Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "The Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen"  (Read 85663 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #260 on: January 30, 2009, 05:59:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Color is perception, not reality. Illumination is continous spectrum (natural or incdescent light). Colors reflected are non continous.Fluorescent illumination is spiky, has large spikes in the spectrum. The eye gets three stimuli dependent on the spectral characteristics of light and object. Brain combines tristimulus signals and interpretes as color.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Slough
Would you care to enlarge on that?
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8880


« Reply #261 on: January 30, 2009, 11:20:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from Ray:

Quote
Do I buy a D3X on the basis that I can save money by buying cheap Nikkor lenses which might well be good value but are optically mediocre? I think not.


Quote from: ziocan
I think this is one of the few lines that make sense, on this two millions nonsense thread.

Ziocan,
Thanks for your support, but I fear that some folks might misinterpret such selective quoting and draw the conclusion that I'm saying that all Nikkor lenses are mediocre. This is clearly not the case.

We all have different interests, shooting styles and lens requirements. Buying a new camera without consideration of your lens requirements is a bit shortsighted, in my view. I'm disappointed that Nikon does not have the equivalent of the Canon 24-105/F4 IS or the 70-200/F4 IS. On the other hand, I shall at least save some money as a consequence.
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 453



WWW
« Reply #262 on: January 31, 2009, 01:31:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm testing out a D3x at the moment and one thing it has very much in common with my DSIII's (and I suppose the new 5DII or Sony thing) is that it has no tolerance for an average lens or a sloppy picture - this chip (again, like the others) will test a lens and your photography skills to to their very limits.  



Logged

happyman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #263 on: January 31, 2009, 02:27:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Anderson
I'm testing out a D3x at the moment and one thing it has very much in common with my DSIII's (and I suppose the new 5DII or Sony thing) is that it has no tolerance for an average lens or a sloppy picture - this chip (again, like the others) will test a lens and your photography skills to to their very limits.  

No, it doesnt. Its mostly the mind that causes the limits.

What in hell has the chip to do with skill ?

The D3x is a tool, nothing more or less.

A simple tool like a hammer could produce art or scrap. YOU make the difference.

You cant buy skill, passion or soul.

Thanks god.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #264 on: January 31, 2009, 02:53:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
Accurate (correct) colour isn't necessarily pleasing colour or natural looking, and correct colour isn't necessarily just a matter of setting the white balance.

In addition, different software deals differently with white balance, so the procedures and results may differ.

All true, but with respect, rather academic. I find that with a digital camera I can (almost always) get 'natural' looking colours, which is my aim. I discovered that using fill flash allows the camera to get much better white balance, presumably because it knows the colour temperature of the flash, hence it can work out how the scene should look. Were I picky about white balance, I could use a gray card. To process images I use Nikon Capture as that understand the camera's white balance settings, unlike all other RAW converters that I have used.

When I slide used film, it was very hard, especially in situations such as dark woods with overhead canopies, or in shade on a day with a clear blue sky.

Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #265 on: January 31, 2009, 02:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

Color is perception, not reality. Illumination is continous spectrum (natural or incdescent light). Colors reflected are non continous.Fluorescent illumination is spiky, has large spikes in the spectrum. The eye gets three stimuli dependent on the spectral characteristics of light and object. Brain combines tristimulus signals and interpretes as color.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, quite true, but as I said earlier, rather academic. Dare I say that what matters to most people is whether or not the result looks 'right', or 'natural', and for my purposes (nature photography) digital delivers the goods.
Logged
David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 453



WWW
« Reply #266 on: January 31, 2009, 03:03:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: happyman
What in hell has the chip to do with skill ?

Lots.


At this resolution you can clearly see the difference between sharp and very sharp - the skill is in getting very sharp.

I wonder would you notice the difference between the 70mm end of the 24 to 70 2.8 vs. the 70mm end of the 70 - 200 2.8 VR on the old camera..

Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #267 on: January 31, 2009, 03:25:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Yes, quite true, but as I said earlier, rather academic. Dare I say that what matters to most people is whether or not the result looks 'right', or 'natural', and for my purposes (nature photography) digital delivers the goods.
In that case, you should consider yourself a very lucky person indeed. I'm not that lucky. All I need to mess it all up is a billiards hall, with the reflected green light from the cloth on a player's face, and there goes the "natural" look down the drain.

I strongly disagree that what I wrote was "academic" in nature. It's elementary digital photography. Erik was going a bit deeper into the reasons for why "correct"/"accurate"/"right" colours are difficult to achieve, but even that can hardly be called "academic".

Perhaps my perspective is different from yours; I have a background from academia, and I think I have a fairly good clue about what that's about.
Logged

Jan
Slough
Guest
« Reply #268 on: January 31, 2009, 04:06:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
In that case, you should consider yourself a very lucky person indeed. I'm not that lucky. All I need to mess it all up is a billiards hall, with the reflected green light from the cloth on a player's face, and there goes the "natural" look down the drain.

I was talking about my experience of using digital and film. I take photos in some complex lighting situations, and usually get good results. The point I was making is that I get much much better colours using digital than when I used slide film. I take photos in a wide range of outdoor situations, where slide film was a nightmare. I happen to use Nikon, and that colours (sic) my experience. I cannot comment on other brands, though I doubt that Nikon cameras are any worse, or better. I also made no comment on other peoples experiences. Clearly when there are very complex lighting situations, such as multiple light sources, each with quite distinct spectral distributions, life gets complex.

Quote from: jani
I strongly disagree that what I wrote was "academic" in nature. It's elementary digital photography. Erik was going a bit deeper into the reasons for why "correct"/"accurate"/"right" colours are difficult to achieve, but even that can hardly be called "academic".

Saying something is 'academic' is an English idiomatic phrase. It means something like 'true, but not of direct relevance'. There was nothing at all complex in your posts. Obviously the spectral distribution of the ambient light need not be anything like that at noon outdoors on a sunny day.

I am interested in what works, rather than an academic discussion of the underlying principles, which risks not seeing the wood for the trees. As I am sure you and others know well, decent white balance can be obtained using a gray/white card.

I also worked out a simple trick to good auto-white balance most of the time. It involves using fill flash, which allows the camera to work out the colour temperature of the ambient light. At least that is my assumption. Nikon do not document their algorithms.


Quote from: jani
Perhaps my perspective is different from yours; I have a background from academia, and I think I have a fairly good clue about what that's about.

Quite why you need to be so condescending is beyond me.  

I have a degree in physics (a first) from a major university and a Ph.D. in physics (theory of condensed matter) from another major university. And I have a string of publications in major academic journals with my name as first or sole author. However, I do not usually mention those facts.  I suppose that is because a substantial amount of innovative work is done outside universities, so I see it as pointless to mention. I also note that most of the photographers whose work I admire are self taught, and do not have an academic background. You do not have to understand the processes of thermonuclear fusion in order to appreciate the warmth of the sun.  

Of course if you or anyone else has 'academic' knowledge about white balance which allows achieving better white balance, then do share. But then it would not be 'academic' knowledge, at least not in the idiomatic sense of the term.  
Logged
happyman
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #269 on: January 31, 2009, 05:35:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: David Anderson
Lots.


At this resolution you can clearly see the difference between sharp and very sharp - the skill is in getting very sharp.

I wonder would you notice the difference between the 70mm end of the 24 to 70 2.8 vs. the 70mm end of the 70 - 200 2.8 VR on the old camera..


Some chips are more "forgiving". But your skill isnt the factor.

You mentioned the new 24-70 which is sharp on my D3x and my D3.
And you mentioned the 70-200 which is not sharp wide open (center only) and will never be on any of the FX Nikons.

Or do you mean it needs skill to close the aperture 1 more step?
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #270 on: January 31, 2009, 06:17:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You do not have to understand the processes of thermonuclear fusion in order to appreciate the warmth of the sun.

Love it.  
Logged

David Anderson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 453



WWW
« Reply #271 on: January 31, 2009, 06:20:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: happyman
Some chips are more "forgiving". But your skill isnt the factor.

You mentioned the new 24-70 which is sharp on my D3x and my D3.
And you mentioned the 70-200 which is not sharp wide open (center only) and will never be on any of the FX Nikons.

Or do you mean it needs skill to close the aperture 1 more step?

What would you call it, luck ?

Anyway, never mind all that boring photography stuff, I"ll test the camera in 'P' and see how good it really is for the money !  

Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1499


« Reply #272 on: January 31, 2009, 09:19:31 AM »
ReplyReply

If anyone should care to send me a D3x I will be more than happy to test it & give detailed feedback. Anyone? No?  
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #273 on: February 01, 2009, 10:06:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Saying something is 'academic' is an English idiomatic phrase. It means something like 'true, but not of direct relevance'.
I'm sorry, but the way I read your post, it seemed that you used it with a different meaning than that one.

But I'd still disagree.

Quote
Quite why you need to be so condescending is beyond me.  
Quite why you need to feel that someone mentioning their background means that they're condescending is completely beyond me.

YMMV, and I'm sorry that I offended your sensibilities.
Logged

Jan
Slough
Guest
« Reply #274 on: February 01, 2009, 11:08:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
I'm sorry, but the way I read your post, it seemed that you used it with a different meaning than that one.

But I'd still disagree.

Life's too short to worry about something so insignificant. You are probably younger, so have more time to squander.

Quote from: jani
Quite why you need to feel that someone mentioning their background means that they're condescending is completely beyond me.

YMMV, and I'm sorry that I offended your sensibilities.

You didn't. But you seemed to be putting yourself on a pedestal, by suggesting that you were 'learned', and I wasn't.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #275 on: February 01, 2009, 04:06:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
You didn't. But you seemed to be putting yourself on a pedestal, by suggesting that you were 'learned', and I wasn't.
I'm not that ingrained in academia, I left it eight years ago, and I haven't looked back. I merely implied a different perspective, in a humouristic manner. Well, that was the intention, anyway. I'm not stupid enough to think that an academic background somehow implies that I'm better than other people, but I'm aware that that's how a lot of people see it, hence the joke.

But please at least try to not ignore the smileys, or I shall be forced to employ "BEGIN humouristic sentence" and "END humouristic sentence" markers in plaintext.
Logged

Jan
Slough
Guest
« Reply #276 on: February 01, 2009, 04:38:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
I'm not that ingrained in academia, I left it eight years ago, and I haven't looked back. I merely implied a different perspective, in a humouristic manner. Well, that was the intention, anyway. I'm not stupid enough to think that an academic background somehow implies that I'm better than other people, but I'm aware that that's how a lot of people see it, hence the joke.

But please at least try to not ignore the smileys, or I shall be forced to employ "BEGIN humouristic sentence" and "END humouristic sentence" markers in plaintext.

Okay, fair enough. Actually the smiley reinforced the meaning that I read into your phrase. It is easy to convey an unintended meaning (or have the reader interpret it in an unimagined way). That is not a criticism of you, or of me, but a general observation.

Now what was the original question ...  
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7905



WWW
« Reply #277 on: February 01, 2009, 08:56:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: douglasf13
Bernard, we must be cut from the same cloth, as I'm a tea drinker, and I reference that TED jeans video all of the time to family and friends. Granted, I am a lowly A900 shooter, rather than that sweet D3x

One thing is sure, a good photographer using an A900 will always outshoot a poor one with a D3x.

Ted is great isn't it?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jimk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #278 on: February 02, 2009, 11:56:03 AM »
ReplyReply

i dont know who this guy lloyd is but you know i think im in the wrong business .. ill start a web blog and do my own "reviews" and call myself an expert .. sheesh ... i dunno some people think im an expert because they ask my opinion all day  ..hahahaha

Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3980



WWW
« Reply #279 on: February 02, 2009, 05:27:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
Of course if you or anyone else has 'academic' knowledge about white balance which allows achieving better white balance, then do share. But then it would not be 'academic' knowledge, at least not in the idiomatic sense of the term.  

Run a profiler on a Macbeth chart in your lighting and you'll fix the wb issues and the color issues for that series of shots. I think there's a profile tool out there for free from Adobe, works only for PS and LR. Of course, that'll give you accurate color, not pleasing color. You want pleasing color, or access to whatever knowledge I happen to possess  feel free to pay me -however, I'm sure Andrew will be delighted to educate you at no cost

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Pages: « 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad