jemini_joseph Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Didn't this post in photo.net yet. Hope this is usefull for digital shooters <br><a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6447-6490" target="w-1">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6447-6490</a><br><br><a href="http://www.color-pictures.com" target="w-2">www.color-pictures.com</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_n._wall Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Well, its not very useful to me. It is so poorly written and organized that I have no idea what its findings or conclusions are. I see pages and pages of photos that are supposed to compare performance of various cameras and I can't tell much difference at all. Or am I missing something? Would someone please translate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemini_joseph Posted November 19, 2003 Author Share Posted November 19, 2003 I noticed it too. There's no conclusion. Or did he try to say this is not better than D1h? I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 i agree with Johns comment in the way that the text is a bit hard to digest :-) but thanks for the post anyway - the sports pics are great and fun to see and did indeed tell me something that must be in the text somewhere. one thing i did learn from these pics -without taking the pain to understand the essence of the text- is that the camera is PHANTASTIC at high iso settings. give a good camera (any pro-canon or nikon will do) to a very good sports photographer and he will come up with impressive pictures such as these. but the saturation, contrast and clarity of the images is very impressive. the saturation a bit toooo impressive perhaps. may be we have to change our concept of color? images of different subjects, especially different lighting will show if this is "for real" or just overcompensation and software tricks. all in all i am impressed with the high speed iso pictures- and thats what the camera stands for - is it not? cheers walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_lee Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 The 'review' is actually a First Look at a 'production-level' D2H. I believe the images are there for you to draw your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_n._wall Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Justin, what conclusions would you draw? I do not have the background or perspective to understand or evaluate what I am being shown here. If you do, please enlighten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_lee Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 John, I would conclude that the D2H looks like a capable camera. Overall image noise at higher ISO's seems a bit smoother than its predecessor, but slightly more than the 1D. Colour saturation seems higher on the 1D, but there's a note in the article about a some problems with the Nikon software. This 'First Look' really only covers specific concerns regarding image quality though. The D2H should prove to be a capable tool for the many Nikon users out there at a decent price. When the reviews come out from Phil Askey, Bjørn Rørslett, Rob Galbraith, Luminous Landscapes, etc, etc, etc, they should paint a fuller picture of the D2H. Cheers, Justin Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now