But these pictures have been reduced in size significantly. If they were blown up to 200% (like those in Phil's review), perhaps they may look just as soft. We'll need to see the full-sized pics to tell.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
JerryO
Senior Member
Think what you want but facts are facts!! Even on Nikon's website description was listed as preliminary. It doesn't take long to tweek changes with the knowledge we have today. Maybe people are just jealous because the G1's problems have not been fixed. I just go by what I read from the threads, the Nikon site and other experts that even state it is a pre production model and the production model will be improved.. So there!!
1.1 firmware vs 1.5, Nikon sending the prototype out to be
critiqued. Have you considered how a camera that took a year to
design and put into production could be "improved" and "perfected"
within a month or so? Haven't you considered the possibility that
a company the size of Nikon would have its own inhouse "experts" to
critique and perfect its own products? I'm not saying that Phil's
comments have no value whatsoever to Nikon at improving the camera,
but I believe more in Nikon's motive as being one of promoting the
camera before its release date. That is the best time for Nikon to
do this strategically. And haven't you noticed that the comments
given by Phil have mostly been favourable (I'm not implying in any
way that Phil was biased; as a matter of fact, I believe PHil has
always given honest and unbiased opinions.)?
Why the excuses? I don't have anything against Nikon, but I
believe in Phil's review and don't appreciate those who praise the
review when it matches their pre-formed opinions or expectations
but finds excuses when it doesn't. This seems to happen quite
often in this particular forum.
If you are using those two images as some sort of standard for
internal conviction, then you are dreaming. One is a relatively
distant object over fifty meters away surrounded in normal tones,
the other a contrasty nearby object surrounded in shadows. A
difference of 0.7 EV equivalency would destroy any ability to use
them as comparisons, but not as the appropriate exposure for each,
given their content.
What you will need for this sort of highlight handling comparison
will be shots of the same subject under the same lighting. Try
these:
And it would be good to remember that one of these cameras is a
prototype...
-iNova
Hmm...interesting how a fair discussion could turn into personal attack...
btw, I think the G1 didn't have too many problems in the first place, so there was little to "fixed". And what makes you think that I have a G1...in fact, I'm still trying to decide which one to get and I've been waiting for months for the 995 to come out.
Just way too many assumptions made here...
btw, I think the G1 didn't have too many problems in the first place, so there was little to "fixed". And what makes you think that I have a G1...in fact, I'm still trying to decide which one to get and I've been waiting for months for the 995 to come out.
Just way too many assumptions made here...
1.1 firmware vs 1.5, Nikon sending the prototype out to be
critiqued. Have you considered how a camera that took a year to
design and put into production could be "improved" and "perfected"
within a month or so? Haven't you considered the possibility that
a company the size of Nikon would have its own inhouse "experts" to
critique and perfect its own products? I'm not saying that Phil's
comments have no value whatsoever to Nikon at improving the camera,
but I believe more in Nikon's motive as being one of promoting the
camera before its release date. That is the best time for Nikon to
do this strategically. And haven't you noticed that the comments
given by Phil have mostly been favourable (I'm not implying in any
way that Phil was biased; as a matter of fact, I believe PHil has
always given honest and unbiased opinions.)?
Why the excuses? I don't have anything against Nikon, but I
believe in Phil's review and don't appreciate those who praise the
review when it matches their pre-formed opinions or expectations
but finds excuses when it doesn't. This seems to happen quite
often in this particular forum.
If you are using those two images as some sort of standard for
internal conviction, then you are dreaming. One is a relatively
distant object over fifty meters away surrounded in normal tones,
the other a contrasty nearby object surrounded in shadows. A
difference of 0.7 EV equivalency would destroy any ability to use
them as comparisons, but not as the appropriate exposure for each,
given their content.
What you will need for this sort of highlight handling comparison
will be shots of the same subject under the same lighting. Try
these:
And it would be good to remember that one of these cameras is a
prototype...
-iNova
JerryO
Senior Member
Not a personal attack on you A2, Just stating facts on the 995 and you say you don't own a G1?Well here is your post from the Canon site:
"I had a 950 and I loved it. Then came the S20 and microdrive. I bought both and sold the 950 because of the extra pixels and storage. Then came the 3030 and I bought it because I wanted my 950 features back. I kept both because one's got the features and the other the storage (couldn't wait for the 990 when I bought the 3030). Then came the G1.
I bought the G1, kept the microdrive, sold the S20 and 3030 and all my CF and SM cards. I have to say that I didn't want to sell the 3030, but I couldn't convince myself why I should keep it when the G1 has got everything it has to offer, and more."
"I had a 950 and I loved it. Then came the S20 and microdrive. I bought both and sold the 950 because of the extra pixels and storage. Then came the 3030 and I bought it because I wanted my 950 features back. I kept both because one's got the features and the other the storage (couldn't wait for the 990 when I bought the 3030). Then came the G1.
I bought the G1, kept the microdrive, sold the S20 and 3030 and all my CF and SM cards. I have to say that I didn't want to sell the 3030, but I couldn't convince myself why I should keep it when the G1 has got everything it has to offer, and more."
btw, I think the G1 didn't have too many problems in the first
place, so there was little to "fixed". And what makes you think
that I have a G1...in fact, I'm still trying to decide which one to
get and I've been waiting for months for the 995 to come out.
Just way too many assumptions made here...
1.1 firmware vs 1.5, Nikon sending the prototype out to be
critiqued. Have you considered how a camera that took a year to
design and put into production could be "improved" and "perfected"
within a month or so? Haven't you considered the possibility that
a company the size of Nikon would have its own inhouse "experts" to
critique and perfect its own products? I'm not saying that Phil's
comments have no value whatsoever to Nikon at improving the camera,
but I believe more in Nikon's motive as being one of promoting the
camera before its release date. That is the best time for Nikon to
do this strategically. And haven't you noticed that the comments
given by Phil have mostly been favourable (I'm not implying in any
way that Phil was biased; as a matter of fact, I believe PHil has
always given honest and unbiased opinions.)?
Why the excuses? I don't have anything against Nikon, but I
believe in Phil's review and don't appreciate those who praise the
review when it matches their pre-formed opinions or expectations
but finds excuses when it doesn't. This seems to happen quite
often in this particular forum.
If you are using those two images as some sort of standard for
internal conviction, then you are dreaming. One is a relatively
distant object over fifty meters away surrounded in normal tones,
the other a contrasty nearby object surrounded in shadows. A
difference of 0.7 EV equivalency would destroy any ability to use
them as comparisons, but not as the appropriate exposure for each,
given their content.
What you will need for this sort of highlight handling comparison
will be shots of the same subject under the same lighting. Try
these:
And it would be good to remember that one of these cameras is a
prototype...
-iNova
Very interesting indeed...never thought that what I have posted here before would be looked up by somebody else...what a weird feeling. i never look at ppl's previous posts for this purpose...i only look up Peter iNova's posts because i think he's the most knowledgeable on this site.
yes, i once owned the G1, and i've been waiting for the 995 since it was announced. I sold the G1 very recently because i thought i woudl just go ahead and get the 995. the G1's colour is too pale for my taste, but then comes the 995 sharpness problem. now i'm giving some thoughts to the s85 as well, or i may just get a very cheap 990...they're cheap and available in japan...
yes, i once owned the G1, and i've been waiting for the 995 since it was announced. I sold the G1 very recently because i thought i woudl just go ahead and get the 995. the G1's colour is too pale for my taste, but then comes the 995 sharpness problem. now i'm giving some thoughts to the s85 as well, or i may just get a very cheap 990...they're cheap and available in japan...
"I had a 950 and I loved it. Then came the S20 and microdrive. I
bought both and sold the 950 because of the extra pixels and
storage. Then came the 3030 and I bought it because I wanted my 950
features back. I kept both because one's got the features and the
other the storage (couldn't wait for the 990 when I bought the
3030). Then came the G1.
I bought the G1, kept the microdrive, sold the S20 and 3030 and all
my CF and SM cards. I have to say that I didn't want to sell the
3030, but I couldn't convince myself why I should keep it when the
G1 has got everything it has to offer, and more."
btw, I think the G1 didn't have too many problems in the first
place, so there was little to "fixed". And what makes you think
that I have a G1...in fact, I'm still trying to decide which one to
get and I've been waiting for months for the 995 to come out.
Just way too many assumptions made here...
1.1 firmware vs 1.5, Nikon sending the prototype out to be
critiqued. Have you considered how a camera that took a year to
design and put into production could be "improved" and "perfected"
within a month or so? Haven't you considered the possibility that
a company the size of Nikon would have its own inhouse "experts" to
critique and perfect its own products? I'm not saying that Phil's
comments have no value whatsoever to Nikon at improving the camera,
but I believe more in Nikon's motive as being one of promoting the
camera before its release date. That is the best time for Nikon to
do this strategically. And haven't you noticed that the comments
given by Phil have mostly been favourable (I'm not implying in any
way that Phil was biased; as a matter of fact, I believe PHil has
always given honest and unbiased opinions.)?
Why the excuses? I don't have anything against Nikon, but I
believe in Phil's review and don't appreciate those who praise the
review when it matches their pre-formed opinions or expectations
but finds excuses when it doesn't. This seems to happen quite
often in this particular forum.
If you are using those two images as some sort of standard for
internal conviction, then you are dreaming. One is a relatively
distant object over fifty meters away surrounded in normal tones,
the other a contrasty nearby object surrounded in shadows. A
difference of 0.7 EV equivalency would destroy any ability to use
them as comparisons, but not as the appropriate exposure for each,
given their content.
What you will need for this sort of highlight handling comparison
will be shots of the same subject under the same lighting. Try
these:
And it would be good to remember that one of these cameras is a
prototype...
-iNova
JerryO
Senior Member
Best of luck A2 with which ever camera you decide to buy. I looked for weeks before deciding on the 995. Hard decision between it and some of the others. You may want to read a couple of the other reviews on the 995 . The one at Steve's Digicam http://www.steves-digicams.com and there is another good one at http://www.imaging-resource.com . They have great detailed reviews on all the cameras there.
yes, i once owned the G1, and i've been waiting for the 995 since
it was announced. I sold the G1 very recently because i thought i
woudl just go ahead and get the 995. the G1's colour is too pale
for my taste, but then comes the 995 sharpness problem. now i'm
giving some thoughts to the s85 as well, or i may just get a very
cheap 990...they're cheap and available in japan...
"I had a 950 and I loved it. Then came the S20 and microdrive. I
bought both and sold the 950 because of the extra pixels and
storage. Then came the 3030 and I bought it because I wanted my 950
features back. I kept both because one's got the features and the
other the storage (couldn't wait for the 990 when I bought the
3030). Then came the G1.
I bought the G1, kept the microdrive, sold the S20 and 3030 and all
my CF and SM cards. I have to say that I didn't want to sell the
3030, but I couldn't convince myself why I should keep it when the
G1 has got everything it has to offer, and more."
btw, I think the G1 didn't have too many problems in the first
place, so there was little to "fixed". And what makes you think
that I have a G1...in fact, I'm still trying to decide which one to
get and I've been waiting for months for the 995 to come out.
Just way too many assumptions made here...
1.1 firmware vs 1.5, Nikon sending the prototype out to be
critiqued. Have you considered how a camera that took a year to
design and put into production could be "improved" and "perfected"
within a month or so? Haven't you considered the possibility that
a company the size of Nikon would have its own inhouse "experts" to
critique and perfect its own products? I'm not saying that Phil's
comments have no value whatsoever to Nikon at improving the camera,
but I believe more in Nikon's motive as being one of promoting the
camera before its release date. That is the best time for Nikon to
do this strategically. And haven't you noticed that the comments
given by Phil have mostly been favourable (I'm not implying in any
way that Phil was biased; as a matter of fact, I believe PHil has
always given honest and unbiased opinions.)?
Why the excuses? I don't have anything against Nikon, but I
believe in Phil's review and don't appreciate those who praise the
review when it matches their pre-formed opinions or expectations
but finds excuses when it doesn't. This seems to happen quite
often in this particular forum.
If you are using those two images as some sort of standard for
internal conviction, then you are dreaming. One is a relatively
distant object over fifty meters away surrounded in normal tones,
the other a contrasty nearby object surrounded in shadows. A
difference of 0.7 EV equivalency would destroy any ability to use
them as comparisons, but not as the appropriate exposure for each,
given their content.
What you will need for this sort of highlight handling comparison
will be shots of the same subject under the same lighting. Try
these:
And it would be good to remember that one of these cameras is a
prototype...
-iNova
A2 -
I'm currently trying to decide on my first digital camera and the G1 and 995 are my top two choices. Besides the pale color, were there any other serious drawbacks that made you get rid of the G1? For what it's worth, I've thought that the G1's color was much better than the 990 but the 995's saturation control does seem to help things quite a bit. Like you, I'm also concerned about the 995's ability to produce sharp pictures but the samples from Wolfgang and Marius, although not full-sized images, are pretty encouraging.
For the sake of discussion, does anyone know exactly what changes were made between firmware versions 1.1 and 1.5?
-- BG
I'm currently trying to decide on my first digital camera and the G1 and 995 are my top two choices. Besides the pale color, were there any other serious drawbacks that made you get rid of the G1? For what it's worth, I've thought that the G1's color was much better than the 990 but the 995's saturation control does seem to help things quite a bit. Like you, I'm also concerned about the 995's ability to produce sharp pictures but the samples from Wolfgang and Marius, although not full-sized images, are pretty encouraging.
For the sake of discussion, does anyone know exactly what changes were made between firmware versions 1.1 and 1.5?
-- BG
JerryO
Senior Member
BG, All we all know is what we see and the improvements look great. You might want to try to call Nikon and see what they have to say http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25047
This link is to their website and there is a place to email them there. Let us all know if you find out what all they did.. Thanks Jerry
This link is to their website and there is a place to email them there. Let us all know if you find out what all they did.. Thanks Jerry
Jan Struyf
Forum Enthusiast
First of all if you compare the imaging-resource review res. chart to the DPREVIEW Res chart there is a big difference. Imaging-resource review doesn't show this unsharp edges + the resolution is better.
I took today some test shots with my 995. Look at the horizontal line of the 995 box. I can't see any difference in sharpness between right edge of the picture compared to the middle of the picture. I tried many other examples (like small text and I can't find any differences).
see original picture: (cut and past the following line in your browser):
By the way I put my camera in NORMAL sharpeness.
Jan
I took today some test shots with my 995. Look at the horizontal line of the 995 box. I can't see any difference in sharpness between right edge of the picture compared to the middle of the picture. I tried many other examples (like small text and I can't find any differences).
see original picture: (cut and past the following line in your browser):
By the way I put my camera in NORMAL sharpeness.
Jan
JerryO
Senior Member
Jan, I see what you mean by the sharpness, there is no difference. I didn't compare the two reviews actually I read all the reviews and customer comments on all the cameras that interested me and by far decided on the 995 in the end. Thanks for your pics!! Jerry
see original picture: (cut and past the following line in your
browser):
By the way I put my camera in NORMAL sharpeness.
Jan
Jan Struyf
Forum Enthusiast
Jerry,
You will be very happy with your 995. I wanted to show this because so many people believe now that the 995 is producing a lens with less quality.
If you wish, look at my 995 first 2 days experience in the following thread:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&page=1&message=1157595
Jan
You will be very happy with your 995. I wanted to show this because so many people believe now that the 995 is producing a lens with less quality.
If you wish, look at my 995 first 2 days experience in the following thread:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&page=1&message=1157595
Jan
see original picture: (cut and past the following line in your
browser):
By the way I put my camera in NORMAL sharpeness.
Jan
A
aa
Guest
I definantly think you can't go wrong with either one. So i'd let my decision on the two be up to price. In fact i picked the G1 over the 990 because of price and because the G1 came complete with rechargable battery.
This thing with the pale color on the G1 however i don't understand. I think it's colors are excellent.
heres a few examples:
Polly Vynyl
New member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
Apologies in advance to Mr. iNova, who does seem a helpful sort, but the last person I would take advice from on the subject of whether or not the 995 delivers sharp images, or is superior to the G1, is someone who has a significant monetary interest in Nikon cameras. Perhaps he's a much better man than most, but I'm dubious about someone remaining objective when it's clearly in his best interest to see more Nikon cameras (and Nikon owners) in the world.
PV
Francis37716
Active member
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry, in my eyes and on my monitor (calibrated) the colour is vivid, but a bit over saturated and unnatural. Have you done any post processsing or set some colour enhance control on the camera.
Francis.
Francis.
I definantly think you can't go wrong with either one. So i'd let
my decision on the two be up to price. In fact i picked the G1 over
the 990 because of price and because the G1 came complete with
rechargable battery.
This thing with the pale color on the G1 however i don't
understand. I think it's colors are excellent.
heres a few examples:
JerryO
Senior Member
Glad we have a knowledgable person like Peter INova onboard. Someone
that well knows the product and can keep us educated on the Nikon products.
that well knows the product and can keep us educated on the Nikon products.
Like a used-car salesman "well knows the product" and is "keeping you educated" on why you should stick with the thingie he has a financial interest in?
Naive, this.
ZB
Charles Holewinski
Active member
Is saying that the 995 produces softer images jusy another way of saying "OUT OF FOCUS"? That is my reading. When I pay $800 to $900 for a camera I want it to produce as sharp an image as is possible. If a simple adjustment will correct this, NIKON should do so without any delay. I do not want it to be out of focus be design. In my book it has always been left up to the discretion of the person behind the lens to determine when a softer focus was desirable. The majority of the time I want sharp images not fuzzy ones.
I think that IKON has shot itself in the foot on this one.
Further of the camera used to conduct the test of 995 which was posted here was significantly different from those available to the public, then the test is meaningless and should be re-done with a production camera.
Charlie
StixStixStix
Active member
Although I have my disagreements with some of the things that Peter has said (mostly what he's said about me personally), I think he's a pretty much a sharp shooter and an expert on the relative hardware merits of the various Coolpix cameras. I for one look forward to hearing his take on the sharpness issue, though I am very curious as to why he hasn't said anything yet, given that he's had camera in hand for close to a week now. A skeptic might think it's strategic waiting so as not to step on Nikon's toes prior to the U.S. launch of a camera with problems, or perhaps it's just not to step on Phil's toes prior to a revision of the beta camera review. My guess, based on a handful of comments he's made in the forum on the issue, is that it's neither of those, but rather that he doesn't think there are any sharpness issues and is just testing the camera out to be sure before posting his conclusions.
But only one man can answer the question definitively...
But only one man can answer the question definitively...
Charles Holewinski
Active member
Seems to me Phil needs to re-test the CP995 with 1.5 firmware so we can all get an accurate picture of how sharp the 995 really is. This web site has a lot of interest and I suspect helps many of us decide where to plunk down $800 to $900 for a camera (no small potatoes). I was hoping to buy a 995 until I saw the images especially those taken of the focusing scales. Those posted are subatantially "softer" actually out of focus in comparison with the G-1 and the Sony's.
Phil really needs to re-do his test!
Charlie
Phil really needs to re-do his test!
Charlie
Why the excuses? I don't have anything against Nikon, but I
believe in Phil's review and don't appreciate those who praise the
review when it matches their pre-formed opinions or expectations
but finds excuses when it doesn't. This seems to happen quite
often in this particular forum.
If you are using those two images as some sort of standard for
internal conviction, then you are dreaming. One is a relatively
distant object over fifty meters away surrounded in normal tones,
the other a contrasty nearby object surrounded in shadows. A
difference of 0.7 EV equivalency would destroy any ability to use
them as comparisons, but not as the appropriate exposure for each,
given their content.
What you will need for this sort of highlight handling comparison
will be shots of the same subject under the same lighting. Try
these:
And it would be good to remember that one of these cameras is a
prototype...
-iNova
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum