Nikon D1X a Ridiculous camera! better use a Leica.

[marco_hidalgo]

Just today I was looking for some info on Nikon cameras for a

friend (NOT FOR MYSELF!), And I found this link with a very

complete user manual of the Nikon D1X. The thing is so long to

look at, that any Leica user will get bored in just five minutes. It

is so ridiculous to see all those buttons and gizmos , just to get

a photograph? Oh no, I find all that electronics interfering with the

creative process of taking a photograph. And the reliability of

Leica bodies and lenses let them be M or R. If any Leica user

wants their images on digital it si still better to concentrate on

picture taking and after that, scann the best. Well, if you want to

laugh a little take a look at this aberration.

 

<p>

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/

[jeff voorhees]

It reminds me of an old Far Side cartoon where the kid in the

classroom raises his hand and asks the teacher if he may be excused

because "my brain is full".

[ralph_barker]

The D1X manual is certainly daunting. The level of control provided by

the D1X, however, solves problems encountered with less-capable

digitals aimed at professional applications. The D1X certainly

represents a different way of making images.

 

<p>

 

There may be some benefit, however, in having both Yin and Yang. ;-)

[jay_.]

I agree the operation of not only digital cameras but AF SLRs in

general involve a huge commitment to memory if you want to operate

them fluidly. I take issue with the statement regarding the

reliability of Leica bodies, though. The top-end digital SLRs seem

to be relatively trouble-free at least from everyone I know who owns

them, whereas in my own experience Leica R bodies' reliability has

been spotty. I also have found (and spoken to others more adept at

digital that I am) that I get sharper images from my 3+ megapixel D30

with a Leica R lens than I get from the same lens on a film body,

using a 4000dpi scanner. Perhaps with an old-fashioned enlarger with

a Leica lens, or a Tango scan, it's a different story.

[leonid]

" Oh no, I find all that electronics interfering with the creative

process of taking a photograph "

 

<p>

 

What is that supposed to mean ? Autofocus, a durable body and

a good built in meter suck away your creativity ? Are you even

familiar with this camera and it's uses ?

[andrew_schank]

The current crop of high end digitals are more computer than a

camera. It takes some getting used to if your backround is more with

traditional film equipment. My problem with these cameras as a

casual shooter is that I end up forgetting what everything does if I

don't use the camera for a while. If you use them every day, I am

sure its different. The other thing is that unless you have a

specific need for this type of camera, the depreciation is killer

becausue next year's model is always way more improved. One day I

will probably get a digital camera, but not yet.

[jackflesher]

<i>I get sharper images from my 3+ megapixel D30 with a Leica R lens

than I get from the same lens on a film body, using a 4000dpi

scanner.</i> Jay, I'm no expert, but if this is really true you may

need a better scanner or need to calibrate the one you have.

 

<p>

 

<i>Autofocus, a durable body and a good built in meter suck away your

creativity?</i> Leonid, for some people, myself included, I believe

it can. Creativity is often influenced by our state of mind -- and

our state of mind can be influenced by the gear we use. Hence for

some, I think the statement is valid. And in fairness to the poster,

he did preface his remark by saying "I find"... But your point is

well taken that creativity is not necessarily linked to equipment for

everybody. I am right-brained (left-handed) and it is VERY difficult

for me to get into a creative mood. I can calculate my gas mileage

to two decimal places in my head while still at the pump, but have

trouble "seeing" an image sitting right in front of me. Sometimes I

need to get into the mood, and gear that makes me think helps. The

best thing I ever did for my photography was get a view camera. The

second best thing was getting the Leica M. All that said, I still

think that my images leave a lot ot be desired artistically, though

more often than not they are technically excellent...

[jay_.]

I didn't believe it either, until I saw for myself. My scanner is a

Canoscan 4000US, maybe not the best but not bad either. I don't

suppose those $30,000+ drum scanners would have a market if the

4000dpi desktop scanners were in the same ballpark. Images from a

digital camera get downloaded straight into the computer (or printer

in some cases) whereas desktop scanners have the same issues as an

enlarger: film flatness and cleanliness and quality of optics. Or so

the explanation I was given. I'm no expert either but it does at

least seem logical.

[marco_hidalgo]

Some remarks about the use of digital cameras: ( even some

pro photogs are doing this )

I see people all the time taking pictures with their digital

cameras with their arms extended to be able to see the back

screen, violating the basic picture taking technique for

sturdiness and movement free shots. And five seconds later

they are pressing buttons on their cameras to see how their

picture was captured. Leaving unattended their surroundings for

more precious picture moments. People worry about the battery

status, the memory card. they start deleting photos before sitting

down and study their images; and the list goes on and on.

But this world has everything for everybody, and I like to be able

to choose what I like.

[stewart_weir1]

The f5 manual was'nt any better. I have the D1x and did'nt really

read the instructions because I'm very familiar with the f5. For

anyone who has never had a 'do everything...top end digi' they are in

for a lot of reading. For anyone new to photography and interested in

digi capture it's now all about 'how big is ya CCD?'.

Interestingly...I was looking through a few digital photography

magazines and i could not believe the poor quality of images taken by

the 'readers'. The magazines were generally more interested in camera

and software reviews. I don't think they were bothered at all that

the standard of photography was s---! The D1X really is a great

camera...recently on a shoot for two weeks I only used for about 5%

of the time though when I had to get pics back to the UK. I'm more

than happy with my M6 thanks....

[fotografz]

Marco,

I absolutely adore my 2 Nikon D-1Xs. They are lightening fast.

Produce stunning images that Art Directors and Ad Managers of

major accounts cannot tell from 4000dpi scanned 35mm film

( whew, you people think you're picky ). BUT BEST OF ALL...after

paying for themselves, they've supported my considerable

ADDICTION TO LEICA equipment and the pictures they help me

make. In one day those D1Xs earned enough to let me call my

pusher in NY, and order a M7. Gee, I just got another

assignment for the Nikons, wish they made a black paint 90

APO to round-out that outfit. Did they ever make a black paint

90? Seems to me Leica could do it since they've recently made

a Titanium 90/2 APO. Pant, pant, wheeze, wheeze...somebody

stop me...

Your friendly Leica junkie--Marc Williams

[geddert]

This is like saying, "personal computers suck... my calculator can

add and subtract just fine, especially since it is gold plated" -

Both devices deal with zero's and one's - just like both cameras use

film. If all you want to do is add, subtract, multiply and devide a

small calculator is great... and ultimately this is what i want in my

free time - something simple. If it were a job i would want a

computer.

[geddert]

that should be "just like both cameras make images" - obviously they

don't both use film.

[sait_akkirman]

Jay, your information is not correct. For quality digital work, the

recommendation is to shoot neg film (not tranny) and then use a

scanner to digitize the image. You haven't given us resolution

figures, degree of enlargement and other factors, but I cannot

see how a 6mb from an SLR file produces a sharper, better

image then an over 20MB file (from a 2700dpi scanner). Things

just don't add up. May be you can enlighten us.

[richardvanle]

<i>For quality digital work, the recommendation is to shoot neg

film (not tranny) and then use a scanner to digitize the

image</i><p>

Sait, why do you feel this is so? You don't think chromes scan as

well as negatives?

[peter_hughes1]

<i>I agree the operation of...AF SLRs in general involve a huge

commitment to memory if you want to operate them fluidly.</i><p>Once

that is done, however, their power is extraordinary. I challenge any

Leica M user to a duel: he/she with an M of choice and a 75mm

Summilux, me with an EOS-1v HS and an 85mm f/1.2L. It would be like

taking candy from a baby. I could hit 10 perfectly focused, perfectly

exposed shots--wide open at f/1.2!--before the M user could twist the

focus ring one-quarter of a turn.

[nesrani]

sait, maybe my maths is totally off, but a 6 megapixel uncompressed

24 bit RGB file is around 18 Mb in size, which is very comparable to

the 20 Mb tiff you mention. At PS jpg 12 setting, which is not

perceptually different from a tiff, that same file will run around 9

to 11 Mb depending on the complexity of the data, so a slight further

compression will take it to 6Mb, with almost no perceptible fall off

in quality. The two files will be indistinguishable in practice

(publication or exhibit).

 

<p>

 

I believe the pure digital capture file has the great advantage of

being very clean, with highly saturated colours, and form what I've

heard these files are actually better for scaling up than scans. I

have no experience with digital cameras, though.

[pierre_charbonneau]

Mr Hidalgo,

 

<p>

 

I beg to differ: The Nikon D1x is far from being ridiculous. This

camera is causing quite a revolution among professional phootgraphers,

maybe as big, if not bigger dans the arrival of the Leitz camera 77

years ago...... The camera is not as simple as a Leica m, maybe not as

user's fiendly, but it does a tremendous job! And don't worry, many

pros still use their M's for (too often) personal work. But The Nikon

D1 series are for professionnals and allow them to do their jobs.

[sait_akkirman]

I will reply first to Richard. I have test scanned Velvia v Reale

and liked what I got from the neg film (both sharpness and

colours). I now shoot all my personal work on 35mm neg film,

mostly Reale or NPH, depending on the project. ( I have tried

other Kodak and Fuji neg and tranny films). I think there has

been a great improvement on neg films with scanability, colour

palet, grain, sharpness, tonal range, etc. But these are all very

subjective things, and you should do your on tests to see what

you like. It is of course very important to get your film processed

at a professional lab, this will all but guarantee that your film will

be correctly processed and will be free of scartches and dust.

 

<p>

 

Now, if we look at Jays experience with Canon D30 v. Canoscan.

First I will give you the technical data on these equipment:

Canon D30 - chip size 15.1x22.7mm / pixels 2160x1440 = 3.1

megapixels x3 (RGB) total 9.3megapixels

Canosan FS4000 - scanned area 24x36mm / pixels 3780x5669

= 21.4 megapixels x3 (RGB) total 63 megapixels

 

<p>

 

The chip size on the D30 is about 60% of FS4000 which makes

the 9.3 megapixels of D30 equivalent to approx 6mega pixels in

relation to FS4000 for a given reproduction size. Now if

someone can explain to me how 6 megapixels produces a

result sharper than 63 megapixels does I shall be delighted.

 

<p>

 

One possibility is that in-camera sharpening on D30 was turned

on, but that the FS4000 scans were viewed without use of the

unsharp mask.

 

<p>

 

Rob, regarding direct digital capture, with 35mm high end digital

SLR cameras, the problems are dust particles on ccd chip (or

whatever is protecting it), lack of shadow detail, lack of high light

detail, narrow dynamic range, high price of cameras, list goes

on. It all depends on ones needs. If I was a press pro I would

only use.digital cameras, but if I need top quality 35mm digital

results, I will shoot neg film and scan it, until someone can show

me a better way of doing it.

[pete_su4]

Counting pixels will not tell you whether direct capture is better

than scanning film.

 

<p>

 

When scanning film what you are really doing is taking a copy

picture of the piece of film through a second optical system. As

such you are going to be limited by the quality of the lens in the

scanner and the extent to which the scanner can keep the film

flat and still throughout the scanning process.

 

<p>

 

When doing direct capture you don't have these problems. You

are capturing what is in front of the camera lens directly, not

making a copy.

 

<p>

 

That said, it's still unclear how things trade off. I'd be willing to

bet that scanned 120 film will hold more detail and whatnot than

6mp direct capture. But from what I've read by people actually

using the newer high end digital bodies, direct capture in

practice is damn close to or better than scanned 35mm film.

[nesrani]

sait, I think you're mixing up your bytes and pixels a bit, but let's

not argue.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, I think the premise of this thread is pretty pathetic - if

you can drive a car or post to this forum, then you can probably

learn to use a digital camera. Leicas have strengths, definitely, but

to say that cameras which are used to excellent effect by pro

photographers are ridiculous is stretching it a bit.

 

<p>

 

When the small coolpix 5000 type cameras start to provide good

wideangle coverage, I'll almost certainly be migrating. The picture

counts in the end, not the box or lens. And I can guarantee that I'll

be getting the same quality of photograph (good or bad) with the

digital camera as with the Leica, because it's still me taking the

picture.

[derek_stanton2]

You disparage a camera because it, on the surface, is too

complex for you to come to grips with?

 

The thing is, my D60 is easier to use than any other camera i've

used, because it's Idiot Proof. I know, a second after exposure, if

i've done anything wrong. And, once you know certain basics, it's

as simple a camera as you want it to be. The power is in being

able to choose how many of the functions you want to use.

 

Obviously, you typed your initial post on a computer. That

computer is capable of doing more things than you could ever

comprehend. But, you've isolated your use to only the things you

need in order to accomplish a given task. Same thing with

D-Cams.

 

And, it's pure folly to assert that the simpler the camera, the more

creative the operator or the results. Creative? I've yet to ever see

a 'creative' rangefinder user. RFs are 'traditional' tools, used by

traditional people, in traditional ways. Where's the revolution

there?

 

Then, you go to reliability. Well, i've owned three different MF

systems. Canon 35mm film and digital bodies, Contax G2

system, Rollei TLR, Contax T2 and T3.... and i've never had a

reliability issue with ANY of them. What are you doing with your

cameras?

 

If the issue at hand really is an inability to concentrate on more

than one thing at a time, perhaps the blame is misplaced here.

 

If I want to laugh, i read the sanctimonious preachings of

shallow-minded Leica owners. I came here because i was

interested in buying an M7. I'm not so sure now that i want to join

that club.

[Dave Murray]

I was a late convert to Digital, having used 127 film from 1960 and 35mm from 1976 (Pentax S1a). Leica M since 2007. A few years ago I bought a Nikon D1X for £179 with 15 days warranty. A 24-120mm lens was bought shortly after. I was fortunate to encounter a pro in a camera shop where I went for a card. He had used D1X extensively for weddings etc. He set up my camera for easy use: P with Matrix metering and showed me how to playback the images. I use a card reader to display the shots on an old Panasonic Toughbook £100 on eBay! I’m not sure about RAW, TIFF, JPEG, or fringing but I got a handbook and can make it shoot Mono. My son is a Petrolhead and spent £17K on his Va-Va-Voom car. I took a dozen shots and gave him prints and a disc. It was printed in a Va-Va-Voom mag. 
Last year I got a mint second body from ebayuk, £99.  The seller thought it had hardly been used. I bought three replacement batteries after buying second body. I’m not going to upgrade to D2X, D3X, D4, D5 or (is there) a D6? I’m fine as I am. I don’t take a lot of shots so the NMH batteries are fine for me. If we could get a Li-Ion battery I’d get a couple. 

[glen_h]

I bought a D1X last year for $40.

I already had the battery pack and charger, and it didn't come with those.

The new price was over $4000, so down by a factor of 100.

And it has plenty of pixels for a large variety of uses.

 

As with some others, I so sometimes like to use film cameras,

even antique ones.  And now an (almost) antique digital camera.

 

(One FB group says 25 years for an antique camera.)

[nick_davis]

I’ve been seeing digital cameras in antique stores lately. It’s still jarring to my brain.