the gradation across the back of the frame. Minor niggle: the line at the bottom and the angle on the vase aren't that complimentary to the final photo. The composition is otherwise great. In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? No, no... that's too strong a word. "Unchanged?" Yes, that works. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > If it fails to retain your attention, great. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks for ruining the photo! You ask for a critique and then argue? > There's a very specific reason I didn't boost the contrast - I didn't > want the leaves to have a harsh effect. To me the photo says "soft, > rainy day" not "evil contrast nightmare!" Your image is just plain boring, that "sepia look" doesn't convey soft rainy day at all. Looks great for a cowboy picture or an old barn! > In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? No, no... > that's too strong a word. "Unchanged?" Yes, that works. Translation, I'm to stuborn to even improve beyond mediocre. SignatureStacey > > Thanks for ruining the photo! > > You ask for a critique and then argue? Yeah, when the "fix" is boosting the contrast to the point of ruining the photo! Also, criticism is a two way street. You criticize, I defend, etc... > > There's a very specific reason I didn't boost the contrast - I didn't > > want the leaves to have a harsh effect. To me the photo says "soft, > > rainy day" not "evil contrast nightmare!" > > Your image is just plain boring, that "sepia look" doesn't convey soft rainy > day at all. Looks great for a cowboy picture or an old barn! That's f.cking funny given your previous comments... > > In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? No, no... > > that's too strong a word. "Unchanged?" Yes, that works. > Translation, I'm to stuborn to even improve beyond mediocre. No, you guys really suck. I mean, I was expecting you to tell me things I haven't already THOUGHT of (and you kind of did, I never expected anyone to be so stupid and boost the contrast on that photo so much) but you really didn't do much beyond telling me what I already know. You've hardly exposed me as an utter hack that should never talk about cameras - which was the original implication of your statements. f.cking lame, I'm really disappointed in you. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > No, you guys really suck. I mean, I was expecting you to tell me things I > haven't already THOUGHT of (and you kind of did, I never expected anyone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cameras - which was the original implication of your statements. f.cking > lame, I'm really disappointed in you. Do you imbibe large amounts of alcohol before making these ridiculous posts? SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >> > In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? No, >> > no... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anyone to be so stupid and boost the contrast on that photo so much) but > you really didn't do much beyond telling me what I already know. Then why didn't you use this when shooting these? Or pull these bad ones and put up your newer shots that ARE good if you actually have them? Again why would anyone create a web site and post their worst examples and save their good ones for themselves? And did you ever consider MAYBE the problem with the contrast on some of your images is your monitor isn't calibrated right? The image he posted looks MUCH better than the one you have on your site but he did go a little too far on the contrast. Nah screw trying to learn something, you're ALWAYS right! SignatureStacey > And did you ever consider MAYBE the problem with the contrast on some of > your images is your monitor isn't calibrated right? The image he posted > looks MUCH better than the one you have on your site but he did go a > little too far on the contrast. I actually didn't even touch the contrast settings in PS. All I did was use the curves tool and sampled what I would have thought were black, white and neutral grey areas of the image using the eye-dropper tool. The result is what PS dumped out. Still looks better than the one Brian put up. He's just too much of a "pussy" to admit as much. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > Still looks better than the one Brian put > up. He's just too much of a "pussy" to admit as much. Your method boosted the contrast, like it or not. And you ruined the shot. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Actually, I was just trying to show the pretty effect the raindrops had > one the leaves. > > If it fails to retain your attention, great. If that's what you wanted to do then you should have left it in colour and maybe gone for a soft focus effect (filter or PS). > Flash would have ruined the effect. I had framed the shot differently and > snapped some pictures. I ended up choosing the one I liked best. Not if you do it right! If you have a 550EX you can use flash compensation, or try using it in manual mode. Use diffusers too. What you present on PBase is a shot that IMO is too flat and devoid of any real meaning. >> http://www.dallasdahms.com/Photos/baird.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the leaves to have a harsh effect. To me the photo says "soft, rainy day" > not "evil contrast nightmare!" Diff'rent strokes, I guess. I think the increased contrast makes it more interesting. > Did you do anything special for lighting? I like the gradation across the > back of the frame. No, it was available light. The graduation is the shadow of one side of the wall unit it was in. > Minor niggle: the line at the bottom and the angle on the vase aren't that > complimentary to the final photo. The composition is otherwise great. More of the wall-unit. I could crop that away. > In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? No, no... > that's too strong a word. "Unchanged?" Yes, that works. "Withering"? SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > > In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? No, no... > > that's too strong a word. "Unchanged?" Yes, that works. > > "Withering"? Exactly my point! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > > In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? No, no... > > > that's too strong a word. "Unchanged?" Yes, that works. > > > > "Withering"? > > Exactly my point! You have no point, just a lot of hostility. Enjoy your life, I'm sure you have lots of friends and must be the life of whatever parties you get invited to. > You have no point, just a lot of hostility. Enjoy your life, I'm sure > you have lots of friends and must be the life of whatever parties you > get invited to. Hostility over the internet... now there's a new idea. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >>>> In any case, your "withering" criticism has left me... bored? >>>> No, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you > get invited to. All together now: "Pro JEC shun" > How would I have shot it differently? For starters I would have gotten a > lot closer to an individual leaf and tried to emphasize the contrast [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.dallasdahms.com/Photos/baird.jpg Works for me and gets rid of that cheesy sepia look as well. > I'm not big on flowers and fauna, but sometimes they're all there is to > shoot. Here's one I did a few weeks back: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The objective of this image is to show the softness of the petals and how > the background colour compliments, but doesn't overpower the flower. You did what you intended, nice. > Your sunflower shot against the sky is okay, but again, I would have > gotten closer and I would have tried to frame the sky with the flowers, > not just have them running away at 45 degrees. And not shot it at F22, I have no idea why he did that for that shot as it kills any chance of the sunflowers being sharp. SignatureStacey > > Your sunflower shot against the sky is okay, but again, I would have > > gotten closer and I would have tried to frame the sky with the flowers, > > not just have them running away at 45 degrees. > > And not shot it at F22, I have no idea why he did that for that shot as it > kills any chance of the sunflowers being sharp. They're daisies. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > > Your sunflower shot against the sky is okay, but again, I would have > > > gotten closer and I would have tried to frame the sky with the flowers, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They're daisies. I dont think Ive ever seen quite so much disscussion linked to a camera that doesnt exsits yet. I think we all need to get a grip! People are talking about sh.t canning lenses already, as if they wouldnt function on the cameras they have once (IF) the 5D comes around. If the 5D actually happens, I might be interested in getting together enough bucks to get one, but I wont be throwing out anything I have that has already earned me money. Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >> I guess the difference is I don't have an axe to grind. Even Mr. Nixon >> (who had the beef with my statement, remember) admitted the main point of >> my critique - namely the D2X output isn't that great over ISO 800. > > I never saw that admission, but I'll have another look for it. The "admission" was that the D2x doesn't even really *go* over ISO 800. The "HI-1" and "HI-2" modes are digitally pushed. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> By your own admission you have never used a D2X but you have formed a >> very biased opinion of it based on its output. Where do you see this >> output? On PBase? > > Looking at NOISE output versus CREATIVE output are two different things, > Dallas. If you were smart, you'd realize this. If your images are an example of overall image quality a canon can proiduce, I'll pass. You guys fail to understand there is more to image quality than noise at ISO800 and up. > I guess the difference is I don't have an axe to grind. LOL. SignatureStacey > Looking at your output on Pbase I'm surprised at half the things you say > here. You have no room to comment. Ouch... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction > and detail preservation. You know the noise reduction is optional, right? > Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the D2X's high ISO performance leaves > a lot to be desired. At 1600+, maybe. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Then you must not be as picky as I am when it comes to noise reduction > > and detail preservation. > > You know the noise reduction is optional, right? It ALWAYS applies some measure above ISO 400. You have the option of turning it up to "soul destroying" if you like. > > Compared to any of the Canon dSLRs, the D2X's high ISO performance leaves > > a lot to be desired. > > At 1600+, maybe. I'm sure if you process the images side by side with a 1Ds Mark II in ACR you'll see the differences. The D2X is by no means a bad camera, but its high ISO performance, especially when compared to rest of the Nikon line, bites it. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> You know the noise reduction is optional, right? > > It ALWAYS applies some measure above ISO 400. You have the option of > turning it up to "soul destroying" if you like. What liar told you that? > I'm sure if you process the images side by side with a 1Ds Mark II in > ACR you'll see the differences. The D2X is by no means a bad camera, > but its high ISO performance, especially when compared to rest of the > Nikon line, bites it. You've already indicated that (a) you've never used the camera, and (b) you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of its "noise reduction". How can you possibly think that you can make such a statement and have it mean anything? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >You've already indicated that (a) you've never used the camera, and (b) >you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of its "noise reduction". >How can you possibly think that you can make such a statement and have it >mean anything? Because he is a Canon shill, and the truth is of absolutely no importance to him. > >You've already indicated that (a) you've never used the camera, and (b) > >you have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of its "noise reduction". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because he is a Canon shill, and the truth is of absolutely no > importance to him. Go Polson yourself, Polson. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > It ALWAYS applies some measure above ISO 400. You have the option of > > turning it up to "soul destroying" if you like. > > What liar told you that? Nikon. Noise reduction is automatically turned on for ISO 800 and 1600. You can turn it up a notch, but the only way to remove it entirely requires using a RAW converter that doesn't automatically apply luminance smoothing. > > I'm sure if you process the images side by side with a 1Ds Mark II in > > ACR you'll see the differences. The D2X is by no means a bad camera, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How can you possibly think that you can make such a statement and have it > mean anything? I read the f.cking spec sheet, numerous reviews and user comments and I have no understanding of how it works? Christ you're dense. It don't need to use the camera to understand that A: I don't like it's high ISO output or luminance smoothing method or noise reduction or B: How the noise reduction works when it is clearly stated by Nikon, many Nikon users and just about every reviewer. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Nikon. > > Noise reduction is automatically turned on for ISO 800 and 1600. You > can turn it up a notch, but the only way to remove it entirely requires > using a RAW converter that doesn't automatically apply luminance > smoothing. That's funny, because Nikon told me something entirely different, in the manual. Noise reduction is automatically turned on for ISO 1600 and 3200, which are the "HI-1" and "HI-2" modes that aren't "real" analog gain ISO settings. The noise reduction has three settings at ISO 400-800, "off", "normal", and "high"; at 1600 and 3200, "off" becomes "normal". In addition, the noise reduction is applied to the JPEG conversion, *not* to the RAW file; if you enable noise reduction while shooting RAW, the file is tagged, and the noise reduction is performed by Nikon's conversion software. This means that if you shoot RAW and use a third-party converter like Adobe Camera Raw, the noise reduction is in fact *unavailable*, which is a bit different from being mandatory. Yes, that means you don't get it at 1600 or 3200 either, when not using Nikon's conversion software or shooting in-camera JPEGs. Pick up a D2x and take three shots at ISO 800, one at each of the noise reduction settings, and load them up with Adobe Camera Raw. I see no difference in either noise or detail among the three shots. It simply has no effect on the RAW files, which is as it should be. There is noise, of course. ACR makes quick work of the chroma noise, and the remaining luminance noise is not all that bad. > I read the f.cking spec sheet, numerous reviews and user comments and I > have no understanding of how it works? No, you don't. However, I seem to have discovered that this is not all that hard to understand. > Christ you're dense. It don't need to use the camera to understand that > A: I don't like it's high ISO output or luminance smoothing method or > noise reduction or B: How the noise reduction works when it is clearly > stated by Nikon, many Nikon users and just about every reviewer. Just about all of the reviews were written soon after the camera's release. The reviewers were using Nikon's conversion software (which was all that was available at the time). Hence the confusion. I did a search, and also found one that indeed said that the noise reduction is automatically applied at ISO 400, which as I said is entirely incorrect, so I apologize for my harsh reaction to the misunderstanding, since clearly the erroneous information is out there waiting to be believed. There also seem to be precious few reviewers who realized that the noise reduction is not applied to the RAW files, which says something about the typical reviewer's habit of either shooting JPEGs or using only Nikon's conversion software. And, of course, given Nikon's attitude toward third-party RAW converters, their information is going to be based upon either a JPEG-shooting workflow, or one using their own software, and leave out such important details. This is quite unfortunate, since it obviously results in some serious misunderstandings of the camera. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > No, you don't. However, I seem to have discovered that this is not all > that hard to understand. I was wrong on one point only - noise reduction is mandatory on JPEGs shot at ISO 1600 & 3200, not 800 and 1600. And noise reduction is "On" by default. That means some amount of it is applied during in-camera JPEG processing at ISOs above 400 unless you specify "off", in which case it isn't applied until 1600 and 3200. That's a really ridiculous way to handle noise reduction in my opinion. In any case, the D2X has some of the highest noise levels of any pro DSLR currently on the market. Sure, you can bring those noise levels down, but at the expense of detail. It's a fine camera, and I don't want to detract from it's otherwise strong qualities. Considering the pixel pitch Nikon used, it's amazing the noise isn't worse. Now was this worth all your huffing and puffing, Mr. Jeremy "Quick to Jump the Gun" Nixon? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > I was wrong on one point only - noise reduction is mandatory on JPEGs > shot at ISO 1600 & 3200, not 800 and 1600. Well, no, you also said that it was mandatory, which it's not, unless you shoot JPEGs. > In any case, the D2X has some of the highest noise levels of any pro > DSLR currently on the market. The others must have none at all, then. And how would you actually know, since you don't seem to have actually seen any examples of it without the noise reduction? People go on and on about the "noise issue" with the D2x. There just flat-out is no such problem with it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com I wrote: >> I was wrong on one point only - noise reduction is mandatory on JPEGs >> shot at ISO 1600 & 3200, not 800 and 1600. > > Well, no, you also said that it was mandatory, which it's not, unless you > shoot JPEGs. Come to think of it, you also said that it started being mandatory at 400, not 800. Or perhaps you meant "above 400", not realizing that 800 isn't the next higher setting from 400? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Well, no, you also said that it was mandatory, which it's not, unless you > > shoot JPEGs. > > Come to think of it, you also said that it started being mandatory at 400, > not 800. Or perhaps you meant "above 400", not realizing that 800 isn't > the next higher setting from 400? You're getting more confused than you were before. Give it up. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > You're getting more confused than you were before. Give it up. Please. If someone posted something that incorrect about anything that says "Canon" on it, you'd be all over it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > You're getting more confused than you were before. Give it up. > > Please. If someone posted something that incorrect about anything that > says "Canon" on it, you'd be all over it. That really isn't the case at all, and stop playing the "Brian is a Canon freak and hates everything else." Seriously, it's annoying and inaccurate. The only thing I hate is Stacey... Ok, I hate Polson too. I'll concede the E-300 probably takes fine pictures, even if 4/3rds is a dead end. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > I was wrong on one point only - noise reduction is mandatory on JPEGs > > shot at ISO 1600 & 3200, not 800 and 1600. > > Well, no, you also said that it was mandatory, which it's not, unless you > shoot JPEGs. I think it's pretty much implied that RAW conversion ignores in-camera processing in every case. > > In any case, the D2X has some of the highest noise levels of any pro > > DSLR currently on the market. > > The others must have none at all, then. I don't think I ever said that or implied that. But since you seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth, whatever. > And how would you actually know, since you don't seem to have actually > seen any examples of it without the noise reduction? I've seen examples with and without noise reduction. Quite a few were posted on the dpreview forums right after release. > People go on and on about the "noise issue" with the D2x. There just > flat-out is no such problem with it. www.dpreview.com You can also search pBase and find plenty of examples there. I'm not saying it's totally awful, but it isn't in the league of other pro DSLRs. Since high ISO shooting is a big advantage in the digital world, I'd expect a lot out of expensive cameras in terms of noise performance. I like how you snip my compliments about the camera and then continue on your diatribe. Do you not get enough attention in the real world, Mr. Nixon? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Well, no, you also said that it was mandatory, which it's not, unless you >> shoot JPEGs. > > I think it's pretty much implied that RAW conversion ignores in-camera > processing in every case. Well, you're going on about detail-destroying noise reduction as if it actually matters. Who's going to buy a D2x and then shoot JPEGs? If you shoot RAW, it's not mandatory; you can even disable it in Nikon Capture's conversion, apparently. >>> In any case, the D2X has some of the highest noise levels of any pro >>> DSLR currently on the market. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think I ever said that or implied that. But since you seem to > enjoy putting words in my mouth, whatever. If the results I'm getting are "some of the highest noise levels of any pro DSLR", then noise is not even a factor any more for any pro SLRs at all. I shoot a lot hand-held at night, so lo |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message