Tepid D90, worse than EOS 20D

[photomik]

You remind me of people who bought cell phones when they were as
large as bricks but who are at pains to part with their $1000
'investments' in the modern era.

Hahaha, I am not that sentimental. If a new tool will save time and money overall, I'm going for it.

I have no problems with advancements in technology.

You do and you are a fanboy. We are talking about an EXTRA FEATURE ON AN AMATEUR DSLR, dude. If you are so critical, this is not your camera. A good idea like this is welcome. And will improve over time. If you do not like it stay with your current camera and read only those that affect you.

I am concerned
with big companies who make consumers foot more than their fair share
of the R&D bill while they get a particular gimmick right. Folks will
always knock canon for the slow pace of their advancement in certain
areas such as pixel density (note the same sensor used for three
years between 20D and 30D) however, they have never decreased the key
parameters, those being dynamic range and noise control, on their
sensors. Nikon has introduced a tepid video feature, using motion
jpeg for compression. Its sad enough to concede that you may have to
purchase a larger flash card to store the same number of pictures at
12 mpix, however consider the megabytes used to store this video with
mono sound, and ask yourself how much space will you sacrifice to
fiddle around with this gimmick.

There are good reasons why AVCHD compression is used by camcorders at
1080i, 60fps instead of motion jpegs with mono audio. It would be
even more difficult to edit the white balance on the D90 video output
which would rely on auto white balance for much of the time. The
samples unrealistically showed subjects who remained in the same
focal plane, under lighting conditions that showed little variation
in colour temperature.

Regarding memory or any advancements, demand will force new technologies that is always the case. I am an engineering designer by trade and understand how company and market works. You are getting too critical on something that's not on the same level.

If you consider yourself a reasonable photographer, would you give up
white balance control, auto focus and a reasonable compressed format
for your data, just to say you have an SLR ??

The stills function is intact, the video is an add on and in its infancy, what do you not understand?

Just imagine the
disappointment of D90 owners as the reality of this gimmicks starts
to hit home. I doubt 'firmware' updates can redeem such a
disappointed crowd.

........ follow the object at 1/3
DOF focus, to produce a video clip comparable to the Sony SR11 or
Canon HF30, to name a few ??

Who in the right mind are comparing to those? Video is just an added
feature. Use it if you like, leave it if you don't. I am one of
those who can use this on vacations or casual events. I edit videos
as well and I find, that out of all the shots I take, only short
clips are needed to keep people's interest at bay. It really gets
boring after 15-20 minutes.

I saw the clips on the nikon site, the D90 simply increased the
exposure of the night scene. Exposure gain is present on most top-end
consumer camcorders. As for changing lens, how many people are going
to buy f2.8 lens or faster just to make this video feature count.
Camcorders routinely use apertures of f1.8 to f3.0 .

Wide aperture at 30fps, but at 24 fps, smaller aperture will do fine.

I know that
nikon wants sales, but even Sony, who supplies their sensors must be
laughing at them now.

No, we're all laughing at you now. Because as dumb as you think it
is, it's advancement, like flash on Pro cams (D300) which on occasion
are used to fill light, are welcome for anyone who thinks outside the
box.

3. 4.5 fps for a 7 frame bust in RAW and 25 frame burst in jpeg. This
looks like Canon's ancient EOS20D, which the EOS1000D outperforms.

This amateur cam is full of useful features that a slight frame rate
will not hold it back for its intended purpose. If you want to shoot
sports but another cam.
This introduction of video on a DSLR, is what's interesting to a lot
of people (I'm one of them because I hate to carry both DSLR and
Video cam on my vacation or casual events I go to. Memories
captured by these very acceptable images are what's important. I
tell you, most of the time, I do not bring my video cam, because of
the two things I have to carry and deal with. A missed opportunity
is worse than slight disadvantages.

4. Then consider Canon's gapless design on the microlens of the
EOS50D sensor. This is where sensor quality will pull away from
gimicks.

I agree on the good design for higher ISO, but no video means I have
to carry my video cam which I'd rather not.

Also for those blinded by the 51 point/11 point autofocus, consider
humans have 2 eyes,none of which reside at the back of the head. If
the object is large enough, I wonder how effective 51 points of
autofocus would be in capturing shallow depth of field on the single
point of interest to a photographer?? I can't wait for the autofocus
test on the new 50D.....

Extra feature that you may someday use or explore and learn, to me is
better than nothing.

--
EOS 30D, 10-22 EF-S, 60mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, Speedlight 580 EX, BG-2 Grip

 

[mfurman]

--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan

 

[Chasen]

And your BS just keeps getting worse....

 

[Anastigmat]

I hope Nikon gets the 14 bit processing and native ISO 100 going for
the D400. It was so embarrassing at the D300 announcement to see so
many poeple SWEAR the D300 was shooting 8 fps at 14 bits, saying
Canon was buried and how good the sony sensor was, only to be
confronted with the VERY FINE PRINT of 14 bits at 2.5 fps. Some still
think this is achieved by double scanning the sensor.

This feature is firmware crippled. IIRC, the latest firmware removes that barrier.

It just proves that an SLR is about the sensor first, chip/AF second
and all other bells and whistles after.

It is megapixel count first. All else comes after that. that is why so many suckers bought the Nikon D2X for $5,000.

Any comparison between Canon
and Nikon SLR's on these points will consistently end in one
particular way.

But seriously, I think the D90 is a poor, warmed over version of the
EOS 20D, with a dodgy implementation of video capture.

Nikon D90 shooters would be lucky if the camera even comes close to the 20D in image quality.

 

[Anastigmat]

You see, you have to keep saying things about why 14bit is
technically better, because you can't point to better results, and
you don't have anything else. The 5D is 12bit, and I don't see too
many people b!tching about the output from that camera. Your argument
is that "14bit is better because 14bit is better" but that's not
supportable.

14 bit is better because it allows more shades of gray (which transform into different hues of color) to be stored in the image file. Whether your eye is capable of seeing the additional hues is of course another question. The additional bits are useful when post processing, because it means the processed file is much less prone to posterization. JPEG images are 8 bit, and they are prone to posterization when postprocessed.

So you think that the 50D is a better imager than the 5D? O.K! You
have a nice day.

SB

A 14bit 5D would of course be better than a 12 bit 5D. The downside is bigger files and slower processing time, but that isn't much of a problem when memory cards are so cheap, compared to when the 5D was new, and computers are so much faster than a few years ago.

 

[larsbc]

Canon just keeps getting better. If I owned a D3, I would feel quite
cheated right now. $5000 for a D3 gapless sensor that was hailed as
the best in the business by popular photography, and others. It was
the camera of the year 2007, being called the breakthrough design of
2007. Now Canon puts a gapless design in a $1400 camera less than one
year later. It doesn't even bother to offer ISO 25600 since it falls
below their lofty image quality standards but you can get it by
exposure compensation at ISO12800. Rest assured that the 5D markII,
ID MarkIV and IDs MarkIV will have this gapless design too.

That's why I say lets forget about the video gimmick in the D90 and
ask why Nikon isn't given their customers more.

That's a very good question, especially in light of the fact that Nikon has closed the DSLR sales gap with Canon:

"Nikon Narrows Gap Against Canon in DSLR sales

Long a one-horse race, the battle for supremacy in the high-profile digital SLR category of cameras has gotten a lot closer. According to statistics released by market research firm IDC yesterday and reported in Stephen Shankland's CNET blog, the gap between DSLR leader Canon and runner-up Nikon has shrunk to less than 3% market share, with Canon owning 42.7 percent (3.18 million cameras shipped) of the market in 2007, compared to Nikon's 40 percent (2.98 million DSLRs). In 2006, Canon had 46.7 percent of the market, while Nikon held 33 percent. "

And that was BEFORE the release of the D3 and D300.

Also puzzling are the accolades bestowed upon the D300 and D3 from so many camera reviewers.

So if Nikon isn't giving its customers more, it's probably because they're already very happy with what they've got.

BTW, I don't make these points as part of a Canon vs Nikon thread. I'm merely pointing this out since you seem to think that Nikon's customers are being poorly served by the company's offerings. But sales figures and photo industry pundits don't appear to agree with you.

You can argue all you want about why you like or don't like a particular feature. You're entitled to your opinion, after all. But to imply that Nikon products aren't competitive is just silly.

larsbc

 

[ohyva]

Canon just keeps getting better. If I owned a D3, I would feel quite
cheated right now. $5000 for a D3 gapless sensor that was hailed as
the best in the business by popular photography, and others. It was
the camera of the year 2007, being called the breakthrough design of
2007. Now Canon puts a gapless design in a $1400 camera less than one
year later. It doesn't even bother to offer ISO 25600 since it falls
below their lofty image quality standards but you can get it by
exposure compensation at ISO12800. Rest assured that the 5D markII,
ID MarkIV and IDs MarkIV will have this gapless design too.

That's why I say lets forget about the video gimmick in the D90 and
ask why Nikon isn't given their customers more.

That's a very good question, especially in light of the fact that
Nikon has closed the DSLR sales gap with Canon:

"Nikon Narrows Gap Against Canon in DSLR sales
Long a one-horse race, the battle for supremacy in the high-profile
digital SLR category of cameras has gotten a lot closer. According to
statistics released by market research firm IDC yesterday and
reported in Stephen Shankland's CNET blog, the gap between DSLR
leader Canon and runner-up Nikon has shrunk to less than 3% market
share, with Canon owning 42.7 percent (3.18 million cameras shipped)
of the market in 2007, compared to Nikon's 40 percent (2.98 million
DSLRs). In 2006, Canon had 46.7 percent of the market, while Nikon
held 33 percent. "

And that was BEFORE the release of the D3 and D300.

Yep, D40 was the tool Nikon got market share. Resonable camera at very low price. Canon has finally made the proper answer to that i.e. 1000D.

And even all this the two most sold cameras in Japan 1H08 were the 450D and 400D.

Same statistics D300 share was a bit over 4% - less than half of that of 40D. D3 like any expensive pro cams not listed as this was just top 10. A good indication how small the effect of these $1000+ cameras is in the total market shares, and the importance decrease very rapid when the price goes up. Oner $2k and close non-visible effect.

Will be interesting to see how the market share of combined D60+D80+D90+D300 and 1000D+450D+40D+50D will become during the next year time

Also puzzling are the accolades bestowed upon the D300 and D3 from so
many camera reviewers.

So if Nikon isn't giving its customers more, it's probably because
they're already very happy with what they've got.

BTW, I don't make these points as part of a Canon vs Nikon thread.
I'm merely pointing this out since you seem to think that Nikon's
customers are being poorly served by the company's offerings. But
sales figures and photo industry pundits don't appear to agree with
you.

You can argue all you want about why you like or don't like a
particular feature. You're entitled to your opinion, after all. But
to imply that Nikon products aren't competitive is just silly.

 

[webservants]

I didn't know that the 20d was a bad camera. I still enjoy mine.
--
blessings,
Steven

 

[tropical canon shooter]

even if you are comfortable with manual focus in a consumer video device (amazing...), what excuse can you find for not using AVCHD compression to store the D90 video ? After all the only victim would be the space on ourexpensive memory cards.

This goes beyond 'tossing in a new feature'. The consumer looses and big companies gain as persons scrammble to buy more memory card space to accommodate tepid D90 video.

I have seen alot of people praising the video modes of the D90,
saying Nikon has broken the glass ceiling. How many people can
seriously manage manual focus either through the view finder or live
view, assuming the camera is on a tripod and follow the object at 1/3
DOF focus, to produce a video clip comparable to the Sony SR11 or
Canon HF30, to name a few ??

You must be a complete Canon fanboy. Just how do you think focus
was managed before auto focus came along. Manual focus simply put
is the best way to focus on a moving target and not at all difficult
or hard to do. Take your head out of the sand and behold Movie
Mode!!! It's the future and your going to live in it.

--
EOS 30D, 10-22 EF-S, 60mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, Speedlight 580 EX, BG-2 Grip

 

[larsbc]

I have seen alot of people praising the video modes of the D90,
saying Nikon has broken the glass ceiling. How many people can
seriously manage manual focus either through the view finder or live
view, assuming the camera is on a tripod and follow the object at 1/3
DOF focus, to produce a video clip comparable to the Sony SR11 or
Canon HF30, to name a few ??

[snip]

If you want to argue video, talk to people on some video forums. The few video forums I've looked at seemed to be quite excited about what the D90 is bringing to the table.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/digital-video-industry-news/128802-nikon-d90-has-720p24-over-hdmi-5.html
http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=841&page=6
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=145435

Does it mean all video shooters will love the D90? Of course not. But it suggests that the D90's video feature isn't as bad as you seem to think it is. Most of the video people in the links I provided seem quite open-minded to the possibilities, maybe because they're not judging it from a Canon vs Nikon perspective.

larsbc

 

[john120588]

Lets focus on what we all know is truly important. I think the

I personally think that, no matter what feature the camera has you are not forced to use it, but the most important thing a camera must have like you said is focus, a poor auto focus will change james bond features into a useless feature, but if the camera can really do good job on auto focus under dim light, it will change features into magic.

 

[john120588]

Nikon D90 shooters would be lucky if the camera even comes close to
the 20D in image quality.

I used both nikon and canon DSLR, you dont have to be lucky to use nikon dslr, you get the perfect auto focus, perfect exposure and much better WB, these are the most important things in a DSLR, I shoot event for a living with a d300, it got perfect auto focus nearly neverytime, only 10% might be alittle soft, the rest are pin sharp. on the other hand i used canon 10D, 20D, 40D, 450D, I need to be very lucky to use it in my event, specially dim light places like stages, resturents reception it have over 60% soft images no matter how hard to auto focus it.

and the other problem i have with canon dslr, is that 20% of the time it will overexposed 2-4 stops for no reason, specially backlit with fill flash

 

[natureman]

Clearly, the D90 will poach
significant 50D sales, and rightfully so.

uhhh, what?

From photographers looking to do what exactly?

The D90 is a mediocre camera with a shiny new feature that will
appeal to a small handful of photographers, and not many of them
would be willing to overlook the D90 shortcomings versus the 50D for
real photography.

Aren't you guessing and hoping?

Anyone serious about their camera would be much happier with a 50D.
Feature and performance-wise, it's night and day.

Aren't you really guessing and hoping? Do you have any proof of the performance?

The D90 will poach low-end sales from the XSI if a user is looking
for video, yes, without a doubt. Once a user has decided that the
50D has more what they're looking for in a camera than the XSI does,
well, the D90 doesn't have a prayer.

Aren't you guessing and hoping?

You're delusional.

See above.

 

[natureman]

Sure, here's what important to me as a photographic tool:

• UI and ergonomics
• obviously this is subjective, but IMHO Nikon clearly wins on this

front

Many would disagree.

Surely you're not so shallow that you need others to agree with your half-baked presumptions on which camera has the better ergonomics or UI?

• Image quality at all ISOs
• the D300 high ISO performance was superior to the 40D, and the D90

will essentially match the D300 performance if not improve. The fact
that Canon is playing the MP game by jumping to 15 MP doesn't bode
well for the real world ISO 3200/6400 performance (just b/c it
supports high ISO, does mean it performs well after all!)

Pure speculation. Neither camera has been tested, so the fact that
you say the Nikon will outperform the Canon based upon your gut
feeling holds little weight. There is zero to indicate that the D90
does anything to improve upon high-ISO performance over the D300.

Just like your pure speculation as to the performance of the 50D. Your "gut feeling" carries no weight at all.

• Metering capability
• Who knows, but I'm confident the D90 meter will perform very well

Will it outperform the Canon? Again you're just guessing or hoping.

And so are you.

• Focusing capability
• ditto

doubtful. Canon's 9 cross-type sensors with 1/3 DOF center point
focus from the 40D are very capable and will most likely outperform
what the Nikon offers. Again, we'll have to wait for reviews, but
based upon what each one offers, the Canon should be superior.

Yeah, it SHOULD be superior, but will it be?

• Flash system and wireless flash capability
• This is clearly Nikon's strength, and the fact that the D90 has

built in wireless flash control is amazing

Wireless flash triggering would be a plus.

Clearly the 50D is a faster camera (and more appropriate for sports
shooting), but I don't think that makes it a better general purpose
photographic tool. 4.5 fps is perfectly adequate for most needs.

maybe that is fast enough for most needs, but then 1.5 seconds later,
the buffer is full... Then you're stuck... oops!!

I doubt that buffer size will be a concern to most D90 buyers. It's big enough.

So you have the wireless flash trigger as a plus (a $30 third-party
add-on to the Canon) and otherwise a bunch of hope and conjecture.

And what you've said isn't a bunch of hope and conjecture?? And can you make up your mind? First you say firm things about the performance of the 50D and then you say we'll have to wait and see. Which one is it?

Enjoy your D90. I'll pass. Surely you're not so shallow that you
need others to agree with your half-baked presumptions on which
camera will be superior, and clearly you've made up your mind, so
enjoy your D90 and enjoy your IMMINENT move to the Nikon forum.

Apparently you're really bothered when someone doesn't agree with you and your "half-baked" presumptions. There is still a lot to learn and know about both cameras. About the only things available right now are the spec and feature lists and some sample images. That leaves a lot to be tested and reported on, and just because a spec or feature is on a list doesn't mean it will perfom well, in either camera.

....BUH bye!!

 

[tigger183234]

Correct. It makes no difference for raw processing either as some
have claimed. It has been nicely proven that the 2 LSBs are
completely masked by noise with current sensors.

This suggests that bit 1 is for the darkest color, and bit 14 for the brightest.
Which would mean that a 14bit camera supports only 14 brightness values.
And that is not true.

It is not so that the bits each represent a brightness value, but 14bit means that the captured data can have 2^14 different brightness values.

We know that 8bit images will have posterization effects when you change their curves too much. Showing up in the histogram as dropouts.

The same can be true for 12bits if the curves are changed even more. So in theory, a 14bit image can take more changes to its curves before posterization shows up.

I don't know if the sensor is really able to resolve 14bit of image data, but it shouldn't be a problem of 2 "LSBs".

If you cut off the 2first bits, it won't be that the darkest areas are suddenly missing, it will be throughout the brightness range.

 

[ohyva]

But I understand... the Canon has got higher numbers, so you've got
to make some kind of song and dance about it, right? Only one small
problem...

14bit DOESN'T MAKE ANY REAL WORLD DIFFERENCE!

Correct. It makes no difference for raw processing either as some
have claimed. It has been nicely proven that the 2 LSBs are
completely masked by noise with current sensors.

This has been proven to provide mo details in the dark shadows. Study relatedp osts in this forum for more info.

It might make sense for the low-noise FF sensor of the D3/D700 though.

FF sensors seem to have at best 30%...50% lower noise figs in the high-ISO settings and a low less advantage at lower ISO settings. So clearly only a fraction of a "bit". 40D, 450D and most likely the 50D do get noticable benefit out of this.

I still wonder as D90 seem to have the sensor and electronics of the D300, why to drop totally the 14b mode - even if the frame rate drops to the dismal 2.5 fps. Perhaps Nikon wanted to have even some IQ related difference between their expensive prosumer D300 and the "advanced entry" D90.

 

[Michael Kelly]

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/14-bit-raw-12-bit-part-two.html

 

[Slideshow Bob]

I'm going to guess that you're not a complete idiot. However, you're talking total nonsense.

Video is an optional feature. It just compresses and outputs live view to the SD card. You don't have to use it. The camera won't expire if you don't use the video mode. It has no impact on the functionality of the camera.

And what's all this total bullsh!t about "using up more memory card space"? Did you expect video to NOT generate files you have to store? If storing the video is a problem for someone, they should either buy a bigger card, or not use video mode. Once again - you don't have to use it. D Video's use is optional, not mandatory. You don't have to buy lenses for it, unless you want to. It's effectively free (well almost).

SB

 

[bionet]

This has been proven to provide mo details in the dark shadows. Study
relatedp osts in this forum for more info.

I did, and in the most comprehensive comparison I found (the one that also compares the effectiveness of different sensors, it's often quoted here) clearly came to the conclusion that any benefits are almost completely masked by noise.

Maybe there are "best cases" with a (just) visible difference but it's likely there's no real world difference whatsoever.

 

[bionet]

Correct. It makes no difference for raw processing either as some
have claimed. It has been nicely proven that the 2 LSBs are
completely masked by noise with current sensors.

This suggests that bit 1 is for the darkest color, and bit 14 for the
brightest.
Which would mean that a 14bit camera supports only 14 brightness values.
And that is not true.

Sorry but your math is way off and suggests you're missing something about the basics of digital processing. If the two least significant bits sample nothing but noise, there will be no visible difference to the same analog signal sampled with a 2 bits lower depth.

I've seen examples that prove this to be the case at least for its provided samples. Maybe it makes a difference if you shoot in -20°C for lower noise..