Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon P6000 Announced  (Read 28571 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2008, 01:19:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Official samples from Nikon:

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/ca...6000/sample.htm

I find them to be remarkably good for images coming a compact digital camera. Even if they were shot at 64 ISO in a controlled studio environment.

Frankly speaking, nobody would be surprised if these images were said to have been shot with a Canon 40D or Nikon D300.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2008, 08:01:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The P6000 looks like much less camera for the same money as the Panasonic LX3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The LX3 is even lamer than the P6000 as it has no viewfinder, just the (now) usual invisible-in-daylight rear LCD screen. I've been looking to replace my LX2 for that same reason, and I'd been hoping the P6000 would be the one. The wait goes on ...
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2008, 03:02:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The LX3 is even lamer than the P6000 as it has no viewfinder, just the (now) usual invisible-in-daylight rear LCD screen. I've been looking to replace my LX2 for that same reason, and I'd been hoping the P6000 would be the one. The wait goes on ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can solve the viewfinder problem by using a [a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/430396-REG/Hoodman_HLPP_Professional_LCD_Screen_Loupe.html]Hoodman Loupe[/url]. Solves the sunlight problem completely except that it is still another (very light and small) piece of gear hanging on your neck.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2008, 03:03:48 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2008, 04:27:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The LX3 is even lamer than the P6000 as it has no viewfinder, just the (now) usual invisible-in-daylight rear LCD screen. I've been looking to replace my LX2 for that same reason, and I'd been hoping the P6000 would be the one. The wait goes on ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a misinformed reply on two counts at least.  One, the LX3 supports an optional snap-in viewfinder.  Two, I have a Pana TZ5 with the same screen, quite viewable in bright daylight, even without turning up the screen brightness.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2008, 04:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Official samples from Nikon:
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/ca...6000/sample.htm
I find them to be remarkably good for images coming a compact digital camera. Even if they were shot at 64 ISO in a controlled studio environment.......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A couple years ago I shot some test images with 3 different 10 mp non-dslr cameras - Pana FZ50, Nikon 8800, and Casio EXZ1000.  All were 1/1.8 CCD or larger.  All images, despite minor color differences, showed the same resolution, about the same amount of noise, and overall, about the same quality.  At the time the Nikon 8800 was released, it was the best P&S digicam in its size/price category.  Since then, Nikon has released a plethora of me-too who-cares versions of what other companies have already done.  It's sad to see, but then, Nikon doesn't care since they have bigger fish to fry.
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2008, 04:51:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nikon is using a crap 13.5 MP Sony sensor with noise levels high enough to make Mount Everest look like a hill.

I believe that they are indeed trying to hide this with some pre-post processing built into their own codec.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This appears quite sound : notice how the samples don't contain any textures in the shadows? Not to say they're so bad either, but that seems consistent with a fair amount of NR in the shadows.

Quote
One final word though, I don't see how this is arrogant.
Well, with the usual reserve that I'm no native english speaker, I'd agree the word arrogance may be a bit misused, but I fully understand the angry reaction of a photographer waiting for raw format in a compact to have some room for image treatment, and only finding that this particular raw format actually deprives him from the treatment he wants (or at least complicates it).
[a href=\"http://www.cnrtl.fr/lexicographie/gougnafier]Gougnaferie[/url] is a much better suited word than arrogance in this particular case, but alas! It's no english word.

For me it's a either/or situation :
- either the manufacturer chooses to have only its treatment applied on a camera's files, and then this camera only outputs jpeg,
- or it allows some custom treatment, and then a raw format as standard as possible, and with a minimal amount of built-in processing, is required.
Nikon tries to sit in between two chairs here, imho.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2008, 04:52:19 PM by NikoJorj » Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1371



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2008, 05:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I find them to be remarkably good for images coming a compact digital camera. Even if they were shot at 64 ISO in a controlled studio environment.

Frankly speaking, nobody would be surprised if these images were said to have been shot with a Canon 40D or Nikon D300.

I would be suprised. There's a huge amount of chroma noise in these pictures.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2008, 07:20:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would be suprised. There's a huge amount of chroma noise in these pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As they were downloading in very magnified format I was able to observe them closely. There is not a lot of chroma noise, and recall these are 8-bit JPEGs. I think Bernard's impression of the image quality just based on this sample seems largely correct. Nikon may be fighting a silly rear-guard battle over raw format to keep their sauce secret, but let's give credit where it's due: the image quality of what they showed in those three files is pretty good. At some point the laws of physics constrain what is achievable, and let's acknowledge that pixel density has to be very high in this model. They've probably done their homework and decided they can live without the number of potential customers who want the ultimate control over their raw files (such as me). But even giving them this benefit of the doubt, it's hard to see what they really achieve playing this game. It just demonstrates the kind of detachment from reality that we often accuse Canon of.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2008, 08:42:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since then, Nikon has released a plethora of me-too who-cares versions of what other companies have already done.  It's sad to see, but then, Nikon doesn't care since they have bigger fish to fry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214134\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dale,

I totally agree with you on the overall lack of Nikon investement in compact digital, but the fact remains that these samples are very good. The specs of the P6000 - besides the raw fiasco - are also appealing.

So I find it fair to say that Nikon is going in the right direction - again if you overlook their approach with raw.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2008, 08:44:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would be suprised. There's a huge amount of chroma noise in these pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is some chroma noise, but it is definitely not huge, and way better than any of the other compact digital camera files I have had in my hand recently (mostly Ricoh GX100).

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2008, 02:30:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is a misinformed reply on two counts at least.  One, the LX3 supports an optional snap-in viewfinder.  Two, I have a Pana TZ5 with the same screen, quite viewable in bright daylight, even without turning up the screen brightness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214132\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My mistake (somewhat) - I was not aware of the snap-in viewfinder, though I find it not very satisfactory as a solution, and infinitely prefer a proper viewfinder. But for the screen issue, I have the LX2 and find it unacceptable. YMMV.
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1090



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2008, 05:05:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Too much NR going on.  Great for snaps, not so good for anything else.  Portraits also always flatter digital cameras.

I have completely given up on small sensor compacts with high pixel counts.  They are a total waste of space for anything other than mom and pop photography.  The Sgma SD1 is a step in the right direction.  We need compacts with big - at least Micro four thirds format - size sensors.  All else is party junk, including the Canon G9 (which for a while seduced me but ultimately let me down) and this new Nikon.

Quentin
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 05:07:03 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2008, 09:04:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My mistake (somewhat) - I was not aware of the snap-in viewfinder, though I find it not very satisfactory as a solution, and infinitely prefer a proper viewfinder. But for the screen issue, I have the LX2 and find it unacceptable. YMMV.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214208\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I suggested above, have you tried using your LCD screen with the Hoodman Loupe? Changes the whole experience.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2008, 09:44:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Too much NR going on.  Great for snaps, not so good for anything else.  Portraits also always flatter digital cameras.

I have completely given up on small sensor compacts with high pixel counts.  They are a total waste of space for anything other than mom and pop photography.  The Sgma SD1 is a step in the right direction.  We need compacts with big - at least Micro four thirds format - size sensors.  All else is party junk, including the Canon G9 (which for a while seduced me but ultimately let me down) and this new Nikon.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quentin,

These judgments need context and a bit more precision. Firstly, on those three downloadable image files Nikon posted, two of them are portraits and one is a multi-coloured Japanese-looking desert. Chroma noise often shows on skin tones and in dark areas. Between the three of those images, they have both, and the apparent noise, even on large magnification, is well within the realm of acceptability for many purposes, and image detail remains pretty good. I downloaded the Japanese desert and measured the noise in Noiseware. It is remarkably low - less than 10% for Y, Cr and Cb. Now, of course this is a treated JPEG shot at ISO 64. Then I downloaded sample portrait 1, and found the noise slightly higher in the upper mid-tones, but still in the range of 10%, which is really quite low, again shot at ISO 64. Detail is very good as seen from a 100% magnification on a high-res display. All that said, we won't really know the whole story about image quality from this camera until it is properly tested by one or more of the usual gurus, and I would not buy one until the raw format truly delivers a raw file and is opened-up to Lightroom and Camera Raw. But I don't think Nikon is depending on people like me to make this market.

I don't think Nikon intended, nor should any purchaser assume, that you'd get full-frame image quality from a Coolpix, no matter how clever and technically "au courant" the design. So people who want or need the depth and flex of a F-F file and who want traditional control over their raw files simply shouldn't buy this camera. But on the IQ front, I would suspend judgment till the camera is properly tested, and then judge it in the context of its intended market niche.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2008, 12:48:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As I suggested above, have you tried using your LCD screen with the Hoodman Loupe? Changes the whole experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark - thanks for that suggestion. I have a Hoodman Loupe and I will give it a try, but I still prefer a proper viewfinder to using an extra gadget.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2008, 01:06:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark - thanks for that suggestion. I have a Hoodman Loupe and I will give it a try, but I still prefer a proper viewfinder to using an extra gadget.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Me too; an extra encumbrance, but it helps quite a bit.  
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2008, 08:07:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Dale,
I totally agree with you on the overall lack of Nikon investement in compact digital, but the fact remains that these samples are very good. The specs of the P6000 - besides the raw fiasco - are also appealing.
So I find it fair to say that Nikon is going in the right direction - again if you overlook their approach with raw.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nikon has led the way for so many years in pro-am photography that they are ingrained in the photo culture the same way Dante and Shakespeare are ingrained in English culture.  That aside, they (Nikon) may be headed in the right direction business-wise or DSLR-wise, but compact cameras are providing the funding for much of the research and development in digital image technology, and they aren't involved in that aspect of the business the way I would expect of a technology leader.  Granted I would use their cameras ahead of most other brands due to their general professionalism, but I feel better beating up on them for not trying harder than I would if I just gave them a free pass on their past glory.
Logged
Chris C
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #37 on: August 15, 2008, 12:13:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As I suggested above, have you tried using your LCD screen with the Hoodman Loupe? Changes the whole experience.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I  know you like your Hoodman Loupe, but are you aware it is no longer being manufactured?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6830


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 15, 2008, 12:27:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I  know you like your Hoodman Loupe, but are you aware it is no longer being manufactured?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215278\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Chris - this is indeed very recent, because at the time I wrote my last post recommending it, I had checked the B&H website and it was still listed for sale. Now that you have brought this to my attention I went back there and indeed it says "discontinued". Surprising - this is a great gadget - but maybe the economics didn't work out for them.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7778



WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2008, 08:35:20 AM »
ReplyReply

It would seem that Adobe Camera Raw 4.6 offers support for the Coolpix P6000.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad