Banding? Fine with me.

[redwoodroadie]

Everyone needs to do this. Adam feeds on stirring things up and then replying to everyone who objects because he's "just stating the facts" about the D200 banding -- something he is very clearly not qualified to comment on. Adam says all D200 cameras band; but he can't tell us how or if this is different from other cameras. Adam has never owned a D200 and would never buy one. Adam is not a technician or engineer working for Nikon or familar with their operations. Despite this, Adam posts into every thread with the word banding in it and will continue to do so until we all stop relying to his nonsense.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach

 

[redwoodroadie]

Phil is the final arbiter of who gets banned or not. Want to try to get me banned? Go for it. Fortunately, you don't get to make that call.

If Gary comes back under a new identity and resumes his posting behavior; he'll eventually get banned again. Any one of us, that behaves like that, should be banned. Phil shows great tolerance in these matters and you really have to be over the top to get banned. I think that the fact that Gary and the rest of you guys feel so differently about the D200 than Phil obviously does puts Phil in an awkward position -- since some people will say the guy was banned for disagreeing with Phil.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach

 

[Mike St James]

The one time I "worked" to get someone banned I complained directly
to Phil.

Admirable. I guess.

Just because I agree with some other people on this issue doesn't
make me a member of any posse. I don't do posses - I'm an
independent contractor.

Who am I going to believe; you, or my lyin' eyes, right? If it's legit to group Gary, myself, Sergio, nik1024, Adam, et al together because we share some views, I guess it's legit to to lump some of you torch-wavers together too. Just read the nauseating, simpering, self-serving apology that opens this thread, then look back to the one where you were all dittoing and back-slapping one another over your joint resolution to castrate Gary. People can draw their own conclusions. Onward and upward, Taliban.

--
Mike St James

 

[nik1024]

I think that the fact that Gary and the rest of you guys feel so
differently about the D200 than Phil...

How do they (or us) guys feel differently about d200 than Phil? This is a really awkward statement which you may explain if you wish.

 

[Greg Zillgitt]

Who am I going to believe; you, or my lyin' eyes, right? If it's
legit to group Gary, myself, Sergio, nik1024, Adam, et al together
because we share some views, I guess it's legit to to lump some of
you torch-wavers together too.

I don't believe I ever grouped you or Sergio or nik1024 together with Gary or Adam. Maybe you could point me to the post where I did that, because I don't remember. If you see yourself as part of a group then good for you. Congratulations.

Just read the nauseating, simpering,
self-serving apology that opens this thread, then look back to the
one where you were all dittoing and back-slapping one another over
your joint resolution to castrate Gary. People can draw their own
conclusions. Onward and upward, Taliban.

There you go again with another genital reference. Interesting.

--
http://www.pbase.com/gzillgi

 

[Mike St James]

Re: Gary Woodard got himself banned
Right, and Natalie Holloway got herself killed. Lots of people believe that too.

Phil is the final arbiter of who gets banned or not.

If you want to believe that Phil personally researches all complaints and makes the banning decisions, fine. Think about it. This is one of the busiest sites of its kind on the internet. I suppose you think he reads these pathetic "open letters to Phil" as well? That said, Phil owns it, and he no more needs to have anyone here that he doesn't like than he needs to let strangers use his bathroom. His property, his choice.

If Gary comes back under a new identity and resumes his posting
behavior; he'll eventually get banned again. Any one of us, that
behaves like that, should be banned. Phil shows great tolerance in
these matters and you really have to be over the top to get banned.

Baloney. Behaves like WHAT, exactly? What it takes is a complaint. What, like Phil was just sitting around getting irritated by Gary, while ignoring the audacious and blatantly offensive posts going on all around him? MK914's complaint (and possibly others) got Gary banned, more likely. Anyone can easily find hundreds of posts without any effort at all where the behavior of the members could justify banning. Yet they endure, some for years.

I think that the fact that Gary and the rest of you guys feel so
differently about the D200 than Phil obviously does puts Phil in an
awkward position -- since some people will say the guy was banned
for disagreeing with Phil.

People do't like to be called fanboys even if that's what they are, and don't like being grouped all together on anything, but it's always "you guys" when you're referring to anyone who takes issue with your viewpoints, like Gary and I and others who happen to have some common ground on a few issues that are hot right now have some monolithic anti-D200 anti-Nikon position. Well, it's a forum, isn't it? If Phil wanted nothing but fanboys here, he could easily have it. Phil's reviews are excellent, probably the best available, and probably what draw most members to this site, but you can hardly take ANY one source as gospel. I read ALL the reviews, sometimes more than once. I'm more interested in people who have personal experiences and no axes to grind than I am in swallowing a single review as the final word. Phil probably knows that.

--
Mike St James

 

[redwoodroadie]

I'm more interested in people who have personal
experiences and no axes to grind than I am in swallowing a single
review as the final word.

The vast majority of those people love the D200. So don't take Phil's word when he "highly recommends" the camera; and while your at it, don't take the word of everyone else who has reviewed the camera that it's a great tool. Take the word of Gary Woodard, who never gave Nikon a chance to fix his camera; or the word of Adam Kmiec, who formed his opinion after briefly handling one camera in a Chicago camera shop; or Sergio, who tests his D200 cameras by overexposing a lightbulb shot and has never tried that test with another camera to confirm that it's only a "problem" with the D200. I would appreciate it if you would provide us with a single review from a reputable source that says the D200 is a lousy camera and should be avoided.

If you go into every thread and bash the camera, repeatedly start threads attacking Nikon and the D200, you are breaking that rule and eventually that will get you banned. That's what happened to Gary Woodard; not some unseen pro-Nikon conspiracy.

--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach

 

[redwoodroadie]

--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach

 

[MK914]

Have a look:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=17321103

(With thanks to Julia for bringing this to my {and others} attention.)

Oh, and Mike...you really need to not take this stuff so personally. The fusillade of insults and name calling that you unleashed on me and others in this thread serves what purpose? Seriously. Is it possible for you to disagree without all that? And yes, of course, if there are people who disagree with you doing the same thing they are also wrong and should stop.

Peace,
MK

 

[Adam Kmiec]

if you actually read my posts instead of just running around like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to defame me you'd see how I consider banding different than noise in other cameras.

i'll help you: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17321670
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
http://www.kmiecphotography.com
http://kmiecmonster.blogspot.com

 

[Mike St James]

redwoodroadie wrote:
The vast majority of those people love the D200. So don't take

Phil's word when he "highly recommends" the camera;

Phil highly recommends just about everything. His recommendations don't mean anything to me. It's the meat of his reviews I'm interested in, and what I learn from. That's where he excels.

and while your

at it, don't take the word of everyone else who has reviewed the
camera that it's a great tool.

See above. What, are you nuts? This is just what I mean about lumping everyone together. Find where I've bashed Nikon OR the D200. I've shared my experiences with my particular example while saying (over and over) that I am a forty-year Nikon customer who has no intention of changing, my decision not to keep the D200 notwithstanding. You're just running off at the mouth now. You do a lot of that (So do I.) So should we both be banned?

Take the word of Gary Woodard, who

never gave Nikon a chance to fix his camera; or the word of Adam
Kmiec, who formed his opinion after briefly handling one camera in
a Chicago camera shop; or Sergio, who tests his D200 cameras by
overexposing a lightbulb shot and has never tried that test with
another camera to confirm that it's only a "problem" with the D200.

I don't take anyone's word, in the individual sense, and I don't need their experiences (or opinions) to reinforce my own. Some of these guys have brought out good points for discussion, have stimulated responses that have been instructive. But you can't learn anything by being a raging fanboy, and so you haven't.

I would appreciate it if you would provide us with a single review
from a reputable source that says the D200 is a lousy camera and
should be avoided.

No review says that, and neither have I. Just for sh* ts and giggles, go here
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D200/D200A.HTM

scroll down to the area on the "Corduroy Effect" and read the paragraph starting with "Each prospective user..." Two reviewers, one like me, one like you. Should we hunt down that filthy basher and string him up too? And maybe crown the other one King because he agrees with you?

If you go into every thread and bash the camera, repeatedly start
threads attacking Nikon and the D200, you are breaking that rule
and eventually that will get you banned. That's what happened to
Gary Woodard; not some unseen pro-Nikon conspiracy.

He didn't "bash the camera" unless discussing a problem inherent in the model is bashing. Yes, he was repetitious. Want to look at YOUR posts for the past month? Or MINE? How about THIS ONE? Off with our heads...we've repeated ourselves! In every thread you have a slightly different mix of "attendees." Some repetition is inevitable and unavoidable. You choose to construe any criticism as "bashing." I don't. Gooid thing we're not next-door neighbors, huh? Look at the behavior running through this entire site. Some of it is truly egregious, but none ot it bothers me, because it's so easy to avoid. You might try that yourself. Looks like you've already discovered that tactic re: Adam, whom you've chosen not to respond to anymore. See; it works every time it's tried! Gary's worth as a poster/member isn't the question. His behavior didn't even come close to what you can see in here everyday by some folks, that has gone on for years, in some cases. Just to start out with, look through some of the posting history for some of the members of the "let's get 'em" posse. The fact is, bad behavior is rampant everywhere on the internet, somewhat less in the heavily moderated forums where "edited by moderator" shows up in every other thread. It's the price you pay for being able to hear everyone's opinion. Phil can (and will) ban whom he wishes. We're all in his living room. But the process is arbitrary and capricious, and usually (most certainly, in this case) based on a COMPLAINT. My name is easy to recognize (and real, unlike yours) so give me the "Adam" treatment if it please you. I won't be disappointed.

--
Mike St James

'Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.'— William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice.

 

[SergioRZ]

It's a pitty that threads like this one, where some actual information is posted, do not continue... People like Julia, who obviously knows a lot about this, and certainly has an opinion, just come here, throw two or three good ideas to the air, and go away...

Why is that?

What is keeping these people from talking openely about this? I'm puzled...

 

[Michael Mohrmann]

It's a pitty that threads like this one, where some actual
information is posted, do not continue... People like Julia, who
obviously knows a lot about this, and certainly has an opinion,
just come here, throw two or three good ideas to the air, and go
away...

Why is that?

What is keeping these people from talking openely about this? I'm
puzled...

Speaking only for myself, I figure that these individuals know far more about the technical aspects of digital SLRs than I and many here would ever hope to learn. I would love to hear some of this in layman's terms, but they don't discuss these topics that way. You either understand the highly technical (or cryptic) messages being posted or you don't. I guess I just don't know the secret handshake!

 

[Mike St James]

Oh, and Mike...you really need to not take this stuff so
personally.

You mean personally as in making it your mission to get someone thrown out of your little sandbox? That's at the extremity of making it "personal."

The fusillade of insults and name calling that you

unleashed on me and others in this thread serves what purpose?

Small indication of my disgust. Of course YOUR posts (re: Gary?) aren't insulting?

Seriously. Is it possible for you to disagree without all that?

Absolutely possible, and I do it every day, except when addressing people who can't stand to hear both sides of an issue, and so run to Mommie for relief. It's beneath contempt.

And yes, of course, if there are people who disagree with you doing
the same thing they are also wrong and should stop.

Why not report everyone to Phil?

There isn't anything more for me to say on this. All of these exchanges have been repetitious and tiresome. No value to anyone else. Have another shot at me, if you like. I'm done.

--
Mike St James

'Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.'— William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

I have recently joined and notice sometimes slightly less civility than we sign up to when discussing banding.

There has probably been more productive feedback at Nikonians than anywhere else.

One thread found 26 D200 owners out of possibly 750 (assuming 2% of Nikonians owned one by the end of January) reported banding. 2 had had theirs put right and a few regarded the banding they had as insignificant. On this basis it was concluded there was no evidence to suggest more than 5% of early D200's had banding.

This fits in with the comments on banding in the dpreview D200 test recently posted.
Both sources completely contradict the claim all D200's have banding.

There has been good tracking of USA serial numbers at Nikonians and it guessed the USA serial numbers had reached around 3011500 at the time of Nikon's banding announcement. As far as I am aware there are no reports of a serious banding issue with a post 3011500 serial number.

Please - what is significant is for the individual to decide.

50% on my 19 inch monitor is bigger than A3 paper, at which size a D200 images records 200 dpi equivalent on a print.
100% is A1 size - and equivalent to IMO an unacceptable 100 dpi on a print.
200% is about 80 inches long and equivalent to an unacceptable 50 dpi.

To get decent quality prints some post capture work (particularly interpolation) with prints larger than 50% on a 19 inch monitor is highly desireable.

If the banding is slight edge at 200% it is easily toned down with NR (using samples I have had mailed to me) to an extent it does not show in an 80% inch print equivalent. It is up to each of us to decide whether or not this level of banding is a problem.

My position is I have a first delivery D200 which, and no matter how I try, it has no banding. I can get blown out higjhlights with over exposure, CA if I try hard enough at 20%, and noise at 50%, but cannot imagine any DSLR owner returning their camera for any off these issues.

It would help to report factually e.g. slight edge banding at 200% with 2 stops over exposure serial number 3012XXX and let others make there own mind up.

I suspect a 5% performance variation between individual cametras is why a few had banding, or still have slight edge banding at 200% with over exposure, and a very significant majority of D200's even before the fix had no banding.

--Leonard Shepherd

 

[redwoodroadie]

You stated that you form your opinions on D200 users in this forum and not on reputable reviewers. In both instances you pick and choose who and what to listen to. The first reviewer you cite as a source to justify your opinion states:

As I said at the outset, the Nikon D200 is an absolutely exceptional camera, clearly the fourth home run in a row for the company in SLRs. It's solidly built, handles well, and has logically thought-out and arranged controls. It's a joy to shoot with, its exposure metering and 11-point AF system both performing with speed and accuracy. Tonality and color are both excellent, and the camera just seems to deliver more "keepers" per shoot than many others I've handled. The only issue that keeps me from a completely over-the-top response to it is the "Corduroy Effect" that we saw under certain very specific circumstances in response to strong light overloads. This would bother me in a camera I'd spent $1,700 for, but Dave finds it no such impediment, and in fact is almost certainly going to buy one for use both in our studio and by him personally. (While we don't yet know the outcome, Nikon is apparently investigating this issue, so what you see below will almost certainly not constitute the final word on the matter.)

We are getting mostly positive feedback from people who have sent their miscalibrated cameras back to Nikon for service. If your experience is otherwise, then by all means share it -- I'm interested.
The other reviewer said:

Conclusion (for now)

The relatively minor (in my view) issue of the "corduroy" streaking aside, the Nikon D200 is simply a fantastic camera to shoot with, and its other image-quality parameters are absolutely first-rate. We'll have our usual in-depth review with detailed image analysis posted eventually, but the early results show that Nikon has come up with another real winner. There's a lot of sophistication in the D200's operation and available controls that just aren't available in the market at less than twice its price. We see professionals flocking to the D200 as a much more affordable alternative to the D2x that gives up very little in the way of image quality or capability. For the really serious amateurs, this is simply the camera to buy, at least at this particular moment in the market. To our eyes, it's another clear home run for Nikon.

Finally, I did not mean to refer to you personally regarding bashing the D200, I didn't even mention you in my list of particulars. What I should have said was that anyone who engages in the repetitive attacks of a brand or product is subject to being banned and will be if they bring enough attention to themselves. Phil posted his review and showed up in several threads in this forum the next day, that made Gary's posting history terribly obvious to Phil. It's just like speeding, the cops only ticket the people they see doing it, not necessarily the worse offenders.
--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach

 

[MK914]

no test.

 

[Mike St James]

Who said I did? What are you smoking? If you can't READ how can we argue?

You stated that you form your opinions on D200 users in this forum
and not on reputable reviewers. In both instances you pick and
choose who and what to listen to.

See above. I did NOT say what you attribute to me. Quote it, if you can. You are reading what you want to hear into what I said. I read the reviews, evaluate MY OWN EXPERIENCES, and view the whole in the context of my circumstances to decide how I want to proceed. If I find a few whose experiences have paralleled mine to a great extent, that has weight, but is not definitive.

We are getting mostly positive feedback from people who have sent
their miscalibrated cameras back to Nikon for service. If your
experience is otherwise, then by all means share it -- I'm
interested.

No argument there. Where have I disputed this? Where have I said otherwise? I offered my own personal experience to the contrary. There are some others whose experience parallels mine. I don't know HOW many, and i don't care. My experience was the core basis of my decision.

Finally, I did not mean to refer to you personally regarding
bashing the D200, I didn't even mention you in my list of
particulars. What I should have said was that anyone who engages
in the repetitive attacks of a brand or product is subject to being
banned and will be if they bring enough attention to themselves.
Phil posted his review and showed up in several threads in this
forum the next day, that made Gary's posting history terribly
obvious to Phil. It's just like speeding, the cops only ticket the
people they see doing it, not necessarily the worse offenders.

I've read the rules. I've been around here awhile. As I said to MK914, I've banged this drum enough. Have another shot if you like. I'm done.

--
Mike St James

'Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.'— William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Mike St James]

WELCOME! Happy to see you over here!

I have recently joined and notice sometimes slightly less civility
than we sign up to when discussing banding.

These issues always produce heated conflict, some of which bring out small bits of additional information, but mostl waste space and keystrokes. It's easy to get wound up in a long back-and-forth, which gets increasingly contentious, mainly because so much that is posted by one person is imperfectly understood by another. Sometimes these end in apologies, and sometimes they just peter out. It passes, and is not particularly onerous for me.

There has probably been more productive feedback at Nikonians than
anywhere else.

I disagree. I spend some time over there, but I prefer this site. It's more free-wheeling, but I feel things get more fully explored in this environment than in heavily moderated foums like Nikonians. That is purely personal preference, but there you have it. Between we two, you like the one, and I like the other. Both are very useful.

One thread found 26 D200 owners out of possibly 750 (assuming 2%
of Nikonians owned one by the end of January) reported banding. 2

Len, I attribute absolutley no significance to the numbers bandied about by the amateur pollsters on either site. I admire their interest in quantifying things, and appreciate that they are willing to try, but no statistician would find these polls/numbers anything but laughable. I contend that only a miniscule sample of D200 owners post on these forums, with a slightly larger number lurking but not contributing, and a larger number yet who might accidentally encounter one on these sites.

Regards,

--
Mike St James

'Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.'— William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Mike St James]

I've said much the same thing, and to Julia. His/her response was that he/she writes for his/her audience. I'm paraphrasing, Julia...sorry if I'm not properly understanding what you said when you wrote that when I write, it's all about me, and when YOU write, it's for your audience.
--
Mike St James

'Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.'— William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice.