Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for advice/opinion replacing Nikon 5700 with Nikon..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:13:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi, All!

I'm in love with my 6 month-old Nikon Coolpix 5700 when
shooting my favorite subject - car pictures - in daylight.
I am completely dissasified with its flash performance not
only with the puny Speedlight but also with the excellent
Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible external. I don't need to
belabor that here, suffice to say the 5700 is going on
eBay and I'm in the market for a new camera.

I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or model. There's
lots of reasons for this but size, weight, and the lack of
an Electronic View Finder are all show stoppers for me.

The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm
looking at the 8800 because it has a brand new flash
system (apparently)called iTTL. And, this time, I'm not
gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
Nikon's SB-600.

My requirements are the same as most peoples: clear,
sharp, noise-free, detailed, well exposed, great color,
great camera features. Who doesn't want that stuff? 8 MP
is just frosting on the cake. I don't like the 8800's
maximum ISO 400, but I do like its vibration control,
which may compensate for lack of ISO 800.

I'm confident that the 8800 will work superbly for me in
daylight. I don't know about flash. My local camera store
will let me put the camera and flash on my Visa and give
me 10 days to test drive it, so long as I don't open the
CD, which is OK since I have a USB reader.

I am not at all wed to Nikon. I've already started my
research on the web, but still have a ways to go. What I'm
asking of all the good people here is some opinions and
advice from people that actually own a Nikon 8800 or
competitive camera they recommend.

My main flash problems are in the dank light of car
museums where there're no walls or ceilings for the flash
to reflect off.

I am completely open-minded on make and model. I'd say my
budget is $1,000, which is where the 8800 is, less a $100
rebate. I understand that there's a major photo show in a
couple of weeks, so the 8800 and its competitors may come
down in price by the end of the month.

I would appreciate advice and opinions. If I have been
unclear as to my requirements, the problems I've had with
the 5700 or why I'm anti-DSLR, I'll be glad to
clarify/elaborate. I just wanted to keep my OP as short as
possible.

Thanks in advance for the help!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:13:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think you sort of answered your own question - you say you really
like the 5700 in daylight, so the camera is not likely to be the issue.
Then you say you are disappointed with the flash performance, but you
didn't really elaborate on what the problem was. Then you say you are
shooting in the dark light of car museums with little in the way of
reflective surfaces to use bounce techniques. (And those bounce
techniques are not going to give you good results on something as big
and as shiny as a car anyway - at least not with a single flash.) I
don't think a new camera and one flash, no matter how powerful, is
going to help that much.

I'm no expert on this type of photography, but having seen pro's shoot
vehicles at car shows - they either use a tripod and rely on the car
presenters lighting, or they go to a s#%#load of trouble with multiple
lights, some direct, some bounced, or even *huge* lightboxes. At the
very least, I think you will be wanting a couple of slaved flashes on
stands, or other more complex lighting arrangements.

So don't be too disappointed if the 8800 doesn't meet your expectations
either!
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:24:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks for the explanation. I can't read your mind, and if you re-read
your post, I think you'll agree that my advice *could* have been
correct, as you didn't mention the inconsistency issues - you just said
you got poor results in dark venues. I did not `chide`, nor intend to,
and I'm not sure how you read that into my post.

As for the 'inconsistent confusion' that the 5700 encounters, I haven't
seen or heard of this fault on that camera, so I won't try to comment
on whether the 8800 and/or a different flash will help. I haven't
noticed any similar issues with mine (Oly 8080), but I've only used it
with a very ancient hammerhead flash in manual.

(I might add that although I agree that the Panasonic DMC-FZ20
recommended below is a very fine camera, it *does* get reported as
occasionally having exposure issues, so maybe that might not be `the
one` either!).
Related resources
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 10:37:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I think you sort of answered your own question - you
> say you really like the 5700 in daylight, so the
> camera is not likely to be the issue.

Yes, it is, I'm afraid...

> Then you say you are disappointed with the flash
> performance, but you didn't really elaborate on
> what the problem was.

This post wasn't to diagnose my flash problems, I've been
there done that, including posting here, where Bob Rogers
worked with me some, not to mention a couple of weeks with
Nikon tech support on the phone and E-mail, and a trip to
Nikon Service.

I can describe what's going on for you, but that isn't
going to change how I feel about the 5700. It's history.

> Then you say you are shooting in the dark light
> of car museums with little in the way of reflective
> surfaces to use bounce techniques.

I didn't say I tilted the flash head up for bounce flash,
I just said there no close aboard walls or ceilings, as in
a smaller room, for the flash to simply reflect back on
the car. My 5700 works very well in small-to-moderate
rooms, and it works quite well if I can fill the entire
picture with the subject. The issue comes in when I want
to include, say 30% of the picture with the background of
the scene. Again, I'm not going to elaborate because
that's not the point of this post, but when I allow lots
of background into my photos, the 5700's flash sensor
which controls the auto exposure system gets confused in
an inconsistant manner. Enough of that...

> I don't think a new camera and one flash, no matter
> how powerful, is going to help that much.

Please keep in mind that I've used the Sunpak with mixed
results. It has a Guide Number of 120, which is plenty for
30-35'. That's beyond the distance I shoot at so my flash
is *not* the cause of the problem. And, I've proven to
myself that I get completely correct exposures if I put
the camera in manual and use the old GN / distance =
f/stop at 1/125. What I want, though, is to get reliable
auto flash exposures without having to diddle with manual
controls on every picture.

>
> I'm no expert on this type of photography, but having
> seen pro's shoot vehicles at car shows - they either
> use a tripod and rely on the car presenters lighting,
> or they go to a s#%#load of trouble with multiple
> lights, some direct, some bounced, or even *huge*
> lightboxes.

Again, I thank for your observations. I know all that
stuff you said, but don't want to do it. I'm not putting
you down, but I didn't post this request to get a lesson
in car show photography. I posted it because I want to
dump the 5700 and I'm asking for personal experience with
the Nikon 8800 in museum environments, or experience with
a competitor's camera.

I'm trying to make a judgement on what to buy. Posting
here will provide some data points, I'll get more by
reading dpreview.com, more data points from talking to
camera store sales people, etc.

I'm hoping to be as informed as I can before I buy. But,
since I have 3 stores locally that'll give me a 10-day no-
questions-asked charge refund, I'm protected. That's
plenty of time to get to the two big car museums near me -
The Henry Ford Museum and the Walter P. Museum. This is a
lot like asking people what car to buy. After all the
hoopla dies down, and the arguments about features,
reliablity, test results, etc. are over, you really have
to get in one, see if you're comfortable, and decide
first-hand if you *like* the car. That's what I'm trying
to do here.

I'll know one way or another if the 8800 is acceptable in
about a half-hour's shooting. And, I'll be using Nikon's
own SB-600 flash so there won't be any bullshit argument
out of Nikon that I'm screwed up because I have a non-
compatible flash (which isn't the case).

Besides chiding me for possible naievte and giving me
photography lessons I didn't ask for, can you offer me
some perspectives on how you believe an 8800 will perform
vs. a 5700 under similar shooting conditions with similar
lighting? If not, I thank again, and I'll move on to the
10 day test drive.

Cheers!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 12:52:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Thanks for the explanation. I can't read your mind,
> and if you re-read your post, I think you'll
> agree that my advice *could* have been correct,
> as you didn't mention the inconsistency issues - you
> just said you got poor results in dark venues.

I don't think you and I are at odds, maybe just on
adjacent lanes of the same highway.

> I did not `chide`, nor intend to, and I'm not sure how
> you read that into my post.

No, you didn't chide. And, if I left you with my thinking
of you that way, it was unintentional. Again, there're
limits to how much is prudent to put into an OP or even a
follow-up. Past some reasonably small amount of text,
everyone will tune out. So, I didn't want to confuse the
issue with people trying to figure out why I couldn't get
good flash pictures. I just put a short paragraph in to
say "I've fed up - need a new toy!".

> As for the 'inconsistent confusion' that the 5700
> encounters, I haven't seen or heard of this fault
> on that camera, so I won't try to comment on whether
> the 8800 and/or a different flash will help.

Well, as best I've been able to determine after trying for
over 5 months, damn few people are even alleging a defect.
I think I've read maybe three posts alluding to flash
problems where I thought the shooting situation was even
similar to mine. Mainly, when I've enquired before - as I
did on this NG a couple of times - the responses I got
were very well thought out and indicative of people
knowing more about this stuff than I did. Unfortunately,
in the final analysis I didn't glean anything that I could
hang my hat on, except that my technique is universally
considered to be sub-optimal.

You would know that, because you and I haven't talked
about it, but I wasn't in the past and I'm not now asking
for help in photographic technique to get better car
pictures, I was asking earlier for help in trying to
figure out why *specific* circumstances - smart or not -
were causing trouble.

But, I'm past that now. I'm still interested in personal
testimonials but I'm pessimistic of getting them. Its just
that some situations aren't all that common.

So, again, I'm spreading a wide net past this NG to gain
as much info I can, but in the final analysis, I'll find
out through the school of hard knocks - the 8800 (or
whatever I buy) will either do the job or not. If it does,
I'm golden and I sell the 5700. If it doesn't, back to the
store for a refund it goes.

Since I'm knee deep in some pretty tall weeds, here, I'll
dig myself in a deeper hole: My previous camera was a 2001
FujiFilm 4900 4 mega pixel. It has an itty bitty built-in
flash, also. Naturally, it never took anything approaching
great pictures, but at the Detroit Auto Show, at three
museums, at outdoor car shows where I was using flash as
fill, and in new car dealers, the pictures might not have
been good, but they were drop-dead consistant: light fell
off as the square of increased distance if I tried to
exeed that 10-12' max range of the flash.

But, with the Fuji, I *never* got inconsistent exposures.
And, to rule out an attack of early-onset Alzheimer's, I
took my wife's $150 Kodak 6330 P & S to the WPC museum
along with my 5700 and took a couple dozen identical
situation pictures. The Nikon pics were sharper and more
detailed, as you'd expect, but the cheapie Kodak beat the
Nikon's brains out with highly consistent flash.

So, I respectfully ask you (and the others), what am I
missing here? I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, and I
admit it, but I don't visualize myself as a drooling
imbecile either (and, *NO*, I am *not* saying that you
implied that!).

I'm a retired DaimlerChrysler employee with company lease
car priveledges, such as it is. Last fall, they gave us a
special lease rate on base model Chrysler Crossfire
coupes. I'm not making a political statement here, but I
think it's a pretty good looking car. So, I went for a
test drive.

Turned out that it is quiet, handled well, performed
adequately (if not spectacularly), but I *hated* it! There
is no earthly way I could have discovered that by reading
Motor Trend or watching Motor Trend TV or watching other
Speed Channel shows that gushed on the car. It's a great
car, I just didn't like if for my brand of driving.

So, by analogy, the Nikon 5700 is a fine camera with
excellent reviews and many happy owners, but not me. So,
I'm gonna fix it by buying some I do like to drive.

Thanks again for your many suggestions. As Mr. Spock used
to say to Captain Kirk, "Sir, I shall consider it!"

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:50:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
> Hi, All!
>
> I'm in love with my 6 month-old Nikon Coolpix 5700 when
> shooting my favorite subject - car pictures - in daylight.
> I am completely dissasified with its flash performance not
> only with the puny Speedlight but also with the excellent
> Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible external. I don't need to
> belabor that here, suffice to say the 5700 is going on
> eBay and I'm in the market for a new camera.
>
> I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or model. There's
> lots of reasons for this but size, weight, and the lack of
> an Electronic View Finder are all show stoppers for me.
>
> The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm
> looking at the 8800 because it has a brand new flash
> system (apparently)called iTTL. And, this time, I'm not
> gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
> Nikon's SB-600.
>
> My requirements are the same as most peoples: clear,
> sharp, noise-free, detailed, well exposed, great color,
> great camera features. Who doesn't want that stuff? 8 MP
> is just frosting on the cake. I don't like the 8800's
> maximum ISO 400, but I do like its vibration control,
> which may compensate for lack of ISO 800.
>
> I'm confident that the 8800 will work superbly for me in
> daylight. I don't know about flash. My local camera store
> will let me put the camera and flash on my Visa and give
> me 10 days to test drive it, so long as I don't open the
> CD, which is OK since I have a USB reader.
>
> I am not at all wed to Nikon. I've already started my
> research on the web, but still have a ways to go. What I'm
> asking of all the good people here is some opinions and
> advice from people that actually own a Nikon 8800 or
> competitive camera they recommend.
>
> My main flash problems are in the dank light of car
> museums where there're no walls or ceilings for the flash
> to reflect off.
>
> I am completely open-minded on make and model. I'd say my
> budget is $1,000, which is where the 8800 is, less a $100
> rebate. I understand that there's a major photo show in a
> couple of weeks, so the 8800 and its competitors may come
> down in price by the end of the month.
>
> I would appreciate advice and opinions. If I have been
> unclear as to my requirements, the problems I've had with
> the 5700 or why I'm anti-DSLR, I'll be glad to
> clarify/elaborate. I just wanted to keep my OP as short as
> possible.
>
> Thanks in advance for the help!
>

I'm really curious to know why you insist on an electronic viewfinder. Most info
is availabe either in the optical viewfinder or mini LCD status screen on
top/back of a digital SLR. The Pentax *ist DS is much smaller than the rest, and
barely bigger than the prosumer P&Ss like the 8800. Go and have a play with one
if you haven't already.

--
--
Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia

My Digital World:
Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.

Disclaimer:
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:50:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ben Thomas commented courteously ...

> I'm really curious to know why you insist on an
> electronic viewfinder. Most info is availabe either
> in the optical viewfinder or mini LCD status screen on
> top/back of a digital SLR. The Pentax *ist DS is much
> smaller than the rest, and barely bigger than the
> prosumer P&Ss like the 8800. Go and have a play
> with one if you haven't already.

You ask fair questions, Ben. Let me try to respond...

You cannot see what the as-taken image looks like in an
optical viewfinder, and the itty bitty LCD on the back is
way to small to make more than gross judgements.

For example, I can make an instant judgement with the EVF
of my Nikon 5700 that tells me 1) is the exposure
reasonable? 2) is the subject in focus? 3) do I have
enough depth of field? 4) did I pick up a bad flash glare?
5) did I accidently cut-off part of the subject by
carelessness? 6) are there any unwanted but unexpected
defects in the picture that could be alleviated by moving
slightly?

Besides those reasons, which are peculiar to my perhaps
warped thinking, I want to have a long zoom lens which is
relatively compact, and I don't want to have to buy
several expensive lenses and lug them around. The days of
trekking through Yellowstone Park with my Nikon FTN and 3
lenses is over for me.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it! So, As I
mentioned in my other reply post, I certainly respect you
for your knowledge, but what I'm looking for are
experienced opinions of how an 8800 might perform in the
peculiar flash situation I need to shoot in , vs. my 5700.

In car terms, I might dismiss the entire genre of truck-
based SUV, such as Chevy Tahoes, Ford Expeditions, or
Dodge Durangos, in favor of a traditional 4-door sedan
with good power, handling, and vehicle dynamics such as a
HEMI 300C. That doesn't make the SUVs bad, they're not. I
just don't want one. And, I don't want a DSLR.

Thanks again for your observations.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
February 10, 2005 3:50:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Some of the DSLRs also have the same underexposure problems.
Go for the 8800, but its noise is higher than your 5700, that is a given.


"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F8D30207290ReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Ben Thomas commented courteously ...
>
>> I'm really curious to know why you insist on an
>> electronic viewfinder. Most info is availabe either
>> in the optical viewfinder or mini LCD status screen on
>> top/back of a digital SLR. The Pentax *ist DS is much
>> smaller than the rest, and barely bigger than the
>> prosumer P&Ss like the 8800. Go and have a play
>> with one if you haven't already.
>
> You ask fair questions, Ben. Let me try to respond...
>
> You cannot see what the as-taken image looks like in an
> optical viewfinder, and the itty bitty LCD on the back is
> way to small to make more than gross judgements.
>
> For example, I can make an instant judgement with the EVF
> of my Nikon 5700 that tells me 1) is the exposure
> reasonable? 2) is the subject in focus? 3) do I have
> enough depth of field? 4) did I pick up a bad flash glare?
> 5) did I accidently cut-off part of the subject by
> carelessness? 6) are there any unwanted but unexpected
> defects in the picture that could be alleviated by moving
> slightly?
>
> Besides those reasons, which are peculiar to my perhaps
> warped thinking, I want to have a long zoom lens which is
> relatively compact, and I don't want to have to buy
> several expensive lenses and lug them around. The days of
> trekking through Yellowstone Park with my Nikon FTN and 3
> lenses is over for me.
>
> That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it! So, As I
> mentioned in my other reply post, I certainly respect you
> for your knowledge, but what I'm looking for are
> experienced opinions of how an 8800 might perform in the
> peculiar flash situation I need to shoot in , vs. my 5700.
>
> In car terms, I might dismiss the entire genre of truck-
> based SUV, such as Chevy Tahoes, Ford Expeditions, or
> Dodge Durangos, in favor of a traditional 4-door sedan
> with good power, handling, and vehicle dynamics such as a
> HEMI 300C. That doesn't make the SUVs bad, they're not. I
> just don't want one. And, I don't want a DSLR.
>
> Thanks again for your observations.
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 3:50:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

SteveJ commented courteously ...

> Some of the DSLRs also have the same underexposure
> problems. Go for the 8800, but its noise is higher
> than your 5700, that is a given.

Thanks for the opine, Steve! Are you basing your belief
that the 8800 is noisier on the fact that it is an early-
generation Nikon 8 mega pixel, and new designs are often
noisier than follow-on designs from the same manufacturer?

And, do you consider the noise to be a show-stopper for
subjects requiring low noise, fine detail, and sharpness,
such as car pictures?

I noticed that the 8800 has ISO 50, where my 5700 was 100
min, so that should help. The 8800 doesn't go beyond ISO
400, which bugs me, but I'll be doing flash far more often
than available light either hand-held of with a tripod.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:57:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F8D85758808ReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> SteveJ commented courteously ...
>
> > Some of the DSLRs also have the same underexposure
> > problems. Go for the 8800, but its noise is higher
> > than your 5700, that is a given.
>
> Thanks for the opine, Steve! Are you basing your belief
> that the 8800 is noisier on the fact that it is an early-
> generation Nikon 8 mega pixel, and new designs are often
> noisier than follow-on designs from the same manufacturer?
>
> And, do you consider the noise to be a show-stopper for
> subjects requiring low noise, fine detail, and sharpness,
> such as car pictures?
>
> I noticed that the 8800 has ISO 50, where my 5700 was 100
> min, so that should help. The 8800 doesn't go beyond ISO
> 400, which bugs me, but I'll be doing flash far more often
> than available light either hand-held of with a tripod.
>

Check out the Panasonic FZ20. It has a long flash range, and the lens does
not extend forward much. Anti shake too.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 5:57:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Harvey commented courteously ...

> Check out the Panasonic FZ20. It has a long flash
> range,and the lens does not extend forward much.
> Anti shake too.

Thanks for the heads-up Harvey! This is exactly why I
posted my plea for advice. I will definitely investigate
the Panasonic.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:22:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:13:25 -0600, in rec.photo.digital All Things Mopar
<usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:

>I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or model. There's
>lots of reasons for this but size, weight, and the lack of
>an Electronic View Finder are all show stoppers for me.

>My main flash problems are in the dank light of car
>museums where there're no walls or ceilings for the flash
>to reflect off.

A dslr with usable high iso and a fast lens would not necessarily require a
flash in such situations. Just a thought.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:30:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf commented courteously ...

> A dslr with usable high iso and a fast lens
> would not necessarily require a flash in such
> situations. Just a thought.

That is obviously correct, Ed. At a car show like the 2005
North American Internation Auto Show in Detroit, what you
say is entirely true - it is *very* bright. I missed it
this year, but if I had something like a Canon 20D, I'd
definitely shoot available light, but I'd probably also
carry along an external flash for fill, and see if that
helps or hinders.

I see from your sig that you own a 5700. You really can't
shoot available light with that (at least not mine!)
because at ISO 800, my pictures look like beach sand
paintings. I can tell from your suggestion that you're
doing my kind of shooting with your D70. But, have you
tried the 5700 with competant flash?
The Walter P. Chrysler Museum is 15 minutes from me and I
get in free because I'm a Chrysler retiree, so I go there
often. Unlike many museums, lighting is "normal" most
places.

It has some unique challenges, though. For example, there
are large windows on two walls on the 1st and second
floors. They park cars in front of them. I go in late
afternoon to shoot the back-lit cars, and change from
"matrix" to "spot" metering.

Other places in the WPC are pretty dark. Then, the
basement display has a mixture of both incandescent and
fluorescent lighting! How the dickens do you set white
balance for that?

The Henry Ford Museum, 45 minutes from me and $16 bucks a
pop is so dark that it makes a beer joint bright! I could
get by hand-held at maybe ISO 800 or 1600 at the WPC, but
I'd definitely need a tripod at the HF.

One last comment: I like my pictures bright and contrasty.
I know how to do that with the camera but prefer to do it
in Paint Shop Pro 9 so I can see the changes. The NAIAS
car show is bright enough that contrast isn't that much of
a problem. The WPC is marginal on contrast, but again, the
HF is dismal. Available light pictures look flat and
uninteresting, with color balance problems even when set
for incandescent.

Anyway, thank you for the suggestion, and you have a great
day, hear?!

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:iiaeuc.2pu.ln@192.168.11.2...
> All Things Mopar wrote:
>> Hi, All!
>>
>> I'm in love with my 6 month-old Nikon Coolpix 5700 when shooting my
>> favorite subject - car pictures - in daylight. I am completely
>> dissasified with its flash performance not only with the puny Speedlight
>> but also with the excellent Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible external. I
>> don't need to belabor that here, suffice to say the 5700 is going on eBay
>> and I'm in the market for a new camera.
>>
>> I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or model. There's lots of
>> reasons for this but size, weight, and the lack of an Electronic View
>> Finder are all show stoppers for me.
>>
>> The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm looking at the 8800
>> because it has a brand new flash system (apparently)called iTTL. And,
>> this time, I'm not gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
>> Nikon's SB-600.
>>
>> My requirements are the same as most peoples: clear, sharp, noise-free,
>> detailed, well exposed, great color, great camera features. Who doesn't
>> want that stuff? 8 MP is just frosting on the cake. I don't like the
>> 8800's maximum ISO 400, but I do like its vibration control, which may
>> compensate for lack of ISO 800.
>>
>> I'm confident that the 8800 will work superbly for me in daylight. I
>> don't know about flash. My local camera store will let me put the camera
>> and flash on my Visa and give me 10 days to test drive it, so long as I
>> don't open the CD, which is OK since I have a USB reader.
>>
>> I am not at all wed to Nikon. I've already started my research on the
>> web, but still have a ways to go. What I'm asking of all the good people
>> here is some opinions and advice from people that actually own a Nikon
>> 8800 or competitive camera they recommend.
>>
>> My main flash problems are in the dank light of car museums where
>> there're no walls or ceilings for the flash to reflect off.
>>
>> I am completely open-minded on make and model. I'd say my budget is
>> $1,000, which is where the 8800 is, less a $100 rebate. I understand that
>> there's a major photo show in a couple of weeks, so the 8800 and its
>> competitors may come down in price by the end of the month.
>>
>> I would appreciate advice and opinions. If I have been unclear as to my
>> requirements, the problems I've had with the 5700 or why I'm anti-DSLR,
>> I'll be glad to clarify/elaborate. I just wanted to keep my OP as short
>> as possible.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for the help!
>>
>
> I'm really curious to know why you insist on an electronic viewfinder.
> Most info is availabe either in the optical viewfinder or mini LCD status
> screen on top/back of a digital SLR. The Pentax *ist DS is much smaller
> than the rest, and barely bigger than the prosumer P&Ss like the 8800. Go
> and have a play with one if you haven't already.
>
> --
> --
> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>
> My Digital World:
> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>
> Disclaimer:
> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
> relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as
> neither
> given nor endorsed by it.
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Nige commented courteously ...

Sorry to top-post, but Huh? I'm not following what you
posted...

>
> "Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
> news:iiaeuc.2pu.ln@192.168.11.2...
>> All Things Mopar wrote:
>>> Hi, All!
>>>
>>> I'm in love with my 6 month-old Nikon Coolpix 5700
when
>>> shooting my favorite subject - car pictures - in
>>> daylight. I am completely dissasified with its flash
>>> performance not only with the puny Speedlight but also
>>> with the excellent Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible
external.
>>> I don't need to belabor that here, suffice to say the
>>> 5700 is going on eBay and I'm in the market for a new
>>> camera.
>>>
>>> I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or model.
>>> There's lots of reasons for this but size, weight, and
>>> the lack of an Electronic View Finder are all show
>>> stoppers for me.
>>>
>>> The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm
>>> looking at the 8800 because it has a brand new flash
>>> system (apparently)called iTTL. And, this time, I'm
not
>>> gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
>>> Nikon's SB-600.
>>>
>>> My requirements are the same as most peoples: clear,
>>> sharp, noise-free, detailed, well exposed, great
color,
>>> great camera features. Who doesn't want that stuff? 8
MP
>>> is just frosting on the cake. I don't like the 8800's
>>> maximum ISO 400, but I do like its vibration control,
>>> which may compensate for lack of ISO 800.
>>>
>>> I'm confident that the 8800 will work superbly for me
in
>>> daylight. I don't know about flash. My local camera
store
>>> will let me put the camera and flash on my Visa and
give
>>> me 10 days to test drive it, so long as I don't open
the
>>> CD, which is OK since I have a USB reader.
>>>
>>> I am not at all wed to Nikon. I've already started my
>>> research on the web, but still have a ways to go. What
>>> I'm asking of all the good people here is some
opinions
>>> and advice from people that actually own a Nikon 8800
or
>>> competitive camera they recommend.
>>>
>>> My main flash problems are in the dank light of car
>>> museums where there're no walls or ceilings for the
flash
>>> to reflect off.
>>>
>>> I am completely open-minded on make and model. I'd say
my
>>> budget is $1,000, which is where the 8800 is, less a
$100
>>> rebate. I understand that there's a major photo show
in a
>>> couple of weeks, so the 8800 and its competitors may
come
>>> down in price by the end of the month.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate advice and opinions. If I have been
>>> unclear as to my requirements, the problems I've had
with
>>> the 5700 or why I'm anti-DSLR, I'll be glad to
>>> clarify/elaborate. I just wanted to keep my OP as
short
>>> as possible.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for the help!
>>>
>>
>> I'm really curious to know why you insist on an
electronic
>> viewfinder. Most info is availabe either in the optical
>> viewfinder or mini LCD status screen on top/back of a
>> digital SLR. The Pentax *ist DS is much smaller than
the
>> rest, and barely bigger than the prosumer P&Ss like the
>> 8800. Go and have a play with one if you haven't
already.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>>
>> My Digital World:
>> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
>> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
>> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
>> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>>
>> Disclaimer:
>> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this
>> message that do not relate to the official business of
my
>> employer shall be understood as neither
>> given nor endorsed by it.
>
>
>



--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 8:51:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:30:26 -0600, in rec.photo.digital All Things Mopar
<usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf commented courteously ...
>
>> A dslr with usable high iso and a fast lens
>> would not necessarily require a flash in such
>> situations. Just a thought.

>I see from your sig that you own a 5700. You really can't
>shoot available light with that (at least not mine!)
>because at ISO 800, my pictures look like beach sand
>paintings.

I find 400 quite usable with the use of Neat Image to help filter the
noise. For something like you are taking about you can also make use of BSS
to cope with getting the best shot at slow shutter speeds. I've gotten
shots down as low as 1/4 sec ( DSCN9395.JPG) in the Cradle of Aviation
Museum
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/CP_990/Wide/r...
In many instances of the planes I wanted to capture the lighting as it was.
Typically, I don't do a lot of flash photos.

I can tell from your suggestion that you're
>doing my kind of shooting with your D70. But, have you
>tried the 5700 with competant flash?

No. I do a lot of low light shooting that can't be done with flash too
well. Wildlife and indoor/night racing with long focal lengths. So for this
I look to bump iso up and use as fast a lens as possible. I started with a
990 and the TC-3x converter, went to the 5700 and TC1.5 and found it
lacking. I couldn't get the shutter speeds I needed. Hence the get a fast
lens and bump the iso. Over Christmas I shot my 7 yr old nephew's school
Christmas pageant with no flash using my D70 and 70-200 f/2.8 stabilized
lens. I had to push the iso on this. But I prefer that to flash, myself
along with my other needs. I do shoot raw, admittedly a PIA with the 5700
given the 20-22 sec it takes to write to the card.

The 8800 is stabilized, but it's still not fast, especially if you zoom in
at all.

>It has some unique challenges, though. For example, there
>are large windows on two walls on the 1st and second
>floors. They park cars in front of them. I go in late
>afternoon to shoot the back-lit cars, and change from
>"matrix" to "spot" metering.

Yep, and your gonna blow out the windows probably it it's bright outside.

>Other places in the WPC are pretty dark. Then, the
>basement display has a mixture of both incandescent and
>fluorescent lighting! How the dickens do you set white
>balance for that?

The real answer for that is raw where you can then easily change the WB
when you process it.

>The Henry Ford Museum, 45 minutes from me and $16 bucks a
>pop is so dark that it makes a beer joint bright! I could
>get by hand-held at maybe ISO 800 or 1600 at the WPC, but
>I'd definitely need a tripod at the HF.

See my CAV pics mentioned above, pretty slow shutter speeds. If you have a
Nikon P&S BSS is definitely your friend in these situations. Also if
possible shoot off the hip. I did this all the time with the swivel head
990, not as much help with the 5700.

>One last comment: I like my pictures bright and contrasty.
>I know how to do that with the camera but prefer to do it
>in Paint Shop Pro 9 so I can see the changes. The NAIAS
>car show is bright enough that contrast isn't that much of
>a problem. The WPC is marginal on contrast, but again, the
>HF is dismal. Available light pictures look flat and
>uninteresting, with color balance problems even when set
>for incandescent.

Again, sounds like a call for using raw capabilities.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 9:05:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:52:12 -0600, in rec.photo.digital All Things Mopar
<usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:


>So, I respectfully ask you (and the others), what am I
>missing here? I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, and I
>admit it, but I don't visualize myself as a drooling
>imbecile either (and, *NO*, I am *not* saying that you
>implied that!).

The sensor is just to the side and below the flash. As such I would think
it can be blocked from light coming below by the lens. Also if you look
closely it is set back a fair amount from the surface. As such it's field
of view is limited some by this. How much I don't know, but your problems
with wider angle shots would seem to imply this might be a pertinent issue.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 11:23:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf commented courteously ...

> I find 400 quite usable with the use of Neat Image
> to help filter the noise.

I haven't tried that one, but I've used PSP 9's
outstanding DCNR, but even this impressive filter has a
tough time.

> The 8800 is stabilized, but it's still not fast,
> especially if you zoom in at all.

Ed, sometimes I think I've got the most peculiar
requirements and personal preferences on this NG. Luckily
for me, the cars I shoot aren't moving, so if there's
shutter lag or other nasty stuff, it doesn't bother me.

But, being hyper-active, I'm too damn impatient to set up
a tripod and shoot available light. I guess you could say
I sacrifice a lot of quality to get quantity.

But, being neither a pro nor even an advanced amateur
photographer, most of my pictures satisfy me. I
characterize my pictures as "documentary" rather than
photographically aesthetic, so I can get by with things
like a single flash mounted on top the camera when all the
talented people, like you, just cringe.

The good news, though, is today's digital camera market is
plenty deep and wide for everyone from a current user of
1-time Kodaks to someone who makes their living with
digital.

And, with reference to RAW, I have a rudimentary
understanding of why it is advantageous, but the 80/20
rule and the law of dimishing returns enters into it, and
I don't currently visualize enough advantage to RAW to
compensate for the big file sizes and slower graphics
manipulation. But, my opinion on that may well change
sometime in the future...

Thanks for your suggestions.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 1:12:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

???


"All Things Mopar" <usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F9526F36DFCReplyToken@216.196.97.131...
> Nige commented courteously ...
>
> Sorry to top-post, but Huh? I'm not following what you
> posted...
>
>>
>> "Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
>> news:iiaeuc.2pu.ln@192.168.11.2...
>>> All Things Mopar wrote:
>>>> Hi, All!
>>>>
>>>> I'm in love with my 6 month-old Nikon Coolpix 5700
> when
>>>> shooting my favorite subject - car pictures - in
>>>> daylight. I am completely dissasified with its flash
>>>> performance not only with the puny Speedlight but also
>>>> with the excellent Sunpak 433D Nikon-compatible
> external.
>>>> I don't need to belabor that here, suffice to say the
>>>> 5700 is going on eBay and I'm in the market for a new
>>>> camera.
>>>>
>>>> I really do not want a DSLR, of any make or model.
>>>> There's lots of reasons for this but size, weight, and
>>>> the lack of an Electronic View Finder are all show
>>>> stoppers for me.
>>>>
>>>> The 5700's 5 mega pixels is more than enough, but I'm
>>>> looking at the 8800 because it has a brand new flash
>>>> system (apparently)called iTTL. And, this time, I'm
> not
>>>> gonna be penny wise and dollar fooling - I'm gonna buy
>>>> Nikon's SB-600.
>>>>
>>>> My requirements are the same as most peoples: clear,
>>>> sharp, noise-free, detailed, well exposed, great
> color,
>>>> great camera features. Who doesn't want that stuff? 8
> MP
>>>> is just frosting on the cake. I don't like the 8800's
>>>> maximum ISO 400, but I do like its vibration control,
>>>> which may compensate for lack of ISO 800.
>>>>
>>>> I'm confident that the 8800 will work superbly for me
> in
>>>> daylight. I don't know about flash. My local camera
> store
>>>> will let me put the camera and flash on my Visa and
> give
>>>> me 10 days to test drive it, so long as I don't open
> the
>>>> CD, which is OK since I have a USB reader.
>>>>
>>>> I am not at all wed to Nikon. I've already started my
>>>> research on the web, but still have a ways to go. What
>>>> I'm asking of all the good people here is some
> opinions
>>>> and advice from people that actually own a Nikon 8800
> or
>>>> competitive camera they recommend.
>>>>
>>>> My main flash problems are in the dank light of car
>>>> museums where there're no walls or ceilings for the
> flash
>>>> to reflect off.
>>>>
>>>> I am completely open-minded on make and model. I'd say
> my
>>>> budget is $1,000, which is where the 8800 is, less a
> $100
>>>> rebate. I understand that there's a major photo show
> in a
>>>> couple of weeks, so the 8800 and its competitors may
> come
>>>> down in price by the end of the month.
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate advice and opinions. If I have been
>>>> unclear as to my requirements, the problems I've had
> with
>>>> the 5700 or why I'm anti-DSLR, I'll be glad to
>>>> clarify/elaborate. I just wanted to keep my OP as
> short
>>>> as possible.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance for the help!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm really curious to know why you insist on an
> electronic
>>> viewfinder. Most info is availabe either in the optical
>>> viewfinder or mini LCD status screen on top/back of a
>>> digital SLR. The Pentax *ist DS is much smaller than
> the
>>> rest, and barely bigger than the prosumer P&Ss like the
>>> 8800. Go and have a play with one if you haven't
> already.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Ben Thomas - Software Engineer - Melbourne, Australia
>>>
>>> My Digital World:
>>> Kodak DX6490, Canon i9950, Pioneer A05;
>>> Hitachi 37" HD plasma display, DGTEC 2000A,
>>> Denon 2800, H/K AVR4500, Whatmough Encore;
>>> Sony Ericsson K700i, Palm Tungsten T.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:
>>> Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this
>>> message that do not relate to the official business of
> my
>>> employer shall be understood as neither
>>> given nor endorsed by it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 8:00:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:23:34 -0600, in rec.photo.digital All Things Mopar
<usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf commented courteously ...
>
>> I find 400 quite usable with the use of Neat Image
>> to help filter the noise.
>
>I haven't tried that one, but I've used PSP 9's
>outstanding DCNR, but even this impressive filter has a
>tough time.

I've given it a try being a PSP7/8 user for a long time, but never liked it
compared to NI and stayed with PSP8.

>> The 8800 is stabilized, but it's still not fast,
>> especially if you zoom in at all.
>
>Ed, sometimes I think I've got the most peculiar
>requirements and personal preferences on this NG. Luckily
>for me, the cars I shoot aren't moving, so if there's
>shutter lag or other nasty stuff, it doesn't bother me.

You might consider the Panasonic with the stabilized fast f/2.8 lens. IIRC,
it's only 5 mp. David Taylor of this and the zlr groups speaks of it having
moved to it after a 5700.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 10:07:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf commented courteously ...

> I've given it a try being a PSP7/8 user for a long
> time,but never liked it compared to NI and stayed with
> PSP8.

Hi, Ed.

I'm interpreting your comment to mean that you downloaded
the PSP 9 trial version but didn't like it enough to pay
the upgrade fee. Am I right?

Everyone has their own threshold of pain, and likewise we
all have our own threshold of noise. My threshold of
scanner and digicam noise is very low, but haven't
investigated stand-alone pictures because I'm lazy and
don't want to do multiple steps in different apps, saving
to a non-lossy format in between.

I fell in love with PSP 9's DCNR, and I like it more and
more as I get better at using it. In PSP 8, I used Edge
Preserving Smooth, which I found quite useful. Of course,
like most noise reduction filters, EPS can have a serious
effects on image sharpness and detail.

So, I "test drove" EPS in comparison to DCNR and was
simply blown away at how easily I could kill the noise
with DCNR and how little damage it did to the
sharpness/detail. Besides digital noise, that I don't
suffer with all that much, I find DCNR to be outstanding
for scans of half-tone printed photos in books and
magazines.

There's a guy at Corel (Jasc) that is something like their
Chief Scientist, by the name of Kris Zaklika. He's perhaps
the most knowledgeable person I've ever run across when it
comes to raster or vector graphics. Of course, he knows
PSP 7/8/9 better than anyone on the planet, as well he
should.

His team at then-Jasc developed DCNR from scratch.
Naturally, he won't reveal the mathematical algorithms,
but he's expained enough about how to use it and why it
works, that one can deduce how the algorithms might be
designed.

With that as a long-winded pre-amble, I'm interested in
what you didn't like about DCNR. I don't have a hidden
agenda, I'm not a shill for Corel, and I have no intention
of "taking you on". I just want to learn.

> You might consider the Panasonic with the stabilized
> fast f/2.8 lens. IIRC, it's only 5 mp. David Taylor
> of this and the zlr groups speaks of it having moved
> to it after a 5700

I'll do that, Ed. Thanks for the heads up. As I may or may
not have mentioned, 5 MP is more than enough for me. Right
now, I'm shooting at the relatively coarse resolution of
1600 x 1200, then cropping and resizing down to 1280 x 960
for final save. That suits 99 44/100% of my needs.

On the rare occasions when I need to print larger than 4 x
6, for which there are enough PPI at 1280, I just use the
photographer's rule of increasing viewing distance as the
print size rises. I wouldn't expect you to agree with
this, but I've printed pictures as large as 13 x 19 with
my HP 1220C from itty bitty 1280 pictures - that's only 70
PPI. But, when viewed from maybe 5 feet, the look fine (to
me, at least!).

Whatever new camera I buy, I think I'm gonna up my
shooting resolution into the 2.5-3 MP range, and up my
save size to maybe 1400 x 1050.

I have no doubt whatsover that I could find a camera from
Pansonic, Sony, Konica/Minolta, Canon, Fuji, or others
that easily fit my needs for daylight shooting. I'm having
trouble finding something in a non-DSLR that can do
available light without excessive noise, and I haven't
done any test drives on the flash issue, which is the
primary reason to dump my 5700.

In the end, there just isn't any substitute for testing
any new camera under the shooting conditions I find
typical on the subjects I most like. No one can tell me
that for sure, but I highly value your opinion and the
opinions of others that have responded to my request for
advice. These are all valuable data points which will help
me reach a correct buying decision.

Thanks again for your perspectives and suggestions.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 3:12:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:07:17 -0600, in rec.photo.digital All Things Mopar
<usenetMAPS123@comcast.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf commented courteously ...
>
>> I've given it a try being a PSP7/8 user for a long
>> time,but never liked it compared to NI and stayed with
>> PSP8.
>
>Hi, Ed.
>
>I'm interpreting your comment to mean that you downloaded
>the PSP 9 trial version but didn't like it enough to pay
>the upgrade fee. Am I right?

Correct. There are other new features in it besides the new noise filter,
however I've been evaluating other tools/wotkflow that allows me the
ability to work with the full range of raw files and also in other color
spaces and PSP9 is still lacking here. Right now I'm using Nikon Capture
and/or PSP8 with the limitations. I have times where I need to run noise
filtering on batches of images and NI allows this easily. Similarly Capture
allows quick batch processing of raw images for those times I need it. I'm
about to give Adobe PSE3 a try next. In the end I think I'll have two
different flows, one for batches when needed quickly and then some other
final editor. At work I really only need the editor, so right now that's
been PSP8.

>Everyone has their own threshold of pain, and likewise we
>all have our own threshold of noise. My threshold of
>scanner and digicam noise is very low, but haven't
>investigated stand-alone pictures because I'm lazy and
>don't want to do multiple steps in different apps, saving
>to a non-lossy format in between.

That's when the batch capability of NI can be a help and also with the
slightly more costly upgrade you can also have the plugin which can be used
inside of your editor, so you have both options.

>I fell in love with PSP 9's DCNR, a
.....snip

>There's a guy at Corel (Jasc) that is something like their
>Chief Scientist, by the name of Kris Zaklika.
......snip

>With that as a long-winded pre-amble, I'm interested in
>what you didn't like about DCNR. I don't have a hidden
>agenda, I'm not a shill for Corel, and I have no intention
>of "taking you on". I just want to learn.

Same here. I've been in the comp......p-s-p group on/off and have read
Kris's draft describing PSP9's DCNR. Given more time I probably could get
good results with DCNR. It was more of given what I all ready had been
using for quite a while and the need for running batches of images, it
wasn't a total solution, so the upgrade wasn't justified. As I said above,
I'm still searching. There is also the buyout of JASC by Corel, which was
the deathnell of other products I used to use such as Micrografx Designer
and Picture Publisher.

>I'll do that, Ed. Thanks for the heads up. As I may or may
>not have mentioned, 5 MP is more than enough for me. Right
>now, I'm shooting at the relatively coarse resolution of
>1600 x 1200, then cropping and resizing down to 1280 x 960
>for final save. That suits 99 44/100% of my needs.

Then you have an additional way to help high iso noise. Use the full
resolution of the camera, then down sample. This will also help quell the
noise along with the use of noise filtering as well.

>
>Thanks again for your perspectives and suggestions.

Good luck.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 3:12:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[snipped in its entirety for brevity]

Hi, Ed.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Like just about
everything in digital photography and computer graphics
there never is a "right" answer to something as complex as
noise reduction.

Kriz Z gave me some early-on hints on how to use DCNR,
else I'd have given up on it long ago,too. The short
version of the answer is that you have to move the 3 noise
sampling cross-hairs around with your right mouse button
to where *you* think the noise is, not where DCNR thinks
it is when it does its initial auto sampling.

Once I figured that out, my scans (primary use for DCNR,
not usually digigams unless I'm dealing with high ISO or
underexposures) that are inherently noisy went from DCNR
strenghts above 30 to around 8-12. Thus, instead of my
resulting image looking like I'd applied Gaussian blur,
they are now needle sharp (well, you know, within the
realities of noise reduction).

I'll close by saying that I am a firm believer that it is
much better to be very good with an app that you know,
than to struggle along with mediocre expertise on an app
somebody told you was "good".

--
ATM, aka Jerry
!