 |
 | 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 / November 2005My hands on D200 experience (longish)
Well yesterday I go to the local mall to see about getting a battery for my Gossen Lunasix meter and what do I see on my way down the escalator? A big-a.s Nikon demonstration going on outside the supermarket! What do they have there? Just about every current DSLR and top end lens Nikon makes!!! At first I thought I was dreaming. No one told me about this? What were these fools doing there? Have I had one too many visits to the Nikon website? No, it was there, real as daylight...The Nikon Roadshow! At my local supermarket! Anyway, I walk right up to the display and the first lens I see is the one I have been dreaming about for weeks...the 200-400mm f/4 VR AF-S. DAMN! That is a BIG lens! Attached to the end of it on a huge Manfrotto tripod was a D2X, loaded and ready to shoot. "Go ahead," says the man behind me. "Shoot it and see". Without needing a second invitation I dived right in. It was amazing. So we get to talking and I ask him if he can shed any light on the arrival of the D200. "Oh? We have one here," he says. "Get outta here" I say. He doesn't. Sitting at one of the display tables is a young man holding the D200. He hands it over to me, together with the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens. I shudder. This camera is already getting to me! It's a pre-production demo model, but I am assured there is nothing different from the one that will hit the shelves next month. The first thing that strikes you about it is the build quality. It is right up there with the D2X. Solid, solid, solid! It has the same rubber grips and seals that you will find on the F5 or other cameras of that ilk. Everything is sealed off and the monitor on the back is a lot bigger than the D70. I take aim and point the camera at a man coming from the same direction I just came from. THUK-THUK-THUK-THUK-THUK!!! Holy goat sh.t! Was that the D200? You betcha. I wasn't expecting that kind of speed, but immediately on the LCD was the last of the shots I had just taken and it was pin sharp! Zoom right in on the detail to make sure. Overlay the colour histograms or EXIF data. Bang on. Unbelievable. Folks, enough of the hype talk. If you can live without a full frame sensor and you invest in DX lenses for w/a, this little camera is going to make you extremely happy. For the price you are getting what can only be considered a work of art. It makes the 5D and the 20D look positively "amateur" in comparison. Obviously I can't speak for the image quality yet, but I will be going back there later today and I am going to ask them if I can put my CF card in and take some shots in RAW to analyse at home. If they give me permission I will try shooting it at the highest ISO (1600 & 3200) as well as a few others. I will check the images out over the weekend and report back here on Monday with some links for you - that is if I am successful in getting permission. My recent status as a journalist in the local photo mags seems to be standing me in good stead so I think this might just happen. Believe it or not but Epson are sending me an R- D1 to evaluate based on the strength of my Leica website and recent articles! Other things I saw at the display that were amazing are the 200mm f/2. It looks like a bloody grenade launcher! I got to fiddle with the D2Hs (which I think is doomed now) and the 400mm f/2.8. They had the 10.2mm DX and 12-24mm DX. The latter actually gives a pretty wide F.O.V. on the D200. Anyway, lets see if I can get the inside scoop on the image quality of this camera.  SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer > Folks, enough of the hype talk. If you can live without a full frame > sensor and you invest in DX lenses for w/a, this little camera is going > to make you extremely happy. For the price you are getting what can only > be considered a work of art. It makes the 5D and the 20D look positively > "amateur" in comparison. I'm very glad to hear that - even though I use Canon gear. Why am I glad to hear it? Because competition is always good for the consumer... this just gives Canon a reason to improve their cameras and offer them at lower prices. I still win. What a wonderful feeling. steve >> Folks, enough of the hype talk. If you can live without a full frame >> sensor and you invest in DX lenses for w/a, this little camera is going [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >just gives Canon a reason to improve their cameras and offer them at lower >prices. I still win. What a wonderful feeling. Absolutely correct! Too bad others let their particular choice of brand name get in the way of seeing reality. The *last* thing we need in the camera manufacturing business is a "one size fits all, or else" monopoly a la what MicroSoft has done to the computer world. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>Folks, enough of the hype talk. If you can live without a full frame >>sensor and you invest in DX lenses for w/a, this little camera is going [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > steve I agree. I have a Digital Rebel bought 2 years ago and I'm waitining to see what will replace the 20D to put my L lenses on it. > > Folks, enough of the hype talk. If you can live without a full frame > > sensor and you invest in DX lenses for w/a, this little camera is going [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just gives Canon a reason to improve their cameras and offer them at lower > prices. I still win. What a wonderful feeling. Yeah, I've been feeling that way about Canon announcements for a while now :-). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > Folks, enough of the hype talk. If you can live without a full frame > > sensor and you invest in DX lenses for w/a, this little camera is going [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > steve I am hoping you are right here as I have a lot in Canon glass but I really do not like the feel of the 20D or anything under it the feel of I hope Canon takes this into account and keeps it under 2 grand. I think this has a lot to do with how many of us have used older film cameras with bright veiwfinders, solid build, good balance, easy grip, etc. we all tend to think about the bodies and not the glass or the photo. > Well yesterday I go to the local mall to see about getting a battery for > my Gossen Lunasix meter and what do I see on my way down the escalator? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Anyway, lets see if I can get the inside scoop on the image quality of > this camera. The real trick will be getting an image - ANY IMAGE from a D200 to take home and play with. The Guys here in AU who have held the camera (both of them) were forbidden from recording any images. With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor will restrict the contrast range unless they have done something like they've done with the D2X and used what amounts to 2 different sensors tied together to spread the range... (Different size photo collectors). My experience with Panasonic Lumix cameras is all positive for CCD right up to when the highlights can't be found! In the meant time whilst back on the range... We all wait with frothing mouths for the arrival of this princess. :-) Being as I am, a devoted fan of Nikon and Canon and Olympus and Panasonic and Mamiya and Toyo... I can hardly control my bladder! SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >> Well yesterday I go to the local mall to see about getting a battery >> for my Gossen Lunasix meter and what do I see on my way down the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > take home and play with. The Guys here in AU who have held the camera > (both of them) were forbidden from recording any images. They MIGHT be working out kinks, but I think the restriction is just smart business on Nikon's part. When they release images, they need to be sure they are shot by competent people, and in a way that reflects the camera's BEST. A good example of how NOT to do it was Canon's initial release of images from the 5D. They were poorly shot and poorly selected...and they caused unnecessary negative speculation. Nikon would be STUPID to let some shmo who handles their camera take shots that could then become "representative" of the camera...even though they might suck. > >> Well yesterday I go to the local mall to see about getting a battery > >> for my Gossen Lunasix meter and what do I see on my way down the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that could then become "representative" of the camera...even though they > might suck. Uhh, I don't think so. Regardless of what you or Nikon or Canon might think, if the camera is capable, it should render properly in the hands of anyone who knows how to use an SLR. We can quite easily see if an image is out of focus, under or over exposed and that we can put down to operator error. What we are looking for here is the responsiveness of the sensor. How does the colour look? Noise? Sharpness? Those things have little to do with the operator other than the parameters he/she selects. If the parameters selected show up the flaws of the camera then that can't be blamed on the photographer. I think you are referring to the pictures taken by Phil Askey when the 5D came out and our initial reaction was not so much shock at the banality of the images, but of the distinct lack of dynamic range they appeared to have when a high contrast scene was shot. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer > The real trick will be getting an image - ANY IMAGE from a D200 to take > home and play with. The Guys here in AU who have held the camera (both > of them) were forbidden from recording any images. They let me shoot with it and I saw what was on the camera LCD, but obviously the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Maybe if I do the old "switcheroo" trick with the CF cards they might not notice. I could get my son to sprint off with the 200-400mm. That might distract them enough to give me the time I need to do the deed! The guy who was doing the demo had a huge A0 (I think that's the size) print on display which he claimed was taken with the D200 and post- processed. Looked pretty good, but to my eye it also looked distinctly digital. > With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of > images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Being as I am, a devoted fan of Nikon and Canon and Olympus and > Panasonic and Mamiya and Toyo... I can hardly control my bladder! According to this guy if you don't have an order in already, you can forget about getting it this year. SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer >With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of >images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor >will restrict the contrast range unless they have done something like >they've done with the D2X and used what amounts to 2 different sensors >tied together to spread the range... (Different size photo collectors). Can anyone besides Douglas verify this? I've only heard it from him, and well, you how much credibity he has here ... I'm fairly certain that I have examined some D2X raw files in the past, and all the RAW data was within a stop for every position in the Bayer matrix in any given area, suggesting that he is probably incorrect (you'd expect a deep difference in every other green pixel, or something like that). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > >With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of > >images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > given area, suggesting that he is probably incorrect (you'd expect a > deep difference in every other green pixel, or something like that). And the description sounds like the Fuji S3, not any Nikon product I know about. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems JPS@no.komm wrote: >>With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of >>images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor >>will restrict the contrast range unless they have done something like >>they've done with the D2X and used what amounts to 2 different sensors >>tied together to spread the range... (Different size photo collectors). > Can anyone besides Douglas verify this? I've only heard it from him, > and well, you how much credibity he has here ... The dual-size photo sesor trick is Fuji, not Nikon. The D2x has a standard Bayer matrix. > I'm fairly certain that I have examined some D2X raw files in the > past, and all the RAW data was within a stop for every position in > the Bayer matrix in any given area, Right. Andrew. >>With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of >>images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > given area, suggesting that he is probably incorrect (you'd expect a > deep difference in every other green pixel, or something like that). You know John... You are a total f.cking dork. Your information is sometimes factual and often misleading, sometimes highly inaccurate and downright deceptive and other times displays you might have a clue about photography but you've never demonstrated that to be true. You post insults whenever it suits you and for some reason, seem to think I don't know about anything about the cameras I own ...and you have the gall to say I have no credibility because you can't be bothered doing your own research... Well go f.ck yourself arsehole. The sensor used in the D2X is the same Sony sensor used in the S3 Pro Fuji. Go do your own research. Better still. Put your money where your mouth is and buy one like I did. Then you might be in position to dispute what I say. Otherwise you are just a bloody troll, spewing out crap to suit your stand on the topic that day. Next time you post a 1600 ISO image trying to discredit my claims they are crap... Make sure it's in the same low light situation as my flawed images or when you later post a message about how much noise ISO 1600 images have in the shadows, I'll drag up all the other inconsistencies in your post over the past year and see just how much credibility you can claim from your contradictions. Get off my case arsehole. SignatureDouglas... "Douglas..." <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4374fdf3 > You know John... You are a total f.cking dork. > Get off my case arsehole. > Douglas... Douglas, When I first joined this group I really appreciated and respected your input. Unfortunately, of recent, nearly everything I read from you is either sarcastic, abusive, antagonistic, or appears biased to the point of being completely lacking in credibility. You also seem to lack the ability to admit when you're wrong - I'm still waiting for an apology for the way you attacked me when you incorrectly attributed someone elses post to me. I'm not sure what the problem is - it sounds like you're a bit stressed out. I'm hoping that you might like to accept this in the constructive manner in which I intend it, and have a bit of a rethink. Kindest regards, Douglas, For a seemingly intelligent person you must have the thinest skin of any person that I know. Chill man. >>>With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of images >>>from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor will [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > over the past year and see just how much credibility you can claim from > your contradictions. Get off my case arsehole. >>>With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of >>>images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > might have a clue about photography but you've never demonstrated that > to be true. On the whole, I've found John's information to be highly reliable... much more so than yours, unfortunately. As in this case. In fact, that last paragraph I find to be more applicable to you. > You post insults whenever it suits you and for some reason, seem to > think I don't know about anything about the cameras I own ...and you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The sensor used in the D2X is the same Sony sensor used in the S3 Pro > Fuji. Go do your own research. I just did the research. The D2X is using a CMOS-based 12.8 MP sensor with an absolutely standard rectangular pixel layout: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD2X/Images/ccd-d2x-1mmx1mm.gif The S3 Pro is using heaxagonal pixels on a *CCD*-based system. It's not even the same material! http://www.dpreview.com/news/0402/04020503fujifilms3pro.asp I hunted around on Google for a bit just to see if DPReview completely missed the boat, and found no references to the D2X using the Fuji sensor. Since the Fuji SuperCCD is a fairly unusual technology, I'd expect to to be widely noted if it were present in the D2X. The difference between John and yourself is that when he has a claim that is under dispute, he actually posts some evidence -- generally fairly compelling evidence. > Next time you post a 1600 ISO image trying to discredit my claims they > are crap... Make sure it's in the same low light situation as my flawed > images or when you later post a message about how much noise ISO 1600 > images have in the shadows, I'll drag up all the other inconsistencies > in your post over the past year and see just how much credibility you > can claim from your contradictions. Get off my case arsehole. Which you'll doubtless manage by completely mangling to context of each and every situation. As you do here. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > > You know John... You are a total f.cking dork. > > Your information is sometimes factual and often misleading, sometimes [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > that is under dispute, he actually posts some evidence -- generally > fairly compelling evidence. The two things that I wonder are: Does anybody believe any of the crap that Douglas spews? When is he going to stop spewing his crap on the Internet? Greg >>>With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of >>>images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD sensor [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >dispute what I say. Otherwise you are just a bloody troll, spewing out >crap to suit your stand on the topic that day. The fuji uses a CCD with two distinct sensors per photosite that function like a 6 meg sensor. The nikon uses a CMOS sensor with 12m square pixels. How do you figure they are the same, and both Sony? Neither is a Sony HAD sensor. -Rich >>> With all the hype about this camera, there is a mysterious lack of >>> images from it. If my guess is anywhere near the truth, the CCD [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > dispute what I say. Otherwise you are just a bloody troll, spewing out > crap to suit your stand on the topic that day. Wrong, Douglas!!! It uses CMOS! -Not a CCD of ANY brand name! Sheesh. You really stuck your foot in it this time... > Wrong, Douglas!!! > It uses CMOS! > -Not a CCD of ANY brand name! > Sheesh. You really stuck your foot in it this time... It's a Sony sensor with dual photo receptors. Get it right too Mark. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >> Wrong, Douglas!!! >> It uses CMOS! >> -Not a CCD of ANY brand name! >> Sheesh. You really stuck your foot in it this time... >> > It's a Sony sensor with dual photo receptors. Get it right too Mark. Your pride is making a fool of you. > It's a Sony sensor with dual photo receptors. Get it right too Mark. It is not. You have no idea what you're talking about. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >The sensor used in the D2X is the same Sony sensor used in the S3 Pro >Fuji. Complete and utter nonsense. According to the PopPhoto & Imaging magazine (Dec, 2005) the D2X does have a Sony-manufactured sensor, but it's a CMOS sensor, as opposed to the S3 Pro's CCD, not sure who the manufacturer is... In any case, even they were both Sony, they're obviously not the same. That's a fact... >>The sensor used in the D2X is the same Sony sensor used in the S3 Pro >>Fuji. > > Complete and utter nonsense. >According to the PopPhoto & Imaging magazine (Dec, 2005) the D2X does have a >Sony-manufactured sensor, but it's a CMOS sensor, as opposed to the S3 Pro's >CCD, not sure who the manufacturer is... In any case, even they were both >Sony, they're obviously not the same. That's a fact... The S3 Pro has a Fujifilm made "SuperCCD SR II" sensor. If I remember right that is the 4th generation of that technology from Fujifilm. Obviously it is in almost no way similar to the CMOS sensor in the Nikon D2x. >>>The sensor used in the D2X is the same Sony sensor used in the S3 Pro >>>Fuji. >> >> Complete and utter nonsense. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >According to the PopPhoto & Imaging magazine (Dec, 2005) the D2X does have a >Sony-manufactured sensor, but it's a CMOS sensor, as opposed to the S3 Pro's >CCD, not sure who the manufacturer is... In any case, even they were both >Sony, they're obviously not the same. That's a fact... The Nikon D2X has a 12.6 million pixel CMOS sensor with the pixels arranged in the conventional Bayer pattern. The Fuji FinePix Pro S3 has a 6 million pixel Super CCD sensor with twin receptors per pixels in a completely different pattern that is unique to Fuji. The two technologies are completely different. Of course, to a profoundly ignorant dumbass Aussie who makes a living by peddling the illusion that a 4 x 6 inch print can be scanned and enlarged to any size you like while gaining quality it never had, the differences between Nikon's 12 MP CMOS and Fuji's 6 MP Super CCD sensors must seem like mere minor details. ;-) Tony Polson wrote: > Of course, to a profoundly ignorant dumbass Aussie who makes a living > by peddling the illusion that a 4 x 6 inch print can be scanned and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ;-) And this from a total loser who claims to be a published Photographer but oddly the publication he claims to have a cover shot on doesn't know anything about him. Yes, I have a list of photographers who submitted photos for the cover and you are not their Polson... Interesting load of bullshit you came out with there. When are you going to post a photograph you actually took? Never, eh? Regularly - as in every day, several times a day, I enlarge pictures from 6x4" photographs (as opposed to digital prints) to 16"x 24" and larger. Printing them on canvas for very satisfied customers all over the world. Of course pictures like your "train" (ROTFL) photo are exempt from that process due to poor quality. http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/images/example1.jpg for anyone interested in the proof. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. > Tony Polson wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/images/example1.jpg for anyone interested > in the proof. That's such cornball sh.t I'm glad you have customers. Greg >>Tony Polson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Greg What's your problem Greg? No memorable instances of unrepeatable events you want to preserve? Perhaps you are referring to the quality of the photograph taken by my customer just before his wife and son left the country? Sadly he wouldn't know an EV from an F stop but he knew enough to buy a camera and take some pictures when he couldn't find a fuckwit like you who knows everything about photography ...to take it for him. Don't tell me you are in the Polson camp and willing to say I didn't use the 6"x4" picture shown under the canvas print to make the 20" high print on canvas? Then I'd get pretty pissed that you called me a liar and we wouldn't want that, now would we? So tell us Greg... What actually is your problem? Perhaps it's jealousy? Maybe it's the lack of free time on the dorm's computer? How old are you Greg? Whatever your age, isn't it about time you grew up? SignatureDouglas... >>> http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/images/example1.jpg for anyone interested >>> in the proof. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > What's your problem Greg? Your cornball presentation of such a cornball product. > No memorable instances of unrepeatable events you want to preserve? Plenty. I get prints made or I print my own. If anything happens to them I print them again. > Perhaps you are referring to the quality of the photograph taken by my > customer just before his wife and son left the country? Sadly he > wouldn't know an EV from an F stop but he knew enough to buy a camera > and take some pictures when he couldn't find a fuckwit like you who > knows everything about photography ...to take it for him. No, it's a sweet photo. > Don't tell me you are in the Polson camp and willing to say I didn't use > the 6"x4" picture shown under the canvas print to make the 20" high > print on canvas? Then I'd get pretty pissed that you called me a liar > and we wouldn't want that, now would we? Yeah, you sure have me fooled. > So tell us Greg... What actually is your problem? Perhaps it's jealousy? > Maybe it's the lack of free time on the dorm's computer? How old are you > Greg? Whatever your age, isn't it about time you grew up? I'm only 7 and clearly have more brains than you. Greg >>>> http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/images/example1.jpg for anyone >>>> interested in the proof. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Greg Whatever happened in your life that turned you into a complete a.s, I don't know... But whilst you catch up on puberty and grow the brain cells you clearly never developed, I will say good-bye to you. P-L-O-N-K and fare thee well in my klink-file, chump. >>>>>http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/images/example1.jpg for anyone >>>>>interested in the proof. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > clearly never developed, I will say good-bye to you. > P-L-O-N-K and fare thee well in my klink-file, chump. Are yes... Mark the exterminator. As if printing those words actually has any effect. Did it make you feel better, by any chance? If you do actually put someone in your kill file, all you do is denying yourself further entertainment as you deride people for your own small mindedness. SO I made a mistake in presuming the Sony sensor used in the D2X with dual size pixels was also used in the dual sized pixel Fuji S3. No big deal there, just an assumption I made that was wrong. This still doesn't excuse you or Jhon P Shitty for deriding me outright because the Nikon D2X does indeed have multi sensors for each photo detector. Where the difference between me and the techno nerds is that I 'm a photographer. I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held at Photo Continental in Brisbane when I bought my camera who told me about the sensor. Why would I believe some nobody off the Internet in favor of someone who has factory information? I still hold that until he or a reputable - as in someone with Nikon accreditation - tell me otherwise, I'll continue to believe the Nikon representative... Now... Precisely which of us are you referring to, Mark? and which mark are you? the one with the butterfly picture or the one who took the butterfly picture? If you need some further examples of my print process... Go here: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/index.htm where I put a picture of my workroom wall with a canvas enlargement and a Canon 5D along with a few other pictures which might get you a proper perspective on the real size of the pictures. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >>>> So tell us Greg... What actually is your problem? Perhaps it's >>>> jealousy? Maybe it's the lack of free time on the dorm's computer? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > each photo detector. Where the difference between me and the techno > nerds is that I 'm a photographer. Perhaps if you used the same name, it would be easier to keep track of you. I was responding to "G.T."...not you. He wrote a moronic post to you. One would think I'd be catching something OTHER than flack from you for this... As to your former comments about the wrong sensor... You were wrong, but you kept insisting you were right. I called you on it. What your beef with that? We're all wrong sometimes, and when I'm wrong, I expect someone to call me on it. What gives?? In any event, I find it odd that you jump me for plonking the idiot who you just had it out with. Silly me, but I thought you might want to know you weren't the only one who thought he was an idiot... > I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital > electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held at > Photo Continental in Brisbane when I bought my camera who told me > about the sensor. Why would I believe some nobody off the Internet in > favor of someone who has factory information? You didn't have to. You could have checked reputable sources...just as those who informed you of your mistake did. >I still hold that until > he or a reputable - as in someone with Nikon accreditation - tell me > otherwise, I'll continue to believe the Nikon representative... Now... :) Like bilong yu... > Precisely which of us are you referring to, Mark? and which mark are > you? the one with the butterfly picture or the one who took the > butterfly picture? ??? I have several butterfly pictures here: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/101 ...but beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about. > If you need some further examples of my print process... No. I don't. Again...I don't know what you're carrying on about. >Go here: > http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/index.htm where I put a picture of my > workroom wall with a canvas enlargement and a Canon 5D along with a > few other pictures which might get you a proper perspective on the > real size of the pictures. How nice. However, I've never disputed you on any of that, and...(drum-roll please)...don't know what you're talking about... I am Mark²--and post exclusively under that name. My e-mail address hasn't changed in 3.5 years. I am me. :) You seem to post under all sort of different screen names. ?? All snipped... The purpose of my previous reply, Mark... Was to point out how absurd it is to threaten someone with anything... Much less P.L.O.N.K. I took the opportunity also to inform you I am human and sometimes get things wrong too. I referred to the S3 Fuji sensor thing. Not owning one, I only presumed it was the same sensor. I was wrong. My stand on Nikon's D2X, dual sensor is unchanged. I'll elaborate on that point now. You can switch off half the sensor to reduce the file size. To be able to switch off half the photo detectors and still maintain an integral 6 million pixel sensor, then switch the other half back on and have a 12 million pixel sensor requires the separation of photo detectors into 2 completely different banks. Bank 1 is the cropped group and bank 2 is the additional group. Flick the switch and bank 2 gets switched off. It may well have all the photo detectors on one chip. There are complex computers with everything on one chip too but they have separate components on that chip, just as the chip in these cameras have 2 separate parts to them. Straight from the horse's mouth: "Recording Pixels: Image size (pixels): Full Image: [L] 4,288 x 2,848-pixel / [M] 3,216 x 2,136-pixel / [S] 2,144 x 1,424-pixel, High Speed Cropped Image: [L] 3,216 x 2,136-pixel / [M] 2,400 x 1,600-pixel / [S] 1,600 x 1,064-pixel" Interpret this as you wish but you really can't dispute my interpretation as being a dual sensor. If it was a software deletion of excess pixels, I would agree with you pair but it is not, it is switching off half the sensor and still having a fully functional sensor... Dual as in two parts. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >Straight from the horse's mouth: >"Recording Pixels: Image size (pixels): Full Image: [L] 4,288 x >2,848-pixel / [M] 3,216 x 2,136-pixel / [S] 2,144 x 1,424-pixel, High >Speed Cropped Image: [L] 3,216 x 2,136-pixel / [M] 2,400 x 1,600-pixel / >[S] 1,600 x 1,064-pixel" >Interpret this as you wish This is very simple. In either mode (cropped or uncropped), the medium linear pixel resolution is 75% of the large, and the small is 50% of the large. The "cropped" resolutions are 75% of the uncropped, for large, medium, and small. Not a hint of anything that you wish to imply. How can a different set of leads to readout the cropped and non-cropped areas aid in a dynamic range shift? The two tiers of sensitivity would have to be geometrically interleaved somehow; if one set is only in the crop, then it can't possibly be used for dynamic range outside the crop. You simply don't have enough understanding of technical issues to discern what you read. You get confused (in favor of your fancy) quite easily. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > All snipped... >I > took the opportunity also to inform you I am human and sometimes get > things wrong too. I never had a problem with anyone being wrong, Douglas. The problem comes when you get insulted at teh suggestion you are wrong...to the point of swearing, name-calling and generally throwing a tantrum...only to casually note later that you were indeed wrong...followed by remarks that are entirely foreign to your prevailing nasty attitude up to that point. > This still doesn't excuse you or Jhon P Shitty for deriding me outright > because the Nikon D2X does indeed have multi sensors for each photo > detector. Nobody cares if you're wrong. But when you are so adamant while being so wrong you make yourself an easy target. Greg >> This still doesn't excuse you or Jhon P Shitty for deriding me outright >> because the Nikon D2X does indeed have multi sensors for each photo >> detector. >Nobody cares if you're wrong. But when you are so adamant while being so >wrong you make yourself an easy target. He is not interested in truth. He is only interested in the public appearance of Douglas. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > SO I made a mistake in presuming the Sony sensor used in the > D2X with dual size pixels was also used in the dual sized pixel Fuji S3. > No big deal there, just an assumption I made that was wrong. Your assumption still is wrong. The D2x sensor does not have dual-sized pixels. > This still doesn't excuse you or Jhon P Shitty for deriding me outright > because the Nikon D2X does indeed have multi sensors for each photo > detector. No, it doesn't. > Where the difference between me and the techno nerds is that I'm a > photographer. Yes, you are, but you still don't know much of anything about photography, as you continually demonstrate each time you post here. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital >electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >reputable - as in someone with Nikon accreditation - tell me otherwise, >I'll continue to believe the Nikon representative... Now... ... tell us how 12-bit RAW data, all pixels with roughly the same sensitivity, can come from such an alleged sensor. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital >>electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ... tell us how 12-bit RAW data, all pixels with roughly the same > sensitivity, can come from such an alleged sensor. In case you missed it... You can switch off half the sensor to reduce the file size. To be able to switch off half the photo detectors and still maintain an integral 6 million pixel sensor, then switch the other half back on and have a 12 million pixel sensor requires the separation of photo detectors into 2 completely different banks. Bank 1 is the cropped group and bank 2 is the additional group. Flick the switch and bank 2 gets switched off. It may well have all the photo detectors on one chip. There are complex computers with everything on one chip too but they have separate components on that chip, just as the chip in these cameras have 2 separate parts to them. Straight from the horse's mouth: "Recording Pixels: Image size (pixels): Full Image: [L] 4,288 x 2,848-pixel / [M] 3,216 x 2,136-pixel / [S] 2,144 x 1,424-pixel, High Speed Cropped Image: [L] 3,216 x 2,136-pixel / [M] 2,400 x 1,600-pixel / [S] 1,600 x 1,064-pixel" Interpret this as you wish but you really can't dispute my interpretation as being a dual sensor. If it was a software deletion or blocking of excess pixels, I would agree with you pair but it is not, it is switching off half the sensor and still having a fully functional sensor... Dual as in two parts. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >>>I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital >>>electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >million pixel sensor requires the separation of photo detectors into 2 >completely different banks. Your'e not making any sense, whatsoever. If you are getting a cropped image, then you are getting it from a smaller, central area of the sensor. If the area outside the crop can be read with a different amplification, that does not help you determine a greater dynamic range in a given area in the image; it simply means that you would have a different ISO or exposure index for inside the crop, than outside the crop. Like taking two different images; one small rectangle, and one bigger rectangle with a smaller rectangular hole inside of it. No increased DR whatsoever for any given area of the sensor. >Bank 1 is the cropped group and bank 2 is the additional group. Flick >the switch and bank 2 gets switched off. It may well have all the photo [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >is switching off half the sensor and still having a fully functional >sensor... Dual as in two parts. So now you're backpeddling, but even if we could ignore your previous statements, you are still most likely 100% wrong; in order to read a crop, all you have to do is read the lines that contain the crop, and ignore the pixels outside the crop. This isn't necessarily "high speed" mode just because of sensor readout; it may be because of file writing. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>> I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital >>> electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 12 million pixel sensor requires the separation of photo detectors > into 2 completely different banks. All it does, Douglas, is stop reading the outer area of the sensor. It doesn't turn off every other pixel. It effectively becomes a smaller sensor by using only the middle of the full sensor. That is all that is happening. This is why the crop factor increases when you go into that mode. Make sense now? >>>>I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital >>>>electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > This is why the crop factor increases when you go into that mode. > Make sense now? If you switch off any pixels at all in a planned and repeatable way, it is a dual purpose/use/function sensor. Make sense to you? No, I though not. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >If you switch off any pixels at all in a planned and repeatable way, it >is a dual purpose/use/function sensor. >Make sense to you? No, I though not. Cut the deceptive nonsense. Your original claim was that the D2X had pixels at different sensitivities to improve dynamic range. You were wrong; you went out on a limb in public, and it snapped. In any event, I highly doubt that anything is "turned off"; it is probably just ignored in the JPEG conversion and CF card writes for both JPEG and RAW. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > If you switch off any pixels at all in a planned and repeatable way, it > is a dual purpose yes /use yes /function yes sensor. but dual sensor? unlikely. > Make sense to you? No, I though not. >>>>> I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital >>>>> electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > it is a dual purpose/use/function sensor. > Make sense to you? No, I though not. Oh good grief, Douglas. Don't you EVER stay consistent with yourself? You've now proposed at least three versions of what you supposedly said. Can't you just talk about it without trying to pretend you made sense on your other attempts?? >You can switch off half the sensor to reduce the file size. To be able >to switch off half the photo detectors and still maintain an integral 6 >million pixel sensor, then switch the other half back on and have a 12 >million pixel sensor requires the separation of photo detectors into 2 >completely different banks. No, it just requires an option in the firmware to write out a smaller file. Being a software engineer by profession, I can tell you that this is about as complicated as finding sand in the Sahara. > No, it just requires an option in the firmware to write out a smaller file. Right, but to be _fast_ you need to reduce the amount of input data. So the D2x Sensor (similar to the D200 sensor) has multiple output data lines. With the D2x you have the option to configure the processor to read only the center pixels and thus simulate a smaller sensor with less pixels. By that the processor is able to cope with more images per second, that is a viable option for sports photos. -Michael >> No, it just requires an option in the firmware to write out a smaller file. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >pixels. By that the processor is able to cope with more images per >second, that is a viable option for sports photos. Does it really take all that long to read the full sensor, though? The way I understand it, the processing and the writing are the big time-consumers. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Does it really take all that long to read the full sensor, though? The > way I understand it, the processing and the writing are the big > time-consumers. Correctly. As the data streams come out of the sensor in parallel it in fact does not take longer to read all the sensor than reading just the middle rectangle, but the processor needs much longer to deal with the double amount of data and moreover the intermediate RAM buffer used to hold the data while the flash card is being written to can take only half of the picture count (later partly can be cured by reducing the picture file quality, but AFAIK the buffer holds partly compressed and partly uncompressed pictures while the processor is working on the compression and resolution reduction). So the continuous shooting rate and the count of pictures being able to be shot at this rate is reduced by using the complete capacity of the sensor. IMHO this is a great idea of Nikon's, combining the speed advantage of the "h" Models and the resolution advantage of the "x" Models and thus making the camera more desirable as well for sports as for "arts" photographers. -Michael In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems JPS@no.komm wrote: >>> No, it just requires an option in the firmware to write out a smaller file. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>pixels. By that the processor is able to cope with more images per >>second, that is a viable option for sports photos. > Does it really take all that long to read the full sensor, though? 15 MHz is a fairly typical clock speed for high-quality image sensors for still cameras. I don't know what the clock speed of the D2x sensor is, but 15 MHz with four parallel outputs would get you about five frames per second. So I suspect (but can't prove without access to the datasheet) that it's impossible to drive the D2x sensor any faster. Andrew. > This still doesn't excuse you or Jhon P Shitty for deriding me > outright How is informing you of your error "deriding you?" You seem to be confusing me with someone else. You jumped me as though you were responding to others...and now seem surprised that I reacted to your jump. >SO I made a mistake in presuming the Sony sensor used in the >D2X with dual size pixels was also used in the dual sized pixel Fuji S3. Wrong again! The D2x sensor does not have "dual sized pixels". >No big deal there It's no big deal - because **everything** you post here is a crock. ;-) > Whatever happened in your life that turned you into a complete a.s, I don't > know... But whilst you catch up on puberty and grow the brain cells you > clearly never developed, I will say good-bye to you. > P-L-O-N-K and fare thee well in my klink-file, chump. You related to Tony Spadaro, by any chance? SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer >>Whatever happened in your life that turned you into a complete a.s, I don't >>know... But whilst you catch up on puberty and grow the brain cells you >>clearly never developed, I will say good-bye to you. >>P-L-O-N-K and fare thee well in my klink-file, chump. > > You related to Tony Spadaro, by any chance? Oooh! That is cruel! >>> Whatever happened in your life that turned you into a complete a.s, >>> I don't know... But whilst you catch up on puberty and grow the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oooh! That is cruel! Tony loves the kill-file, and sprays it everywhere like a machine gun... I use it sparingly and selectively...but with deadly accuracy. :) > >>Whatever happened in your life that turned you into a complete a.s, I don't > >>know... But whilst you catch up on puberty and grow the brain cells you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oooh! That is cruel! I find it hilarious when people announce that they have made an entry in their kill file. It's like hearing a gong in an old Kung Fu movie. "Aaahhh...I keel you now!!!!! You peeeg!!! SignatureDD www.dallasdahms.com Central Scrutinizer >Don't tell me you are in the Polson camp and willing to say I didn't use >the 6"x4" picture shown under the canvas print to make the 20" high >print on canvas? I wouldn't say that, but I would say that it is impossible to tell the quality of resolution from that tiny image. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>Don't tell me you are in the Polson camp and willing to say I didn't use >>the 6"x4" picture shown under the canvas print to make the 20" high >>print on canvas? > > I wouldn't say that, but I would say that it is impossible to tell the > quality of resolution from that tiny image. So without anything but your own self promotion, you expect your claims to be believed about a quite hilarious attempt to show how little noise is in a 20D, ISO 1600 file with no shadow in it... During your attempt to discredit me. Yet when I post a picture (equally hilarious in it's intent) to prove I can in fact enlarge a 16" x 20" picture from the centre portion of a postcard... I am not accorded the same expectation of honesty? That picture, if I had scanned the full size of the 4"x6" original, would have printed at 24"x 36". I'll repeat my earlier assessment of you sheedy... You are a fuckwit. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >>>Don't tell me you are in the Polson camp and willing to say I didn't use >>>the 6"x4" picture shown under the canvas print to make the 20" high [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >is in a 20D, ISO 1600 file with no shadow in it... During your attempt >to discredit me. Your memory serves *YOU* well, but reality does not. My image of the alphabet blocks at both ISO 100 and ISO 1600 was to demonstrate that the camera does not *REDUCE* *DETAIL* because of the ISO setting. How quickly you forget the truth! >Yet when I post a picture (equally hilarious in it's intent) to prove I >can in fact enlarge a 16" x 20" picture from the centre portion of a >postcard... I am not accorded the same expectation of honesty? That >picture, if I had scanned the full size of the 4"x6" original, would >have printed at 24"x 36". I'll repeat my earlier assessment of you >sheedy... You are a fuckwit. The bottom line is that you can't tell us much about the enlargement by showing a small image. Small images always seem to be sharp and detailed, because they deliver as much detail as can be reasonably expected, regardless of what the enlargement looked like in real life. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >I'll repeat my earlier assessment of you > sheedy... You are a fuckwit. Words like this from you, Douglas, are why you get very little sympathy here. -You can't plead with "Gee...everybody's wrong sometimes..." (which is true), yet keep churning out foul garbage like the above. Umm, I'm just a little curious - where exactly is Douglas' apology for being completely WRONG, and for using the following language while referring to others who were RIGHT: ' total f.cking dork' 'often misleading, sometimes highly inaccurate and downright deceptive' 'for some reason (you) seem to think I don't know about anything about the cameras I own' 'you can't be bothered doing your own research...' 'Well go f.ck yourself arsehole.' Douglas, be a man and apologise. > Umm, I'm just a little curious - where exactly is Douglas' apology for > being completely WRONG, and for using the following language while [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Douglas, be a man and apologise. Here's Douglas' unbelievably lame version of an apology(??): -------------- "SO I made a mistake in presuming the Sony sensor used in the D2X with dual size pixels was also used in the dual sized pixel Fuji S3. No big deal there, just an assumption I made that was wrong. This still doesn't excuse you or Jhon P Shitty for deriding me outright because the Nikon D2X does indeed have multi sensors for each photo detector. Where the difference between me and the techno nerds is that I 'm a photographer. I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital electronics. It was a Nikon representative at the Nikon Expo, held at Photo Continental in Brisbane when I bought my camera who told me about the sensor. Why would I believe some nobody off the Internet in favor of someone who has factory information? I still hold that until he or a reputable - as in someone with Nikon accreditation - tell me otherwise, I'll continue to believe the Nikon representative... Now..." --------------- Wasn't that nice?? Sheesh. Douglas is just being...Douglas. Hope that changes, but I wouldn't hold out for it... Amazing that he'll call someone a "f-ing dork", taking HUGE offense at being questioned, and then says, "I have always admitted I have little or no knowledge of digital electronics"(!!!!). "Always ADMITTED"???? Wow. -Perhaps he's insane...(?) >> Umm, I'm just a little curious - where exactly is Douglas' apology >> for being completely WRONG, and for using the following language [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Wow. > -Perhaps he's insane...(?) Possibly. Some mental defects can be ameliorated with judicious application of chemical or behavioral remedies, some not. Remember when an entertainment option was a picnic lunch on the grounds at 'Bedlam'? Watch the 'insane' meander through their daily lives? Deride their behavior? Amuse your family and friends with your hilarious comments? For the most part confinees couldn't decide to leave, or to change their behavior. Visitors, whose behavior seen from a distant perspective was reprehensible, could. If they didn't, it was and is a reflection on their character, and not a flattering one. SignatureFrank ess >> -Perhaps he's insane...(?) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > perspective was reprehensible, could. If they didn't, it was and is a > reflection on their character, and not a flattering one. Frank, If you think I'm being cruel as relates to the example you wrote, this could only apply if you believe he really is truly insane. If I knew he was insane, it would indeed be cruel. -But I do not think he's insane, Frank. If he IS, then I'll shut up and let him flail away as he pleases...calling people nasty names for being right (!). In spite of what Douglas seems to think, this has very little to do with him being wrong. We are all wrong from time to time. I am often wrong. I really responded to his incredibly unnecessary and venomous post which included: "You know John... You are a total f.cking dork..." ...and ended with: "Well go f.ck yourself arsehole." ***And this...***--in response to someone (rightly) correcting an untrue statement he made (complete with insults from Douglas) regarding equipment specs. Douglas insisted that his experience and knowledge meant we shouldn't doubt him. Until he is shown to be insane, please don't attach cruel character to me or anyone else for treating him as a sane person. >>>-Perhaps he's insane...(?) >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Until he is shown to be insane, please don't attach cruel character to me or > anyone else for treating him as a sane person. The problem is Mark... Nikon's duly authorized representative said at a "Nikon EXPO" held at one the countries largest photographic dealers in Australia that the capability to switch off half the sensor, gave the camera a dual purpose with "leading edge" capabilities. It was referred to as a "Dual Sensor" at least twice during that Expo by people who knew. If you or Sheedy think you know more than them, maybe you ought hold your own EXPO and let us all know how much intimate, pre-release knowledge of Nikon cameras you both have? John Sheedy is a total f.cking idiot if he thinks his efforts to discredit me for repeating information I obtained from Nikon and previously discredit me for my opinion that a 20D loses detail at ISO 1600 are likely to hold any value. All he had to do was say his opinion differed but no... He decided to take me on in public... He's a f.cking idiot for doing that. I work with images every day in a production environment, making my living from my knowledge of images and photography. If you are to believe him, I know nothing, couldn't tell a dud picture from a good one and generally haven't a clue about the industry I derived a living from for 40 years. Neither he nor you have any right whatsoever to call me a liar by insinuation just because we have differing opinions. If you take some timely advise you'll stop it and then get your facts straight. Frank has periodically poked his nose into a thread with intelligent comments like "he's mad" and "have you totally lost it" for some time now but I can't ever recall him posting anything relevant to the thread he seeks to hijack. I think Frank is amusing and sometimes enjoy his comments. They are so far off the mark as to be harmless. Now I'll say again... If someone with more credibility than the factory appointed agent gets up and says no, killing half the sensor by switching off it's pixels is not "dual" use/sensor/purpose/function, then I might take notice. Until then you and that f.cking idiot Sheedy really ought to contain your own opinions. I don't know why you have to post provocative statements about me. All you need to do to keep the peace is just state your own opinion and leave it at that. If it differs from mine, so be it. It's when he and you start posting your opinion as if it were absolute when it's only an opinion, no matter where you derived it from and attempt to deride and belittle me for having an opposite opinion which comes from equally reliable sources as yours, I get my back up. Stop it, do you understand me? Have you got that clear? It's fine to have a different opinion but it's not law, don't try and persecute me because mine is different to yours. SignatureDouglas... Specifications are good to read but When it comes to judging Digital Cameras... I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category. >>>> -Perhaps he's insane...(?) >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > maybe you ought hold your own EXPO and let us all know how much intimate, > pre-release knowledge of Nikon cameras you both have? It is a "dual sensor" only in the sense that you can choose to use in two different modes. -One mode uses teh entire surface of the sensor, and the other mode usues only the center portion of it...basically cropping out the ourter portion pixels so that the processor has fewer pixles to deal with...and can therefore shoot at a higher frame rate. This is very different than any of your numerous attempts to describe it. That's OK, too. Nothing wrong with being wrong. You being wrong isn't the problem, Douglas, but I'm not going to explain it to you again. You've been given plenty of explanation. > John Sheedy is a total f.cking idiot if he thinks his efforts to > discredit me for repeating information I obtained from Nikon and > previously discredit me for my opinion that a 20D loses detail at ISO > 1600 are likely to hold any value. That's not what "discredits" you at all. What discredits you is your apparent inability/refusal to grasp what is going on in this exchange. >All he had to do was say his > opinion differed but no... He decided to take me on in public... He's > a f.cking idiot for doing that. Whether you realise it or not, this is strange talk/behavior from you, Douglas. If you have a private e-mail, I'd prefer to talk to you in private. If you wish to discuss, I'd suggest you cantact me via my e-mail (after making the obvious correction to my address). > I work with images every day in a production environment, making my > living from my knowledge of images and photography. I don't doubt that, and I have never indicated doubt in that. >If you are to > believe him, I know nothing, couldn't tell a dud picture from a good > one and generally haven't a clue about the industry I derived a > living from for 40 years. Neither he nor you have any right whatsoever to > call me > a liar by insinuation That's where you lose me, Doug, which makes me wonder if you have me confused with someone else. I have never commented on anything pertaining to your legitimate photography business. > just because we have differing opinions. If you > take some timely advise you'll stop it and then get your facts [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > his > comments. They are so far off the mark as to be harmless. I believe Frank is noting the rather odd behavior you have exhibited here. > Now I'll say again... If someone with more credibility than the > factory appointed agent gets up and says no, killing half the sensor > by switching off it's pixels is not "dual" use/sensor/purpose/function, > then I might take notice. Until then you and that f.cking idiot Sheedy > really ought to contain your own opinions. Hmmm... I don't get that part. A while ago, you indicated that you made wrong assumptions and were wrong. Now you're talking about how your statements were still right somehow. That's where you cease to make sense, and appear confused by your own thoughts. > I don't know why you have to post provocative statements about me. Which ones were those? >All > you need to do to keep the peace is just state your own opinion and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it's not law, don't try and persecute me because mine is different to > yours. I see that this is really bothering you. I have no desire to upset you. -Don't know what to add here, except to say that I hope you have a good day tomorrow. According to Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>: [ ... ] > Whether you realise it or not, this is strange talk/behavior from you, > Douglas. > If you have a private e-mail, I'd prefer to talk to you in private. > If you wish to discuss, I'd suggest you cantact me via my e-mail (after > making the obvious correction to my address). That brings up a question which I have been wondering about: "lowest even number" could reasonably be either of two values. If you want to say "lowest even positive number", that would eliminate the confusion in my mind -- though it might give the wrong address depending on what your original interpretation was. If I were to try to e-mail to you (and it looks as though you might be semi local to me with cox.net as an ISP), I would probably send the first e-mail to both likely addresses. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > According to Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. I've never seen an e-mail address that included a negative number... Have you? :) Also... If you're going to count negative numbers, then it would be impossible to determine the "lowest," since you could continue counting negatively for eternity (just as you can count positively for eternity...toward infinity). Cox seems to be in more than one location, so I don't know. Where are you? >> If you want to say "lowest even positive number", that would eliminate >> the confusion in my mind -- though it might give the wrong address >> depending on what your original interpretation was. > >I've never seen an e-mail address that included a negative number... Have >you? I think you may have missed his point. The even number that's one-step lower than the lowest positive even number is not a negative number. >>> If you want to say "lowest even positive number", that would >>> eliminate the confusion in my mind -- though it might give the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one-step lower than the lowest positive even number is not a negative > number. Then why did he mention the qualifier of the "lowest even *positive* number"? He was referring to the negative possibility. :) >>>> If you want to say "lowest even positive number", that would >>>> eliminate the confusion in my mind -- though it might give the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >number"? >He was referring to the negative possibility. I can see this is going to have to be spelled out. Two is the lowest positive even number. Zero is an even number. Zero is lower than two. Zero is not a negative number. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message