D2X: Noise Box

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/revi [...] oise.shtml
>
> 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

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/revi [...] oise.shtml
>>
>> 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/bildekr [...] ?id=161188

-espen

--
All generalisering er farlig
http://www.seland.org/

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/revi [...] oise.shtml
> >>
> >> 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/bildekr [...] ?id=161188
>
> -espen

You really need 100% crops to see the damage.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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/

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/revi [...] oise.shtml
>>
>> 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.

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

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Brian Baird wrote:

> > http://luminous-landscape.com/revi [...] oise.shtml
> >
> > 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.

But he reported that the demo prints were amazing.

Hmm. I'm reminded of a famous story from the early MF days. A certain
manufacturer of a competing 6x6 SLR had adds for their camera in which the
supposedly sample photos had V notches at the edges of the frames...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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 [...] japan.html

- Siddhartha

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/ [...] e=12376560

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/

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/revi [...] oise.shtml
>> >
>> > 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/

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/ [...] e=12376560
>
> 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

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?

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.

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/

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/

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/

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.

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

In article <Uv5Td.85000$K45.2079975@wagner.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."

Why confuse an issue with two statements made by two people? You're
being disingenuous, Alan. Shame on you.

That said, I still feel sorry for people who had high hopes for the D2X
meeting or exceeding Canon performance - especially in terms of noise.
It doesn't look like it will happen. The D2X is not going to have great
noise performance. As for the noise reduction, you CAN turn that off -
but you'll see more noise.

Oh, the pain...

> 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).)

Yes, it is a huge difference, Alan. At least a stop (if not a little
more) of usable sensitivity. Sure, it isn't GIGANTIC like the gulf
between the Sony F828 and the 1Ds Mark II, but we're not arguing
semantics here.

In case you want to put that in photographic terms, it's the choice
between shooting at twice the shutter speed or half the aperture to
achieve the same quality. When you're dealing with low light, fast
subjects or both, it helps to have low noise performance. These days,
if you're paying $5,000 for a camera, you should expect it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

In article <1109190754.107615.315150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com says...
> >> 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

You're right. I have no clue about 'photgrahy' or 'digital photograpy'.
Are those like photography and digital photography, by chance?

> 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.

> 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.

And gamma applies to output device. Sheesh...

> 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?

No, Reichmann did screw up - and admitted as such with his latest
posting on the subject (made after most of these posts, BTW).

He still doesn't refute his conclusions, and neither do I.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

In article <1109192992.878952.264260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Benedikt.Schenker@mt.com says...
> > 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.

Color, no. Contrast, yes, but only slightly in normal camera
adjustments.

Oh, and thanks for putting 'perceived' in front of things, because it
really deflates your argument.

> > > 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

Yes, for the most part it is. Unless you're talking color noise, which
is a variance in color - typically 'splotchy'.

> 2. A change of the color space will also affect the luminance

And how exactly will this drastically affect the variance in luminance?
The last I checked, the two most common color spaces used in digital
cameras, Adobe RGB and sRGB, have exactly the same gamma (2.2) and NO
effect on noise.

> 3. A different gamma dramatically changes the luminance

It will change the relationship of the luminance. Which CAN make noise
more apparent, but you have yet to tie this into your other statements
in a fashion that approaches logic.

> > 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.

I know what gamma is, you ingrate.

Now, how are you going to tell me the gamma for the Nikon JPEGs is
different than the gamma for the Canon JPEGs, thus effecting the noise?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

In article <8tudnRMTcedoUIHfRVn-2Q@wavecable.com>, C J Campbell 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.

Besides what is the point in starting a camera-bashing thread...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

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. "

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.

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

In message <S_qdnRMt8JTqO4HfRVn-jA@wavecable.com>,
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>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.

My Canon 10D's meter agrees with my sekonic when the sekonic is set to
an ISO 2/3 of what the ISO on the camera is. That gives it a 2/3 stop
advantage in noise tests, even compared to the 20D, which meters
properly for the ISO it is set to.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

Brian C. Baird wrote:

> In article <cl7Td.88223$K45.2137961@wagner.videotron.net>,
> alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
>
>>>Why confuse an issue with two statements made by two people? You're
>>>being disingenuous, Alan. Shame on you.
>>
>>How? What I quote above is _all_ of _your_ post except the LL link.
>
>
> Yes, which you posted in REPLY to a discussion of Michael Reichmann's
> statements. His statements were under attack and were the focus of the
> discussion when you repeated my early statements, made before the page
> was even pulled from the Luminous Landscape website.



Brian: the words were your words. It doesn't matter what inspired you to say
them. You said them. Not me. Not Michael. Not anyone else. You are solely
responisble for their utterance whether fact, opinion or conjecture. You took
whatever was on the L-L site and condensed it to those three lines. Period.



>
> Additionally, what I had said in the post you replied to was that the
> Luminous Landscape had moderated its statements from the beginning. For
> some stupid reason, you chose to focus on my statements instead - not
> the issue at hand.
>
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/45fud
>>
>>So, who's being "disingenuous"?
>
>
> Still you, I'm afraid.

Wrong. I quoted your words, nobody else's.

Look Brian, it's like this: You screwed up. You leapt at something that
appeared to confirm your prejudice aginst Nikon and you blew it. I use the word
prejudice because you were not evaluating things objectively. You leapt with
considerable energy at what you want to believe.


>
> I was expressing an opinion. Michael Reichmann was indicating
> preliminary results, ones that were flawed by error in retrospect, but
> results that were known to be and described as non-definitive. Why you
> choose to focus on my statements when we were talking about *Michael
> Reichmann's* is beyond me, unless you were trying to be disingenuous
> and/or itching for a fight.

You're the one who has demonstrably been looking to put down Nikon.


>
> Hell, just say you were itching for a fight. I can understand that!

I'm itching for you state simply that you jumped the gun on this one and you've
been back peddling like mad since you were called on it, and since L-L pulled
their article until they can do things a proper way. In the end I don't know if
the Nikon will fare well or badly, but jumping all over Nikon on a poor test is
bad form, and somehow defending it afterwards is low class.

I will bet that L-L will be VERY careful in their evaluation of this and future
cameras.

>
>
>>>Yes, it is a huge difference, Alan. At least a stop (if not a little
>>>more) of usable sensitivity. Sure, it isn't GIGANTIC like the gulf
>>>between the Sony F828 and the 1Ds Mark II, but we're not arguing
>>>semantics here.
>>
>>The computation is simplistic, we don't know how much 'dead' space there is
>>between pixels (for either sensor) so we don't know the actual 'signal' area for
>>each pixel.
>
>
> Well, put it this way: The Canon has 7.2 microns to work with in each
> dimension. The Nikon has 5.5 microns. Because we're talking area, not
> just linear dimensions this means the 1Ds Mark II has twice the area to
> have a photosensor in. Add to that the fact the 1Ds Mark II uses
> microlenses, almost all of the of that area is useable for light
> collection. Of course there is going to be a big difference in the
> ability of each to collect light!

You do not know the actual 'pit' sizes.
You do not know the filtering.
You do not know the sensor characteristics.
etc.

> Again, who's talking science? Certainly not me. The link I posted was
> just a quick comparison, and it stated so. Sure, Michael Reichmann
> fumbled it by mixing up two photos and posting things hastily, but he
> still stands by his original conclusion.

And he should not. Nor should you. Let a more deliberate and controlled test
take place, such as those done by dpreview and draw the conclusions therefrom.

>
>
>>Frankly Brian, and the thought has to be bouncing around your head, if not on
>>your keyboard, you leapt at something that appeared to confirm something
>>negative about Nikon and you couldn't wait to spread the bad news.
>
>
> I've been calling the D2X a noisebox for months. Nothing new there,

Based on what?

> Alan. Hell, I've been more critical of the D2Hs for being a camera with
> no niche to fill, but no one is getting upset over that. But I have not
> called Nikon "junk" or stated that Canon is "way ahead" of them.

Canon *is* way ahead of Nikon. Demonstrably so in most digital areas, some
system areas and a fair number of lenses.

But, that does not make the D2X a "noisebox" until it can be demonstrated as
such. It is okay to speculate, to pose the question, to propose the problem or
the advantage of a specified item. But until you have objective evidence, it is
not fair or right to assume anything about the actual performance of the camera.

>>IMO you should admit your error in leaping to conclusions, at being misled by
>>L-L's premature announcement and 'test data'. When something more controlled
>>comes out, you can throw your grist back in the mill.
>
>
> I never made claims other than the Nikon is about a step noisier than
> the current Canon line. Sure, I use hyperbole ("noisebox", etc), but
> that has no relevance. My conclusion wasn't based strictly on the
> photos shown at the Luminous Landscape website, nor was it meant to be a
> statement of definitive testing. To suggest or think otherwise is
> asinine.

Really? Then WHAT was it based on? Reading the spec? Please.

>
> So, stop reading more into something that isn't that big of a deal.
> Honestly, do you think I'd have to post nearly as replies to this thread
> if the honor of the D2X wasn't so precious to some Nikon proponents?

I think if you had done the right thing and retracted your statement in light of
L-L's retraction, without an attempt to defend your prior statement (for any
reason), the thread would have died quickly.

>
> We'll all be laughing by the time the actual noise analysis comes out,
> so why bother getting all persnickety now?

Et tu? That's the point. You jumped all over a L-L declaration (even though it
said it was not in the best of conditions) and then started an inflamatory
thread. Inflamatory? Yes, a title like "D2X: Noise box" is inflamatory.

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.

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

In article <eC8Td.88664$K45.2193413@wagner.videotron.net>,
alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca says...
> > Yes, which you posted in REPLY to a discussion of Michael Reichmann's
> > statements. His statements were under attack and were the focus of the
> > discussion when you repeated my early statements, made before the page
> > was even pulled from the Luminous Landscape website.

> Brian: the words were your words. It doesn't matter what inspired you to say
> them. You said them. Not me. Not Michael. Not anyone else. You are solely
> responisble for their utterance whether fact, opinion or conjecture. You took
> whatever was on the L-L site and condensed it to those three lines. Period.

And what does this have to do with what we were discussing before you
repeated my first post?

NOZZING!

> > Still you, I'm afraid.
>
> Wrong. I quoted your words, nobody else's.

Again, in context that wasn't being discussed. Want me to dig up some
of your "Canon is way ahead of Nikon" posts and suddenly inject them
into this discussion? That would be asking for you to defend something
you said in another context in this context.

> Look Brian, it's like this: You screwed up. You leapt at something that
> appeared to confirm your prejudice aginst Nikon and you blew it. I use the word
> prejudice because you were not evaluating things objectively. You leapt with
> considerable energy at what you want to believe.

Oh, Alan... That's too funny.

> > I was expressing an opinion. Michael Reichmann was indicating
> > preliminary results, ones that were flawed by error in retrospect, but
> > results that were known to be and described as non-definitive. Why you
> > choose to focus on my statements when we were talking about *Michael
> > Reichmann's* is beyond me, unless you were trying to be disingenuous
> > and/or itching for a fight.
>
> You're the one who has demonstrably been looking to put down Nikon.

No. I've been saying the D2X has poor high-ISO noise performance. Not
once in this thread have I put down Nikon.

> > Hell, just say you were itching for a fight. I can understand that!
>
> I'm itching for you state simply that you jumped the gun on this one and you've
> been back peddling like mad since you were called on it, and since L-L pulled
> their article until they can do things a proper way. In the end I don't know if
> the Nikon will fare well or badly, but jumping all over Nikon on a poor test is
> bad form, and somehow defending it afterwards is low class.

Alan, maybe you never picked up on these points:

#1: I do not base my assessment of the D2X on Michael Reichmann's
assessment.

#2: There are plenty of other sample photos showing high noise above ISO
400, and ugly noise reduction in samples ISO 800 and above.

#3: I haven't backpedaled at ALL on this, because there is no reason to.
Michael Reichmann did some backpedaling, but then again, he was the one
who mislabeled his photos. But the fundamental argument remains the
same: the D2X does not have the noise performance of the latest pro
cameras.

#4:

> I will bet that L-L will be VERY careful in their evaluation of this and future
> cameras.

Oh, he'll have to be.


> > Well, put it this way: The Canon has 7.2 microns to work with in each
> > dimension. The Nikon has 5.5 microns. Because we're talking area, not
> > just linear dimensions this means the 1Ds Mark II has twice the area to
> > have a photosensor in. Add to that the fact the 1Ds Mark II uses
> > microlenses, almost all of the of that area is useable for light
> > collection. Of course there is going to be a big difference in the
> > ability of each to collect light!
>
> You do not know the actual 'pit' sizes.

I've provided you with ample evidence to suggest the Sony/Nikon CMOS
sensor will compromise image quality based upon a sensor area that is AT
LEAST two times as small those found on the 1DS Mark II. Additionally,
I showed that the 1Ds Mark II has microlenses that focus the light from
a larger area (in this case, damn near 7.2 microns squared) into the
sensor.

> You do not know the filtering.

It's got a low-pass filter, some color filters... and I'd imagine a
noise reduction circuit at the pixel level. Imaging sensors aren't some
sort of voodoo science.

> You do not know the sensor characteristics.
> etc.

Do we really need to? Look for yourself at the high ISO D2X samples and
I think you'll see that smaller photosites certainly aren't helping
things.

> > Again, who's talking science? Certainly not me. The link I posted was
> > just a quick comparison, and it stated so. Sure, Michael Reichmann
> > fumbled it by mixing up two photos and posting things hastily, but he
> > still stands by his original conclusion.
>
> And he should not. Nor should you. Let a more deliberate and controlled test

Should not what? Make predictions based upon observations? God forbid!

> take place, such as those done by dpreview and draw the conclusions therefrom.

Hey, I will eat my words just as quick as anyone else will if the D2X
performs better under controlled testing conditions. I believe I said
earlier:

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

Yes, I said that earlier today, much earlier in the history of this
ridiculous hullaballo about nothing.

> > I've been calling the D2X a noisebox for months. Nothing new there,

> Based on what?

The small sensor size and the fact Nikon didn't advertise it with an ISO
over 800. 1600 and 3200 and H1 and H2, respectively, and must be
accessed through a custom menu function.

I wasn't the only one making this prediction.

> > Alan. Hell, I've been more critical of the D2Hs for being a camera with
> > no niche to fill, but no one is getting upset over that. But I have not
> > called Nikon "junk" or stated that Canon is "way ahead" of them.
>
> Canon *is* way ahead of Nikon. Demonstrably so in most digital areas, some
> system areas and a fair number of lenses.

> But, that does not make the D2X a "noisebox" until it can be demonstrated as
> such. It is okay to speculate, to pose the question, to propose the problem or
> the advantage of a specified item. But until you have objective evidence, it is
> not fair or right to assume anything about the actual performance of the camera.

What, sample photos from several people aren't OBJECTIVE? They might
not be quantifiable in terms of noise, but they certainly aren't useless
in terms of speculating about the final performance of the camera.

Oh, here's some more, BTW:
http://www.utah-wedding-photography.com/D2x/index.html

The NR was on for the ISO 800 & 1600 shots. Thus the images are quite
smeary. This was the case with the Kodak DCS 14/n, which gave awful
results at ISO 400. The D2X doesn't appear to be THAT bad in terms of
noise, but if they're trying to combat noise this way they aren't going
to win any awards.

> > I never made claims other than the Nikon is about a step noisier than
> > the current Canon line. Sure, I use hyperbole ("noisebox", etc), but
> > that has no relevance. My conclusion wasn't based strictly on the
> > photos shown at the Luminous Landscape website, nor was it meant to be a
> > statement of definitive testing. To suggest or think otherwise is
> > asinine.
>
> Really? Then WHAT was it based on? Reading the spec? Please.

On the D2X images I have seen from dPreview's forums (posted by Nikon
users) and including the ones on the Luminous Landscape page of infamy.

> > So, stop reading more into something that isn't that big of a deal.
> > Honestly, do you think I'd have to post nearly as replies to this thread
> > if the honor of the D2X wasn't so precious to some Nikon proponents?
>
> I think if you had done the right thing and retracted your statement in light of
> L-L's retraction, without an attempt to defend your prior statement (for any
> reason), the thread would have died quickly.

Why would I retract a statement I don't have any problem with?

> > We'll all be laughing by the time the actual noise analysis comes out,
> > so why bother getting all persnickety now?
>
> Et tu? That's the point. You jumped all over a L-L declaration (even though it
> said it was not in the best of conditions) and then started an inflamatory
> thread. Inflamatory? Yes, a title like "D2X: Noise box" is inflamatory.

Yes, everyone knows an inflammatory title means that everything said in
it is wrong, the poster is an evil Nikon-hating bastard who ignores
reason and sees noise in every shadow.

And GOD FORBID that person disagrees with people who seek to be
inflammatory by replying to his post with wild accusations. He must be
a biased man, that one!

Get real.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/