995 Sharpness

[Paul Beaulieu]

I got a 995 a week ago for my father, but was so unimpressed by the lack of sharpness that I returned it as defective, before this thread started. I got a replacement yesterday. It seems a little better, but still not as good as my 990.

I usually shoot both cameras with "normal" sharpening. With rev 1.5 of the firmware, is "normal" the equivalent to "low" on the 990? And what hapened with rev 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4? Was 1.5 the result of an all-nighter before production?...

I've found that the 995 tends to over-saturate, so today I shot with saturation -1 in an attempt to get more detail.

Close-ups of people look great (and any soft focus in this case is a bonus), but architectural shots with focus at infinity are still not very satisfying, unless I bring down the resolution.

So is this a lens or a firmware issue? I much prefer my 990.

And I won't event go into my orange and unfocused indoor test shots at this point....

Paul

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[JPF]

I've got a plan...

If I have any doubts after playing with my 995 (when I get it), I'm going over to Best Buy & pick up an S75. I'll test them side by side for myself.

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[A2]

Just got my 995 today. My 340 MB microdrive worked at the beginning, but then the camera couldn't read it afterwards. I wonder if the larger capacity microdrives are supported? pls advise. also, what is the max. capacity flash card that is officially supported? 256MB?

Thanx for any help you can provide.

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.

The clarity of the 995 doesn't seem to measure up to the S85. More
importantly (to me), the S85 seems to handle highlights much better
than the 995.

Take a look at sample pic #20 for the 995 and compare it to shot

1. 10 from the S85. The highlights are completely blown on the 995

whereas the S85 retains detail. Look closely and you will see the
difference in other shots with strong highlights.

Trouble is, I much prefer the speed, swivel design & general
ergonomics of the 995! Whatever I get, I need to stop visiting
this else I will have to have the next latest model!

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

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[JerryO]

Hi A2, Only the 512 and the 1gig work with the 995. Please post some pics and let us know your feelings on the camera.. You can email me pics direct if you like.. Thanks Jerry

Thanx for any help you can provide.

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.

The clarity of the 995 doesn't seem to measure up to the S85. More
importantly (to me), the S85 seems to handle highlights much better
than the 995.

Take a look at sample pic #20 for the 995 and compare it to shot

1. 10 from the S85. The highlights are completely blown on the 995

whereas the S85 retains detail. Look closely and you will see the
difference in other shots with strong highlights.

Trouble is, I much prefer the speed, swivel design & general
ergonomics of the 995! Whatever I get, I need to stop visiting
this else I will have to have the next latest model!

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

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[A2]

BG,

The internal flash on teh G1 is very weak, and produces skins that look pale and at times "purplish" in an environment with insufficient lighting. Sicne I've been using a 340 MB microdrive, teh start up speed and the tiem it takes to switch from play to record and vice versa are very slow. The camera is also quite heavy (although I thought this was a good thing when I bought it because it felt so well-built). The ergonomics of the camera have also gotten to me...very difficult to get a good grip on the camera. Pictures taken under low light with long exposures are not sharp and skin tones are not too good (again, quite pal and purplish). Sicne I take pictures of people mostly, this is a big issue to me.

btw, i've finally got my 995, inspite of teh sharpness concern. but there isn't another choice really, on teh market, except for the s75/85, is there? but i just don't like sony cameras - the memory stick thingee.

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

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...

 

[A2]

Jerry, I haven't taken too many pictures with the camera yet, because my microdrive is not working. i'll have to get another memory card or a bigger capacity microdrive first. so the 512 MB microdrive is officially supported i suppose? cuz if not, i'd rather get a 256MB flash card or two 128MB ones.

so far, the camera feels okay to me, although I still like the sturdy feeling of my old G1. it just felt more solid. but the 995 is quite a bit faster operation-wise, but i don't know if that's because i'm not using the flash card that came with the camera instead of the microdrive. overall, the camera feels good in my hands, and i haven't had any problem focussing in low light situations (even without the AF assist lamp). and the macro ability is just awesome (this is one of the things that i missed most from my 950, and now i have it back!!)...i like taking pictures of little objects, so this is very nice. also, the flash is much stronger than the G1's, and the pictures show warmer skin tones than did my G1. I've always liked the colours produced by the G1 for pictures taken under bright daylight, but not so for ones taken in low light situations or at night. so far the 995 has given my skin tones that i like - warmer.

i'll probably try to take some daylight pictures with teh camera the next few days. i'll post some of these later or email them directly to u.

btw, when's ur camera supposed to ship?

Thanx for any help you can provide.

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.

The clarity of the 995 doesn't seem to measure up to the S85. More
importantly (to me), the S85 seems to handle highlights much better
than the 995.

Take a look at sample pic #20 for the 995 and compare it to shot

1. 10 from the S85. The highlights are completely blown on the 995

whereas the S85 retains detail. Look closely and you will see the
difference in other shots with strong highlights.

Trouble is, I much prefer the speed, swivel design & general
ergonomics of the 995! Whatever I get, I need to stop visiting
this else I will have to have the next latest model!

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

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[Vincent Bockaert]

Hi Peter

Maybe you are lucky with your unit but I find that sharpness is an issue with the 995:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&page=1&message=1162051

Vincent

I think Phil got a pre-production camera. He said as much, yes?

I've played with two and the shots seemed to actually represent a
tiny improvement over the 990. The 4X zoom didn't seem to show any
less corner sharpness on the informal shots I took.

A more rigorous test will show the truth. In the mean time, the
production samples I've handled (Low, low serial numbers) showed my
eyes very nice shots. And the chromatic aberration seemed to be
better controlled overall--less like the 990 and more like the 950.

So, don't get "struck" so much with a test of a single prototype.
As the British drill seargant says, "...wait for it..."

-iNova

 

[FJBrad]

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...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=628447

 

[aa]

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.

I used fill in flash and did a slight level correction. The G1's onboard flash actually produces stimulating results as fill in.

Dh

 

[JerryO]

Just found a new review on the 995 Camera by Jason Toates of TECHTV. Interesting how different professionals are getting different results from the camera.Take a look... Jerry

http://www.techtv.com/print/story/0,23102,3327734,00.html

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[FJBrad]

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.

I used fill in flash and did a slight level correction. The G1's
onboard flash actually produces stimulating results as fill in.

Dh

Very nice pix. Well exposed, but the color in the shot of the deer looks quite red on my monitor. I'm sure it's not the camera, but have you calibrated your monitor recently? FJBrad

 

[Shii #47521]

Have a look at another comparison. I assume this was done with a production version of the 995

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&page=1&message=1162051

Shii

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[JerryO]

Saw this one Shii, It was posted here. Just a brief comparison. One I listed was someone who used the camera for a quick picture. I am not going to make any rash judgements till I get him in my hands. I am sure everyone will have different opinions on it. I have already seen posts from a few users that love it..

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&page=1&message=1162051

Shii

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

Dh

 

[Dave Chamberlain]

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&page=1&message=1162051

Shii

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharpe

Hi all,

Got my 995 yesterday, after the batt had charged I went "a shooting". I was more than a little worried after all the posts. (almost got a G1)

Yes the Hi res images do look a little soft (sharpening set to norm) on the screen, but the printed results 8 X 10 are fantastic.

Buy one and try one you wont be dissapointed.

Dave.......

 

[Peter iNova]

Say, I'm not picking a fight here, but there is no excuse for judging dissimilar images as defining a test that tells you much of anything. The two shots in question have significant differences in lighting and subject matter. So I lined up a pair of shots for instant review that are of the Exact Same Thing under the exact same lighting and invited people to observe those as a more telling comparison. No judgement about one or the other cameras is inferred.

It was the original post in this thread that made an "excuse" by trying to prove something with images that weren't directly comparable. One may be able to measure the state of one's psyche in dreams but you can't find hard evidence about highlight handling properties in them.

So let's dig a bit deeper to see where true limits are to be found:

I do make the case that an 11% jump in linear pixel count isn't the determining factor dividing this or that camera into the Good category vs. the Bad category.

Read the tiny type on the neck of the bottles in the upper left corner of the shot and you don't find "deal breaker" -level differences in performance. Combine that with the self-evident fact that the marginally superior detail in the new Sony (or presumably any) 4 megapixel camera eats about 23% more storage room out of any given number of megabytes at the same compression. Does the Sony image seem to be worth the 23% premium it takes to store it?

Phil also used the flower in the lower right of the 995 shot to display the "low resolution" of the 995 image--especially dramatic in contrast to the G1-- a factor not borne out in other parts of the image like the opposite corner's tiny type on the bottles.

Could the hand-built, pre-production sample he had have a soft corner that the tweaked production run cameras will not? I only know from firsthand experience that the low serial numbered production cameras (plural) that I played with informally didn't show anything close to this level of corner blur. No excuse there, just actual experience. I knew when I tested them that I was looking for evidence of this sort of "issue" but it was simply nowhere to be found. Perhaps other cameras really do exhibit the issue, but I haven't found it so far, and I was looking for it.

How do each of these cameras perform with the same highlights? I brought them into Photoshop and use the Curves control to see how the crushed highlights from each behave. Surprise. Both cameras behave so closely with the available highlights in this shot that the issue is moot. Except...

The Sony slams against the wall of overdriven sensors in an unexpected place, the three reddest crayons in the lower left show that the red channel has hit the limits WAY earlier than the Nikon did on the same image at the same exposure.

That tells me that the balance of colors in the Sony camera, even under normal shooting conditions with objects that fall into the high-chroma category are being sadly compromised by the choices that Sony's color engineers (yes that is a specialty in digital photographic equipment design) have made. But what about the Nikon? Again, unless this sample camera has the final software inside, we can't exactly tell how it will behave. It becomes an if/then situation. If this is the final colorimetric balance of the camera, then the far better handling of the Nikon's color gets my vote for winner. No excuses can come from a test that has teeth.

One by one the items that may appear to be "excuses" become a matter of measurement and test. But there is an excuse afoot here, Watson...

I have a question for A2. Why did you respond to the post that forced my mistake with the large-loading files into perpetuity? I at least tried to head off the error with my following post warning against it. And how come you imply that this PARTICULAR forum seems to be perpetually making some sort of "Excuse" in posts? Where is that coming from? In fact, here's a challenge. Name six. Then do a similar count on the Canon, Sony, etc. forums and divide by the number of total postings. I think the conclusion you came to is quite overstated. And how come you haven't posted ANYTHING in the last six months other than now? What's your excuse? I'll bet it is a "reason" and not an excuse after all, just like all the things you called an excuse.

-iNova

Assuming that the prototype is significantly inferior to the
production model, that is. However, I would expect that a
prototype that has been released for the purpose of being reviewed
would be capable of producing pictures with highly similar (if not
teh same) quality as a production model.

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.

 

[JerryO]

Thank you Peter for your informative thread. I haven't recieved my Nikon 995 yet but I am really looking forward to receiving it and seeing what it can do. Will watch for your ebook update in the near future..

It was the original post in this thread that made an "excuse" by
trying to prove something with images that weren't directly
comparable. One may be able to measure the state of one's psyche in
dreams but you can't find hard evidence about highlight handling
properties in them.

So let's dig a bit deeper to see where true limits are to be found:

I do make the case that an 11% jump in linear pixel count isn't the
determining factor dividing this or that camera into the Good
category vs. the Bad category.

Read the tiny type on the neck of the bottles in the upper left
corner of the shot and you don't find "deal breaker" -level
differences in performance. Combine that with the self-evident fact
that the marginally superior detail in the new Sony (or presumably
any) 4 megapixel camera eats about 23% more storage room out of any
given number of megabytes at the same compression. Does the Sony
image seem to be worth the 23% premium it takes to store it?

Phil also used the flower in the lower right of the 995 shot to
display the "low resolution" of the 995 image--especially dramatic
in contrast to the G1-- a factor not borne out in other parts of
the image like the opposite corner's tiny type on the bottles.

Could the hand-built, pre-production sample he had have a soft
corner that the tweaked production run cameras will not? I only
know from firsthand experience that the low serial numbered
production cameras (plural) that I played with informally didn't
show anything close to this level of corner blur. No excuse there,
just actual experience. I knew when I tested them that I was
looking for evidence of this sort of "issue" but it was simply
nowhere to be found. Perhaps other cameras really do exhibit the
issue, but I haven't found it so far, and I was looking for it.

How do each of these cameras perform with the same highlights? I
brought them into Photoshop and use the Curves control to see how
the crushed highlights from each behave. Surprise. Both cameras
behave so closely with the available highlights in this shot that
the issue is moot. Except...

The Sony slams against the wall of overdriven sensors in an
unexpected place, the three reddest crayons in the lower left show
that the red channel has hit the limits WAY earlier than the Nikon
did on the same image at the same exposure.

That tells me that the balance of colors in the Sony camera, even
under normal shooting conditions with objects that fall into the
high-chroma category are being sadly compromised by the choices
that Sony's color engineers (yes that is a specialty in digital
photographic equipment design) have made. But what about the Nikon?
Again, unless this sample camera has the final software inside, we
can't exactly tell how it will behave. It becomes an if/then
situation. If this is the final colorimetric balance of the camera,
then the far better handling of the Nikon's color gets my vote for
winner. No excuses can come from a test that has teeth.

One by one the items that may appear to be "excuses" become a
matter of measurement and test. But there is an excuse afoot here,
Watson...

I have a question for A2. Why did you respond to the post that
forced my mistake with the large-loading files into perpetuity? I
at least tried to head off the error with my following post warning
against it. And how come you imply that this PARTICULAR forum seems
to be perpetually making some sort of "Excuse" in posts? Where is
that coming from? In fact, here's a challenge. Name six. Then do a
similar count on the Canon, Sony, etc. forums and divide by the
number of total postings. I think the conclusion you came to is
quite overstated. And how come you haven't posted ANYTHING in the
last six months other than now? What's your excuse? I'll bet it is
a "reason" and not an excuse after all, just like all the things
you called an excuse.

-iNova

Assuming that the prototype is significantly inferior to the
production model, that is. However, I would expect that a
prototype that has been released for the purpose of being reviewed
would be capable of producing pictures with highly similar (if not
teh same) quality as a production model.

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.

 

[A2]

Thanx for your essay, Mr. iNova.

I have a question for A2. Why did you respond to the post that
forced my mistake with the large-loading files into perpetuity? I
at least tried to head off the error with my following post warning
against it.

Hm, if you think I did it on purpose, then I think I should apologize, no? The fact is that I was such a moron to have overlooked such an important fact. If the loading of the images wasted 5 seconds of the time of those who bothered to read my message (that's how long it took my computer to load those pics), then please accept my most sincere apologies.

And how come you imply that this PARTICULAR forum seems

to be perpetually making some sort of "Excuse" in posts? Where is
that coming from? In fact, here's a challenge. Name six. Then do a
similar count on the Canon, Sony, etc. forums and divide by the
number of total postings. I think the conclusion you came to is
quite overstated.

Hm, I don't think I'm gonna do that. It was just a gut feeling. Tell you what, things are never black and white. And if you can't tell I wasn't trying to state that as a fact (but you probably took it as such), then let me apologize to you again. I would assume that most people's opinions about the messages posted in this forum would not be swayed by that mere message of mine. So effectively no damage was done, no?

And how come you haven't posted ANYTHING in the

last six months other than now? What's your excuse? I'll bet it is
a "reason" and not an excuse after all, just like all the things
you called an excuse.

Perhaps I haven't had as much time as you? IN case you haven't noticed, I'm not a photography professional and I need to earn a living. Besides, digital photography is just one of my hobbies, so naturally I do not devote all my leisure time to posting messages on this forum. I suppose I could have chosen to post that message with another handle, but I didn't. I don't know what you were implying by saying that I haven't posted anything in the last six months, but I really don't see any relevance to this discussion.

-iNova

Assuming that the prototype is significantly inferior to the
production model, that is. However, I would expect that a
prototype that has been released for the purpose of being reviewed
would be capable of producing pictures with highly similar (if not
teh same) quality as a production model.

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.

 

[bob d]

Just had a look at Phils review of the new Sony S85.
When i saw the pages with image quality where phil compare the S85
to the s75, G1 and CP995. It struck me how unsharp the pictures
from the 995 looked. This new 4x lens seems really to let it down.
Both the G1 and s75 looked much sharper.

People have said before that the perfect digitical camera doesn't exist, and it's true. Every camera has its flaws.

That said, the flaw of all the Nikon 880/990/995 is that the lens isn't as sharp as the lens on some other models, especially the Sony lens.

Looking carefully at pictures from the 880 and the S75, one can easily tell that the S75 has the sharper lens, especially at the edges of the photo.

I haven't looked as carefull at the 990/995 photos because I wasn't interested in buying those cameras. However, it makes perfect sense that the 995 has inferior quality to the 990. When zoom range is increased, and all other things are equal, the image quality decreases. Seems to me that the marketing power of the bigger zoom won out over the image quality of the original 3X zoom.

Maybe the reason why the Nikon 880 seems to have less chromatic aberration than any other 3.3MP camera is because it's 2.5X zoom is less agressive than all the other competitors. Reports are that the 995 has blurrier images and more CA than the 990, and this is probably the case.

What is clear to me is that the CZ lens on the S75 has enough sharpness to benefit from putting a 4.1 MP CCD behind it. If you put the 995 lense in front of the 4.1MP, it would accomplish nothing because the extra pixels would just be capturing blur. You'd probably still see more detail on the 3.3MP Sony S75 than this new Nikon with a 4.1MP CCD.

No camera is perfect.. the big fault of the S85 is NOISE. Go Steves Digicams website and look at the sample S85 pictures posted. Look at all the noise in the shadows.

The funny thing about noise on the Sony cameras is that some cameras have more than others. The S85 pictures on this website have less noise than the one on Steve's website. And with the S75, pictures of some unlucky purchasers had a lot more noise than the S75 samples on this website, but other purchasers didn't have the problem.

 

[Sherman Stebbins]

Paul have you got any samples you can post?

Sherm

I got a 995 a week ago for my father, but was so unimpressed by the
lack of sharpness that I returned it as defective, before this
thread started. I got a replacement yesterday. It seems a little
better, but still not as good as my 990.

I usually shoot both cameras with "normal" sharpening. With rev 1.5
of the firmware, is "normal" the equivalent to "low" on the 990?
And what hapened with rev 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4? Was 1.5 the result of
an all-nighter before production?...

I've found that the 995 tends to over-saturate, so today I shot
with saturation -1 in an attempt to get more detail.

Close-ups of people look great (and any soft focus in this case is
a bonus), but architectural shots with focus at infinity are still
not very satisfying, unless I bring down the resolution.

So is this a lens or a firmware issue? I much prefer my 990.

And I won't event go into my orange and unfocused indoor test shots
at this point....

Paul

 

[Gaucho]

Say, I'm not picking a fight here

Aha, the traditional opening line of many a thermonuclear flame war.

I do make the case that an 11% jump in linear pixel count isn't the
determining factor dividing this or that camera into the Good
category vs. the Bad category.

A factor, perhaps not the factor; 3.3MP is going to become increasingly long in the tooth from this point forward.

Could the hand-built, pre-production sample he had have a soft
corner that the tweaked production run cameras will not? I only
know from firsthand experience that the low serial numbered
production cameras (plural) that I played with informally didn't
show anything close to this level of corner blur. No excuse there,
just actual experience. I knew when I tested them that I was
looking for evidence of this sort of "issue" but it was simply
nowhere to be found. Perhaps other cameras really do exhibit the
issue, but I haven't found it so far, and I was looking for it.

The problem I think many folks might be dancing around (some less artfully than others) is that between you and Mr. Askew, he seems less burdened by credibility problems associated with commercial interests in Nikon products. I have no idea what digicam Askew has chosen for his own use - but he seems to have no financial interests in any particular brand. You, on the other hand, have a clear and compelling interest in Nikon products.

I don't suggest for a moment that you might consciously compromise your integrity in this (or any other) case, but a perception of bias is a powerful check on credibility.

And how come you haven't posted ANYTHING in the
last six months other than now? What's your excuse?

Why does he need an "excuse" for exercising his free speech privileges wherever and whenever he wants to? Surely you're not arguing that "more prolific posters are more credible", are you?

Gordon