Nikon D90 or D300
Samantha Booth
I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300 takes
much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
HELP!!!
Thanks
Andrew Koenig
news:glkjqn$l43$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
> apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
> Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
> takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think
> 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses
> being £289.
If you don't know which one you want, get the D90.
D300 won't take better pictures; it will just take them faster.
Ockham's Razor
"Andrew Koenig" <a...@acm.org> wrote:
Faster than HD video?
--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts
Focus
"Samantha Booth" <ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
news:glkjqn$l43$1...@news.motzarella.org...
D300 is more expensive, but it *does* take better pictures and is considered
more of a pro camera. It is heavier and a bit bigger than the D90.
D90 is a bit smaller and the picture quality is very little less.
Simply put: if you're a pro or planning on being one some fine day: D300. If
you're an amateur, advanced or not, D90.
Difference is to be found here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D90/verdict.shtml
--
Focus
Andrew Koenig
news:Mencken-BBB123...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> Faster than HD video?
Video and photography are two different species.
Paul Furman
My understanding is the D90 takes better pictures, though probably only
very slightly. The D300 has more manual controls on the body, meters
with old manual lenses & is bigger & tougher built.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Me
> Samantha Booth wrote:
>> I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>>
>> I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few
>> pounds apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in
>> another Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as
>> the D300 takes much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense
>> I think 17-120 and the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon
>> Lenses being £289.
>
> My understanding is the D90 takes better pictures, though probably only
> very slightly. The D300 has more manual controls on the body, meters
> with old manual lenses & is bigger & tougher built.
>
(Sample images show that the D300 produces sharper jpeg and raw images
at 100% pixel view than the D90)
"Unfortunately, for those people hoping that the D90 would effectively
be a half-price D300, the RAW results appear consistent with those from
the JPEGs. Although the underlying silicon is likely to be closely
related, it's not necessarily safe to assume that it shares the D300's
multi-channel read-out, or downstream processing componentry (Nikon's
Expeed branding doesn't refer to a specific processor). Most
importantly, there is nothing to suggest that the D90 shares the same
low-pass filter assembly (which can be more expensive than the sensor
itself and would be an obvious place to reduce costs for a camera in
this price-bracket), which would explain the difference in
per-pixel-sharpness we see here."
OTOH Dx0 test seems to show that the sensor dynamic range (raw) for the
D90 is slightly improved over the D300.
Neither of those observations will necessarily equate to "better
pictures", and the differences are very minor anyway.
IMO some of the main differences are:
D300 51 point AF system with 15 "cross-type" sensors vs 11 point AF
system with 1 "cross-type" sensor, and AF-ON button separate from
shutter release.
AF fine tuning.
100% viewfinder vs 96%
"1 click" review on back LCD to view that can be set to show 100% pixel
view - automatically zoomed to selected focus point (if any).
Better exposure metering system (1005 vs 420 point), plus metering will
function with non-chipped lenses (mainly older manual focus lenses).
D300 has a more rugged body - but extra weight.
D90 has "scene" modes (portrait/action/landscape etc) which can be a
useful feature, especially if shooting jpeg.
Dimitris M
D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take better
photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is more easy,
light, comfortable, compact.
--
Dimitris M
Me
> I suggest you the D90.
>
> D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take better
> photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is more easy,
> light, comfortable, compact.
This "D90 takes a little better photos" thing is a remarkable comment:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
That's samples from an actual photo taken in well controlled studio test
conditions, and a plausible explanation for what is observed. OTOH
Imaging Resource ran some tests using scientific methods that they
devised (DxO also did something similar) which show that dynamic range
of the D90 is slightly better than the D300, but also that raw files
from the Nikon D40x are "better" for dynamic range than the D3, Canon
1Ds Mk III, and CAnon 1D Mk III. You can choose to use your eyes, or to
believe supposedly scientific tests which contradict what you can
clearly see with your own eyes.
To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also a
theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which can
actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to extreme
post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but this is also
effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world photography.
Paul Furman
> Dimitris M wrote:
>> I suggest you the D90.
>>
>> D90 takes a little better photo's. D300 can help a pro to take better
>> photo's. That means, for you it's better the D90. And it is more easy,
>> light, comfortable, compact.
>
>
> This "D90 takes a little better photos" thing is a remarkable comment:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page33.asp
> That's samples from an actual photo taken in well controlled studio test
> conditions, and a plausible explanation for what is observed. OTOH
> Imaging Resource ran some tests using scientific methods that they
> devised (DxO also did something similar) which show that dynamic range
> of the D90 is slightly better than the D300,
That's what I was thinking of. And just that each new model tends to
perform better in various ways - which is a very general observation,
perhaps not applicable in this case. I use both D200 & D700 side by side
now and notice many improvements like the LCD preview is a heck of a lot
faster & the zooming design is much improved, memory card door improved,
etc. And look at the sensor performance between D200 & D300, or any
comparable models separated by release date. Big improvements from the
D70 to D200, though I never used side by side.
> but also that raw files
> from the Nikon D40x are "better" for dynamic range than the D3, Canon
> 1Ds Mk III, and CAnon 1D Mk III.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/229|0/(appareil2)/294|0/(appareil3)/295|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon
That shows:
model sensor DR ISO
D70 50.2 10.3 529
D40 56.2 11 561
D80 61.1 11.2 583
D200 64.2 11.5 583
D300 66.6 12 679
D90 72.6 12.5 977
A900 78.9 12.3 1431
5D II 79 11.9 1815
D700 80.5 12.2 2303
> You can choose to use your eyes, or to
> believe supposedly scientific tests which contradict what you can
> clearly see with your own eyes.
The dpreview comparison in the link above is default jpegs.
> To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also a
> theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which can
> actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to extreme
> post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but this is also
> effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world photography.
I agree about 14 bit. And that comes at a cost of file size.
Me
jpegs with the comment : "The RAW results appear consistent with those
from the JPEGs"
People argue endlessly on forums about "quality" or "sharpness" of
lenses with much less visible difference than seen there.
The DxO "DR" figure isn't indicative of what you get. For a start, if a
d70 has 10.3 stops of usable DR, then I'll eat my dog's bean bag. The
figure seems not to take into account "usable" DR. ie they rank the
Pentax K20d as "better" than the old model Canon 5d. The K20d has
relatively terrible usable DR, but the old Canon 5d is really quite
good. Here's a view (and from a Pentax fan) on that:
http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/K20D/pg3.html#dr
But also put in perspective the subjective assessment that he feels he
can boost K20d raw images by "only" 2.5 stops (vs 4 for D300 or Canon
40d). Unless you are doing special effects - or can't use the exposure
meter in your camera, how often do you need to boost (ie tone mapping)
more than one or two stops maximum?
John
The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
D90.
The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
for you.
I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
D300.
Happy shooting
John
measekite
More simply put, if you are a pro you should look at (in today's market)
Canon 5D2
Nikon D700 or the D700X in a few months
Nikon D3 or D3X
or the full frame Sony.
From my readings the only reason to get a D300 is for frame rate and the
extra durability if you do not take care of your equipment.
According to all reviews I have read there is little if no difference in
the final results.
Samantha Booth
"John" <joh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:k9msn45411s1vg4lg...@4ax.com...
I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the D90
and what exactle do they do.
Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this
Me
Samantha Booth
"Samantha Booth" <ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
frame camera is
C J Campbell
<ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> said:
Either camera is good. Dpreview has comparison photos at links already
mentioned. Those do not, however, tell the whole story.
If you are going to shoot handheld -- no tripod -- then the difference
will be virtually undetectable. If you are going to shoot as if you
actually care about sharpness: tripod, mirror locked up, remote trip,
etc, then the D300 will produce marginally better results.
Personally, I would use the D90 more for travel where weight and size
are considerations. The D300 is a significantly larger and heavier
camera. That said, I do not follow my own advice. I use not only a
D300, but the D3x. So I am not the guy to talk to about keeping weight
down.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
C J Campbell
<ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> said:
It filters out UV, but that is not the reason people use them. They use
it as transparent piece of glass to keep fingerprints and dust off the
front of the lens. I use the lens hood for this instead. I believe that
UV filters can reduce image quality.
C J Campbell
<ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> said:
They are talking about the size of the sensor. Cramming more pixels
into a smaller space means that your pictures will have more noise
which will usually show up as tiny speckles of color or blotches in
dark areas of the picture. Also, smaller sensors are less adept at
recording detail in very dark or very light areas of the photo. Point
and shoot cameras have tiny sensors, about the size of a fingernail at
their largest.
Most digital SLR cameras such as the D90 and D300 have APS sized
sensors. These sensors are approximately the same size as a frame of
APS film, or in the case of the D90 and D300, 23.6 x 15.8 mm. A "full
frame" sensor is a misnomer because 35 mm cameras have always been
"miniature" cameras, but so many people are used to shooting 35 mm film
they conveniently forget that there are many larger film formats out
there. Anyway, "full frame" generally refers to a sensor that is the
same size as a frame of 35 mm film, despite the fact that 35 mm film
itself was once regarded as a miniature format. Nikon calls these FX
sensors. Their chief advantage is very low noise.
A good discussion of sensor size and the advantages of each sensor can
be found here:
http://digital-photography-school.com/full-frame-sensor-vs-crop-sensor-which-is-right-for-you
If
your news reader does not handle that very well, this will take you to
the same place:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/b3u4w8
John
<ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
No Problem
Intense UV light - Bright sunlight will cause distortion as some of
the UV light will be able to impenge on the sensor or film and thus
fog the image as the UV will not focus correctly
.
I use Nikor lenses and have not exerianced the problem.
Personally I am of the opinion that anything you place between the
lense and the subject is a source of distortion.
Some use them and sware the resulting image is sharper. Perhaps some
makes of lenses pass greater portions of the UV content.
Some use them to "protect" the lense. Better a scratch on the filter
rather thrn the lense.
Same goes for "Daylight Filters"
John
John
<ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
Full Frame is a diversion from reality! All that matters is the final
image. from a users point of view it does not make a damn bit of
difference.
I will conceed that with full frame a given lense will produce a
larger field of view then the partial frame wiich produces a some what
more telescopic view.
As long as you depend on what you see in the viewfinder you will get
exactly what you see. Some will try to point out that full frame
camera will requie less light for the exact same inage. You not likly
to ever encounter a situation where this matters at all.
Some say higher density images are not going to be as sharp as full
frame. I doubt you wil ever get in your way.
John
Neil Harrington
"Samantha Booth" <ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
news:glln3t$bj9$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
> I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
> D90 and what exactle do they do.
Filters (in this sense) are circular pieces of optical glass that screw into
the front of your lens, provided you have a camera with a lens that is
threaded for filters. This would be the case with any digital single-lens
reflex (DSLR) camera that you buy, but usually not with compact digital
cameras.
Filters are dyed so as to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of light.
What a UV filter does is filter out the invisible ultraviolet light, which
in certain conditions might be injurious to the image if you were using
film. If you are using a digital camera the UV filter doesn't do anything
for you at all, except protect the lens -- which nowadays is what most
people buy them for, the idea being that if the front of your lens was
struck by some object it might break or scratch the filter, but not the more
expensive lens behind it.
Many people think this is useful, and many others do not. Personally, in
about 58 years of photography I have never used a filter "to protect the
lens," and have never had a lens damaged for the absence of a filter, so in
my opinion the use of a filter for this purpose is worthless. A filter used
for any reason except the filtering that it was designed to do, just puts
two additional dust-collecting glass/air surfaces in front of the lens that
cannot possibly do anything good for your pictures. Nevertheless, the
practice is popular with many experienced photographers.
I almost always use a lens hood on a DSLR, which gives some protection to
the lens as well as shading it from direct sunlight, which is always a
useful thing to do.
> Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this
It's not a silly question at all. We were all new to this at some time.
Don Wiss
I have never used a UV filter, and I have never gotten a fingerprint on a
lens. And I never use a lens caps. What I do is leave the lens hoods on
*all* times. Well, I take that back. On my 12-24 wide angle lens I will
remove it for a few minutes when I am taking a picture with the built in
flash. If not, and the lens is set wide, the hood will create a shadow.
Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).
Paul Furman
I don't trust my eyes that much honestly. As you say, the differences
can be subtle and so many unknown factors can throw off a subjective
judgment like that.
>> The dpreview comparison in the link above is default jpegs.
>>
> No - it's raw.
OK, thats new.
> A similar difference in detail/accutance is seen on
> jpegs with the comment : "The RAW results appear consistent with those
> from the JPEGs"
> People argue endlessly on forums about "quality" or "sharpness" of
> lenses with much less visible difference than seen there.
>
> The DxO "DR" figure isn't indicative of what you get.
I wish they'd explain their methods better. Those kind of metrics are
not the final story though, like MTF charts, a little field curvature
can throw off the corner sharpness when that wouldn't matter in a normal
scene, etc. But I do like having consistent data to at least begin to
compare. Understanding their methods would make it possible to evaluate
properly but the data isn't necessarily worthless. It looks like they've
got a decent system and it's showing results about like I'd expect.
> For a start, if a
> d70 has 10.3 stops of usable DR, then I'll eat my dog's bean bag. The
> figure seems not to take into account "usable" DR. ie they rank the
> Pentax K20d as "better" than the old model Canon 5d. The K20d has
> relatively terrible usable DR, but the old Canon 5d is really quite
> good. Here's a view (and from a Pentax fan) on that:
> http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Rvws/K20D/pg3.html#dr
> But also put in perspective the subjective assessment that he feels he
> can boost K20d raw images by "only" 2.5 stops (vs 4 for D300 or Canon
> 40d). Unless you are doing special effects - or can't use the exposure
> meter in your camera, how often do you need to boost (ie tone mapping)
> more than one or two stops maximum?
I do as much of that as I can get away with sometimes.
Most people probably don't though.
>>> To put these dynamic range observations in perspective, there's also
>>> a theoretical advantage from the 14 bit raw mode on the D300, which
>>> can actually be seen in real photographs once they are subjected to
>>> extreme post-processing (boosting shadows by about 4 stops) - but
>>> this is also effectively almost totally irrelevant to real world
>>> photography.
>>
>> I agree about 14 bit. And that comes at a cost of file size.
>>
>>
measekite
That has been said before but one can trust their eyes. It does not make
a difference what is there or what is not there. If you do not see it
then it is not there.
Now that is within reason as well since some people refuse to acknowledge
what is there while others swear they see things that are really not there.
Some swear they have seen a ghost. Others say there are no ghosts because
they have never seen one. That statement can be more false then the first
since there is always a time between when something is there but one has
not seen it for a variety of reasons. And just because you have not seen
it does not mean it is there either.
The bottom line is if you are trained in what to look for and legitimately
attempt to see it and you don't then for you it is not there.
There is also the possibility that you do not see it even though it is
there because the conditions are not just right. Look at the various
characteristics in a 4x6 print and then look for the same in a 12x18. You
may see a negative in the 12x18 and not in the 4x6 but it is still there.
measekite
> "Samantha Booth" <ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
> news:glln3t$bj9$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>
>> Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
>> I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
>> D90 and what exactle do they do.
>
> Filters (in this sense) are circular pieces of optical glass that screw into
> the front of your lens, provided you have a camera with a lens that is
> threaded for filters. This would be the case with any digital single-lens
> reflex (DSLR) camera that you buy, but usually not with compact digital
> cameras.
>
> Filters are dyed so as to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of light.
> What a UV filter does is filter out the invisible ultraviolet light, which
> in certain conditions might be injurious to the image if you were using
> film. If you are using a digital camera the UV filter doesn't do anything
> for you at all, except protect the lens -- which nowadays is what most
> people buy them for, the idea being that if the front of your lens was
> struck by some object it might break or scratch the filter, but not the more
> expensive lens behind it.
What is the difference between a UV filter and a skylight filter?
Me
"repeatable" results, but reaching a meaningful conclusion from their
data could be very misleading. D90 has higher dynamic range than D700,
5dII and a900? I really don't think so.
The other problem of course with raw data is that it's effectively
meaningless unless related to image output from a specific raw
converter. (Yes - I know the counter-argument to this, but IMO it's
irrelevant) I've been reading lately that Canon's DPP offers
significant improvement in converting 5dII raw files over (at least)
ACR. With Nikon's NX and newer cameras, there's also a significant
difference. I've tried DxO, and it's not a patch on CaptureNX.
Neil Harrington
"measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message
news:RcQfl.14385$yr3...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:21:26 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> "Samantha Booth" <ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
>> news:glln3t$bj9$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>
>>> Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
>>> I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
>>> D90 and what exactle do they do.
>>
>> Filters (in this sense) are circular pieces of optical glass that screw
>> into
>> the front of your lens, provided you have a camera with a lens that is
>> threaded for filters. This would be the case with any digital single-lens
>> reflex (DSLR) camera that you buy, but usually not with compact digital
>> cameras.
>>
>> Filters are dyed so as to remove or reduce certain wavelengths of light.
>> What a UV filter does is filter out the invisible ultraviolet light,
>> which
>> in certain conditions might be injurious to the image if you were using
>> film. If you are using a digital camera the UV filter doesn't do anything
>> for you at all, except protect the lens -- which nowadays is what most
>> people buy them for, the idea being that if the front of your lens was
>> struck by some object it might break or scratch the filter, but not the
>> more
>> expensive lens behind it.
>
> What is the difference between a UV filter and a skylight filter?
A UV filter just takes out the ultraviolet. As a rule, UV filters are either
clear or a very pale yellow in appearance.
A Skylight (or 1A) filter is designed to remove or reduce the bluish cast
from a subject in open shade, i.e., a subject illuminated only by light
reflected from the sky rather than direct sunlight. Skylight filters are
slightly magenta in color. Many people left them on the lens all the time,
considering them to be a sort of "magic" filter that would help a little
when needed and wouldn't have any noticeable effect otherwise. This probably
works if you believe in magic. ;-)
In any case the effect of a Skylight filter is very slight. Nowadays they
are used mostly "to protect the lens," the same as UV filters.
Paul Furman
>>> comment : "The RAW results appear consistent with those from the JPEGs"
>>> People argue endlessly on forums about "quality" or "sharpness" of
>>> lenses with much less visible difference than seen there.
>>>
>>> The DxO "DR" figure isn't indicative of what you get.
>>
>> I wish they'd explain their methods better. Those kind of metrics are
>> not the final story though, like MTF charts, a little field curvature
>> can throw off the corner sharpness when that wouldn't matter in a
>> normal scene, etc. But I do like having consistent data to at least
>> begin to compare. Understanding their methods would make it possible
>> to evaluate properly but the data isn't necessarily worthless. It
>> looks like they've got a decent system and it's showing results about
>> like I'd expect.
>>
> Perhaps - but only just. I'd just say that their methods might produce
> "repeatable" results, but reaching a meaningful conclusion from their
> data could be very misleading. D90 has higher dynamic range than D700,
> 5dII and a900? I really don't think so.
OK that does look pretty weird!
It sure would help to know how they get that.
> The other problem of course with raw data is that it's effectively
> meaningless unless related to image output from a specific raw
> converter. (Yes - I know the counter-argument to this, but IMO it's
> irrelevant) I've been reading lately that Canon's DPP offers
> significant improvement in converting 5dII raw files over (at least)
> ACR. With Nikon's NX and newer cameras, there's also a significant
> difference. I've tried DxO, and it's not a patch on CaptureNX.
Maybe. I've heard DXO's converter kind of sucks so...
>>> <snip>
Paul Furman
PS I object to this idea of the camera manufacturer having secret raw
conversion software. I don't want their software, just the pictures. I
won't encourage that by paying for it, just to be stubborn <g>.
C J Campbell
My 14-24 mm lens has a lens hood which I cannot remove and the front
element sticks out so far you cannot put a filter on it.
John
<ma...@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>
>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300 takes
>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
>
>HELP!!!
>
>Thanks
Samantha,
When you get your new camera and have used it for a while I would
love to here what your choice was and how well it fits your needs.
Thanks in advance
john
PS Don't be quick to judge the new camera. the more camera power you
buy the longer the learning curve. My d300 is over a year and a
quarter old and just in the last three months I feel like I have a
grip on how to use it. I probably only use and understand, at best,
50% of what's there. But, It's the 50% I need for what I do.
I have a progression of 7 Nikon cameras. Each a step above the other
and yet some of my most expressive and memorable shots were taken by
my Coolpix 990. A paultry 3.34 mpixl.
My wife and I have pictures you can peruse on line. Most are Coolpix
8800 D40X and D300
shots. Take a look at http://owensinages.imagekind.com .
You wil,l in time, discover that a good picture is more about the
camera user then the camera itself.
If you want to discuss more camera issues feel free to contact me.
john again
Neil Harrington
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:1URfl.11933$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> PS I object to this idea of the camera manufacturer having secret raw
> conversion software. I don't want their software, just the pictures. I
> won't encourage that by paying for it, just to be stubborn <g>.
Is Nikon's raw conversion "secret"?
Capture NX is the only thing I use for that anyway so I don't care, but if
they do keep that sort of thing a secret I'm surprised.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote
>> PS I object to this idea of the camera manufacturer having secret raw
>> conversion software. I don't want their software, just the pictures. I
>> won't encourage that by paying for it, just to be stubborn <g>.
>
> Is Nikon's raw conversion "secret"?
>
> Capture NX is the only thing I use for that anyway so I don't care, but if
> they do keep that sort of thing a secret I'm surprised.
They have tried before... masking the WB setting. The general approach
has been done many times like Sony pushing their proprietary memory
cards, Olympus used to have a panorama feature that only worked on Oly
brand memory cards, etc.
If Nikon has some ideas about getting better images out of their raw
files, why not share that and ensure more people get the best images
from their cameras?
Neil Harrington
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote
>>> PS I object to this idea of the camera manufacturer having secret raw
>>> conversion software. I don't want their software, just the pictures. I
>>> won't encourage that by paying for it, just to be stubborn <g>.
>>
>> Is Nikon's raw conversion "secret"?
>>
>> Capture NX is the only thing I use for that anyway so I don't care, but
>> if they do keep that sort of thing a secret I'm surprised.
>
> They have tried before... masking the WB setting. The general approach has
> been done many times like Sony pushing their proprietary memory cards,
> Olympus used to have a panorama feature that only worked on Oly brand
> memory cards, etc.
I remember that. Actually the panorama feature reportedly also worked on
Lexar SmartMedia cards, but it may be that that's what the Olympus-branded
cards really were.
>
> If Nikon has some ideas about getting better images out of their raw
> files, why not share that and ensure more people get the best images from
> their cameras?
I agree. It still surprises me if Nikon would actually conceal that sort of
information about their raw files. Isn't it possible that their Capture
software just has some proprietary capabilities that they want to protect?
But then I don't really understand how that stuff works anyway.
nospam
Harrington <sec...@illumnati.net> wrote:
> I agree. It still surprises me if Nikon would actually conceal that sort of
> information about their raw files. Isn't it possible that their Capture
> software just has some proprietary capabilities that they want to protect?
> But then I don't really understand how that stuff works anyway.
they all encrypt at least some parts.
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp>
This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all
apply some form of encryption to their RAW files. Dcraw decodes them
all -- you can easily find decryption code by searching for the ^
operator.
Neil Harrington
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:280120091720279568%nos...@nospam.invalid...
Very interesting. Thanks.
Paul Furman
Yes!
"9. Is there a place for a standard 'Open' RAW format or does that raise
too many issues to do with the sharing of proprietary image processing
between competitive manufacturers?
Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) is a great format -- I totally
redesigned dcraw for maximum DNG compatibility. But you won't see much
enthusiasm from the camera makers. This Joel essay explains why:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Photoshop and digital cameras are complements. Adobe wants to
commoditize the digital camera, and the camera makers want to stop them."
At that link, there's an explanation of how Adobe would like to see
digital cameras become cheap/competitive and therefore increase the
price & demand for photo software. I explain it poorly. It would be like
the oil industry promoting private automobile use or freeway
construction to boost gas sales. Meanwhile the camera makers are hoping
to clean up on photo software sales themselves while cutting out the
people who actually know how to write proper photosoftware.
paulj
On the off chance that this is still an active thread, just wanted to
let people know of a great review of this question:
'nikon d90 vs d300' (http://tinyurl.com/d7z5q4)