Nikon firmware updates - wow...

[Rock Lee]

They've always stuck with Sony. If they decided a change now, it would definitely be a huge risk on their part - I'm sure such a transition will not go smoothly for Nikon especially dealing with a big company like Sony.

Only way they can be free of obligations of other companies is to manufacture their own sensor... but then that would mean they would have to invest big $$$ into R&D to design their own Nikon sensor. And yet again, who's to say they'll produce something great right off the back considering they have no history of making digital DSLR sensors to begin with.

This is probably why Nikon still does not have FF sensors.

--
Pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/robotzer0

Comments are welcomed.

 

[Mr Steve]

What about Nikon's poorer support of professionals at sports events
compared to Canon's? NPS v. CPS.

Why not what about carrot cakes...

Seriously: I don't know, and I also don't care much since I'm not a
sport photographer. In the original post, I was making a comment
about Nikon's versus canon's formware upgrade policy. Comparing
Canon's and Nikon's support packages for pros especially at sport
events might be worth another thread.

I like carrot cake.

My response was inspired by the previoius poster who commented on Nikon's policy of repairing gray market cameras. A topic well-threaded. But you didn't pick on him, did you?

 

[SelrahCharleS]

Canned air is cool... especially when you happen to have an open
flame handy, hmm wonder if that would just burn the dust right
off?
--



Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer
eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under
relatively poor light.

Very nice drawing. I'd like to get the same results, so could you
please give me more specs?:

Is your pencil a good copy? How sharp is it?

Yes... its not the sharpest, but I prefer a softer look for this kind of stuff. Probably a 7 out of 10 on the sharpness scale.

What color temperature was the light you had?

It was tungsten, whatever that is.

Size and porosity of sketch pad?

11X8.5" or 27.9x21.5cm. Porosity I'm not sure on.

Where did you buy the eraser, and what did it cost? Should I wait
for a rebate offer, or should I just buy it and start drawing?

I believe I bought it at Wal-Mart, cant remember the price, but they are not that expensive... I would buy one and start drawing right away. You can wait and wait for one of those rebates to come and then you will be drawing one day and realize the eraser on your pencil is really not that good. You should get one now, it will definatly improve your drawing(You can also get Staedtler Mars Plastic erasers, but they are harder to find).

I would suggest buying at least two pencils so you have a backup. Its generally best to find a comfortable position to draw from if possible. I highly recommend "Drawing on the side of the brain" by Betty Edwards... excellent book.

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

Mr. Steve

--



Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under relatively poor light.

http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1

http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/

 

[twistedlim]

I'll never forget my first Canon film SLR. It was a Rebel S from
the early 1990s. This was when Andre Agassi was peddling Canon
cameras in slick TV ads, and Nikon had no ads on TV at all. The
Rebel S had a bulb setting but absolutely no way to fire remotely
by cable. The manual blithely explained that you can use bulb to
take long exposures. I guess Canon expected people to keep their
finger on the shutter button the whole time. I longed to take
nighttime long exposures but couldn't, the whole while the bulb
mode just sat there taunting me. I doubt Nikon would have done that.

So you bought canons cheapest camera being pushed by a tennis player and you expected what?

 

[Bernard Languillier]

And what makes you think they HAVE to stay with Sony?

What other
sensor-producing company, besides Canon and Sony, have a track
record of successfully providing high volumes of sensors to DSLR
cameras?

Besides Nikon themselves, Fuji, Kodak,... that have already been mentioned, Panasonic seems to be another possible candidate. Although they aren't famous for producing low noise sensors and they have been focussing on compact digital cameras so far.

Matsushita (owner of the Panasonic brand) is a 300.000 employees group that would definitely be a credible provider.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[Bernard Languillier]

Nikon could go back to LBCAST, or Foveon, Fuji, Kodak. Not that
its gonna make any difference. Its difficult to compete with the
total integration that Canon has.

I feel that this comment overlooks a bit the way Japanese companies work with suppliers. My comments are based on a 9 years work experience in Japan.

Most tier one supplier participating to a major project in Japanese OEMs have a whole team dispatched to the OEM to participate to the developement of the product and to make sure that it integrates well with the rest of the components.

The cooperation between Nikon and Sony is a good example, and you will notice that at least the sensors of the D2x and D200 are used by Nikon only. It is wrong to assume that they are commodity goods, they were developped together by Sony and Nikon according to Nikon specs.

From this point of view, there is very little technical difference between working with an in-house sensor dpt, and an outside company developing a specific sensor for the OEM. The main difference might be access or not to strategical developements, but that isn't even sure.

The economics of this are also not obvious for either direction. Nikon takes advantage of the sharing of Sony's cost with other customers in terms of industrial equipment,... they are also free to pick any technology they like at any point of time (LBCAST is one example), while Canon sort of has to stick to its own production would it only be to amortize the investement they have made in manufacturing facilities.

At last, one thing always strikes me in these discussions on sensor. Nobody ever thinks that Nikon might have DECIDED not to have the best high ISO performance.

Why would someone do so? Well my view is that they did so in order to favour low iso noise performance. Comparing the iso 100 shadow detail of a D2x vs a 1ds2, you'll notice how clean the Nikon is. MF digital backs are another example of sensors whose design clearly favoured low ISO performance vs high ISO noise. There trade offs are REAL.

For someone like me who shoots at 100 ISO in 97% of my images (stats over last month 10.000 images), I prefer the Nikon directions. Now, it is rather obvious that many people disagree with their options.

The next generation of sensors might be able to handle both needs better.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[PelikanUS]

You switch to Nikon and I keep my useless print button, alrite mate?

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Nikon could go back to LBCAST, or Foveon, Fuji, Kodak. Not that
its gonna make any difference. Its difficult to compete with the
total integration that Canon has.

I feel that this comment overlooks a bit the way Japanese companies
work with suppliers. My comments are based on a 9 years work
experience in Japan.

[SNIP]

You've basically got it correct here, although these sorts of relationships are far more often situations where an enormous company having nearly complete control of the operations of the smaller company without the cost of the capital that would be required to actually take over the smaller company. (I've translated a lot of supplier contracts over the years, and they are a disaster for the supplier. (I only worked in the computer industry for four years, but I've been translating for the 16 years since then.))

From this point of view, there is very little technical difference
between working with an in-house sensor dpt, and an outside company
developing a specific sensor for the OEM. The main difference might
be access or not to strategical developements, but that isn't even
sure.

The economics of this are also not obvious for either direction.
Nikon takes advantage of the sharing of Sony's cost with other
customers in terms of industrial equipment,... they are also free
to pick any technology they like at any point of time (LBCAST is
one example), while Canon sort of has to stick to its own
production would it only be to amortize the investement they have
made in manufacturing facilities.

The Sony/Nikon situation is probably a much more "normal" sort of relationship in which Sony retains most of the control and technology and Nikon only gets sole access to a small number of products. (Is the D200 sensor really different from the D80 and Pentax sensors?)

At last, one thing always strikes me in these discussions on
sensor. Nobody ever thinks that Nikon might have DECIDED not to
have the best high ISO performance.

However, I think you are simply wrong here.

Why would someone do so? Well my view is that they did so in order
to favour low iso noise performance. Comparing the iso 100 shadow
detail of a D2x vs a 1ds2, you'll notice how clean the Nikon is.

Every comparison I've seen shows the performance at ISO 100 to be essentially identical.

See figures 7a and 7b. The 1Dmk2 (and 5D) and D200 are the same at ISO 100, but the D200 loses it at ISO 200 and 400, whereas the large pixel cameras provide nearly identical performance out to ISO 400. At which point the lines go parallel.

The limiting factor in all the cameras is that everyone is using a 12-bit A/D converter, and basically, that's inadequate to take advantage of the larger pixels at ISO 100 and 200.

MF
digital backs are another example of sensors whose design clearly
favoured low ISO performance vs high ISO noise. There trade offs
are REAL.

Some of the MF backs may be using more than 12 bits in the A/D converters. But in others, they're simply a lot noisier than the dSLRs at any ISO.

For someone like me who shoots at 100 ISO in 97% of my images
(stats over last month 10.000 images), I prefer the Nikon
directions. Now, it is rather obvious that many people disagree
with their options.

The next generation of sensors might be able to handle both needs
better.

The next generation of (16 bit) A/D converters could show how badly 1Dxxx and 5D users are getting ripped off at ISO 100. Sigh.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[T3]

And what makes you think they HAVE to stay with Sony?

What other
sensor-producing company, besides Canon and Sony, have a track
record of successfully providing high volumes of sensors to DSLR
cameras?

Besides Nikon themselves, Fuji, Kodak,... that have already been
mentioned, Panasonic seems to be another possible candidate.
Although they aren't famous for producing low noise sensors and
they have been focussing on compact digital cameras so far.

Matsushita (owner of the Panasonic brand) is a 300.000 employees
group that would definitely be a credible provider.

Sorry, but the employee headcount is no indication of whether or not they could or would sufficiently be able to provide all the sensors that a company like Nikon would need. Up until this point, how many sensors have these companies produced? All of these companies COMBINED probably have not produced enough DSLR sensors to equal how many sensors Nikon goes through in just a few months. How many DSLRs are currently using Kodak sensors, and what is their volume? How many DSLRs are currently using Fuji sensors, and what is their volume? How many DSLRs are currently using Panasonic sensors, and what is their volume? It's just too risky to go with any of these companies right now, so as I said before, Nikon doesn't have much option but to stay with Sony, for better or for worse.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Ah Pek]

At last, one thing always strikes me in these discussions on
sensor. Nobody ever thinks that Nikon might have DECIDED not to
have the best high ISO performance.

If Nikon management made such a decision they should be sacked for incompetence. That is akin to Porsche's engineers deciding to put a 1.6L engine in the 911 so that it has better fuel economy (to compete with a Corolla).

--
'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol

 

[astefot]

I like carrot cake.

Me too (but only the home-made ones).

My response was inspired by the previoius poster who commented on
Nikon's policy of repairing gray market cameras.

I'm not aware of this discussion.

But browsing through some of the answers in this thread, I agree that discussing Nikon's and Canon's service policy in general is a "hot topic". The problem there is that Canon's service model varies a lot for country to country. Here in Switzerland, for example, Canon's reputation was horrible (they completly redesigned their service processes only recently). This might also be the reason why a lot (a majority?) of pros here are still using non-Canon cameras - although one can see clearly more Canons than a couple of years ago.

 

[Bernard Languillier]

At last, one thing always strikes me in these discussions on
sensor. Nobody ever thinks that Nikon might have DECIDED not to
have the best high ISO performance.

If Nikon management made such a decision they should be sacked for
incompetence. That is akin to Porsche's engineers deciding to put
a 1.6L engine in the 911 so that it has better fuel economy (to
compete with a Corolla).

Using you analogy, it would be more like deciding to equip the porsche with an engine that offers maximum performance between 0 and 100 mph in terms of torque acceleration... and to put less stress on torque above 160 mph.

It would make perfect sense to focus on maximum low iso quality, because image quality is always best at lower ISO, and lower ISO are what most peole strive to use anyways.

As I said, there are people like me for who this is the most appropriate option, but I understand fully that many users take benefit of a good high iso image quality.

I never said or implied that Nikon completely gave up on high ISO, but that their philosophy is IMHO to favour lower ISO.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[Bernard Languillier]

Nikon could go back to LBCAST, or Foveon, Fuji, Kodak. Not that
its gonna make any difference. Its difficult to compete with the
total integration that Canon has.

I feel that this comment overlooks a bit the way Japanese companies
work with suppliers. My comments are based on a 9 years work
experience in Japan.

[SNIP]

You've basically got it correct here, although these sorts of
relationships are far more often situations where an enormous
company having nearly complete control of the operations of the
smaller company without the cost of the capital that would be
required to actually take over the smaller company. (I've
translated a lot of supplier contracts over the years, and they are
a disaster for the supplier. (I only worked in the computer
industry for four years, but I've been translating for the 16 years
since then.))

You are correct, but I am not sure to see the relevance of the comment to this discussion. Are you saying that Sony being larger than Nikon, there is no possibility that Nikon might have some influence on their sensor design?

The master slave relationship in the automotive industry is mostly a result from the fact that many suppliers are partially owned by the OEMs.

You must know that E&E companies in Japan are structured in a way that is very different from Automotive companies for instance. Sony is basically a gathering of many small units that benefit from the financial and marketing muscle of the corporation, but are very independant operationwize. Similarly, Nikon belongs to the Mitsubishi group, but is very independant from it as well. I see no logical reason/nor any evidence leading me to believe that Nikon didn't co-design these sensors with Sony, and definitely none that there was a lack of integration (the initial point I was reacting to).

The Sony/Nikon situation is probably a much more "normal" sort of
relationship in which Sony retains most of the control and
technology and Nikon only gets sole access to a small number of
products. (Is the D200 sensor really different from the D80 and
Pentax sensors?)

Yes, the sensor of the D200 has 4 channels while the D80 sensor has only 2. It makes it a completely different chip to manufacture obviously. The D2x though is an even better example since nobody else uses it but Nikon. The design of that sensor was integrated in the Nikon D2x design just as much as the 1ds2 sensor was integrated in the 1ds2 design.

At last, one thing always strikes me in these discussions on
sensor. Nobody ever thinks that Nikon might have DECIDED not to
have the best high ISO performance.

However, I think you are simply wrong here.

Why would someone do so? Well my view is that they did so in order
to favour low iso noise performance. Comparing the iso 100 shadow
detail of a D2x vs a 1ds2, you'll notice how clean the Nikon is.

Every comparison I've seen shows the performance at ISO 100 to be
essentially identical.

Well, I was mostly speaking of the D2x since I don't have first hand experience with the D200.

See figures 7a and 7b. The 1Dmk2 (and 5D) and D200 are the same at
ISO 100, but the D200 loses it at ISO 200 and 400, whereas the
large pixel cameras provide nearly identical performance out to ISO
400. At which point the lines go parallel.

The limiting factor in all the cameras is that everyone is using a
12-bit A/D converter, and basically, that's inadequate to take
advantage of the larger pixels at ISO 100 and 200.

My understanding is that bit depth has little to do with noise level in the shadows. Posterization yes, noise... no. But I would be very interested in hearing from you an explanation proving me wrong.

MF
digital backs are another example of sensors whose design clearly
favoured low ISO performance vs high ISO noise. There trade offs
are REAL.

Some of the MF backs may be using more than 12 bits in the A/D
converters. But in others, they're simply a lot noisier than the
dSLRs at any ISO.

This is clearly not the case at base ISO though, and to me it is a clear design decision resulting from the anticipated use of the product.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[Bernard Languillier]

Besides Nikon themselves, Fuji, Kodak,... that have already been
mentioned, Panasonic seems to be another possible candidate.
Although they aren't famous for producing low noise sensors and
they have been focussing on compact digital cameras so far.

Matsushita (owner of the Panasonic brand) is a 300.000 employees
group that would definitely be a credible provider.

Sorry, but the employee headcount is no indication of whether or
not they could or would sufficiently be able to provide all the
sensors that a company like Nikon would need. Up until this point,
how many sensors have these companies produced? All of these
companies COMBINED probably have not produced enough DSLR sensors
to equal how many sensors Nikon goes through in just a few months.
How many DSLRs are currently using Kodak sensors, and what is their
volume? How many DSLRs are currently using Fuji sensors, and what
is their volume? How many DSLRs are currently using Panasonic
sensors, and what is their volume? It's just too risky to go with
any of these companies right now, so as I said before, Nikon
doesn't have much option but to stay with Sony, for better or for
worse.

You might know that all the compact digital cameras sold by Panasonic use Panasonic sensors?

I am not sure to understand the difference between being able to provide millions of compact digital camera sensors vs being able to produce millions of DSLR sensors.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on that?

Regards,
Bernard

 

[Ah Pek]

The problem of course is that Nikon's low ISO IQ is not any better than any of the DSLRs out there. In fact, there is little discernible difference with a good P&S.

So going on with your analogy, Porsche has just limited its high end torque for no better low and mid range torque. That's a crazy thing to do cause it'll get blown away by a Hyundai.

--
'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol

 

[Rock Lee]

Nikon's only way of freeing themselves from any limitations/obligations is to produce their own sensor... which won't happen in the near future. I'm sure they are under some kind of legal contract with Sony as well and they'd probably have to buy their way out. In the end, it's going to cost a lot of money and time.

--
Pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/robotzer0

Comments are welcomed.

 

[T3]

I am not sure to understand the difference between being able to
provide millions of compact digital camera sensors vs being able to
produce millions of DSLR sensors.

Size, for one thing. The size of digicam sensors are tiny compared to those of DSLRs. And that has wide-spread ramifications throughout the production and manufacturing process. And even if Panasonic were to start producing DSLR sensors today, it would take quite a lot of time, effort, and growing pains for them to get up to the levels of production, the reliability of production, and the quality of production to be able to mass market sensors at the levels of capacity that would be required of them to supply Nikon. It isn't just a matter of "Hey, we make sensors already. Let's just make them a LOT LARGER. It'd be SO EASY!"

 

[Bernard Languillier]

The problem of course is that Nikon's low ISO IQ is not any better
than any of the DSLRs out there. In fact, there is little
discernible difference with a good P&S.

Well, that's not what I am seeing when I compare D2x and 1ds2 images, but our eyes might be different.

Anyway, I am not trying to convince anyone, and certainly do not have any reason to talk down Canon cameras.

cheers,
Bernard

 

[Ah Pek]

Well, you must have great eyes if you can pick noise difference at ISO100 when every comparative review I've seen states that there is negligible difference. Heck, they have trouble seeing ANY noise at ISO100 in any DSLRs period. You must be completely livid when you look at higher ISO comparatives cause to your sensitive eyes the difference would be gigantuan.

--
'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol