Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D2X: Noise Box

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:07:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

Too many pixels in too small an area.

And ugly software noise reduction.

More about : d2x noise box

Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:07:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c85bd83b169309798a64e@news.verizon.net...
> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>
> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>
> Too many pixels in too small an area.
>
> And ugly software noise reduction.

Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation. So
poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.

Nice try. Better luck next time...:) 

HMc
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:13:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>
> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>
> Too many pixels in too small an area.
>
> And ugly software noise reduction.

Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
from publishing such results. The D2X was announced in September'04 and
Nikon didn't have it on display in the Photo-exhibition I went to in
Manila in early Feb'05. All other recently announced products were
there from other manufacturers - Pentax *istDs, Canon 1Ds Mark-II, and
Minolta Maxxum 7D. Hmmmm....

- Siddhartha
Related resources
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 8:20:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article MPG.1c85bd83b169309798a64e@news.verizon.net,
"Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote:

> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>
> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>
> Too many pixels in too small an area.
>
> And ugly software noise reduction.

He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:16:21 AM

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

gsum wrote:
> You're making too much of half of a half baked review.
>
> Would be better to wait until a consensus is available before making
> a decision on this camera on these grounds.

True. The camera, apparently, was running pre-production firmware which
would explain a lot. But several message boards are buzzing with the
potential noise problem at ISO 800 on the D2X. I guess only time and a
thorough review will tell. I don't think Nikon will release a dSLR in
such a highly competitive market with such an obvious flaw.

Meanwhile, for whatever its worth:
http://jancology.com/blog/archives/2004/12/12/nikon_d2x...

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:02:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi Brain,

Brian Baird wrote:
> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>
> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

I feel sorry for anyone who believes in "tests" done by someone that is
supported by one party
http://www.pikto.ca/gallery/inline/reichmannweb.jpg

Furthermore Michael managed to mix up the post-processing, posting the
same image twice, stating these are two pictures made at different ISO.




Benedikt
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:45:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi Brian,

Brian C. Baird wrote:
> If you saw the photos, you'd see what BS that is.

If the photos were really taken by the camera and the ISO settings
Michael claims. At least he presented *the same shot twice*, once
presumbly made at 400ASA, and once at 800ASA. Futhermore what he did
regarding color spaces, gamma etc only Michael knows (and does not tell
us).

making s**tty pcitures is clearly possible, with any camera, so what
the pictures prove?

Regards

Benedikt
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:51:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

We will see how it works when there is a real test under controlled
conditions with equivalent lenses and equivalent exposures.

The deleted review did not meet those criteria, giving the Canon an IS lens
and allowing the Canon pictures to be at least half a step more exposure
than the Nikon shots. It would be really easy to make any camera look bad in
comparison by doing that.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:15:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1109164439.046321.186330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>>
>> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>>
>> Too many pixels in too small an area.
>>
>> And ugly software noise reduction.
>
> Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
> from publishing such results. The D2X was announced in September'04 and
> Nikon didn't have it on display in the Photo-exhibition I went to in
> Manila in early Feb'05. All other recently announced products were
> there from other manufacturers - Pentax *istDs, Canon 1Ds Mark-II, and
> Minolta Maxxum 7D. Hmmmm....
>
> - Siddhartha
>

It was on display at PMA with big enlargements.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 12:20:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:20:22 GMT, C Wright
<wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

>On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article MPG.1c85bd83b169309798a64e@news.verizon.net,
>"Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote:
>
>> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>>
>> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>>
>> Too many pixels in too small an area.
>>
>> And ugly software noise reduction.
>
>He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

Look here in a few days for a review:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/

Here's a 800 ISO "arty" D2X image:
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?i...

-espen

--
All generalisering er farlig
http://www.seland.org/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 1:46:22 PM

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

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...

> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
than sorrow.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:20:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <BE416E74.1B03B%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>, wright9
_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com says...
> On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article MPG.1c85bd83b169309798a64e@news.verizon.net,
> "Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote:
>
> > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
> >
> > I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
> >
> > Too many pixels in too small an area.
> >
> > And ugly software noise reduction.
>
> He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

"Errors in methodology" my foot!

Those images were HORRIBLE, I doubt a simple "oops" is in order.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <lveo11p98pjia1vbdc3piclepbao7adg23@4ax.com>,
ess@abn.hibu.no.spam says...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:20:22 GMT, C Wright
> <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article MPG.1c85bd83b169309798a64e@news.verizon.net,
> >"Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote:
> >
> >> http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
> >>
> >> I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
> >>
> >> Too many pixels in too small an area.
> >>
> >> And ugly software noise reduction.
> >
> >He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!
>
> Look here in a few days for a review:
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/

From someone decidedly more pro-Nikon than Michael Reichmann is pro-
Canon?

> Here's a 800 ISO "arty" D2X image:
> http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?i...
>
> -espen

You really need 100% crops to see the damage.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <421c0225$0$11327$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, nospam@nospam.net
says...
>
> "Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c85bd83b169309798a64e@news.verizon.net...
> > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
> >
> > I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
> >
> > Too many pixels in too small an area.
> >
> > And ugly software noise reduction.
>
> Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
> article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation. So
> poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.
>
> Nice try. Better luck next time...:) 
>
> HMc

If you saw the photos, you'd see what BS that is.

What a wuss.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
February 23, 2005 2:25:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

What photos? Where are they? How did they look?


"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c86321be076c03e98a653@news.verizon.net...
> In article <421c0225$0$11327$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, nospam@nospam.net
> says...
>>
>> "Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c85bd83b169309798a64e@news.verizon.net...
>> > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>> >
>> > I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>> >
>> > Too many pixels in too small an area.
>> >
>> > And ugly software noise reduction.
>>
>> Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
>> article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation.
>> So
>> poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.
>>
>> Nice try. Better luck next time...:) 
>>
>> HMc
>
> If you saw the photos, you'd see what BS that is.
>
> What a wuss.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:27:16 PM

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

In article <111onnucge20g00@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
> > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>
> > I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>
> That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
> than sorrow.
>
> Andrew.

Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.

Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.
February 23, 2005 2:27:17 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c86329e208dfe5498a654@news.verizon.net>, no@yeah.right
says...
> In article <111onnucge20g00@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
> @littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
> > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
> > > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
> >
> > > I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
> >
> > That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
> > than sorrow.
> >
> > Andrew.
>
> Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.
>
> Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
> fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.
>


YUP!

Thats a slammer...

Will we ever know who brought pressure to bear???


Im sure it was Nikonian pressure BUT... Was it from Nikon, or from Nikon
USERS????


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:32:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi Howard,

Howard McCollister wrote:
> You're working awful hard to try to convince everybody that the D2X
is a bad
> camera. Why do you care so much? What's in it for you?

That's exactly teh question I posed myself.

Now finding his sentence:

>> AS for color space/gamma/whatnot - the Nikon rep set the camera, he
>> (Reichmann) posted crops of JPEGs.

I understand that Brian *EITHER* has absolutely no clue about photgrahy
in general and specifially about digital photograpy wahtsever *OR* he
clearly understands on how thin ice is. Every photgrapher knows the
importance of the proper gamma (or contrast). Every serious digital
photographer knows about the importance of the correct color space.
Just cropping someting (recorded in one color space) and dropping it
into a file with an other color space might change the looks of an
image dramatically. Same for the propoer gamma value.

Reichmann most probaly managed to mix his pictures, posting the same
image twice (although they look different). Why does anybody assume he
did only do this obvious errror. Or is the "nikon rep" also responsible
for that?

Benedikt

PS: Messing up pictures I can imagine (done that), but creating 2
images which look different from one shot *EITHER* proves that cropping
and pasting changes the images considerably *OR* might hint towards
some kind of manipulation
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:39:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:


>
> "Errors in methodology" my foot!
>
> Those images were HORRIBLE, I doubt a simple "oops" is in order.

Since you don't know what particular error he made, you can't really say what
the noisy images represented.

A reasonably controlled test cannot be done on the fly at a trade show.

To be fair, you should wait until dpreview post their full review tests which
are generally better controlled than the LL tests and supply samples and
measurements including noise.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:39:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:jd3Td.126762$Rg.2305632@weber.videotron.net...
>
> Brian C. Baird wrote:
>
>
> >
> > "Errors in methodology" my foot!
> >
> > Those images were HORRIBLE, I doubt a simple "oops" is in order.
>
> Since you don't know what particular error he made, you can't really say
what
> the noisy images represented.
>
> A reasonably controlled test cannot be done on the fly at a trade show.
>
> To be fair,

You are assuming Brian is interested in fairness. His opinion of the D2X has
been clear from the beginning. He made up his mind long before any facts
were available, and he is unlikely to change it now. Quite honestly, I think
that anything Brian posts is highly questionable because of his demonstrated
attitude. Confronted with the facts of the test, he has now retreated to a
position of alleging some kind of Nikon conspiracy. No doubt he will be
blaming the Communists or even space aliens next.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:40:22 PM

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

Brian C. Baird wrote:


>
> "Errors in methodology" my foot!
>
> Those images were HORRIBLE, I doubt a simple "oops" is in order.

Since you don't know what particular error he made, you can't really say what
the noisy images represented.

A reasonably controlled test cannot be done on the fly at a trade show.

To be fair, you should wait until dpreview post their full review tests which
are generally better controlled than the LL tests and supply samples and
measurements including noise.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:42:22 PM

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

Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
> In article <111onnucge20g00@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
> @littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
>> > http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise...
>>
>> > I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>>
>> That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
>> than sorrow.

> Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.

> Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under
> Nikonian fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.

You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
"enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:49:16 PM

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

Brian Baird wrote:


> Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.

On what basis? The pixel density is 70% higher than the 1Ds Mk II, that will
make it noisier, but hardly in a significant way. It's also, like the 1Ds Mk
II, a CMOS sensor ('though not the same fab).

1Ds mk II: 19,200 pix/mm^2
D2X: 32,800

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:54:18 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c8640e823885df19896ec@news.individual.NET>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.net says...
> > Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
> > fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.

> YUP!
>
> Thats a slammer...
>
> Will we ever know who brought pressure to bear???

> Im sure it was Nikonian pressure BUT... Was it from Nikon, or from Nikon
> USERS????

I don't know. Honestly, there were some things about the "preview" that
were a little flaky, but it wasn't meant as a definitive test. All I
saw was the camera had a lot of noise at ISO 800 (in keeping with other
shots I've seen) and a HELL of a lot of noise in H1 & H2 (ISO 1600 and
3200 respectively).

So I'm pretty sure ISO 400 performance will be better than what we saw,
but I haven't seen any indication that ISO 800+ will look any better.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:57:19 PM

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

In article <111ouhes093128b@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
> > Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under
> > Nikonian fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.
>
> You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
> "enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
> decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.

But what methodology?

By his own admission, he stuck the camera towards his subject and
snapped off some frames in successive order. He wasn't trying to do an
end-all test with gray cards and signal to noise ratios.

Even if he made a mistake somewhere along the line, what could account
for the awfulness of the ISO 800 pictures from the D2X we've seen
elsewhere? Surely Reichmann's "results" (observations is a better word)
weren't out of line with that.

We'll get the final say when/if Phil Askey gets a D2X to review.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 3:58:20 PM

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

Larry wrote:

> Im sure it was Nikonian pressure BUT... Was it from Nikon, or from Nikon
> USERS????

A good point.

It is very legitimate for Nikon to question the results if they suspect error or
bias;

It is equally legitimate for users to question the results if they suspect error
or bias. But this should not be blind product loyalty as that really only plays
into the 'locked into the lens collection' strategy of the companies.

For the good of everyone interested in the camera, it is legitimate to question
any specific parameter test done on the fly at a trade show.

Hmm, on reflection, such tests should simply be rejected out of hand.

Showing a few snapshots (a la dpreview) is one thing (and they don't pretend
that they are more than snapshots), putting up edge of the performance envelope
examples should be done in controlled conditions.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Hi Brian,

> > clearly understands on how thin ice is. Every photgrapher knows the
> > importance of the proper gamma (or contrast). Every serious digital
> > photographer knows about the importance of the correct color space.
>
> Color space will affect the color. Contrast is... contrast. Except
> edge contrast, which will affect perceived sharpness.
>
> Neither has anything to do with noise performance.

You have no clue, sorry to be rude. Color and contrast affect the
perceived noise performance.

>
> > Just cropping someting (recorded in one color space) and dropping
it
> > into a file with an other color space might change the looks of an
> > image dramatically. Same for the propoer gamma value.
>
> Not when you're comparing noise. Noise is variance in luminance.
Which
> has nothing to do with the gamma of the output device or the color
space
> of the two cameras.

Here you're wrong in 3 ways:
1. Noise is not only the variance in lumiance
2. A change of the color space will also affect the luminance
3. A different gamma dramatically changes the luminance

> And gamma applies to output device. Sheesh...
Gamma is not only related to output devices. We're talking about jpg's
here. And here the gamma describes how the different binary values for
each color get translated in to brightness values.

Try for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_characteristic if
you can not get hold of a textbook.

Hint: A binary value of 127 in the jpg means 50% luminance only for a
gamma of 1.


Benedikt
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:18:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1109164439.046321.186330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
> from publishing such results.

Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."

When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:18:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c864c995d5dff4398a658@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1109164439.046321.186330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk says...
> >
> > Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
> > from publishing such results.
>
> Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
> subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
> to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."
>
> When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
> ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.

Let's put the Canon 1D Mark II pictures up, underexposing them at least half
a stop and with a non-stabilized lens, and then let's talk about noise. Or
are you afraid to post pictures taken that way? What are you hiding? Could
it be that the Canon is a noise box, too?
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:24:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:15 GMT, Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no>
wrote:

>In article <lveo11p98pjia1vbdc3piclepbao7adg23@4ax.com>,
>ess@abn.hibu.no.spam says...

>> Look here in a few days for a review:
>> http://www.naturfotograf.com/
>
>From someone decidedly more pro-Nikon than Michael Reichmann is pro-
>Canon?

He's a Nikon-pro, but I can't tell if he's a pro-Nikon (you have to
ask him). Both Rørslett and Reichman are proffesionals in their
respective areas, and use/have used several systems. So IMHO I don't
think they are pro-anything, anything other than they happen to use a
special system and knows a lot about it (and can do subjective reviews
in an objective manner).

-espen

--
http://www.seland.org/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 4:34:25 PM

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

You're making too much of half of a half baked review.

Would be better to wait until a consensus is available before making
a decision on this camera on these grounds.

Graham


"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c864c995d5dff4398a658@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1109164439.046321.186330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk says...
> >
> > Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
> > from publishing such results.
>
> Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
> subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
> to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."
>
> When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
> ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 5:21:28 PM

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

In article <1109168181.862641.314940@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk says...
> I don't think Nikon will release a dSLR in
> such a highly competitive market with such an obvious flaw.

I would have thought that too, but then they announced the D2Hs.

Someone is smoking crack.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 5:47:50 PM

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

Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
> In article <111ouhes093128b@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
> @littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
>> > Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under
>> > Nikonian fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.
>>
>> You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
>> "enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
>> decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.

> But what methodology?

I don't know. You're assuming he was being cowardly, when it is quite
possible that he was being honest.

> By his own admission, he stuck the camera towards his subject and
> snapped off some frames in successive order. He wasn't trying to do
> an end-all test with gray cards and signal to noise ratios.

> Even if he made a mistake somewhere along the line, what could
> account for the awfulness of the ISO 800 pictures from the D2X we've
> seen elsewhere?

Beats me, but I haven't seen the pictures you're talking about.

> We'll get the final say when/if Phil Askey gets a D2X to review.

I don't know that we will.

For example, the EOS-1D Mark II tests use Default Parameters, JPEG
Large / Fine. So, the noise figures are distorted by JPEG processing
and whatever sharpening and noise reduction happens to be applied by
default. A camera that does aggressive NR by default would appear to
have lower noise. Conversely, a more "professional" camera that does
little in camera processing by default would appear worse.

Andrew.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:37:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

As was pointed out in DPReview though.... He had two different ISO samples
that pretty clearly came from the same shot image... A mistake like that
should be enough to cause him to pull the comparison. IMHO.

I never saw the original article, but many of his images are mirrored and
reffered to in a DPReview thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&m...

I personally don't care much about any of this... just enjoying a good
sh!tstorm... =)

Al...

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c864c995d5dff4398a658@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1109164439.046321.186330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
>> from publishing such results.
>
> Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
> subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
> to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."
>
> When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
> ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 6:49:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 2/23/05 8:37 AM, in article 421c952b$0$6883$afc38c87@news.wanadoo.nl,
"Alan Adrian" <ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> As was pointed out in DPReview though.... He had two different ISO samples
> that pretty clearly came from the same shot image... A mistake like that
> should be enough to cause him to pull the comparison. IMHO.
>
> I never saw the original article, but many of his images are mirrored and
> reffered to in a DPReview thread:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&m...
>
> I personally don't care much about any of this... just enjoying a good
> sh!tstorm... =)
>
> Al...

Funny thing about all of this is that this will now be argued at length in
this forum and many others for weeks to come. Yet, in a month or two the
camera will be in the hands of the general public and everyone will know
beyond any doubt if it is noisy or not!
Chuck
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 7:50:12 PM

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

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:27:16 GMT, Brian Baird <no@yeah.right> wrote:
>
> Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
> fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.

Did you read his description of his errors?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
February 23, 2005 8:30:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>
> Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
> article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation.
So
> poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.

cant you read ?

" But, based on the results that I've analyzed without these errors, I am
confident that when other reviewers start testing the camera at high ISO, it
will indeed be found to have noise levels higher than some competitors. So,
while my methodology was flawed, it's likely that my conclusions weren't.
Time will tell. "
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 9:12:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com> wrote in message
news:384e7uF5ju0mmU1@individual.net...
> >
>> Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
>> article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation.
> So
>> poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.
>
> cant you read ?
>
> " But, based on the results that I've analyzed without these errors, I am
> confident that when other reviewers start testing the camera at high ISO,
> it
> will indeed be found to have noise levels higher than some competitors.
> So,
> while my methodology was flawed, it's likely that my conclusions weren't.
> Time will tell. "
>
>

Yes, I read that Michael Reichman used flawed methodology to test a camera
and then demonstrated himself to not only be an incompetent camera-tester,
but an incompetent journalist as well by posting his flawed methodology on
his site, which struggles for credibility as it is.

Apparently you can read, but have something of a comprehension problem.

HMc
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:25:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1109173543.656286.181720@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com says...
> If the photos were really taken by the camera and the ISO settings
> Michael claims. At least he presented *the same shot twice*, once
> presumbly made at 400ASA, and once at 800ASA. Futhermore what he did
> regarding color spaces, gamma etc only Michael knows (and does not tell
> us).

Oh, the conspiracy theories abound!

AS for color space/gamma/whatnot - the Nikon rep set the camera, he
(Reichmann) posted crops of JPEGs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:25:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

You're working awful hard to try to convince everybody that the D2X is a bad
camera. Why do you care so much? What's in it for you?

Suppose you're right...will that make you feel good in some way? Are you the
kind of guy that can only feel good about yourself and your equipment by
making others feel bad? Is that what your many, many posts on the subject
are all about?

HMc


"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c86a2cdc4b9d25998a65c@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1109173543.656286.181720@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com says...
>> If the photos were really taken by the camera and the ISO settings
>> Michael claims. At least he presented *the same shot twice*, once
>> presumbly made at 400ASA, and once at 800ASA. Futhermore what he did
>> regarding color spaces, gamma etc only Michael knows (and does not tell
>> us).
>
> Oh, the conspiracy theories abound!
>
> AS for color space/gamma/whatnot - the Nikon rep set the camera, he
> (Reichmann) posted crops of JPEGs.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
February 23, 2005 10:25:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:421cdc0c$0$11839$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> You're working awful hard to try to convince everybody that the D2X is a
bad
> camera. Why do you care so much? What's in it for you?

its the beginning of the end for Nikon.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:28:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <421c952b$0$6883$afc38c87@news.wanadoo.nl>,
ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl says...
> As was pointed out in DPReview though.... He had two different ISO samples
> that pretty clearly came from the same shot image... A mistake like that
> should be enough to cause him to pull the comparison. IMHO.

I tried superimposing one shot over the other and concluded... the hands
match too much for my liking, but I otherwise couldn't get the shots to
match exactly.

Hardly conclusive one way or another. All I know is that the non-
Reichmann ISO 800 shots have been equally as poor - at least a stop
worse than the Canon models. Since this was all Michael Reichmann was
claiming, I don't see the big deal... but I follow it, because, like you
say, I like a good shitstorm.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:29:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <1109170939.383092.284120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com says...
> > I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.
>
> I feel sorry for anyone who believes in "tests" done by someone that is
> supported by one party
> http://www.pikto.ca/gallery/inline/reichmannweb.jpg
>
> Furthermore Michael managed to mix up the post-processing, posting the
> same image twice, stating these are two pictures made at different ISO.

But who was the shooter on the grassy knoll?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:31:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <EM-dnR05bsS6NYHfRVn-tw@wavecable.com>,
christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> > When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
> > ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
>
> Let's put the Canon 1D Mark II pictures up, underexposing them at least half
> a stop and with a non-stabilized lens, and then let's talk about noise. Or
> are you afraid to post pictures taken that way? What are you hiding? Could
> it be that the Canon is a noise box, too?

Underexposing doesn't affect the noise unless you adjust the exposure
upward.

Additionally, if the Nikon meters the scene a half stop lower than the
Canon, isn't that the fault of the Nikon?

Your logic is faulty and your argument weak.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:33:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <jd3Td.126762$Rg.2305632@weber.videotron.net>,
alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
> Since you don't know what particular error he made, you can't really say what
> the noisy images represented.

NO ONE knows what error was made, if an error was made at all!

> A reasonably controlled test cannot be done on the fly at a trade show.

And to Michael's credit, he did not claim his samples to constitute a
'definitive test'.

It was a quick and dirty match-up. And the Nikon came out poorly and in
keeping with the other test shots that have been shown.

> To be fair, you should wait until dpreview post their full review tests which
> are generally better controlled than the LL tests and supply samples and
> measurements including noise.

Which again, everyone is doing and Luminous Landscape was not trying to
circumvent.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:33:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Brian C. Baird wrote:
> In article <jd3Td.126762$Rg.2305632@weber.videotron.net>,
> alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...

>>A reasonably controlled test cannot be done on the fly at a trade show.
>
>
> And to Michael's credit, he did not claim his samples to constitute a
> 'definitive test'.



Your 'declaration' was fairly definitive:

"I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

Too many pixels in too small an area.

And ugly software noise reduction."


PS: (The density is about 70% higher than the 1Ds Mk II. That's not a huge
difference (v. say a Sony 828 at 7x the density v. the 1Ds Mk II).)

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 10:37:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <8tudnRMTcedoUIHfRVn-2Q@wavecable.com>,
christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> You are assuming Brian is interested in fairness. His opinion of the D2X has
> been clear from the beginning. He made up his mind long before any facts
> were available, and he is unlikely to change it now. Quite honestly, I think
> that anything Brian posts is highly questionable because of his demonstrated
> attitude. Confronted with the facts of the test, he has now retreated to a
> position of alleging some kind of Nikon conspiracy. No doubt he will be
> blaming the Communists or even space aliens next.

Whatever. Opinionated or not, Nikon is not going to get the kind of
low-noise results out of the D2X that Canon gets out of their sensors -
the photosensors are too small. Argue with my attitude if you must, but
don't argue with physics.

Also, if you have half a brain, you realize that the strength of your
position doesn't come from how bad/opinionated the other guy's is, but
how convincing you make yours. Let me know when you start trying.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:06:14 PM

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

In article <111p5smn508mg88@news.supernews.com>, andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says...
> > We'll get the final say when/if Phil Askey gets a D2X to review.
>
> I don't know that we will.
>
> For example, the EOS-1D Mark II tests use Default Parameters, JPEG
> Large / Fine. So, the noise figures are distorted by JPEG processing
> and whatever sharpening and noise reduction happens to be applied by
> default. A camera that does aggressive NR by default would appear to
> have lower noise. Conversely, a more "professional" camera that does
> little in camera processing by default would appear worse.

Er, no. Software noise reduction leaves ugly, ugly artifacts that are
easily seen. So you might be able to fool the luminance noise graph,
but you won't fool the eye.

Additionally, Phil tested the 1D Mark II with sharpening set to +2 (not
the highest setting, but higher than none) and found the noise
difference to be negligible.

For a 'pro' camera to be worth its salt, I'd expect top quality from
JPEG and even better quality from RAW conversions.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:13:25 PM

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

In article <slrnd1pd24.b1j.br@panix5.panix.com>, br+rpdss@panix.com
says...
> > Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
> > fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.
>
> Did you read his description of his errors?

They weren't posted at the time.

The IS/non-IS is kinda lame. The thing that was awful about the Nikon
shots was in-camera software noise reduction and the overall noise.
Neither of those are affected by image stabilization.

The exposure issue does have some merit - but not enough to invalidate
his conclusions. So, the D2X, as far as I can tell by looking at the
shots on Luminous Landscape and those posted to the dPreview forums,
will be a noisebox compared to the Canon pro cameras.

As for the mixing up photos... well, "oops!"

Hopefully the Nikonians will let him live. Michael seems like a decent
enough guy, even if imperfect and somewhat opinionated at times.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 11:14:55 PM

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

In article <cvifmj$ojk$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca says...
> > Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.
>
> On what basis? The pixel density is 70% higher than the 1Ds Mk II, that will
> make it noisier, but hardly in a significant way. It's also, like the 1Ds Mk
> II, a CMOS sensor ('though not the same fab).
>
> 1Ds mk II: 19,200 pix/mm^2
> D2X: 32,800

So when is 70% higher "hardly significant"?

CMOS eliminates some read noise over CCDs, but it isn't a miracle
worker. When you're dealing with pixel pitch smaller than the Oly E-
300, you're going to get some noise.
Related resources
!