D1x resolution

[marc hiben]

When I see these new samples from the D1x, it seems that the pictures are very clean and detailed. (better than with my actual D1).

One point is dissapointing : on diagonal lines, the CCD pattern is clearly visible : when you have a nearly horizontal line, it looks like steps ; when you have a nearly vertical line, it is well defined.

Anyway, the result is good. I'm just wondering if we are not going to change our actual D1 for a camera which has "only" twice the horizontal resolution ... and next year for a new one having both horizontal and vertical doubled resolution.

We all have to be careful with the marketing approach of the camera makers. As the CCD (or any other device CMOS ...) defines the quality of the camera, even if they are able today to give us much better ... they will produce one or two intermediate products hoping to sell us one or two more cameras.

I've been reading this forums for a long time. At first, we had only 1.3 or 2 MP cameras. Many were saying it was enough. Then came the 3 MP cameras. We all have changed our tools. This time, it was perfect. The same or maybe better than film quality... And now : the same story. The 6 MP cameras are better. We have forgotten our "old" cameras (very old ... 1 year), and many seem to be ready to change their tools.

If we don't care, it will be the same next year (8 MP) and one year later (10 or 12 MP) and so on.

I think that digital camera have a programmed obsolescence. Nikon (and the others) are hoping we will not keep our tools for more than 2 years.--Marc

 

[Kenn]

When I see these new samples from the D1x, it seems that the
pictures are very clean and detailed. (better than with my actual
D1).

One point is dissapointing : on diagonal lines, the CCD pattern is
clearly visible : when you have a nearly horizontal line, it looks
like steps ; when you have a nearly vertical line, it is well
defined.

Anyway, the result is good. I'm just wondering if we are not going
to change our actual D1 for a camera which has "only" twice the
horizontal resolution ... and next year for a new one having both
horizontal and vertical doubled resolution.

We all have to be careful with the marketing approach of the camera
makers. As the CCD (or any other device CMOS ...) defines the
quality of the camera, even if they are able today to give us much
better ... they will produce one or two intermediate products
hoping to sell us one or two more cameras.

I've been reading this forums for a long time. At first, we had
only 1.3 or 2 MP cameras. Many were saying it was enough. Then came
the 3 MP cameras. We all have changed our tools. This time, it was
perfect. The same or maybe better than film quality... And now :
the same story. The 6 MP cameras are better. We have forgotten our
"old" cameras (very old ... 1 year), and many seem to be ready to
change their tools.

If we don't care, it will be the same next year (8 MP) and one year
later (10 or 12 MP) and so on.

I think that digital camera have a programmed obsolescence. Nikon
(and the others) are hoping we will not keep our tools for more
than 2 years.
--
Marc

 

[Jus]

I'm glad to here some more positive response for the D1X.

Did you try printing the image?
Sometimes your computer will emulate steps that are not there.

With the D1X we are getting much much more than just added res.
Color
improved lcd
compressed raw
raw speed
overall speed
etc. etc. etc.

We are now buying a handheld computer with camera lens
and flashes. Computers are improving very fast.
The D1X computer will be outdated the day it is released,
just like my desk top computer. But like my desk top that
is now a few years old, the cmputer/camera will deliver for
my business for the next 3 years, then I sell and buy the next generation.
You have to make it pay very quickly.

Jus

When I see these new samples from the D1x, it seems that the
pictures are very clean and detailed. (better than with my actual
D1).

One point is dissapointing : on diagonal lines, the CCD pattern is
clearly visible : when you have a nearly horizontal line, it looks
like steps ; when you have a nearly vertical line, it is well
defined.

Anyway, the result is good. I'm just wondering if we are not going
to change our actual D1 for a camera which has "only" twice the
horizontal resolution ... and next year for a new one having both
horizontal and vertical doubled resolution.

We all have to be careful with the marketing approach of the camera
makers. As the CCD (or any other device CMOS ...) defines the
quality of the camera, even if they are able today to give us much
better ... they will produce one or two intermediate products
hoping to sell us one or two more cameras.

I've been reading this forums for a long time. At first, we had
only 1.3 or 2 MP cameras. Many were saying it was enough. Then came
the 3 MP cameras. We all have changed our tools. This time, it was
perfect. The same or maybe better than film quality... And now :
the same story. The 6 MP cameras are better. We have forgotten our
"old" cameras (very old ... 1 year), and many seem to be ready to
change their tools.

If we don't care, it will be the same next year (8 MP) and one year
later (10 or 12 MP) and so on.

I think that digital camera have a programmed obsolescence. Nikon
(and the others) are hoping we will not keep our tools for more
than 2 years.
--
Marc

 

[Stephen Livick]

Hello Marc

I think you are right it is now down to about 15 to 18 months for digital camera upgrades. At one time of day it was about three to four years before all new bodies came out. But I can point this out automobiles change every year does that mean we all have to run out and purchase a new model each year?

My Volvo is now six years old and will last me at least six more years before I think of getting another. Its the same with camera bodies, if what I have is doing the job for me, then why change it when the next one comes down the line.

You can allow yourself to be drawn in to the digital rat race or you can simply KNOW what going on and watch others swimming in the digital tidal wave.

The choice is really yours to make, decide wisely Marc.

Stephen

http://www.livick.com

 

[Paul Caldwell]

Hello Marc,

Based on the way Nikon created the CCD, it should be the other way around I believe. The horizontal res. was doubled thus you should be able to get very sharp horizontal reproductions, however the vertical is the res. where Nikon is working their magic and by software doubling it.

What images do you see what you mention. I have looked at manyof them and haven't been able to really notice any problems. All I have gotten are jpgs as I don't think that Nikon is doing anything with Raw yet.

Paul

When I see these new samples from the D1x, it seems that the
pictures are very clean and detailed. (better than with my actual
D1).

One point is dissapointing : on diagonal lines, the CCD pattern is
clearly visible : when you have a nearly horizontal line, it looks
like steps ; when you have a nearly vertical line, it is well
defined.

Anyway, the result is good. I'm just wondering if we are not going
to change our actual D1 for a camera which has "only" twice the
horizontal resolution ... and next year for a new one having both
horizontal and vertical doubled resolution.

We all have to be careful with the marketing approach of the camera
makers. As the CCD (or any other device CMOS ...) defines the
quality of the camera, even if they are able today to give us much
better ... they will produce one or two intermediate products
hoping to sell us one or two more cameras.

I've been reading this forums for a long time. At first, we had
only 1.3 or 2 MP cameras. Many were saying it was enough. Then came
the 3 MP cameras. We all have changed our tools. This time, it was
perfect. The same or maybe better than film quality... And now :
the same story. The 6 MP cameras are better. We have forgotten our
"old" cameras (very old ... 1 year), and many seem to be ready to
change their tools.

If we don't care, it will be the same next year (8 MP) and one year
later (10 or 12 MP) and so on.

I think that digital camera have a programmed obsolescence. Nikon
(and the others) are hoping we will not keep our tools for more
than 2 years.
--
Marc

 

[Scott Audette]

Hello Everyone,

I've have been holding out real high hopes for the D1x. I already own two D1's and had preordered both a D1x and D1h. I've got to say I am a little diappointed in how VERY soft these photos look. My currents D1's produce images which IMO are much, much sharper then the current batch of v.1 samples.

As a professional sports photograper, I had hoped that the higher quality from the D1x would help alleviate some of my current worklow backlogs by producing an image close to 8x10 @300 dpi. I figured heck, I wouldn't have to resize or color correct images , so I could send pics to the mags almost ready to go. It doesn't look that way. I never imagined we would have to give up having sharp photos in trade for resolution. I don't wan't to have to be sharpening phtos before I send them out.

I don't wan't to totally knock the camera. The color is 100 times better.

I hope Nikon works on this sharpening thing some more before reelasing the camera in the next few weeks.

-----
Scott Audette
Team Photographer for the NHL's Tampa Bay Lightning
and AP freelancer

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

I understand what you're saying, and I, for one, have not forgotten that I bought the D1 to do a job and it does it to my fine satisfaction. Unless I develope a need for larger prints, I have no need of more megapixels.

M

When I see these new samples from the D1x, it seems that the
pictures are very clean and detailed. (better than with my actual
D1).

One point is dissapointing : on diagonal lines, the CCD pattern is
clearly visible : when you have a nearly horizontal line, it looks
like steps ; when you have a nearly vertical line, it is well
defined.

Anyway, the result is good. I'm just wondering if we are not going
to change our actual D1 for a camera which has "only" twice the
horizontal resolution ... and next year for a new one having both
horizontal and vertical doubled resolution.

We all have to be careful with the marketing approach of the camera
makers. As the CCD (or any other device CMOS ...) defines the
quality of the camera, even if they are able today to give us much
better ... they will produce one or two intermediate products
hoping to sell us one or two more cameras.

I've been reading this forums for a long time. At first, we had
only 1.3 or 2 MP cameras. Many were saying it was enough. Then came
the 3 MP cameras. We all have changed our tools. This time, it was
perfect. The same or maybe better than film quality... And now :
the same story. The 6 MP cameras are better. We have forgotten our
"old" cameras (very old ... 1 year), and many seem to be ready to
change their tools.

If we don't care, it will be the same next year (8 MP) and one year
later (10 or 12 MP) and so on.

I think that digital camera have a programmed obsolescence. Nikon
(and the others) are hoping we will not keep our tools for more
than 2 years.
--
Marc

 

[KenEis]

I'd like to cut Nikon (and others) a little slack. I don't subscribe to the vast conspiracy theory of digital camera obsolesence. The technology is new and improving rapidly---like all new technologies. Its not like there are 12MP CCDs in a dark closet somewhere and we are being milked on a path to them. CCD and the internal computers that allow ever increasing processing power are evolving as fast as the engineers can push the technology within the constrains of weight, volumn and power consumption.

The Volvo has no new breakthrough technology so if you want to use that analogy then use it against the F100 or F5. Good film cameras that will be just as servicable in 10 years when you scrap your Volve.

Assume your wish is granted and Nikon's D2 is a 12 MP camera. You would rejoice until you found out the an entire new set of lenses will be needed to exploit that new focal plane resolution demands.

Hello Marc

I think you are right it is now down to about 15 to 18 months for
digital camera upgrades. At one time of day it was about three to
four years before all new bodies came out. But I can point this out
automobiles change every year does that mean we all have to run out
and purchase a new model each year?

My Volvo is now six years old and will last me at least six more
years before I think of getting another. Its the same with camera
bodies, if what I have is doing the job for me, then why change it
when the next one comes down the line.

You can allow yourself to be drawn in to the digital rat race or
you can simply KNOW what going on and watch others swimming in the
digital tidal wave.

The choice is really yours to make, decide wisely Marc.

Stephen

http://www.livick.com

 

[KenEis]

If you sharpen the images they get a lot better. There seems to be a lot of information that is brought out by sharpening (even more then in a D1 image)

Hello Everyone,

I've have been holding out real high hopes for the D1x. I already
own two D1's and had preordered both a D1x and D1h. I've got to say
I am a little diappointed in how VERY soft these photos look. My
currents D1's produce images which IMO are much, much sharper then
the current batch of v.1 samples.

As a professional sports photograper, I had hoped that the higher
quality from the D1x would help alleviate some of my current
worklow backlogs by producing an image close to 8x10 @300 dpi. I
figured heck, I wouldn't have to resize or color correct images ,
so I could send pics to the mags almost ready to go. It doesn't
look that way. I never imagined we would have to give up having
sharp photos in trade for resolution. I don't wan't to have to be
sharpening phtos before I send them out.

I don't wan't to totally knock the camera. The color is 100 times
better.

I hope Nikon works on this sharpening thing some more before
reelasing the camera in the next few weeks.

-----
Scott Audette
Team Photographer for the NHL's Tampa Bay Lightning
and AP freelancer

 

[Scott Audette]

I've tried shaprening the samples and that's true to a point. The problem is the images aren't tack sharp coming out the camera. I shouldn't have to sharpen in image in photoshop for the picture to look sharp. My D1 images are sharp, truly sharp, crisp edges, with defined detail. (i.e you shoot a headshot you can clearly see pores on the subjects skin)You don't see that in ay of these D1x files, yet.

For the cost of the camera I don't think it is too much to expect for the D1x images files to be as sharp as the current D1.

Scott

If you sharpen the images they get a lot better. There seems to be
a lot of information that is brought out by sharpening (even more
then in a D1 image)
Scott Audette wrote:

 

[Steve Dean]

I agree completely. No manufacturer can afford to produce less than the best they are capable of at a price the market will bear. All it would take is for one renegade manufacturer to decide not to play the game and crank out a camera far superior to all others on the market to sink everyone else. Beating the competition to the market with the best is the challenge. Sandbagging will just cost you market share.

Steve

The Volvo has no new breakthrough technology so if you want to use
that analogy then use it against the F100 or F5. Good film cameras
that will be just as servicable in 10 years when you scrap your
Volve.

Assume your wish is granted and Nikon's D2 is a 12 MP camera. You
would rejoice until you found out the an entire new set of lenses
will be needed to exploit that new focal plane resolution demands.

Hello Marc

I think you are right it is now down to about 15 to 18 months for
digital camera upgrades. At one time of day it was about three to
four years before all new bodies came out. But I can point this out
automobiles change every year does that mean we all have to run out
and purchase a new model each year?

My Volvo is now six years old and will last me at least six more
years before I think of getting another. Its the same with camera
bodies, if what I have is doing the job for me, then why change it
when the next one comes down the line.

You can allow yourself to be drawn in to the digital rat race or
you can simply KNOW what going on and watch others swimming in the
digital tidal wave.

The choice is really yours to make, decide wisely Marc.

Stephen

http://www.livick.com

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Stephen,

To more accurately position the analogy of car development to the digital SLR, you'll have to change the car for one from the early days of the automobile.

The Nikon D1 is better compared to the Ford Model T

The Nikon D1X is better compared to the Ford Model A

If you've ever driven both of these cars, you'll know what I mean. The Model T was a bear to drive compared to the Model A. Oh, and that Model A is a bear compared to your Volvo, too.

Stan

Hello Marc

I think you are right it is now down to about 15 to 18 months for
digital camera upgrades. At one time of day it was about three to
four years before all new bodies came out. But I can point this out
automobiles change every year does that mean we all have to run out
and purchase a new model each year?

My Volvo is now six years old and will last me at least six more
years before I think of getting another. Its the same with camera
bodies, if what I have is doing the job for me, then why change it
when the next one comes down the line.

You can allow yourself to be drawn in to the digital rat race or
you can simply KNOW what going on and watch others swimming in the
digital tidal wave.

The choice is really yours to make, decide wisely Marc.

Stephen

http://www.livick.com

 

[Paul Caldwell]

Hello Scott,

I also have noticed that most of the samples seem soft. The first batch that came out I guess over 1 1/2 weeks ago were very soft even the close up work. I mainly shoot raw so all the work I get is soft since you can't sharpen in camera. However, when I shoot jpg as all these images were I tend to have some sharpening on. I wonder if they are still working that piece out. Also if we are all taking about the images that were the 1.0 vr. They are huge when you look at them and when viewed down to the 6.9 x 10.1 size they would be native, they are much sharper.

I still have only been able to get html files for some reason but all the images are kind of the same. I still long for some true outdoor stuff. Most likely the Japanese won't be giving us that.

Paul

For the cost of the camera I don't think it is too much to expect
for the D1x images files to be as sharp as the current D1.

Scott

If you sharpen the images they get a lot better. There seems to be
a lot of information that is brought out by sharpening (even more
then in a D1 image)
Scott Audette wrote:

 

[Jus]

What are we all really looking for?
D1 comes out and everyone is thrilled, but wants more.
D30 arrives and everyone raves about the smooth SOFT images.
Nikon reworks the D1 to our demand for more res. and the D1X arrives.
Maybe they are truely listening and are trying to keep the image
a little smoother/SOFTER out of the box like the D30.
To allow us to sharpen a high res. image as we wish.
Maybe they are now scratching their heads saying,
"what the #$@! do they what ??

Jus

Paul

For the cost of the camera I don't think it is too much to expect
for the D1x images files to be as sharp as the current D1.

Scott

If you sharpen the images they get a lot better. There seems to be
a lot of information that is brought out by sharpening (even more
then in a D1 image)
Scott Audette wrote:

 

[Paul Caldwell]

Since you chose to quote me,

I think that was my point Jus, all raw files from any Digital Camera require post processing work as does any negative or slide scan.

My point was that in jpg mode as all these images are, I would expect a more overall sharper final image. Trying to sharpen a jpg is not as easy as sharpening a raw file. Your jpg is a compressed file to start with and depending on the compression, sharpening tends to just bring out more jaggies. I think that if I was a PJ, I would not want to spend a lot of time sharpening each jpg either. In my work, I prefer the raw file as I still have total control.

I don't think I was saying anything against Nikon except that I am tired of seeing the same stuff posted. I would much rather see a couple of American Professionals using the camer and getting their opinions, Thats all.

Jus

Paul

For the cost of the camera I don't think it is too much to expect
for the D1x images files to be as sharp as the current D1.

Scott

If you sharpen the images they get a lot better. There seems to be
a lot of information that is brought out by sharpening (even more
then in a D1 image)
Scott Audette wrote:

 

[Jus]

I agree with you.
My comments were not dirrected at your views but
instead at all of us photographers including myself whom
are never satisfied with the out of the box shots.

The sharpening point is true about jpg, but if Nikon sharpens
them more out of the camera then the portrait shooters will
be upset. The camera has different sharpening settings to
allow the individual shooter his or her own taste, at the capture time.

Jus

I think that was my point Jus, all raw files from any Digital
Camera require post processing work as does any negative or slide
scan.
My point was that in jpg mode as all these images are, I would
expect a more overall sharper final image. Trying to sharpen a jpg
is not as easy as sharpening a raw file. Your jpg is a compressed
file to start with and depending on the compression, sharpening
tends to just bring out more jaggies. I think that if I was a PJ,
I would not want to spend a lot of time sharpening each jpg either.
In my work, I prefer the raw file as I still have total control.
I don't think I was saying anything against Nikon except that I am
tired of seeing the same stuff posted. I would much rather see a
couple of American Professionals using the camer and getting their
opinions, Thats all.

Jus

Paul

For the cost of the camera I don't think it is too much to expect
for the D1x images files to be as sharp as the current D1.

Scott

If you sharpen the images they get a lot better. There seems to be
a lot of information that is brought out by sharpening (even more
then in a D1 image)
Scott Audette wrote:

 

[Joe Tan]

Basically I think we all see the D1x as a potentially amazing piece of equipment, and fortuanately for us it is still being tweaked, hopfully to our needs. I agree with all these posts and in reiteration, if I were a PJ (I'm not) I would hate to waste time post processing thousands of shots instead of uploading them directly to be printed, likewise the portrait photographer rightly needs the image not to be oversharpened. The key here is the ability of the user to customize the sharpening settings (and others) on the camera, which apparently exists on the D1x. Now what we really need is real life reviews of this camera from pro PJ/portrait/nature photographers to find how well it suits the needs of each individual skill. Until then I guess we'll have to wait in agony like we've all been accustomed to doing since the advent of digital technology.

JOE

M

When I see these new samples from the D1x, it seems that the
pictures are very clean and detailed. (better than with my actual
D1).

One point is dissapointing : on diagonal lines, the CCD pattern is
clearly visible : when you have a nearly horizontal line, it looks
like steps ; when you have a nearly vertical line, it is well
defined.

Anyway, the result is good. I'm just wondering if we are not going
to change our actual D1 for a camera which has "only" twice the
horizontal resolution ... and next year for a new one having both
horizontal and vertical doubled resolution.

We all have to be careful with the marketing approach of the camera
makers. As the CCD (or any other device CMOS ...) defines the
quality of the camera, even if they are able today to give us much
better ... they will produce one or two intermediate products
hoping to sell us one or two more cameras.

I've been reading this forums for a long time. At first, we had
only 1.3 or 2 MP cameras. Many were saying it was enough. Then came
the 3 MP cameras. We all have changed our tools. This time, it was
perfect. The same or maybe better than film quality... And now :
the same story. The 6 MP cameras are better. We have forgotten our
"old" cameras (very old ... 1 year), and many seem to be ready to
change their tools.

If we don't care, it will be the same next year (8 MP) and one year
later (10 or 12 MP) and so on.

I think that digital camera have a programmed obsolescence. Nikon
(and the others) are hoping we will not keep our tools for more
than 2 years.
--
Marc

 

[paul harmer]

The only thing that really matter with any digital camera is does it do what you bought it for? This is just like computers - if all you do is word-processing, there's no point in having a 1.3Ghz Athlon under your desk.

If the new range of cameras (D1X etc.) can do a DPS in a magazine, then I'll buy it. The current generation can't, so I didn't buy one.

If the next general can produce 35Mb files and the results are dramatically better than a D1X then I'll have made a mistake, but I reckon the differences are going to be more subtle than that from now on.

Paul