Reading mode: Light Dark

New D60 samples

Go to last post
David Ramage said:
Check out Steve's digicams. He has three new d60 samples - 2
studio flash and one available light at a wedding

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/d60_samples.html
Click to expand...
The available light one was not real encouraging. I wonder if he had the long exposure noise reduction turned on. Very noisy. Freds ISOR actions helped (the ISOR 1600, the ISOR 800 didn't seem to touch the noise). I would quickly point out that they are meant for the D30 and may need tweakin (re-writing) for the D60 so they may not be valid used here.

May well be that the D60 is only going to be a 100,200,400 camera.--GSmithCreate an image today that will make someone's day today.
 
George Smith said:
The available light one was not real encouraging. I wonder if he
had the long exposure noise reduction turned on. Very noisy. Freds
Click to expand...
This function does not exist on the D60.
George Smith80814 said:
ISOR actions helped (the ISOR 1600, the ISOR 800 didn't seem to
touch the noise). I would quickly point out that they are meant for
the D30 and may need tweakin (re-writing) for the D60 so they may
not be valid used here.
Click to expand...
I found that Jes's color grain cleaner worked very nicely. There was still some luminance noise, but this probably won't be visible unless you do a pretty big print.

--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
In my very humble opinion, the D30 was never anything more then a 100,200,400 camera - though I know that there are many who would disagree with me on this one.

-JM
George Smith said:
David Ramage said:
Check out Steve's digicams. He has three new d60 samples - 2
studio flash and one available light at a wedding

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/d60_samples.html
Click to expand...
The available light one was not real encouraging. I wonder if he
had the long exposure noise reduction turned on. Very noisy. Freds
ISOR actions helped (the ISOR 1600, the ISOR 800 didn't seem to
touch the noise). I would quickly point out that they are meant for
the D30 and may need tweakin (re-writing) for the D60 so they may
not be valid used here.

May well be that the D60 is only going to be a 100,200,400 camera.
--
GSmith

Create an image today that will make someone's day today.
Click to expand...
 
no disrespect to the photographer but the portrait shots hardly look glowing do they? They look like they are underexposed and the hair looks dead.

look at pictures in the upmarket glossy mags and then look at these portraits - I don't know the background to these shots but I would say about the only kind things one can say about them is that they are in focus and are definitely not overexposed. Personally I just wouldn't post shots like these. i am sure it is not the camera's fault

sincerely
jerome y
 
James,

I agree. However, the D30's 800 was IMHO a bit more useable than what I see in that available light photo. I have plenty of fast lenses so I would rarely use 800 myself on the D30.

Just continues to make me wonder if I should buy the 60 or wait, spend at least $2500 more on the expected 1DS. At least that one will likely hold it's value a bit longer than the 60 (again IMHO).
JamesM said:
-JM
George Smith said:
David Ramage said:
Check out Steve's digicams. He has three new d60 samples - 2
studio flash and one available light at a wedding

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/d60_samples.html
Click to expand...
The available light one was not real encouraging. I wonder if he
had the long exposure noise reduction turned on. Very noisy. Freds
ISOR actions helped (the ISOR 1600, the ISOR 800 didn't seem to
touch the noise). I would quickly point out that they are meant for
the D30 and may need tweakin (re-writing) for the D60 so they may
not be valid used here.

May well be that the D60 is only going to be a 100,200,400 camera.
--
GSmith

Create an image today that will make someone's day today.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--GSmithCreate an image today that will make someone's day today.
 
Jerome said:
no disrespect to the photographer but the portrait shots hardly
look glowing do they? They look like they are underexposed and the
hair looks dead.
Click to expand...
I agree that there are a lot of problems with the aesthetics. One (2858) was taken at 41mm ( 66 mm. equiv.) which is just too close. Notice the bulbous look the subject's face has. The subject has some dead skin or a lipstick clump hanging on her lower lip. We could go on...

The photographer could have touched cleaned up a few (not all) of his mistakes in postprocessing, but I'm glad he didn't so that we're able to see what the camera captured.

My favorable comments were mostly my reaction to the detail the D60 seemed to capture despite the (relatively) inexpensive lens. These look better than upsampled D30 shots, IMO.

--Ron ParrFAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.htmlGallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Ron Parr said:
David Ramage said:
Check out Steve's digicams. He has three new d60 samples - 2
studio flash and one available light at a wedding
Click to expand...
I was very impressed. The portrait shots were taken with the
28-135, but still looked really good.
Click to expand...
Were you looking at the same pix? The color was awful on the two studio portraits...Then again, the lighting was a bit contrasty and I'm wondering if the color balance had been set properly?-- http://www.jackzucker.com
 
Paul Pope said:
There's something wrong with those portrait shots they look a 1/3
to a 1/2 under to me.....or maybe he's just too close ...I dunno
...don't like them at all.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, what studio flash (strobes?) do you use for your D30 studio work and with what colour balance setting?

With my Multiblitz units I find the daylight (cloudy) setting to be most pleasing.
 
i'm wondering as cameras get sharper with higher res the images become more abstarcted from the way we naturaly see. when i look at those portraits they look odd to me because that is not really how we see, when i look around i just don't see that much detail, and yes i have perfect vision.

i for one think the d30 images look more life like and real. looking to me like the only reason to upgrade to a 6mp cmaera is for highend (133lpi) reproduction and just the physical scale which allows more room for dpi conversion for print.

are we conditioned to think that an image has to be "tack sharp" to be usable?--w.
 
I was wondering about the wedding photo. I see a lot of "noise", reds/greens/bluish dots on the wall area. Is this normal ? I have taken quite a few shots at ISO 800 with my D30 and not noticed this. Possibly it was my shooting situation??
Matt
w. said:
i'm wondering as cameras get sharper with higher res the images
become more abstarcted from the way we naturaly see. when i look
at those portraits they look odd to me because that is not really
how we see, when i look around i just don't see that much detail,
and yes i have perfect vision.

i for one think the d30 images look more life like and real.
looking to me like the only reason to upgrade to a 6mp cmaera is
for highend (133lpi) reproduction and just the physical scale which
allows more room for dpi conversion for print.

are we conditioned to think that an image has to be "tack sharp" to
be usable?
--
w.
Click to expand...
--Squeeze the trigger.......don't pull it!
 
I always think of my raw files from my camera as if they were negatives, and I think they must be corrected before printing or posting. But I appreciate that those samples were raw from camera so we can see how bad/well D60 performs. Anyway I don't like lighting set-up too. Thas my attemp aftera bit of photoshop levels correction.


Jack A. Zucker said:
Ron Parr said:
David Ramage said:
Check out Steve's digicams. He has three new d60 samples - 2
studio flash and one available light at a wedding
Click to expand...
I was very impressed. The portrait shots were taken with the
28-135, but still looked really good.
Click to expand...
Were you looking at the same pix? The color was awful on the two
studio portraits...Then again, the lighting was a bit contrasty and
I'm wondering if the color balance had been set properly?
--
http://www.jackzucker.com
Click to expand...
 
Her complexion still looks ruddy and the right side of her forehead, overexposed. Regarding RAW images, my D30 gets great fleshtones out of the camera with no color correction. It's one of the strong points of the D30 in my opinion. On the other hand, the D30 does a poor job of rendering magenta and I have to do color balancing if I'm shooting purple subject matter. However, for the majority of images, the default raw conversion by Breezebrowser is fine with no color correction needed. Note that that is assuming a correct exposure. It looks to me like Steve's studio pictures were too contrasty and perhaps that's where the color problems lie.

Jaz-- http://www.jackzucker.com
 
i agree, for those itersetd heres the link to the photographer, make up your own minds :)

http://www.allprophoto.net/modeling.html

m
Jerome said:
no disrespect to the photographer but the portrait shots hardly
look glowing do they? They look like they are underexposed and the
hair looks dead.

look at pictures in the upmarket glossy mags and then look at these
portraits - I don't know the background to these shots but I would
say about the only kind things one can say about them is that they
are in focus and are definitely not overexposed. Personally I just
wouldn't post shots like these. i am sure it is not the camera's
fault

sincerely
jerome y
Click to expand...
 
I agree with you .Maybe its head tilt or head-shoulders angle. As you can see in the histogram the original sample in underexposed by about 2/3 stop.
From Exif code you can see it's custom WB.

I think photographer is always more important than camera. Here is a pic from a cheap Canon S30. Feel free to comment on it as I think you are a more experienced photographer than me.
Regards


Jack A. Zucker said:
Her complexion still looks ruddy and the right side of her
forehead, overexposed. Regarding RAW images, my D30 gets great
fleshtones out of the camera with no color correction. It's one of
the strong points of the D30 in my opinion. On the other hand, the
D30 does a poor job of rendering magenta and I have to do color
balancing if I'm shooting purple subject matter. However, for the
majority of images, the default raw conversion by Breezebrowser is
fine with no color correction needed. Note that that is assuming a
correct exposure. It looks to me like Steve's studio pictures were
too contrasty and perhaps that's where the color problems lie.

Jaz
--
http://www.jackzucker.com
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top