 |
 | 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 2006D200 successor, when?
Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am not asking whether one is needed, just when it might happen? It seems to me that a D3x or something similar will have to be released first, but I could be wrong about that. Still, the D200 has been out for one year and the D80 is not eating into its market a little bit, so I wonder how long until the D200 is replaced by the D300 ;-) I am due to upgrade my D70 in the upcoming months, and I wonder if I should sit on it longer or jump on the D200. In any case, I want a body that is faster, sturdier and can use AI lenses ;-)  SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am not >asking whether one is needed, just when it might happen? It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >sit on it longer or jump on the D200. In any case, I want a body that is >faster, sturdier and can use AI lenses ;-) I have no idea what a D300 is supposed to offer at this moment. If there are minor details Nikon may want to fix, they will probably release a D200s. On the other hand, they kept the D100 for a long time. I think that the next significant upgrade is a full frame sensor. From the reviews it sounds as if the body is close to perfect (for the market segment). Minor tweaks to the sensor (for a D200s model) may be possible, but nothing major is to be expected. You can't just go for a 16 Mpixel sensor. And 12 or 14 Mpixel sensors don't make sense at the moment (one of the attractive points of the Sony sensor is the economy of scale benefits Nikon gets). It would be interesting if Sony, Nikon, and possible Leica would together go for fullframe sensors. Nikon needs them to compete with Canon, Sony probably wants one to show that they are serious about making professional DSLRs, and Leica needs something that has a much better low light performance than the currently have (and M8 users probably want full frame). SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am not > >asking whether one is needed, just when it might happen? It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 12 or 14 Mpixel sensors don't make sense at the moment (one of the attractive > points of the Sony sensor is the economy of scale benefits Nikon gets). Indeed, it's hard to see what could be added to the body. I suppose possible upgrades would be higher fps (but then they could add a vertical grip, faster autofocus, call it D3h and sell it for 2-3 times the price), higher resolution (doubtful for this sensor size), or larger sensor (ie full-frame). I don't think any of these could happen without it being given a new model number. I suppose that some minor tweaks may be made and a D200s produced with them (eg maybe lower readout noise from the sensor, better noise reduction for jpegs, perhaps minor user interface improvements). But if you actually compare a D200 to a D2X, the main difference is AF speed, resolution, and maximum fps (I suppose the D2x might be more heavily built, I don't know). And they both take (and meter with) manual focus Nikon lenses. Anyway, in terms of camera features, the D200 is an almost perfect camera (OK: Why did they dedicate two buttons to WB and switching between jpeg and raw? And no external control to switch between settings banks, even though it has a programmable FUNC button? Argh!). Any improvements will be to the sensor, but short of changing it, they will be minor. > It would be interesting if Sony, Nikon, and possible Leica would together > go for fullframe sensors. Nikon needs them to compete with Canon, Sony [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. > -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Indeed, it's hard to see what could be added to the body. I suppose > possible upgrades would be higher fps (but then they could add a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > readout noise from the sensor, better noise reduction for jpegs, > perhaps minor user interface improvements). 14-bit color depth in RAW format would be an excellent improvement ... there are currently no cameras capable of this today [for 35mm or APS-C formats anyway]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>Indeed, it's hard to see what could be added to the body. I suppose >>possible upgrades would be higher fps (but then they could add a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > anyway]. > Do you find you often have posterisation in your photos? Personally, I use compressed raw, which effectively decreases the number of bits used in the top 2 stops (or thereabouts), and cannot see a difference. So I don't think increasing the tonal resolution will make much difference. As a matter of fact, the Fuji S3 seems to have a 14bit ADC (although I don't know what they do with it); so does the Minolta Dimage A1. Higher bit depth will increase either tonal resolution or dynamic range (or some combination of the two). I don't it is likely that they will use higher bit depth to get rid of having to use different ISOs. > Do you find you often have posterisation in your photos? Personally, I > use compressed raw, which effectively decreases the number of bits used > in the top 2 stops (or thereabouts), and cannot see a difference. > So I don't think increasing the tonal resolution will make much difference. I have seen no solid report that indicates any sigificant loss by using compressed versus uncompressed raw files. Certainly, we are not talking a difference in "bits", which is huge. > As a matter of fact, the Fuji S3 seems to have a 14bit ADC (although I > don't know what they do with it); so does the Minolta Dimage A1. > > Higher bit depth will increase either tonal resolution or dynamic range > (or some combination of the two). I don't it is likely that they will > use higher bit depth to get rid of having to use different ISOs. It won't affect ISO ... bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range. High and low stops are not going to change, it is just the granularity of the difference, or the tonal density that will change. Clearly, the larger the dynamic range you have, the more color depth you will need to maintain tonal density. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>Do you find you often have posterisation in your photos? Personally, I >>use compressed raw, which effectively decreases the number of bits used [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > compressed versus uncompressed raw files. Certainly, we are not talking a > difference in "bits", which is huge. There is no loss that I can see. It works by effectively using a smaller number of bits to represent the same range. It does this by not using a linear scale for the two top stops (I think it's two), so effective resolution (tonal resolution) is decreased there. The idea is to use fewer bits for the same range (ie decrease resolution in the top part of the range). This is the connection to lower bit depth. >>As a matter of fact, the Fuji S3 seems to have a 14bit ADC (although I >>don't know what they do with it); so does the Minolta Dimage A1. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dynamic range you have, the more color depth you will need to maintain tonal > density. It is possible to have a high enough DR so that 12 bits are not enough. Look, 2^12=4096. According to the measurements of RN Clark at http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/evaluation-nikon-d200/index.html the D200 at ISO 100 has a full well capacity of around 32000 electrons. If we ignore read noise (for the sake of this argument), clearly 12 bits are not enough to count all the electrons; you'd need around 15 bits. If we take into account read noise, then maybe 12 bits are enough, I don't know. But for cameras with higher well capacities and/or lower read noise, 12 bits are certainly not enough, and DR is thrown away because of it (ie it part of the signal is measured by the sensor but thrown away). Obviously, the implicit assumption above is a linear mapping from electron numbers to the number that is recorded. You say bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range. It does, in the sense that it is one of the factors that places an upper limit on the possible DR (the others being the type of mapping that occurs from electron count to the number that is recorded, eg linear, or perhaps some sort of gamma mapping to squeeze more DR by selectively increase and decrease resolution in specific ranges etc, and of course the actual signal to noise ratio of the sensor and other supporting electronics). In short, if your sensor can record 20 stops of DR (for argument's sake), and you have 8 bits, then you'll have to use some nonlinear mapping. Certainly, you'll lose resolution. This is what I said about a tradeoff between DR and tonal resolution. As for what I said about ISO: Meter a scene for ISO 800 and shoot it, at ISO 800. Then, change ISO to 100, without changing the exposure, and shoot the same scene. Amplify the signal in postprocessing (ie add 3 stops in the raw converter). Is the result the same? Why not, since in principle the same number of photons were detected? >>>Do you find you often have posterisation in your photos? Personally, I >>>use compressed raw, which effectively decreases the number of bits used [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fewer bits for the same range (ie decrease resolution in the top part of > the range). This is the connection to lower bit depth. Again, I ask you your source of information on this. To my knowledge, they use an algorithm to compress information and that it particularily affects the highlights. There is lossy compression (i.e. JPEG) and lossless compression (i.e. LZW) and it is not clear to me which is used. It is also not clear that if lossy compression is used, the amount of damage done to the original data. DNG claims it uses a lossless compression and it is capable of taking the 20MB NEF (uncompressed) and making a 12MB DNG, which is about the same size that a NEF (compressed) is. > It is possible to have a high enough DR so that 12 bits are not enough. > Look, 2^12=4096. I agree and said so. I said that to maintain tonal density with increased dynamic range, one would need more color depth. Making a 14-bit color depth sensor does not imply anything about increased (or decreased) dynamic range. > You say bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range. It does, in the > sense that it is one of the factors that places an upper limit on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and decrease resolution in specific ranges etc, and of course the actual > signal to noise ratio of the sensor and other supporting electronics). It doesn't affect dynamic range. Dynamic range affects the tonal density for any given color bit depth (for any given color bit depth, increased dynamic range will result in decreased tonal density). > In short, if your sensor can record 20 stops of DR (for argument's > sake), and you have 8 bits, then you'll have to use some nonlinear > mapping. Certainly, you'll lose resolution. This is what I said about a > tradeoff between DR and tonal resolution. We are talking the same effects. but you seem to have cause and effect reversed. Tonal density does not drive dynamic range. For that fact dynamic range does not drive tonal density. They are related only in the sense of the final image, for it to be useful needs to have a minimum tonal density and a minimum dynamic range (the latter of which most people find adequate when compared to film). In short, we have reached an "acceptable" dynamic range already [I suppose somebody out there would like more], but I would like to see a higher tonal density for the SAME dynamic range ... hence the move from 12-bit to 14-bit color depth. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > >>>Do you find you often have posterisation in your photos? Personally, I > >>>use compressed raw, which effectively decreases the number of bits used [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > NEF (uncompressed) and making a 12MB DNG, which is about the same size that a > NEF (compressed) is. I must have missed when you asked for the source of information. A quick google search turns up this http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/05/02-1.html (it's for the D70, though). I suppose you could look through dcraw, but c code makes me sick so I did not. There is no lossless compression done on the uncompressed NEFs of my D200 at least (a shot of my lens cap is the same size as one of a tree). > > It is possible to have a high enough DR so that 12 bits are not enough. > > Look, 2^12=4096. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > any given color bit depth (for any given color bit depth, increased dynamic > range will result in decreased tonal density). This is true if you keep the same number of bits. This is what I tried to say. > > In short, if your sensor can record 20 stops of DR (for argument's > > sake), and you have 8 bits, then you'll have to use some nonlinear [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > see a higher tonal density for the SAME dynamic range ... hence the move from > 12-bit to 14-bit color depth. I don't think I have cause and effect related. I did not say that tonal density drives DR, nor the opposite. I said that, for a given number of bits, one needs to decrease DR to increase tonal density and the other way around. This might not be relevant to what you are thinking of, however, I started by saying that I do not think a higher tonal density, as you say, will have observable effects on colour. I then continued to say that, perhaps a higher number of bits would result in better DR. I then argued against this. My statements may seem upside down when viewed from the viewpoint of what you're thinking, though. Also, did you try what I described with shooting ISO 800 and ISO 100 with the same exposure? Do you think this would still be the case if the ADC was (say) 100 bits? I base my statements on the effect of increased tonal resolution on what I see with compressed NEFs. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. But I don't think so. > ...There is no lossless compression > done on the uncompressed NEFs of my D200 at least (a shot of my lens > cap is the same size as one of a tree). Not sure I understand your statement but the D200 has the option to turn off RAW lossy compression. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > > ...There is no lossless compression > > done on the uncompressed NEFs of my D200 at least (a shot of my lens > > cap is the same size as one of a tree). > > Not sure I understand your statement but the D200 has the option to turn > off RAW lossy compression. The guy I was responding to said that there are two kinds of compression: Lossy and lossless (he also said some other things). I responded by describing how the lossy compression in the D70 (and, I assume, other Nikons, such as the D200) is implemented. In addition, I said: "There is no lossless compression done on the uncompressed NEFs o my D200". I base this belief on the fact that lossless compression should be more efficient (ie result in smaller files) for photos with little information (the back of my lens cap, rather than simply my lens cap as I said) as opposed to scenes with more information (a tree). I also took a quick look at dcraw (despite my allergy to c), but I am rubbish at reading code (well, at writing it too), so may have misunderstood. Does that make my statement clearer? I know that the D200 can be set to use uncompressed raw. I hope nobody starts arguing now about a dark frame (the back of my lens cap) having noise and thus not being really uniform. Having to include almost all context around each statement one makes each and every time gets tiring, and it is quite difficult to have efficient exchange of information if everybody assumes that the person they are conversing with has no clue what they are talking about (this isn't meant to be a snide remark directed at you or anybody else in particular, just an observation/random remark). > said: "There is no lossless compression done on the uncompressed NEFs o > my D200". I think the point is that it goes without saying that there is no compression, lossy or lossless, for an uncompressed NEF ... just as the name implies. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > > said: "There is no lossless compression done on the uncompressed NEFs o > > my D200". > > I think the point is that it goes without saying that there is no compression, > lossy or lossless, for an uncompressed NEF ... just as the name implies. If you noticed, there is a mini-rant at the end of my last post, to the effect that it is tiring to have to recreate a complete, self-contained context around each sentence at every post. Well. Here is how it arose: Just after I wrote "...there is no lossless compression in an uncompressed NEF", I thought "Well, someone is bound to say that of course there isn't". (*). Next, I thought "well it's obvious what I mean". After a couple of seconds, "Hmmm... I bet someone will reply with exactly this comment anyway". So I got irritated in advance and wrote my small rant. Anyway. I guess irritating pedantry is one of the things we must put up with in this newsgroup. (This was a nano-rant). Cheers! (*) Of course, the point is that here "uncompressed RAW" is a shorthand way of writing "when the option RAW, as opposed to COMPRESSED RAW is selected" (where RAW/COMPRESSED RAW is the option one selects in the menus, ie what Nikon calls that particular format, and to which absolutely no other meaning is to be attached to the two words for purposes of this discussion). This is opposed to eg "uncompressed air" in normal conversation, which is merely air which is not compressed. > -- > Thomas T. Veldhouse > Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> > said: "There is no lossless compression done on the uncompressed NEFs o >> > my D200". [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Anyway. I guess irritating pedantry is one of the things we must put up > with in this newsgroup. (This was a nano-rant). So, why didn't you just correct yourself and erase the comment that amounted to "I found that my uncompressed raw file was indeed uncompressed" statement of redundancy? It would have saved you the irritation. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > So, why didn't you just correct yourself and erase the comment that amounted > to "I found that my uncompressed raw file was indeed uncompressed" statement > of redundancy? It would have saved you the irritation. Because it was not a mistake. Clearly, I failed to communicate my message. My fault, no doubt. I think this has gotten way beyond the point of diminishing returns, so I'll leave it at that. > > Indeed, it's hard to see what could be added to the body. I suppose > > possible upgrades would be higher fps (but then they could add a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are currently no cameras capable of this today [for 35mm or APS-C formats > anyway]. Nor are printers, like 4 color press, Lambdas, Light jet etc able to output 14 bit..... Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >> 14-bit color depth in RAW format would be an excellent improvement ... there >> are currently no cameras capable of this today [for 35mm or APS-C formats >> anyway]. > > Nor are printers, like 4 color press, Lambdas, Light jet etc able to > output 14 bit..... Of course, I want the additional tonal density [from the increased color depth] for processing purposes. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > "Greg \"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote: >>>14-bit color depth in RAW format would be an excellent improvement ... there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, I want the additional tonal density [from the increased color > depth] for processing purposes. If it is only for processing, you may as well start with a 12-bit file, convert it to (say) 16 bits and process that. > If it is only for processing, you may as well start with a 12-bit file, > convert it to (say) 16 bits and process that. Don't be silly. What do you think I am doing now for goodness sake? SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>If it is only for processing, you may as well start with a 12-bit file, >>convert it to (say) 16 bits and process that. > > Don't be silly. What do you think I am doing now for goodness sake? Well, you said you want the additional color depth for processing purposes. I replied that you don't, you could just process at a higher bit depth without actually capturing at it. And for this, I am silly? I guess it teaches me a lesson. > Well, you said you want the additional color depth for processing > purposes. I replied that you don't, you could just process at a higher > bit depth without actually capturing at it. And for this, I am silly? Yes, I do want the additional color depth for processing purposes. Making a 12-bit image interpolated into a 16-bit image doesn't give you more data to work with. If it did, then all camera sensors would use a 2-bit color depth and stretch it to a 16-bit depth image. I want the 14-bit color depth to work with in Camera Raw and then I will pull it into Photoshop as a 16-bit image [clearly interpolation is used to generate the other two bits worth of information ... no information is actually created, and in fact, a little is lost]. You are silly because your implication is that I want to process with more bits for the sake of saying I did it, as your statement indicates I can generate 4 bits of information from the ether. > I guess it teaches me a lesson. Yes, it should. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > > Well, you said you want the additional color depth for processing > > purposes. I replied that you don't, you could just process at a higher [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > information ... no information is actually created, and in fact, a little is > lost]. My implication was that, if the tonality is ok before processing (which is not under discussion here; let's assume it is for this discussion, as you did say for processing), then the errors due to processing will be minimised by using a higher bit depth. eg try taking an 8-bit image and doing very heavy manipulations to it, and then invert them; then start again, and do the same thing, but this time, first promote the image to 16 bits. You'll see the difference. I have never seen a difference in real use, but you can easily force it and see it. As for the 2-bit color depth, well, it seems you are once again (like last time I attempted to discuss something with you) take what I said out of context. Actually, I don't know why I am wasting my time. You're right, I'm silly, ignorant and stupid. > You are silly because your implication is that I want to process with more > bits for the sake of saying I did it, as your statement indicates I can > generate 4 bits of information from the ether. > Yes! You caught me! > My implication was that, if the tonality is ok before processing (which > is not under discussion here; let's assume it is for this discussion, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > image to 16 bits. You'll see the difference. I have never seen a > difference in real use, but you can easily force it and see it. That is where you are incorrect. The errors will be minimized if the original bit depth was higher. Taking an 8-bit image and converting it to a 16-bit image to do processing and then converting it back to an 8-bit image for printing will result in more data destruction than simply doing all the processing on the 8-bit image in the first place. The reason is that there is some data loss when interpolating from 8-bit to 16-bit. The less interpolation needed, the less the loss. It would be best if we could work in 12-bit on current files, as they originate as 12-bit. Moving to 16-bit is destructive to the original data [which is one reason you do work in the raw converter before conversion .. the other is the data is linear in raw format, so you can take advantage of the fact that half the data is the top stop of highlights]. > As for the 2-bit color depth, well, it seems you are once again (like > last time I attempted to discuss something with you) take what I said > out of context. No I didn't. You are assuming that moving from 12-bit to 16-bit is not destructive to the data. It is. Also, working in Camera Raw [which is what we are talking about there] works with the linear data, and the more bits we have to work with means teh more data we have and that means more control of the conversion process from camera raw to RGB in Photoshop. > Actually, I don't know why I am wasting my time. You're right, I'm > silly, ignorant and stupid. You don't seem to understand the process like you think you do. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > That is where you are incorrect. The errors will be minimized if the original > bit depth was higher. Taking an 8-bit image and converting it to a 16-bit [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > You don't seem to understand the process like you think you do. OK, to avoid going around in circles, I took the same picture (converted in capture one to 8 bit tiff), copied it, and applied the same manipulations twice: once as it originally was (8-bit), the other, I first converted to 16 bits, copied the layers from the other, and converted back to 8 after flattening. The layers were: Levels, midpoint 4, Levels, midpoint 2, Levels, midpoint .5, levels, midpoint .25. The results are here: 8 bits: http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/70004144 16 bits: http://www.pbase.com/al599/image/70004166 I think which one is worse is easy to see. > Yes, I do want the additional color depth for processing purposes. Making > a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is > lost]. --------------------------- I don't believe interpolation happens as you described. Rather, a 16 bit file has 16 times more tonal steps compared to a 12 bit file. So the 12 bit info is "uniformly distributed" in the 16 bit space, i.e. there are "blank" tonal levels in the 16 bit file. As the image is processed in Photoshop, the existing tonal data is shifted to another level, but it's possible to shift in much smaller increments in 16 bit space, compared to 12 bit (or 8 bit) space. The "interpolation" happens when one transfers the transformed 16 bit information to the 8 bit file that the web and printer understands. The advantage of the 14 bit file is that it contains 4X more tonal information to distribute in 16 bit space, so there are fewer blank tonal levels. However, unless Photoshop transformations are extreme, there's very little real gain when it's changed to 8 bit format for the printer. The real value of a high bit file comes when a tone curve is applied to the linear data, especially in the shadow tones, to create a JPEG or TIFF (8 bit) file. For simplicity, assume an 8 bit tone curve: Y= K * X(exp0.5) Y ranges from 1 to 256 X ranges from 1 to 4096 (12 bit A/D converter), 1 to 16384 (14 bit (A/D converter) then K = 2 for the 14 bit file, but K = 4 for the 12 bit file. The 8 bit tone curve generated from the 14 bit file has 2X the information compared to the 12 bit file. For consumer digital cameras with 10 bit ADC converters, K=8, so there's no tone information at all in the first 8 levels and only half as much compared to the JPEG derived from a 12 bit A/D converter. I believe this goes a long way towards explaining the superior tonal quality seen in digital SLR photos vs. consumer digital camera photos especially at low ISO & low compression, where noise and artifacts aren't significant factors. In the best of worlds, If Photoshop worked in linear space rather than the tone curve transformed space, (but still displayed in 8 bit tone curve transformed space) then the full value of the high bit A/D converter would be preserved in the final 8 bit output file. Regards, David "Routemeister" Thompson http://picasaweb.google.com/david.routemeister -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 7888 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter for free now! > Of course, I want the additional tonal density [from the increased > color depth] for processing purposes. One word! "Encad" Rita Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> Of course, I want the additional tonal density [from the increased >> color depth] for processing purposes. > > One word! "Encad" Well, that is not an "English" word, so please enlighten me. I have a hunch I won't appreciate it much. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>> Of course, I want the additional tonal density [from the increased >>> color depth] for processing purposes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, that is not an "English" word, so please enlighten me. I have > a hunch I won't appreciate it much. www.encad.com Sadly, now a "Kodak" company, but the hardware is still the standard in printing that others, even Epson, strive to achieve. Rita > Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am not > asking whether one is needed, just when it might happen? It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sit on it longer or jump on the D200. In any case, I want a body that is > faster, sturdier and can use AI lenses ;-) JESUS! They just came out with the D200. And Nikon hung onto the D100 for way too long. Calm down and deal with what's out there. >> Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am not >> asking whether one is needed, just when it might happen? It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > JESUS! They just came out with the D200. And Nikon hung onto the D100 > for way too long. Calm down and deal with what's out there. That is no answer. D100 "for way too long" is partly what I am looking for. I simply want to know when they are likely to release a new model. If you say three years down the road, then fine, D200 is fine. If you say one year down the road, I will almost certainly wait for that time. What I would like to see in the next camera: 14-bit color channel 16MP APS-C or Full Frame is fine LOW NOISE 6+ FPS (most of my photography doesn't benefit from this anyway) Some sort of Sensor cleaning technology Everything else the D200 has already I used to think full-frame was a good thing, but I am not at all sure of that. APS-C seems to do just fine. I have been very impressed by the results of the D2x. I had a chance to attend a seminar with John Shaw and he has indicated he has been entirely digital since the D1 and he is putting out wonderful images with the D2x ... printed at large sizes as well. I can't ask for more out of my own photos, so I am not so sure that Full Frame matters much to me any longer. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > I used to think full-frame was a good thing, but I am not at all sure of that. > APS-C seems to do just fine. I have been very impressed by the results of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > out of my own photos, so I am not so sure that Full Frame matters much to me > any longer. Not until you hold one and use it. Although I am also quite happy with the 1.6 factor for sports and wildlife shooting. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Not until you hold one and use it. Although I am also quite happy with > the 1.6 factor for sports and wildlife shooting. Why would holding a 35mm sensor camera somehow convince me that it is better? At most, it is but a little bigger ... As far as wide angle goes, I have seen excellent wide angle shots on APS-C and I believe most 35mm digital sensors are suffering from vignetting issues. Clearly there are trade-offs, but I am failing to see how they will really affect the majority of photographers other than spec meisers. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Not until you hold one and use it. Although I am also quite happy with >> the 1.6 factor for sports and wildlife shooting. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Clearly there are trade-offs, but I am failing to see how they will really > affect the majority of photographers other than spec meisers. I think what he means is when you take your existing lenses and put them on a full-frame you are amazed at the view, especially if you remember the view you had with your old lenses on a film camera. I rented a 1Ds mkII recently and had a bit of that feeling, but not perhaps as overwhelming as others because I com from the 1.3 crop on the 1D. What *was* amazing on the 1Ds mkII was the 16.6MP images. Wow. You really can resolve things as small as human hair as with a medium format camera. >>> Not until you hold one and use it. Although I am also quite happy with >>> the 1.6 factor for sports and wildlife shooting. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > mkII was the 16.6MP images. Wow. You really can resolve things as small as > human hair as with a medium format camera. Yes, that's pretty much it. The holding part is insignificant compared to using it and seeing the results. SignatureJohn McWilliams > > Not until you hold one and use it. Although I am also quite happy with > > the 1.6 factor for sports and wildlife shooting. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Clearly there are trade-offs, but I am failing to see how they will really > affect the majority of photographers other than spec meisers. I have an 11-18 that I believe outperforms the D70's sensor. I get much more noise using it than the kit lens. Very wide DOF but not able sharpen to the extent of the kit lens....I could be wrong :) Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >What I would like to see in the next camera: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Some sort of Sensor cleaning technology >Everything else the D200 has already You left out miniaturization. I have a D70, but it's just too clunky for travel. I'm still using my Nikon FM2n for that reason. A harbinger might be the new D40, which seems to be considerably smaller than Nikon's previous DSLR offerings. Put the D200 features into a package this size, and I'll buy! > You left out miniaturization. I have a D70, but it's just too clunky > for travel. I'm still using my Nikon FM2n for that reason. > > A harbinger might be the new D40, which seems to be considerably > smaller than Nikon's previous DSLR offerings. Put the D200 features > into a package this size, and I'll buy! I like the size of my F100 (and the D70 for that fact) just fine, and in fact, I wouldn't like it to be any smaller than that. They fit my hands perfectly the way it is. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> You left out miniaturization. I have a D70, but it's just too clunky >> for travel. I'm still using my Nikon FM2n for that reason. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I wouldn't like it to be any smaller than that. They fit my hands perfectly >the way it is. You must have bigger hands than I do. I find the D70 awkward to use, ergonomically. But just as important, the D70 doesn't fit into my Domke satchel bag, which I use while traveling. The FM2 fits nicely, lens down, in the top of the bag. It's handy whenever I need it, but the setup doesn't brand me as a tourist, and doesn't scream "camera!" to any passing thief. > and doesn't scream "camera!" to any passing > thief. How do you actually know, until its stolen. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> and doesn't scream "camera!" to any passing >> thief. > > How do you actually know, until its stolen. A dslr would not be an easy thing for a thief to steal without being noticed as unlike a P&S camera which could be easily removed from a pocket or even a table, it would be far more obvious due to it's bulk & weight. Also the camera could even be used as a *weapon* if it has a heavy f2.8 zoom attached if you were threatened! > >> and doesn't scream "camera!" to any passing > >> thief. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > camera could even be used as a *weapon* if it has a heavy f2.8 zoom attached > if you were threatened! I guess it depends on the thief. As for the weapon part, going back to my car after a wedding in a rather notorious place "in town" I was quite sure I was being followed. It was obvious I was carrying camera gear. I am not someone that intimidates easily and I considered using the bracket and attached flash to beat any aggression out of the potential attacker. Thankfully my stop came before he was able pull out whatever he was trying to get out of his gym bag before I ducked into the attended garage. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >A dslr would not be an easy thing for a thief to steal without being noticed >as unlike a P&S camera which could be easily removed from a pocket or even a >table, it would be far more obvious due to it's bulk & weight. Also the >camera could even be used as a *weapon* if it has a heavy f2.8 zoom attached >if you were threatened! I was a victim of two thefts, both in Athens, Greece. The first time, my camera was stolen from a locked car. I guess the thief spotted the camera, which was in an everready case wedged in a corner of the back seat, and jimmied the car door lock. The second time, I was "swarmed" by a team of five pickpockets on the rush-hour Metro. They didn't bother my Domke bag (I had learned from the first incident), but they got a *lot* of money from my jacket pockets. These guys were so artful that any kind of weapon would have been useless against them. Never underestimate thieves. >>What I would like to see in the next camera: >> >>14-bit color channel >>16MP >>APS-C or Full Frame is fine >>LOW NOISE If the sensor is 16mp APS-C, then it likely won't have low noise without extensive processing in-camera. There is a definite advantage to having larger pixel photo-sites. But that won't stop the the companies from pushing the pixel counts to impress consumers, regardless of image quality. >>6+ FPS (most of my photography doesn't benefit from this anyway) >>Some sort of Sensor cleaning technology Automatic sensor cleaning is a gimmick. The only reason Canon and Sony have jumped on it is to be competitive. Whether it works or not, it's still a marketing tool, and they can use it to help sell their products. I expect Nikon will jump onboard for their low-end models as well. > You left out miniaturization. I have a D70, but it's just too clunky > for travel. I'm still using my Nikon FM2n for that reason. I seriously hope not. The Nikon D80 is a bit smaller than the D70s (which I found to be almost perfectly sized), and that's as small as I'll go. I switched from the Canon Rebel XT to the Nikon D80 partly for the handling and ergonomics, and I won't buy another tiny camera again. I like being able to hold the camera properly, and use the functions it offers without contorting my hand and fingers to do it, regardless of the weight savings. I'll live with the extra 100 grams of added weight (which I can barely notice anyway). > A harbinger might be the new D40, which seems to be considerably > smaller than Nikon's previous DSLR offerings. The D40 (if it even exists) will be for first-time DSLR buyers only - the most basic user who wants a DSLR package for snapshots and vacation pictures. It obviously won't be targeted at the amateur or enthusiast markets. The D50 and D80 are much more practical options for those people. For casual shooters the tiny cameras are fine since they don't get aching fingers from carrying the camera and shooting half the day or more. If all you want is to take snaps, then the little cameras do the trick nicely. But for anyone more serious about shooting and taking lots of photos, the handling can be very important. I just wish I had realized that when I switched to digital a year and a half ago. > Automatic sensor cleaning is a gimmick. The only reason Canon and Sony > have jumped on it is to be competitive. Whether it works or not, it's > still a marketing tool, and they can use it to help sell their > products. I expect Nikon will jump onboard for their low-end models as > well. Considering that I have been plagued with sensor [and viewfinder] dust lately, I am willing to give it a try. Cleaning the sensor is a pain and is very iterative. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > You left out miniaturization. I have a D70, but it's just too clunky > for travel. I'm still using my Nikon FM2n for that reason. I find it's *lenses* that tend to be responsible for bulk and weight rather than the body itself. The small bodied d80 feels fine with a 50mm 1.8 mounted, but does not feels as ergonomic as my d70s when I have got a 17-55 & flashgun fitted. > What I would like to see in the next camera: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > out of my own photos, so I am not so sure that Full Frame matters much to me > any longer. Amen, however I've heard 12mp is the limit for current technology on the APS-c sensor and 16 is the limit for FF....if one wants optimal results of less noise and better resolution. Still 12mp is a lot better than my 6mp D70......ten not so shure. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> D2x. I had a chance to attend a seminar with John Shaw and he has >> indicated [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Still 12mp is a lot better than my 6mp D70......ten not so shure. I don't really care how many pixels are in the camera (within reason). I care more about image quality, noise, lense sharpness and contrast, and camera handling and functionality. My new Nikon D80 has a 10mp sensor, but I'd be just as happy if it had 6mp or 16mp, as long as the above conditions are met. > Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am > not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sit on it longer or jump on the D200. In any case, I want a body that is > faster, sturdier and can use AI lenses ;-) At least another 18 months I'd guess. > At least another 18 months I'd guess. Thank you. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> At least another 18 months I'd guess. > > Thank you. But then there will be another new model out sometime after that ..... geoff >>> At least another 18 months I'd guess. >> >> Thank you. > > But then there will be another new model out sometime after that ..... But your current model will stay current for quite some time. Having said that, my issue isn't to have the latest and greatest, but if some of the features that I would like are going to be available in a year, then I would wait for them and continue with my current hardware. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>>> At least another 18 months I'd guess. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > would > wait for them and continue with my current hardware. Sounds like your current camera does OK and the D200 does only some of what you want. I know how you feel. My budget would get me a used Canon 1D mkII or a used 5D but the 1D mkII is only 8MP and I really need at least 12MP and the 5D is not a 1-series camera which I've already been using and love in the first generation 1D model. I rented a 1Ds mkII 16.6MP and it was perfect but at $5k used that's 150% over budget! You and I both should just buy new glass this year and wait for the next and I'll continue to rent the 1Ds when I need to. > > At least another 18 months I'd guess. > > Thank you. I would guess sooner, it will be a D3xs or other, Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > I would guess sooner, it will be a D3xs or other, The new D3x is going to be FF. I preordered mine. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> I would guess sooner, it will be a D3xs or other, > > The new D3x is going to be FF. I preordered mine. Yeah, alright troll. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> The new D3x is going to be FF. I preordered mine. > > Yeah, alright troll. LOL! Apparently you don't keep up with current news? Ken Rockwell is taking preorders and the wait list is growing fast. I'm number 162 on the list. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm Rita >>> The new D3x is going to be FF. I preordered mine. >> >> Yeah, alright troll. > > LOL! Apparently you don't keep up with current news? Ken Rockwell > is taking preorders and the wait list is growing fast. Rockwell? News? Yeah...whatever... > I'm number 162 on the list. A list that doesn't exist. > http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm From a page that is a quite clearly intended as a joke. Thomas is right...you have your line in the water, trolling again... Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> The new D3x is going to be FF. I preordered mine. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x.htm Now that's funny! Foveon in a Nikon ;-) SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> LOL! Apparently you don't keep up with current news? Ken Rockwell >> is taking preorders and the wait list is growing fast. I'm number [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Now that's funny! Foveon in a Nikon ;-) LOL! That's slated for the D4x. Rita just bob skrev: >Thomas T. Veldhouse: > > I am due to upgrade my D70 in the upcoming months, and I wonder if I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > At least another 18 months I'd guess. Also, please note that the lag phase between announcement and actual ready availability historically has been considerably longer for Nikon than for Canon. The D200 itself is a case in point. At least here in Sweden, although a very small number of cameras were sold to the highest positions on waiting-lists earlier, the D200 became readily available at about the same time as the Canon 30D, which was announced almost four months later. Jan B?hme >> At least another 18 months I'd guess. > >Also, please note that the lag phase between announcement and actual >ready availability historically has been considerably longer for >Nikon >than for Canon. The D200 itself is a case in point. That doesn't seem to be the case for some models. The D50 and D80 suffered no lag time in their production. New lenses, aside from the 18-200 VR, have also appeared relatively quickly. I'm not saying Nikon won't have lag time, just that it may not happen with the next models. > Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? > I am not [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that is > faster, sturdier and can use AI lenses ;-) I think Nikon may introduce a D200s model that has better high ISO noise performance and a few minor tweaks. I don't think they'll introduce a D300 for a while yet. > Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am > not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sit on it longer or jump on the D200. In any case, I want a body that is > faster, sturdier and can use AI lenses ;-) Is it even possible to improve upon the D200? Bill Crocker >Is it even possible to improve upon the D200? Better AF. I'm not satisfied with the D200 AF. The big difference between D2x and D200 is the AF module. But I would guess they won't upgrade much, since the D200 would be a too strong competitor to the pro-line. -espen Signaturehttp://www.seland.org/ > Judging by history, when might we see a successor to the Nikon D200? I am not > asking whether one is needed, just when it might happen? It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thomas T. Veldhouse > Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 My guess is that Nikon will release a D3 camera with a full size sensor to complement and not replace the D2xs. Then it will replace the D200 with a full size sensor model of lower specs compared to the D3 and discontinue the D2xs, something similar to the Canon EOS 5D. But it will first release the entry-level D40 to attract more customers who want something better than a P&S camera to their system. If you have used the soon to be ubiquitous 10mp APS sized sensor (Sony, Nikon, soon to be Pentax) you will see that it already delivers images technically beyond the need of advanced amateurs and most professionals. The viewing system through the D80/200 is such an improvement over the D70 it is worth upgrading for that alone. Noise is not as visible as with the 6mp sensor and it has never been clear to me what users expect when you start ratcheting up the ISO dial toward the stratosphere. I think the increased number of megapixels makes the noise that is there less ugly but not really less. The major lag in digital imaging sensor technology is dynamic range--these things just do not tolerate overexposure. Shooting raw one can fake a wider latitude but it would be a real boon if this issue could be addressed. Image stabilization is a plus/minus thing for me, not a deal breaker. I am surprised Nikon did not build some form of sensor cleaning technology into the D80, however dubious these functions are in real world use. Dust on the sensor is a very real problem if you are a habitual lens changer. > If you have used the soon to be ubiquitous 10mp APS sized sensor > (Sony, Nikon, soon to be Pentax) you will see that it already > delivers images technically beyond the need of advanced amateurs and > most professionals. That can be debated. I know that upgrading from 8 to 10 is questionable, and even going from 6 to 10 may not offer any benefit to someone who only makes 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 prints. > The viewing system through the D80/200 is such an improvement over > the D70 it is worth upgrading for that alone. Very true, and was one of driving forces for my switching from Canon to Nikon. > Noise is not as visible as with the 6mp sensor and it has never been > clear Just to clarify, it's not just the sensor that relates to noise, but the processing algorithms in the camera. The D50 has a 6mp sensor which is almost the same as the D70 sensor, yet it has one of the lowest noise levels of any digital camera on the market. > to me what users expect when you start ratcheting up the ISO dial > toward the stratosphere. I think the increased number of megapixels > makes the noise that is there less ugly but not really less. Only at small print sizes. Note that the design of the D80 produces less noisy images than the D200 out of the camera when using high ISO values. It also has a lot less noise than the D70/s. > The major lag in digital imaging sensor technology is dynamic > range--these things just do not tolerate overexposure. Then learn to shoot properly. :-) I don't consider dynamic range to be an issue since it's as good as anything else today. It would be great if you could take a shot of the beach on a clear day and get proper exposure of the sun, water, sand, trees, grass and bushes. But that's not practical. I would like to see more tonal range, but again it's not something I'd get excited about. > I am surprised Nikon did not build some form of sensor cleaning > technology into the D80, however dubious these functions are in real > world use. I'm really glad they didn't waste the development costs of a sensor cleaner in the D80. I've had my new D80 for two weeks and it still doesn't have a single spot on the sensor, and I've been busy with it swapping between three lenses a lot. > Dust on the sensor is a very real problem if you are a habitual lens > changer. Only if you're neurotic about dust, pixel peeping, etc. I change lenses all the time and it's never been an issue with a Canon Rebel XT, Nikon D70s, and now a D80. I may change lenses a dozen times in a single session. The few times I opened the mirror box to clean the sensor in the older models, it was a trivial task with a rocket blower. In over a year and a half of using DSLRs, I have yet to consider cleaning the sensor to be anything more than a very trivial part of changing lenses, putting on the flash, using a filter, etc. No big deal at all. > Dust on > the sensor is a very real problem if you are a habitual lens changer. Taking the battery out of the camera prior to removing the lens and having the replacement lens ready as well as brushing the camera and lens off before the switch all seem to help quite a bit. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.