csuzor

<p>I have downloaded and installed View NX, and the situation is clear now.<br>

The jpeg and NEF are identically exposed, just like the jpeg in picasa... the camera "optimization" is applied on the NEF, presumably without altering the underlying NEF. Rarely satifactory exposure (i use matrix and the occasional bright spots in the frame fool the camera) , but at least I have a consistent starting point now, thanks!<br>

btw, I am using a new custom pc i just finished, win xp x64 with 6gb ram and intel core i7 cpu, so View NX is fast enough to be usable now. The View NX integration of the jpeg+nef together is nice, and the user interface seems easy.<br>

Thanks for all the advice.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. makes sense. My experience with Nikon's software is that it is painfully slow. I may try it again on my new super-pc, is NX2 affordable?<br>

In the past I saved only nef, and used photoshop, but now I dont have photoshop anymore and wanted to see if I can simplify the flow by starting with jpeg, and so I was surprised with the variable results. In all cases I can tune the nef to get better results than the jpeg, but often the picasa view of the nef is way-off and I understand that it is ignoring additional information in the nef. Using gimp and ufraw is such a hassle compared to camera-raw, too bad the jpeg is often wrong, I may have to revisit the camera settings.</p>

<p>I have been using my D300 (+17-55 or 70-200VR) with NEF+JPEG image recording for months, and I am surprised by the differences in exposure and color balance I get when reviewing the images. Sometimes the NEF is correct and the JPEG way-off, and sometimes the JPEG is correct and the NEF way-off, sometimes exposure or color balance or both.<br>

Does the camera save the JPEG using some measured "exposure+color correction" ? If yes, is this information embedded within the NEF but ignored by my viewer (picasa)?Or will any software show such large differences in the 2 formats?<br>

I upgraded from D70 and D2H, but cannot afford photoshop, and could not get used to the library handling of elements or lightroom, so picasa is my current choice.<br>

Advice appreciated. Thanks. Christophe.</p>

I love my d2h, and sold the d70, but the link that Vinh Luu posted shows how much more dynamic range the d200 has. Even if the resolution is less than could be expected from the d200, the extra DR is something to think about. I wouldn't get the d200 for a lot of reasons, but I do need the DR it has. I wonder if the DR on the d2x is as high as the d200?

I got a d2h, compared to my d70, and sold the d70. The d2h is so much faster to focus with any lens and to capture the image, and images have more natural colors, and sb-800 flash handling is far superior, and ergonomics are better. The d70's extra pixels help get more resolution, but I upres the 4mp to 6 or 8mp for larger prints, and that is fine (avoid cropping the images). I bought mine on auction with 25k images, and now it has 40k images and no problems.

I'd like to believe I can get lucky and buy a d200 without the banding issue...

 

However, while at the store last week, a guy came in with his d200, complaining that the viewfinder was offset... sure enough, the shop owner looked at it, got his screwdriver out, tried to fix something, then stopped and advised the customer to send it in to Nikon... he said it would take about 4 weeks!

 

Nope, I am staying with my d2h until I can afford the d2x, I don't need all this trouble.

I think the banding issue is a physical phenomena with the pixel column sense amps, that every pixel read after a blown-out pixel will have an incorrectly high apparent signal. Slowing down the image capture to "recover" a normal level, or recalibrating the 0 level after pixel blow-out, would help. I guess that could be done in firmware...

 

I wonder whether the chip designers took a shortcut in the access circuitry, perhaps to reduce costs, that makes this sensor more prone than other designs. In cheap video cameras this problem is identical (is it called smearing?), except that in the d200 each column is read in alternating directions, causing apparent banding.

The explanation of this problem is interesting, but I have to ask: is it fixable? Because of this alternating read direction of the pixels, this problem may not be fixable completely, because pixels will always saturate under some conditions, and will thus always affect the next reading. The only solution may be to "slow down" the data capture (maybe only after detecting saturated pixels?), or "try to hide" the problem by reading in 1 direction only.

 

Has anyone received a "fixed camera" back? Is it really fixed under extreme test conditions?

 

It is not unusual to blow highlights in a small part of the image, so this problem is real and very practical, imho.

Yaron, that is an important comment you make...

how is the multicam 1000 lesser than the 1300 (or the 2000 on d2h/x)

 

I have not yet seen anyone complaining on the af performance of d200, nor seriously comparing it to better af modules... is there such a comparison anywhere?

Neal, my experience is quite the reverse: d2h/sb800 gave better exposure control and generally more pleasing photos than d70/sb800. In addition, shutter lag was gone with d2h, meaning I could capture the right moment. And auto focus was easier to obtain on the d2h without firing an annoying focus assist flash (in low light, where flash is mostly used). Never mind that it is impossible to manual focus with the d70.

 

Agree on the d70 colors, the d2h are not as saturated, but I shoot raw and adjust hue/sat as part of the workflow, so it was not an issue.

My d2h workflow is raw -> photoshop raw convert to 6mp or 11mp without sharpening in aRGB @ 16bits-> layers for levels / curves / hue-sat, and shadow/highlight -> NoiseNinja (only if necessary) -> high-pass hard-light 50% sharpening (portraits) or smartsharpen (landscape/architecture) -> convert to jpg for online print

 

This gives good prints up to A3 size (12x16). Not as sharp as I would like it, though, hence I want to get the d2x later.

 

They key thing about noise and sharpening, is to never sharpen while there is still too much visible noise.

 

I wouldn't trade my d2h against anything except a d2x. It's robust, fast, accurate, and feels great.

Vivek, the preflash problem on d70 causing blinking eyes is well documented, and requires the use of Fv-lock to avoid blinked eyes with sensitive subjects. The "trigger-delay" caused by the preflash reaction time on d70 is also well known. Finally, unless you have tried both, you won't know just how more reliable the exposure is "in difficult conditions" with the d2h compared to d70.

 

Now, for every camera, there are its fans who swear by it, and who probably have learned to work-around its limitations and get great shots in difficult conditions. For me, I was often bracketing or tweaking exposure for flash shots with the d70 to overcome the unpredictability, and I stopped doing that the day I switched to d2h. I believe the d70 flash meter reacts to tiny reflective areas in the image, cutting flash power, but leaving the image under-flashed, whereas the d2h exposes more evenly.

 

The point in this thread, though, is whether the d200 responds like the d2h/x or the d70 when it comes to flash photography?

in a controlled, professional environment, d70 + sb800 flash is fine. in consumer typical situations, the result is variable, and when you can try a d2h/x in those conditions, you realize how much better it is. It is caused by the better camera flash sensor, I believe.

an interesting question, i have had a few thoughts on getting the d200 for high-mp landscape / architecture shots, and keep the d2h for portraits (a little like sports shooting for me, kids just can't keep still). I am often at the limit of d2h AF capability (low light, non-central af spot, moving subjects), so I expect the d200 just won't do it.

 

But now, given the banding issue on d200, which appears to be related to bright areas on the image, I won't touch the d200.

 

Has anyone compared flash performance between d2h/x and d200? The d70 is notorious for poor iTTL flash exposure control, and visible pre-flash causing blinked-eyes in sensitive subjects. Neither problem on d2h/x, what about d200?

No, I don't agree. Nothing pink from my D2H photos. Are you printing or looking at the screen? Have you calibrated the screen (I use Monano OptixXR)? I find the skin tones very natural from d2h, better than an old canon g2 or d70 I had. Are you tuning the color balance yourself (the d2h color balance is very good already, tweaks are required in difficult lighting only)? I use raw NEF and convert to aRGB for photoshop, before converting to sRGB for online printing shop (I was never happy with jpegs out of the camera). And I shoot a lot of family portraits.

The tokina 28-80/2.8 has been given better reviews than the 28-70, I have the 28-80 and like it except below f4 where I consider it very soft. For soft portraits this is actually a feature(!), but when you need sharpness, it must be at f4 or preferably f5.6. The 28-80 is more expensive than Tokina 28-70, and half the price of the Nikon 28-70, which is sharper at f2.8 (but even this Nikon is much better at f4 or f5.6).

Thanks for the posts guys.

 

I've decided to get a R72 (or 89B) at 77mm, that will cover both 12-24 and 28-80... now I have to find one that is reasonably priced, delivered to my door in France! btw, does the histogram on the d2h accurately represent the exposure with the 89B filter? or is it just the green channel on this histogram, and therefore useless?

 

The idea of removing the IR filter is nice, that could give a 2nd life to the d2h when I have a better toy, but until then I'll play it simple.

 

Trevor, the bottom of this thread has D70 + R72 pictures, stunning!

http://forum.hardware.fr/hardwarefr/Photonumerique/Photo-infrarouge-sujet-5311-1.htm

 

David, it was Bjorn's site that got me started on this idea.

 

Sakamoto-san, thanks... looks like a familiar japanese urban scene, I lived there 10 years ago and that is what I saw from my window, close to shinjuku (tokyo). Yoroshiku!

 

Michael, nice shot. I am concerned about the hot-spot as mentioned, so I won't try the 50/1.8.

I wish to shoot some IR images, for artistic purposes, with my D2H

and minimal investment. I have read Bjorn's excellent article, he

says d2h does give good results, and hopefully others here can share

their experiences.

 

Should I start with a 89B, 87, 87C or other filter? I have the 12-

24/4, new 50/1.8D, 70-210/4-5.6, tokina 28-80/2.8, and expect to get

the 30/2 and 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 later. Which may be most

appropriate for IR work? Should I get a 77mm filter to use on the 12-

24 and 28-80 (quite expensive), or start with a cheaper filter for

the 50/1.8?

 

I understand AF is useless with these filters, and that a non-srew-in

filter may be more practical...

 

Advice appreciated. Christophe.

Thanks for the info Shun. That is good news about the viewfinder. I guess you mean, "One thing that is still now NOT clear to me is how well the Multi-CAM 1000 AF module will perform".

 

With any luck, the d200 will pull prices down on the d2x! There is a steady decline already happening, so at some point it'll become affordable; the theroy of "offer Vs demand".

Interesting, but the conclusion is strange: I see that the resolution of the d2x is clearly superior to d50 and d70 at 1600... Noise can mostly be removed with software, but you can't bring back resolution.

 

But if it makes someone feel good about their d50, fine.

 

I think we all know already, d2h and d2x are both very noisy at high iso, and this reduces usable dynamic range. The d2 series is about getting the shot (exposure, focus, white balance, flash, handling, all are optimised), and the d50/d70(/d200?) are excellent cameras in a different way.

Robert, you must be joking, right?

 

Robert Budding , nov 30, 2005; 05:13 a.m. "go fo something in the 600mm range and add a 2X extender."

 

With the 600/f4 and a 2x, you'll be at 1200/f8, handheld, the d70 wont autofocus with that, and most others wont either...

 

Seriously, the d70 is fine if you stick to the center AF spot, and preferably use AF-S mode and find a contrasty spot to focus before recomposing. Anything else, and you're expecting something beyond what the d70 is designed for.

 

I used AF-C and a non-center AF spot, in early evening light, and it's no go. Since that is my prefered scenario, I got the d2h, and although I regret the extra 2mp, I have much fewer out-of-focus pictures. When I do, it's because I wasn't focusing on my point of interest (I'm not fast enough with the thumb-wheel AF selection). I suspect the autofocus on the d200 will be very similar to the d70, but may be better in manual mode (I could never get a correct focus in manual mode on d70, but I'm ok with the d2h).

My experience with Eclipse and Sensor Swab on D2H is good. I use the 30sec exposure without an AC adapter, and that is plenty of time to swab the sensor in both directions. http://www.photosol.com/

 

I tried can air... don't do it, too cold (causes condensation) and usually liquid propelled. And blowing standard air onto the sensor won't remove many dust spots.

 

Do you know that household air has >10000 particles greater than 1um per m3? Why would you want to blow some of those particles onto the sensor? Unless you have a room with industrial grade particle filters and laminar air flow...

A couple of comments.

 

The preflash is very visible on the d70 in ittl mode (but not to the photographer, because the mirror is flipped up) (not in rear-sync mode). If you dont see it there is a problem. This preflash is used to determine flash power output, and only works in the central part of the photo (not quite center spot metering, but more than center weight). If the subject is off-center, use Flash Value lock with subject on center, then recompose.

 

I typically set flash exposure on sb-800 to -1/3eV, leave full auto on flash and limit camera exposure to 1/60 or faster (to avoid blur, and I accept that distant backgrounds can be dark with this limitation).

 

Finally, the flash exposure sensor on d70 has its limits, and can miss blown highlights... if the subject is a little reflective, yes, you do need to compensate exposure by 0.5 or 1 stop, but the d70 has low noise, so you can always recover under-exposed areas during raw conversion (you are shooting raw NEF, right?). With d2h, no need, flash exposure is better.

Yep, the 50/1.8 should not be used with a filter, the lens is too far back from the filter thread, and a decent filter is too expensive relative to the lens. Just keep the lens hood on it permanently (the rubber HR-2 is great, folds away when not needed).

 

Do yourself a favour, get a sb-600 for xmas, point it at the ceiling or behind the camera into a wall, and let the camera choose an exposure that will correctly expose subject and background.

Well, no response, so I did a few test shots with a common scenario: 3 objects, 12-24 @18mm, and the results surprised me:

 

The lens is designed to eliminate the different distance effect between center and side subjects, so that the focus and perspective are best on a flat focus plane, not equi-distant from the lens. Below are 2 images, carefully calibrated either equi-distant from the camera, or on a flat plane. The equi-distant subjects are distorted at the sides, whereas the flat plane objects are geometrically correct. Focus difference is indistiguishable, f4 gives enough DOF at this focal length.

 

I conclude, for a group photo, keep everyone on the same flat plane.<div></div>