Nikon people - a reality check

[Michael Oersigh]

I understand that blob in the sky above the building is something
referred to as a "CCD smudge" and that PC Watch may just have gotten hold
of a bum 950. Perhaps with a different one they would have better luck.

I didn't notice that blob in the sky. I'll check it out; and this image
is quite typical of all the Nikon 950 images I have seen.

Alright enough of this silliness. Typical images are they? Alright here's the deal, you go to the reviews of these cameras on this site and go to the samples. First try the Kodak , run the slideshow if you like and enjoy, then if you got any sense you won't try the 950. End of story.

 

[Michael Oersigh]

back in the 70's we had interminable arguments about whether the high
contrast of the Olympus OM lenses was better than the high sharpness of
the Nikon lenses. At the end of the day you selcted the appropriate grade
of B&W paper or the colour film that suited your requirements and got on
with taking pictures. Do the differences were talking about here actually
matter. I don't think they do.

Even if you do get the odd pixel you simply select the smudge or smear
tools in photoshop set the transpareny around 80% wipe over the offending
spot and it dissapears. alternatively use a soft edged clone tool.

The OM lenses never had high inherent contrast but they did have low contrast performance meaning if you took a high constrast scene and recorded it on the OM, the film would not be overpowered and would perform to its potential, that's why they often took good picutres of high contrast scenes but looked a bit drab in greyish conditions. Its the nikkors that had the problem with contrast which got better as film performance got better.

 

[Keat Lim]

grin hey fred.... it is just futile to even post up something like that... if you noticed, 95% of the people in ALL the forums in here are very loyal to Nikon. it's like saying macs sucks... you'll have dogs hounding over you in milliseconds... what can you do? nothing actually... no matter what you say... they will find some way to counter-attack... there are lots of other digicams that should be worth the mention but until an authoritive figure like Phil for example mentions tomorrow that the 950 sucks and some other brand rules, noone will listen to you... just be happy you chose the product that suits you best.

 

[sarhento]

grin hey fred.... it is just futile to even post up something like
that... if you noticed, 95% of the people in ALL the forums in here are
very loyal to Nikon. it's like saying macs sucks... you'll have dogs
hounding over you in milliseconds... what can you do? nothing actually...
no matter what you say... they will find some way to counter-attack...
there are lots of other digicams that should be worth the mention but
until an authoritive figure like Phil for example mentions tomorrow that
the 950 sucks and some other brand rules, noone will listen to you...
just be happy you chose the product that suits you best.

I think the guy is just desperate for attention and reaction from other posters.
I suggest no more reaction posted otherwise we're playing his game.

 

[Greg11744]

You're absolutely right....no one will listen. For all those who feel that their brand of digital camera is head and shoulders above the Nikon, enjoy! Please feel free to frequent the other camera forums where you can gloat with other Kodak, Olympus, etc. advocates over your good fortune and discuss the plight of the poor misinformed Nikon users. I find this site to be very helpful when the discussions focuse on proactive attempts by participants to help fellow Nikon users. If your intent is to engage in those productive discussions, thank you. If you're intent is to continually tell us what a bad choice we made in picking the 950 over your own personal choices, I for one, could care less.

grin hey fred.... it is just futile to even post up something like
that... if you noticed, 95% of the people in ALL the forums in here are
very loyal to Nikon. it's like saying macs sucks... you'll have dogs
hounding over you in milliseconds... what can you do? nothing actually...
no matter what you say... they will find some way to counter-attack...
there are lots of other digicams that should be worth the mention but
until an authoritive figure like Phil for example mentions tomorrow that
the 950 sucks and some other brand rules, noone will listen to you...
just be happy you chose the product that suits you best.

 

[Fred H.]

The only way to keep manufacturers on their toes is to provide justifiable criticism of their products. If you want Nikon (and Olympus, and, ... ) to continue to make schlok based on the reputation that they built up over the years then be just be happy, don't think. It's a shame that Nikon and other companies are squandering valuable capital (their reputation) because we were schmucks.

 

[Peter iNova]

Now, Fred...

"Justifiable" is a pretty broad category. Especially from a guy who says he can't even get his Epson to work. What did they say about the anger? Count with us: 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10... There. Now don't we feel better?

The only way to keep manufacturers on their toes is to provide
justifiable criticism of their products. If you want Nikon (and Olympus,
and, ... ) to continue to make schlok based on the reputation that they
built up over the years then be just be happy, don't think. It's a shame
that Nikon and other companies are squandering valuable capital (their
reputation) because we were schmucks.

 

[Peter iNova]

Peter, it's not a few degrees difference in the
angle of the sun, it's more like 10 or 20! Look
at the shadows in the foreground and look back at
the kodak. It's so much later in the day. I think
it's really a stinker they even posted that image.

Wess: OH MY GOD! YOU'RE SO RIGHT! 10 degrees is WHAT part of an hour? My book says that every hour of the day rotates the earth 15 degrees. How dare they take forty full minutes between shots!!!! Are we back to shooting all images within the same minute?

No, they probably weren't all shot within the same hour. They may not have been shot on the same day. Although I have seen stores change banners during the day. A previous series in this plaza showed the process.

Each camera responded to the same pavement, buildings, busses, taxis, flora and brick. Use the COMMON points to make an evaluation. Do you seriously believe the 280 makes SUPERIOR images based on this flawed test? That's the issue.

Fred H has gone balistic due to the same flawed test and condemned Nikon for making us all "schmucks" to use his own word for daring to enjoy our nice clear 8x10's the camera produces on Epson printers we seem to be able to work better than he. I pass the results around all the time and my visual department goes "wow" not "stinkin' piece of cr*p" the way he does and here you are getting upset with people who may be highly clueless who are ONLY trying to say, "and this is what each looks like on a bright sunny day".

-iNova

The sky may or may not be valid, we have no way of seeing the same day in
these shots. But the exposure (however it was made) still gives us
camera results under the conditions at hand.

The sun angle is within a few degrees and the presence or lack of
building texture, lowered plant-life textures, discrepancies in street
and brick... These are not all completely invalidated by being on
different days through 200 feet of "different" air. At least they waited
for full sun, which in Tokyo may be not to California frequencies. One
could argue that the ONLY VALID TEST would be to have all of them shot
within moments of each other.

Does anybody seriously believe that the sky changes hue, chroma and
intensity that much in two Tokyo bright cloudless sunny days? Summer
isn't like that in Tokyo.

More to the point: is anybody capable of making the Kodak shot look like
the Nikon shot in a post-production step? I certainly can crank the
Nikon shot to look like that Kodak camera. Blur .6 pixel. Crush the
whites. Despeckle (to rid yourself of annoying texture). Chroma +40.
Manipulate the gamma... There it is! The world's best picture.

-iNova

 

[Fred H.]

Now, Fred...
"Justifiable" is a pretty broad category. Especially from a guy who says
he can't even get his Epson to work. What did they say about the anger?
Count with us: 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10... There.
Now don't we feel better?

Peter: give it up I don't even have an Epson! What the H are you smoking!!

 

[Phillip (not Askey)]

Fred,
My dog is better than your dog
my dog's better than yours
my dog's better cause he eats Kenel Ration
my dogs better than yours.

So you see it's all subjective. I own the 950 and the pro 70
IBM/AT and a Mac G3

I have Alps, HP and Epson printers. On a given day each will out perform the other depending on what I am looking for or what color socks I am wearing that day. It's all a matter of perception, perspective and wether or not you can live with the purchase you have made. I obviously am ambivilent about everything except the fact that I have a very understanding wife))
Sincerely
Phillip (not Askey)

Hey, who invited this skunk to the party? I am likely not terribly
popular at this site and after this missive I'm sure I will be less so.

The posting of 'PCWatch BIG Image ...' has given me the opportunity to
bring up the issue that I have raised before, apparently with little
effect. If anyone who cares to will download the Kodak DC280 and Nikon
images, they will see that the Kodak images ar far superior to those
produced by the Nikon (and many others).

I can just hear the argument - but just look at how much more detailed
the Nikon image is - but my answer to that is yes, but why would you want
to see more detail in a lousy image.

It is my contention that the Nikon cp950 suffers from a shortcoming which
is known as 'purple fog' and the engineers at Nikon have attempted to
deal with this by turning down the intensity of the colors in the image.
As a retired design engineer, I know first-hand the games engineers play
in an attemt to deal with short-comings in the product they are
engineering (usually pressured by marketing folks so that the will have a
product to sell). The Kodak engineers have solved the 'purple fog'
problem and thus can turn up the color intensities to where they belong.
I am amused by Nikon loyalists complain that the Kodak images being
over-saturated - which is a little like the fellow who is going bald
point to the guy with a full head of hair and say that guy is bushy and
needs a haircut.

Nikon has a good rep in the world of photography, but I believe that they
are doing serious damage to that reputation by rushing a faulty product
to market.

Mr. Askey, I apologize for being that skunk and would'nt blame you if
your first reaction was - hey, is there a way to lock this guy out of the
site - but I know that you would'nt do that even if you could.

 

[Peter iNova]

Now, Fred...
"Justifiable" is a pretty broad category. Especially from a guy who says
he can't even get his Epson to work. What did they say about the anger?
Count with us: 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10... There.
Now don't we feel better?

Peter: give it up I don't even have an Epson! What the H are you smoking!!

Fred, I apparently am not smoking enough. I had your post confused with the Alan Mandel post which went through the Epson thing. Sorry.

I am sure that if you had an Epson, you would know how to get it to work.

-iNova

 

[Peter iNova]

Fred H has gone balistic due to the same flawed test and condemned Nikon
for making us all "schmucks" to use his own word for daring to enjoy our
nice clear 8x10's the camera produces on Epson printers we seem to be
able to work better than he. I pass the results around all the time and
my visual department goes "wow" not "stinkin' piece of cr*p" the way he
does and here you are getting upset with people who may be highly
clueless who are ONLY trying to say, "and this is what each looks like on
a bright sunny day".

-iNova

----

Untrue. It wasn't Fred who went balistic, at least not with the "schmucks" line, it was Alan Mandel in another series. Sorry, Fred. My confusion. Misplaced retort at this end...

-iNova

 

[Sam11755]

Did Ansel Adams take his negatives straight out of the camera, print then
directly to paper with no fiddling and twiddling? Hardly. I spend a lot
of time with Photoshop because I like my color on the very intense side.
You may look at my pictures and say I'm color blind or they are way over
saturated. I don't care. I love the pictures the camera takes and I
love the way I mess them up in Photoshop.

When the next great camera comes out I'll probably find a new way to mess
up the "great gorgeous color" that comes out too.

Go to a TV store and look at the different sets. Some look better then
others but whatever you buy your mind will percieve it as the best and
after 1 hour you wont care anymore.

Even if you do get the odd pixel you simply select the smudge or smear
tools in photoshop set the transpareny around 80% wipe over the offending
spot and it dissapears. alternatively use a soft edged clone tool.

With conventional photography you might spend hours spotting a 16" x 20"
to get rid of every last hair and dust mark ( that you should removed
before you did the enlargenment!!!!). Perfection never come easy, so why
should digital photography be any different. At the end of the day the
only thing that matters is whether the print achieves the result you
wanted

I understand that blob in the sky above the building is something
referred to as a "CCD smudge" and that PC Watch may just have gotten hold
of a bum 950. Perhaps with a different one they would have better luck.

I didn't notice that blob in the sky. I'll check it out; and this image
is quite typical of all the Nikon 950 images I have seen.

Amen Brother! It is all about what you want...not what other's think. Your favorite flavor of ice cream is not necessarily someone else's favorite too....so why should everyone love the same camera? And even if we loved the same camera...what is to stop us from totally f* cking it up the way we like it in photoshop or some other program? For me, crisp clean detail is the most important. I want to be able to see the difference between a cloud in the sky, and a booger on my lens. Lastly, I want to say thanks to everyone participating in this post (yes, even to Fred H)...it gave me a lot of insight into choices we all have to make...not just with digicams.