Professional Web Applications Themes

D2X: Noise Box - Photography

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise.shtml I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera. Too many pixels in too small an area. And ugly software noise reduction....

Sponsored Links
  1. #1

    Default D2X: Noise Box

    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d2x-noise.shtml

    I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

    Too many pixels in too small an area.

    And ugly software noise reduction.
    Sponsored Links
    Brian Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Noise Box


    "Brian Baird" <right> wrote in message
    news:verizon.net... 

    Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
    article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation. So
    poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.

    Nice try. Better luck next time...:)

    HMc



    Howard Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    On 2/22/05 9:07 PM, in article verizon.net,
    "Brian Baird" <right> wrote:
     

    He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed!

    C Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:20:22 GMT, C Wright
    <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed![/ref]

    Look here in a few days for a review:
    http://www.naturfotograf.com/

    Here's a 800 ISO "arty" D2X image:
    http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=161188

    -espen

    --
    All generalisering er farlig
    http://www.seland.org/
    Espen Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Brian Baird <right> wrote: 
     

    That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
    than sorrow.

    Andrew.
    andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In article <BE416E74.1B03B%com>, wright9
    com says... 
    >
    > He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed![/ref]

    "Errors in methodology" my foot!

    Those images were HORRIBLE, I doubt a simple "oops" is in order.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In article <com>,
    hibu.no.spam says... 
    > >
    > >He must have received a *lot* of flack, the review has been removed![/ref]
    >
    > Look here in a few days for a review:
    > http://www.naturfotograf.com/[/ref]

    From someone decidedly more pro-Nikon than Michael Reichmann is pro-
    Canon?
     

    You really need 100% crops to see the damage.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: D2X Noise Box

    In article <421c0225$0$11327$com>, net
    says... 
    >
    > Your glee appears to be a little premature, "Brian". The author of that
    > article has already repudiated it as being a poorly conducted evaluation. So
    > poor in fact, that the article has been pulled, complete with an apology.
    >
    > Nice try. Better luck next time...:)
    >
    > HMc[/ref]

    If you saw the photos, you'd see what BS that is.

    What a wuss.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In article <supernews.com>, andrew29
    littlepinkcloud.invalid says... 

    >
    > That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
    > than sorrow.
    >
    > Andrew.[/ref]

    Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.

    Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
    fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.
    Brian Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 11:23:15 GMT, Brian C. Baird <no>
    wrote:
     
     
    >
    >From someone decidedly more pro-Nikon than Michael Reichmann is pro-
    >Canon?[/ref]

    He's a Nikon-pro, but I can't tell if he's a pro-Nikon (you have to
    ask him). Both RÝrslett and Reichman are proffesionals in their
    respective areas, and use/have used several systems. So IMHO I don't
    think they are pro-anything, anything other than they happen to use a
    special system and knows a lot about it (and can do subjective reviews
    in an objective manner).

    -espen

    --
    http://www.seland.org/
    Espen Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In article <verizon.net>, right
    says... 
    > > 
    > >
    > > That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
    > > than sorrow.
    > >
    > > Andrew.[/ref]
    >
    > Well, I did mention that it was likely to be a noise box.
    >
    > Too bad Michael Reichman took down the comparison shots under Nikonian
    > fire. I thought he would have shown more spine.
    >[/ref]


    YUP!

    Thats a slammer...

    Will we ever know who brought pressure to bear???


    Im sure it was Nikonian pressure BUT... Was it from Nikon, or from Nikon
    USERS????


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    Brian Baird <right> wrote: 
    >> 
    >>
    >> That's funny. Your comment looks more like a smug "I told you so"
    >> than sorrow.[/ref][/ref]
     
     

    You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
    "enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
    decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.

    Andrew.
    andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In article <individual.NET>,
    net says... [/ref]
     
     

    I don't know. Honestly, there were some things about the "preview" that
    were a little flaky, but it wasn't meant as a definitive test. All I
    saw was the camera had a lot of noise at ISO 800 (in keeping with other
    shots I've seen) and a HELL of a lot of noise in H1 & H2 (ISO 1600 and
    3200 respectively).

    So I'm pretty sure ISO 400 performance will be better than what we saw,
    but I haven't seen any indication that ISO 800+ will look any better.
    Brian Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In article <supernews.com>, andrew29
    littlepinkcloud.invalid says... 
    >
    > You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
    > "enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
    > decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.[/ref]

    But what methodology?

    By his own admission, he stuck the camera towards his subject and
    snapped off some frames in successive order. He wasn't trying to do an
    end-all test with gray cards and signal to noise ratios.

    Even if he made a mistake somewhere along the line, what could account
    for the awfulness of the ISO 800 pictures from the D2X we've seen
    elsewhere? Surely Reichmann's "results" (observations is a better word)
    weren't out of line with that.

    We'll get the final say when/if Phil Askey gets a D2X to review.
    Brian Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    Brian Baird wrote: 

    Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
    from publishing such results. The D2X was announced in September'04 and
    Nikon didn't have it on display in the Photo-exhibition I went to in
    Manila in early Feb'05. All other recently announced products were
    there from other manufacturers - Pentax *istDs, Canon 1Ds Mark-II, and
    Minolta Maxxum 7D. Hmmmm....

    - Siddhartha

    Siddhartha Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box


    "Siddhartha Jain" <co.uk> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 
    >
    > Errors in *methodology* sounds more like he was severely *discouraged*
    > from publishing such results. The D2X was announced in September'04 and
    > Nikon didn't have it on display in the Photo-exhibition I went to in
    > Manila in early Feb'05. All other recently announced products were
    > there from other manufacturers - Pentax *istDs, Canon 1Ds Mark-II, and
    > Minolta Maxxum 7D. Hmmmm....
    >
    > - Siddhartha
    >[/ref]

    It was on display at PMA with big enlargements.


    Tom Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    In article <googlegroups.com>,
    co.uk says... 

    Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
    subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
    to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."

    When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
    ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    As was pointed out in DPReview though.... He had two different ISO samples
    that pretty clearly came from the same shot image... A mistake like that
    should be enough to cause him to pull the comparison. IMHO.

    I never saw the original article, but many of his images are mirrored and
    reffered to in a DPReview thread:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12376560

    I personally don't care much about any of this... just enjoying a good
    sh!tstorm... =)

    Al...

    "Brian C. Baird" <no> wrote in message
    news:verizon.net... 
    >
    > Again, what methodology errors can result from pointing the camera at a
    > subject and snapping pictures at various ISOs? He even stated something
    > to the effect of "this isn't a definitive test..."
    >
    > When your results DON'T contradict what has already been seen in other
    > ISO 800 shots from the D2X I think it's a bit strange to pull samples.
    > --
    > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/[/ref]


    Alan Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    Brian Baird <right> wrote: 
    >>
    >> You might at least give him credit by assuming that when he wrote
    >> "enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've
    >> decided to withdraw the piece" he was being truthful.[/ref][/ref]
     

    I don't know. You're assuming he was being cowardly, when it is quite
    possible that he was being honest.
     
     

    Beats me, but I haven't seen the pictures you're talking about.
     

    I don't know that we will.

    For example, the EOS-1D Mark II tests use Default Parameters, JPEG
    Large / Fine. So, the noise figures are distorted by JPEG processing
    and whatever sharpening and noise reduction happens to be applied by
    default. A camera that does aggressive NR by default would appear to
    have lower noise. Conversely, a more "professional" camera that does
    little in camera processing by default would appear worse.

    Andrew.
    andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: D2X: Noise Box

    Hi Brain,

    Brian Baird wrote: 

    I feel sorry for anyone who believes in "tests" done by someone that is
    supported by one party
    http://www.pikto.ca/gallery/inline/reichmannweb.jpg

    Furthermore Michael managed to mix up the post-processing, posting the
    same image twice, stating these are two pictures made at different ISO.




    Benedikt

    Benedikt Guest

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. no add noise???
    By Gethin_Coles@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Illustrator Windows
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 9th, 02:53 PM
  2. Line Noise (was Punctuation as noise)
    By Jim Weirich in forum Ruby
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 21st, 01:23 AM
  3. What is noise?
    By Howard in forum Photography
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 18th, 12:39 PM
  4. E-250 noise
    By Josť Luis SŠnchez in forum Sun Solaris
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 9th, 02:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139