Digi Cam reviews in Japan

Japanese rated C-2000Z as #1 pick over CP-950 because of the ease of use for

general consumers.But these two cameras are so closely competitive that you won't go wrong with these cameras. They say that when you look at images shot by C-2000 first , it looks better than that of C-950 because it produces
better color contrast and sharpness. But,for over all picture quality,the CP-950
is the best. It designed to create true color pictures that sometimes look less
appealing to your eyes.

Check the sample pics

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/990428/200vs.htm

They rated DC 280 as #3 because of great quality picture ,ease of use and a very

generous package to start digital photography.I found that sample pics posted there is much better than those posted anywhere else.After I saw the sample picks of DC 280 in the Japanese site, I changed my impressions of the DC 280.
The sample pics are great!

Ckeck the sample pics

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/990726/dc280j.htm

They also posted sample pics of MX 2900.I didn't pay attention to this digi cam
before, but it produces great pictures. They rated MX2900 as #4.

Check the sample pics

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/990520/finepix.htm

H.Takahashi said:

Japanese rated C-2000Z as #1 pick over CP-950 because of the ease of use for
general consumers.But these two cameras are so closely competitive that
you won't go wrong with these cameras. They say that when you look at
images shot by C-2000 first , it looks better than that of C-950 because
it produces
better color contrast and sharpness. But,for over all picture quality,the
CP-950
is the best. It designed to create true color pictures that sometimes
look less
appealing to your eyes....

Click to expand...

Maybe you can help us understand what the Japanese sites are saying about the coming Nikon upgrade? Does this give us any insight into new features or fixes?

http://nikon.topica.ne.jp/ei_j/info/e950firmup_2.htm

And thanks very much for the report from Impress.

-iNova

Peter iNova said:

H.Takahashi said:

Japanese rated C-2000Z as #1 pick over CP-950 because of the ease of use for
general consumers.But these two cameras are so closely competitive that
you won't go wrong with these cameras. They say that when you look at
images shot by C-2000 first , it looks better than that of C-950 because
it produces
better color contrast and sharpness. But,for over all picture quality,the
CP-950
is the best. It designed to create true color pictures that sometimes
look less
appealing to your eyes....

Click to expand...

Maybe you can help us understand what the Japanese sites are saying about
the coming Nikon upgrade? Does this give us any insight into new
features or fixes?

http://nikon.topica.ne.jp/ei_j/info/e950firmup_2.htm

And thanks very much for the report from Impress.

-iNova

Click to expand...

Hi,Peter. How are you doing? They don't say any details about the NiKon upgrade, but they say that you can download the upgrade firmwares from

Japanese "NiKon Forum" site. If you don't have neither a PC or a serial cable, then, they will do it for you for free of charge if you bring your camera to specified NiKon service shops or send it to them .

I came to the same visual conclusion regarding the CP-950 as you have stated. Walking around my front yard earlier today, I visually appraised the color saturation in my mind. After investigating many images taken by all the top rated cameras I had to conclude that my yard realistically looked more Nikon 950 then Kodak 280!

I've been doing this comparison quite a bit lately. Shopping malls, marinas, oceans, city parks, etc. It've found high color saturation to be rare. Time of day is a governing factor. Rare instances of brilliant colors can be found where I used to live during this time of year when groves of Quaken Aspens are in their gloary but generally that sort of color is an exception rather than the rule.

H.Takahashi said:

Japanese rated C-2000Z as #1 pick over CP-950 because of the ease of use for
general consumers.But these two cameras are so closely competitive that
you won't go wrong with these cameras. They say that when you look at
images shot by C-2000 first , it looks better than that of C-950 because
it produces
better color contrast and sharpness. But,for over all picture quality,the
CP-950
is the best. It designed to create true color pictures that sometimes
look less
appealing to your eyes.

Check the sample pics

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/990428/200vs.htm

They rated DC 280 as #3 because of great quality picture ,ease of use and
a very
generous package to start digital photography.I found that sample pics
posted there is much better than those posted anywhere else.After I saw
the sample picks of DC 280 in the Japanese site, I changed my impressions
of the DC 280.
The sample pics are great!

Ckeck the sample pics

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/990726/dc280j.htm

They also posted sample pics of MX 2900.I didn't pay attention to this
digi cam
before, but it produces great pictures. They rated MX2900 as #4.

Check the sample pics

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/pc/docs/article/990520/finepix.htm

Click to expand...

Robert:

I don't suppose you, and apparently the reviewers, noticed the great amount of obviously false blue in the pond below and to the left of the 'The Mirage' sign. Also notice the ring of very prominent blue/purple around the upper edge of the fountain and in the upper part of the fountain itself. None of this looks very realistic to me.

Fred H.

Fred H. said:

Robert:

I don't suppose you, and apparently the reviewers, noticed the great
amount of obviously false blue in the pond below and to the left of the
'The Mirage' sign. Also notice the ring of very prominent blue/purple
around the upper edge of the fountain and in the upper part of the
fountain itself. None of this looks very realistic to me.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Opps - I didn't identify the photo I was refering to. It is the Nikon 950 #rei1 [upper left corner of the thumbnails]

Fred H.

Fred H. said:

Fred H. said:

Robert:

I don't suppose you, and apparently the reviewers, noticed the great
amount of obviously false blue in the pond below and to the left of the
'The Mirage' sign. Also notice the ring of very prominent blue/purple
around the upper edge of the fountain and in the upper part of the
fountain itself. None of this looks very realistic to me.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't see what you are talking about, Fred. This is a night shot with strong artificial illumination - you can't expect daylight-realistic colors. The photo looks fine to me.

Michael

Is this not obviously water reflecting the sky? I can see you arguing that a T-shirt would not reflect the blue, but fer goodness sake this is WATER! At the evening time it is natural that it will reflect!

Fred H. said:

Fred H. said:

Robert:

I don't suppose you, and apparently the reviewers, noticed the great
amount of obviously false blue in the pond below and to the left of the
'The Mirage' sign. Also notice the ring of very prominent blue/purple
around the upper edge of the fountain and in the upper part of the
fountain itself. None of this looks very realistic to me.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Opps - I didn't identify the photo I was refering to. It is the Nikon 950

1. rei1 [upper left corner of the thumbnails]

Fred H.

Click to expand...

It's the sky.

Next you'll be claiming that, like white cotton cloth, "there is no way on this green earth that" WATER has "sufficient reflectivity to reflect the very diffuse and weak light from the sky."

You know, Fred, not every photo with the color blue in it has been attacked by the 'Blue Meanies.' So climb into your Yellow Submarine and go back to Pepperland. Your argument is going Nowhere Man!

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4081/sld002.htm

-Ocker

Fred H. said:

Fred H. said:

Robert:

I don't suppose you, and apparently the reviewers, noticed the great
amount of obviously false blue in the pond below and to the left of the
'The Mirage' sign. Also notice the ring of very prominent blue/purple
around the upper edge of the fountain and in the upper part of the
fountain itself. None of this looks very realistic to me.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Opps - I didn't identify the photo I was refering to. It is the Nikon 950

1. rei1 [upper left corner of the thumbnails]

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Ocker:

My arguement has been made and is currently unchallenged. To see this go to this URL:
http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=47023

Also, I have repeatedly challenged PI to provide 'fixes' to three images using only or mainly white balance adjustments. PI managed through a series of bald faced bluffs and a great deal of squirming to avoid the inevitable - a humiliating defeat.

To see the series of challenges and consequent bluffs you only have to follow (through at least 'arrogance aplenty' I let PI off the hook here) the following sequence:
http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=47391

Fred H.

Joshua:

And MY what a bright blue sky that is! When was the last time that you saw such a BLUE sky after what in this image is, at best, soon after sunset? (do you see any hint of sunlight? - I don't). And MY isn't that reflection a deep and vivid blue! And what do you make of the deep blue (almost purple) showing along the rim of the fountain water? This image is just not real!
Fred H.

Michael:

For a shot that appears to be taken at dusk, the sky is much too deep a blue, and the supposed reflection of the sky is much too deep and vivid a blue to be real. Just look at how deep a blue the reflections in the water are. Can you really say that you have seen such a sight as this in your experience? The sky just does not get this deep a blue![and notice that there is little or no shading of the blue as one moves toward the horizon - especially in the sky to the far right] I have serious doubts that this reflects reality.

Fred H.

Michael,

Take a look at:

http://worldwidevacations.com/usa/lasvegas/las115a.htm

There's no telling what the light was like at any moment. However, yes, it looks like sky-at-dusk-blue to me. [sigh]

Will

No, not one on the top of your head.

Your "argument" is falling flat and the ice you're standing on is getting thinner.

The last photo you ripped on was a lame-ass example and doesn't in any way support your proposition. Have you resorted to picking ANY photo with a hint of blue and throwing it at us, saying, "See!, I told ya!"?

As for your challenge...

You have thrown up (and I'm about to do likewise) numerous ANONYMOUS photos and said "Fix 'em!" Don't you realize that without knowledge of the conditions under which those photos were taken and whether or not there was any post-processing, YOU CANNOT REACH A FAIR CONCLUSION. The camera type, settings, filters, lighting, post-processing, etc. are all variables in this equation, and NONE of them can be excluded.

Your equation reads:

camera(NIKON) + settings(?) + filters(?) + lighting(?) + post-proc(?) + other(?) = BLUE HAZE

and you conclude

NIKON = Blue Haze.

What a crock of S. Your logic is so ILL no wonder I feel like throwing up.

You're an engineer. You took math. Lots of it. Your equation doesn't balance. If you want anyone to entertain your argument seriously, why don't you do something yourself for a change. Instead of crying "Fix this" and "Fix that", take some photos yourself that support your argument. Since you are convinced this problem is so prevalent, it should take you no time. Record your camera settings and the conditions under which the photos were taken. Post them with the information. Instead of demanding "Fix it!", ask "How do I fix it?". Learn how and then you can do it yourself. Then, like the rest of us, you may not see this as a PROBLEM.

And again, as for your challenge...

I'm not about to spend the rest of the day searching through hundreds of messages and links, but to the best of my knowledge, Peter has posted a fix to every 'blue-tinged' photo you have presented. Your new rule about 'using only or mainly white balance adjustments' makes no sense. If you're referring to white balance adjustments in camera when taking the photo (which can't be repeated anyway since Peter didn't take the photo in the first place), then you are completely out to lunch and there's no hope. If you're placing restrictions on the Photoshop tools that can be used, then you got me. I can't imagine what kind of deranged mind derives satisfaction from repeatedly issuing an absurd challenge, and when it's met, changing the rules of engagement. Pointless. Absolutely pointless.

I sincerely hope you are out of public circulation, your room is well padded, and no one screws up your dosage.

-Ocker

Fred H. said:

Ocker:
My arguement has been made and is currently unchallenged. To see this go
to this URL:
http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=47023

Also, I have repeatedly challenged PI to provide 'fixes' to three images
using only or mainly white balance adjustments. PI managed through a
series of bald faced bluffs and a great deal of squirming to avoid the
inevitable - a humiliating defeat.
To see the series of challenges and consequent bluffs you only have to
follow (through at least 'arrogance aplenty' I let PI off the hook here)
the following sequence:
http://photo.askey.net/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=47391

Fred H.

Click to expand...

We can minimize those variable by looking at samples where several cameras take shots of the same scene and under the same conditions. There are lots of examples on the web from people who are not out to do anything more than show how different cameras handle the same scene. I think that the samples at

http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/Testbilder/Testbilder-en.asp are quite useful in that they are taken indoors and so eliminate the "reflected off the sky" objection.

The sample of the painters easel has samples taken with most of the current major camera brands (including all the ones in question here).

If you look at the top tube of paint in the left panel artists box you will see that it is Lukas #356, which I am familiar with since Lukas is a well known manufacturer of artist's supplies. Compare the color of that tube of paint to the actual samples from the Lukas America site http://www.lukasamerica.com/htmlos/htmlos/75.3.3545454626

and, yes, you will see the color shift towards the blue in the Nikon 950 or Nikon 700 shot. However, compare the color of the same tube in the Sony F505, F55, D700 or even Mavica 91 sample and you will see the correct color of Lukas #356 represented.

I think that this color evidence which is based on controlled and independent samples and compared with the color swatches provided by the paint manufacturer (who must be very careful to provide as accurate swatchs as possible) provide support for Fred's observation of a color shift towards the blue in CERTAIN digital cameras. NOT ONLY NIKON!! for example, there is quite a variation between the Oly C-1400XL and the Oly C-2000Z, Kodak is quite variable as well with some cameras showing a color shift and others not. It appears that the higher the megapixel rating then the more likely it will have a blue shift and consequent inaccurate color.

We need to admit that this problem is one that can afflict many different brands of digital cameras and not a Nikon specific issue. The solution will probably be found in the firmware decisions that the various manufacturers make as they are doing their tweaking for picture quality or it could be a quirk of the CCD that needs to have additional compensation in the engineering.
Others are welcome to check my results for themselves.

Ocker said:

As for your challenge...
You have thrown up (and I'm about to do likewise) numerous ANONYMOUS
photos and said "Fix 'em!" Don't you realize that without knowledge of
the conditions under which those photos were taken and whether or not
there was any post-processing, YOU CANNOT REACH A FAIR CONCLUSION. The
camera type, settings, filters, lighting, post-processing, etc. are all
variables in this equation, and NONE of them can be excluded.

Your equation reads:

camera(NIKON) + settings(?) + filters(?) + lighting(?) + post-proc(?) +
other(?) = BLUE HAZE

and you conclude

NIKON = Blue Haze.

What a crock of S. Your logic is so ILL no wonder I feel like throwing up.

Click to expand...

Robert,

http://www.digitalkamera.de/Info/Testbilder/Testbilder-en.asp

Now, that is a fascinating site and collection of sights! Thank you.

From what I can tell looking at the Kodak color control card shots, there are great variations in saturation as well as color shifts across companies and within product lines.

Perhaps we can generate several hundred posts about saturation after we stop singing the blues.

Me? I'm going to stick with my Nikon 900 until the second iteration of Canon's version of the D-1 comes out.

Will

Yes, standard points of reference like the Color Control cards may have eliminated some of the bandwidth that was wasted with "I'm right and you're wrong!" pingpong that we have had to put up with recently.

Will Perlis said:

From what I can tell looking at the Kodak color control card shots, there
are great variations in saturation as well as color shifts across
companies and within product lines.

Click to expand...

"BLUE FRINGE"

Fred H. said:

Robert:

I don't suppose you, and apparently the reviewers, noticed the great
amount of obviously false blue in the pond below and to the left of the
'The Mirage' sign. Also notice the ring of very prominent blue/purple
around the upper edge of the fountain and in the upper part of the
fountain itself. None of this looks very realistic to me.

Fred H.

Click to expand...

Interesting site. Worth a bookmark. Seems as though I've seen it in some thread of this unending subject, but maybe not presented the same way with the reference to the Lukas site.

I see differences in most, if not all, of the colors (not just blue) across the test photos. I would expect similar results if the variable was different types of film instead of digital cameras. Not sure if I'd characterize it as a 'problem' for any of the cameras, just a quirk (part of the individual camera's personality) that a simple tweak in Photoshop will take care of.

No worries, Mate!

-Ocker