Nikon related news/links

  • Nikon NPS "behind the scene coverage" of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics can be found on this website. For some reason they removed the time lapse video.

"Progress is cranking along.  As mentioned before, hardware is ready but the heart of the product is the firmware and that is still in development.  We’ve seen units firing a flash but there is still a ways to go to have enough functionality to bring the product to market.  No, we’re not ready to peg a date just yet."

  • Cool D3s video from Nikon Australia after the break:

This entry was posted in Weekly Nikon News Flash. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Jabs

    Sensors and stupidity.

    Again we see all this ignorant drivel here about measuring sensors like they are monolithic blocks – duh!
    A camera sensor is compromised of several elements including light gathering items that are NOT flat, hence you cannot measure them VIA specs., as you do NOT have all the variables – FACTS!
    The DXO Mark is measuring MEASURED output FOR EACH camera’s sensor ATTACHED to a working camera and NOT the sensor by itself.
    The problem arises when people try and tell you that they have a reasonable explanation for the RESULTS when in fact they have NO facts from ANY camera manufacturer to make any assessment whatsoever.
    If this is NOT obvious to you, then I prefer to leave all of you alone in your own ignorance.
    How do you measure the square area or even the area of an item that is not flat, but is variable due to pitch and then also has microlenses on there?
    Are the sensors by themselves or are they compromised of SEVERAL elements?
    Since we do NOT have the individual elements of the imaging pipeline to measure then we are measuring OUTPUT in a working camera.
    If you cannot confirm the specs YOURSELF, then any discussion about this is your stupidity, as there is NOTHING for you to personally calculate or measure!

    People get angry when their own fallacies in argument are pointed out, so sorry to offend you.
    Perhaps you need to NOT comment on what you obviously DO NOT understand and thus I leave all of you alone.
    Ignorance is indeed ‘bliss’ for some of us.
    Explaining the results without knowing what is being measured is what makes you a fool.

  • Jabs

    You know what bothers me here?
    It is not about the Canon -vs- Nikon stuff, but it is fools who try and quote much and then explain things that they have no data for or worse, no idea what they are posting.
    Wikis and other such places are the stuff of dreams for the ignorant wherein they run their mouths at web sites trying to show others why their own chosen equipment is better or worse.
    If you understand Technology, you would be quite aware that when data is not given, no valid conclusions can be made and thus your supposed conclusions show you to be a fool or pretender, as you have no data to back up your own conclusions or arguments.
    Technology is very complex and the average journalist or blogger does not really understand what they read, so you have a lot of misinformation or absolute trash posted all over the place by well-meaning people.
    You cannot ascertain something without all the variables and since no Manufacturer will ever give you all these details, then we are stuck as spectators guessing how they did it.
    We look at results and then wonder but not having the facts means that you cannot accurately predict what went into their products or its’ pipeline.
    You hear all the claims about what makes the D3x ‘special’ and did you ask Nikon themself?
    We have idiots who guess why and then these guesses become the equivalent of Internet folklore and the uninformed or gullible now take these as so-called facts.
    Who fooled who?
    No company tells you their trade secrets, so get real.
    You can guess and guess, but don’t try and pass off your guesses or supposed calculations as facts or data – as you have NONE whatsoever.
    Ignorance being passed as facts by bigger fools is what bothers me.

    It ‘dumbs’ us all down as photographers in a time when such wonderful tools are being released and Technology is expanding at such a rapid pace that instead of admitting that they cannot comprehend what is being described or delivered, they act like they know about it here.
    Talking heads indeed.

    • Ok, well without number one can still make directly observable and reproducible results in a very useful and scientific way. Give me raw files from two cameras shot under as close to identical circumstances and I can compare them in a way that is perfectly valid.

      Like you seem to have noticed, the older Canons did not cope well with reds. In my experience very saturated, properly exposed reds (say a rose) would clip in the highlights far too early and if you tried to recover this information it would not be there. With my old D2x, I could shoot things with the same strobe set up, same aperture at the same 1/250th sync, and I’d get a usable image. To get anything like the same image from the 1dsmkii, I’d have to underexpose by a minimum of 1.5 stops and then tweak a whole lot in post. And that made things very difficult, since there was more visible noise in the shadows on the 1dsmkii files. Sometimes I’d have to do very invasive manual manipulation–things that should NOT have to be done in a studio.

      Boosting the exposure of base ISO raw files from the 1dsmkii, the noise in the shadows had a pattern of noise that showed hard lines at right angles to the sides of the frame. All digital cameras can display this kind of noise, but it came on way to early with the 1dsmkii. The noise from my D2x was random and grain like. If it showed up, it wasn’t so bad, and I could tone it down with noise reduction software. With the 1dsmkii, I had to clone it out.

      I’ve used five different 1dsmkii units in the studio and out of the studio and they all performed the same way. I’ve used two different D2x units in and out of the studio and they performed the same way.

      Looking at DXO’s results, I can’t see any indication of this behaviour. What does that tell me? That DXO’s methodology is not valid to any accuracy of more than 75%. That’s not terribly useful.

      DXO is a company that sells software. The software will perform some neat tricks to correct lens issues. These issues are superseded by the availability of better and better lenses. ACR and other software produce much more color accurate results and incorporate better into an efficient work flow.

      The purpose of the DXO site isn’t scientific. It isn’t a photographer’s Guinness Book of sensors. It isn’t even for the public benefit.

      The purpose of the DXO site is to sell software.

      They don’t really care how accurate their results are, as long as they seem to match the general consensus enough to validate their methodology and in so doing, validate their analytical skill, which is used in making their DXO Optics software.

      The funny thing is, the models we’re all quibbling over are probably NOT the models that most benefit from their software. People with crappy bodies and mediocre lenses are the prime target for this software. But if they can get the “pros” talking about their brand and analysis, they can add perceived value to their product.

      DXO is basically one big publicity stunt for DXO Optics. Any critique of it should be viewed in that light.

      • Jabs

        Greetings MICAH,
        I thought about not answering you as this post is old but alas, I will try my best.
        You seem to be grasping at straws like a drowning person without common sense to realize that they are in 3 feet of water and merely have to stand up – LOL!
        DXO is Lab with highly specialized and respected EQUIPMENT, so the software they make has nothing to do with their published results in the DXO Mark, so perhaps you have NO Scientific training nor an ability to decipher their results.
        To imply that they are doing this to strictly sell software seems like a last gasp on your part – ignorant person comes to mind.
        Their software improves or compensates for the perceived output quality of a FILE, while the DXO Mark is an analysis of a camera SENSOR and its’ IMAGE PIPELINE.

        Their software cannot fix the sensor nor the image pipeline so what are you blubbering about?
        It is like saying that Adobe’s CS3 or 4 or Apple’s Aperture is able sell a fix for a SENSOR and image pipeline AFTER said image has left the camera – duh!

        Anyhow, believe as you wish and if you are as naive to believe that any Company does not have a vested interest in promoting their own products, then you are even dumber than your post conveys.
        The French are known to have great Optical Labs and since NOT ONE Manufacturer has challenged their results so far as I know, then you might be dreaming or unable to decipher their clear results.

        The consistent Scientific Results plus how they achieve them independently plus how EACH type of sensor in a Manufacturer’s line performs points to a consistency that YOU perhaps do not get or are unable to fathom.
        Perhaps you continue with shooting and leave analyses to others!

        Have good day in more thought, pal.

        Last point – the RED channel shortfall that I observed referred to the NEW Canon MK4, so reread what I stated in D3s -vs- MK4 and perhaps look at the results from the Vancouver Winter Olympics yourself.

        WHAT is the chromatic opposite of RED in a RGB array?

        • Ok, I’ll bite, what HARDWARE does DXO produce commercially? Where can I buy it? Can you find me one published source of a manufacturer using DXO hardware for any purpose?

          DXO Labs does make DXO Optics software, which they sell for a pretty penny. They have re-purposed their results into a website which they’ve generated a lot of publicity with.

          They are soliciting “partners” on their site, and they do not have any current partners listed. They do NOT advertise any analytical hardware for sale.

          Highly specialized, yep…they no doubt are. Respected? By who? Only amateur photographers from what I can tell.

          I can read the results perfectly well. That’s why I’m saying they aren’t very accurate. On further analysis, I think what’s missing is they haven’t given much weight in their stats to how these cameras behave at the extremes of luminance and saturation, and they seem to give a lot of weight to signal to noise. They are going about things in a methodical way, which is a good start, but something is obviously missing from their results.

          Again, your opinion would be a lot more valid if we saw some work. I have nothing to hide. I’m also not calling you an idiot, which you seem so quick to call me. You seem to come out with a lot of things with out qualifying them.

          I can borrow a 1dsmkii and prove my point pretty easily. But really, you can see the things I’m talking about all over the web. Are you disagreeing with me? I can’t even tell, since you don’t respond directly to what I say.

          Same with DXO…where’s this hardware you’re talking about? Where’d you come up with that?

          I came up with the FACT that DXO sells software because they advertise it on every DXO Mark page.

          Ok, here’s something very specific: pick a specific camera and check out the “full CS” section. They map out colors from a color checker (they show 19 color values, which is quite odd actually). They give an option of viewing at different luminance levels, but only up to 70. The probably I had with the canon’s red accuracy happens above 70, for real world objects that aren’t matte like a color checker. A lot happens in those 30 points before and up to clipping.

          Does DXO Labs take this into account? Their results don’t seem to.

          They also list the D2x and 1dsmkii as being about the same for dynamic range, with the edge going to the Canon. But does DXO take into account the horrid patterned noise in the shadows that the 1dsmkii has? Shoot identical, low contrast shots with both cameras and boost them 1-2 EV and you’ll see what I mean. There’s noise in the shadows on both, but the 1dsmkii has lines through it that make it impossible to just filter out.

          Testing in a scientific manner is wonderful. However, when the tests in the lab don’t match the real world results, something is wrong. If you can show me where these results are indicated in the results and scores on the DXO Mark site, I’ll stand corrected.

          • And as far as what’s hardware and what’s software: sensors are digitally processed. You get bits on media. Software is always involved in the processing of digital photography. All current cameras use analogue sensors that get converted to digital files. The “raw” info is still a digital file that happens to have more then 8bits per channel of information. That “raw” file is absolutely processed digitally several times over before it is output. Software DOES make a difference. Why do you think the cameras have smaller buffers above a certain ISO? They are having software reduce their noise levels, even for raw files. This software may be on a non-programmable chip, but it is still software.

            Even DXO Mark involves software processing. How else do we get numbers?

            You may claim to be an engineer, but you don’t seem to fully grasp cameras and photographic systems.

            Many of the things that the “ignorant” people you’ve whined about on this forum have said things that are perfectly valid. It takes social skill and knowledge of the things they are talking about to decipher what they’re getting at sometimes. But that doesn’t mean that all of the things they observe don’t have valid reasons. You can learn something from everyone if you just listen.

            I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and listening. But you don’t seem to be doing the same. You’re much to anxious to attack the messenger without analyzing the message. You may not agree with me, but do you understand why I’m saying what I’m saying? It’s NOT because ignorance.

            Maybe there’s a reason for what I’ve observed. Maybe it’s hardware, maybe it’s software. But I never found a way around it with software, and software is how I and everyone else work with digital files. ACR is part of my very efficient work flow. If there’s other software that doesn’t reproduce the same issues I’ve seen, I’m curious why.

            Do YOU have answers to my questions? Do you have reasons for the things I’ve observed? Or are you going to assume I’m ignorant and remain ignorant yourself?

  • Back to top