Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000?

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <44d20543$0$4522$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bas v.d. Wiel
> says...
>
>
>>Rumors aplenty. Just wait a month and see. Want a huge pixel count at
>>affordable prices today? Get a 2nd hand film camera and a slide scanner.
>>You'd have to shoot A LOT of film to make up the price difference
>>between that and for example a Nikon D2Xs set. You'll get 12MP easily
>>out of good slide film combined with decent glass and a tripod. IMHO
>>there's way too much emphasis on questionable metrics like pixel count.
>
>
> Well no, you'll get something like the equivalent of decent 6MP (the
> rest will simply drown in all that grain and noise; not to mention the
> extra effort required to scan the negative). But feel free to disagree
> with me, as this is a discussed-to-death non-agreeable issue and I'm not
> in the mode of having a long discussion about this.

I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I
mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain. It's a 5MB
JPEG file raw from the scanner, all I did was convert the TIFF to JPEG
to save you a 145MB download:

http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg

As far as I'm concerned, this closes the discussion indeed.

Regards,

Bas
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Bas van de Wiel <beetjebrak78.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <44d20543$0$4522$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bas v.d. Wiel
>> says...
>>
>>
>>>Rumors aplenty. Just wait a month and see. Want a huge pixel count at
>>>affordable prices today? Get a 2nd hand film camera and a slide scanner.
>>>You'd have to shoot A LOT of film to make up the price difference
>>>between that and for example a Nikon D2Xs set. You'll get 12MP easily
>>>out of good slide film combined with decent glass and a tripod. IMHO
>>>there's way too much emphasis on questionable metrics like pixel count.
>>
>>
>> Well no, you'll get something like the equivalent of decent 6MP (the
>> rest will simply drown in all that grain and noise; not to mention the
>> extra effort required to scan the negative). But feel free to disagree
>> with me, as this is a discussed-to-death non-agreeable issue and I'm not
>> in the mode of having a long discussion about this.
>
> I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
> resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I
> mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain. It's a 5MB
> JPEG file raw from the scanner, all I did was convert the TIFF to JPEG
> to save you a 145MB download:
>
> http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg
>

How long did it take you from the time you took that picture until the time
you could mail it? How much work? You get the resolution and corresponding
detail at the expense of per shot money and time [you pay up front for a
digital camera where you pay as you go for film].

My point is that there is a place for both and that discussion is probably far
from over.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:39:23 +0200, Bas van de Wiel
<beetjebrak78 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <44d20543$0$4522$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bas v.d. Wiel
>> says...
>>
>>
>>>Rumors aplenty. Just wait a month and see. Want a huge pixel count at
>>>affordable prices today? Get a 2nd hand film camera and a slide scanner.
>>>You'd have to shoot A LOT of film to make up the price difference
>>>between that and for example a Nikon D2Xs set. You'll get 12MP easily
>>>out of good slide film combined with decent glass and a tripod. IMHO
>>>there's way too much emphasis on questionable metrics like pixel count.
>>
>>
>> Well no, you'll get something like the equivalent of decent 6MP (the
>> rest will simply drown in all that grain and noise; not to mention the
>> extra effort required to scan the negative). But feel free to disagree
>> with me, as this is a discussed-to-death non-agreeable issue and I'm not
>> in the mode of having a long discussion about this.
>
>I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
>resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I
>mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain. It's a 5MB
>JPEG file raw from the scanner, all I did was convert the TIFF to JPEG
>to save you a 145MB download:
>
>http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg
>
>As far as I'm concerned, this closes the discussion indeed.
>
>Regards,
>
>Bas

The D70 must be bad indeed! There's so much grain (the film equivelant
of noise, for all intents and purposes) that I'm surprised that you
can pass that off as an example of how there's no noise and grain.
Did you actually look at that image?
Just look at one corner (pick the upper right); what are all those
dots and colors?
I'm using Firefox,and it's displaying at 100% size, and there is
definitely a LOT more noise/grain than my DRebel ever gave except at
very high ISOs, and my 30D is much better than that.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

In article <44d234fc$0$4521$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bas van de Wiel
says...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> > In article <44d20543$0$4522$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Bas v.d. Wiel
> > says...
> >
> >
> >>Rumors aplenty. Just wait a month and see. Want a huge pixel count at
> >>affordable prices today? Get a 2nd hand film camera and a slide scanner.
> >>You'd have to shoot A LOT of film to make up the price difference
> >>between that and for example a Nikon D2Xs set. You'll get 12MP easily
> >>out of good slide film combined with decent glass and a tripod. IMHO
> >>there's way too much emphasis on questionable metrics like pixel count.
> >
> >
> > Well no, you'll get something like the equivalent of decent 6MP (the
> > rest will simply drown in all that grain and noise; not to mention the
> > extra effort required to scan the negative). But feel free to disagree
> > with me, as this is a discussed-to-death non-agreeable issue and I'm not
> > in the mode of having a long discussion about this.
>
> I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
> resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I
> mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain. It's a 5MB
> JPEG file raw from the scanner, all I did was convert the TIFF to JPEG
> to save you a 145MB download:
>
> http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this closes the discussion indeed.

Yes, it does close the discussion. It's an extremely blurred and noisy
image.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Dave Lotek wrote:
> A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
> SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
> similar rumors?

He is probably thinking of the D80, a 10.2 Mp camera with a plastic
body that is a big step above the D70s. It will probably retail for
$899 and it will be officially announced on August 9.

Features (from looking closely at pictures of it):

Off/On switch like the D200.
Focusing system similar to D200.
Uses ML3 wireless remote like D70s.
Uses only SD cards like the D50.
Plastic, not weather sealed body, but very tough -- nigh on
indestructible.
Two dials for setting aperture and shutter like the D70 and D200,
instead of just one like the D50.
Built-in Speedlight.
Similar form factor to D70.
It will use EN-EL3e batteries, giving battery life and even a history
of shutter releases for a battery.
2.5" LCD screen with protective cover.
D200 style viewfinder.
Smaller LCD screen on top will not give as much information as D200.
Retains D70 green "Auto" mode and programmed presets.
Same rocker switch and back panel layout as D70, except the trash can,
multi-exposure button, and bracket button have all been relocated.
There is now an OK button where the trash can button used to be. The
Enter button has been changed to a button to zoom in on the picture.
I would speculate that the rocker button is programmable, like the
D200.
AF button allows you to switch between AF-S and AF-C. (The D70 only has
this as a menu item.)
The diopter control is a dial instead of a slider, which in my view is
a huge improvement.
I would expect additional firmware improvements -- possibly even the
digital image authentication software which the D2xs already has and
which the D200 gets in the November update. I would also expect both
RAW and Compressed RAW picture quality, the ability to take take a RAW
plus any type of JPEG, ability to be controlled by Camera Control Pro,
B/W mode, mirror lock-up and mirror delay, and just about every other
firmware enhancement that can be taken from the D200. In fact, except
for build quality and additional buttons giving more control, I would
expect that the D80 will give you almost everything else that the D200
has, including faster storage, higher frame rates (and maybe even
programmable frame rates), etc. It will still probably control only one
group of i-TTL wireless Speedlights, though, and you will still have to
use Channel 3 to do it.

But it will be 10.2 Mp, not 12+. I would expect some improvements over
the D200, such as better noise reduction algorithms. Overall, I think
in terms of picture quality and capability the camera will resemble the
D200 more than the D70, but it will look and handle more like a D70
than a D200.

Nikon does not appear to be interested in a 12+Mp amateur camera. Part
of this is they don't want to kill the D200, yet, but they also
recognize that there are limits to what the intended users will get out
of this camera. The additional resolution would actually degrade
picture quality for most amateurs. We like to shoot handheld and are
not interested in the careful calibration and focusing it takes to get
the extra performance that 12+Mp has to offer. Even 10Mp is pushing it
quite a lot. I suspect that some D70 users who are upgrading may
actually be unhappy -- they will get worse pictures with the D80 than
they did with the D70.

There will be a long waiting list for the D80, but if you order one on
August 9 the first thing in the morning New York time then you might
get one almost immediately. Otherwise, you will wait for two or three
months for one.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

"Bas van de Wiel" <beetjebrak78.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44d23e98$0$4519$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
SNIP
> Everybody seems so hung up on pixel count that it's sad. The CCD
> still suffers from noise, why not reduce that first?

Well, one thing you might achieve with a lot of pixels, is that you
can output them smaller ... That of course assumes they don get much
worse because each of them is also smaller, IAW "Full Frame" rather
than noise reduction. Same goes for film scans, if you have a lot of
graininess, you can 'reduce' it by outputting it smaller.

But for some subjects you can get away with another method, called
stitching, and it can also be used with modest equipment.

This is an example of a 6 image stiching job from a handheld point and
shoot (a Canon G3), at 1/3rd of the original stitched dimensions:
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/BerlinerDom.jpg>
and here is a 100% crop from the 12 MP (after cropping) 'original' :
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/BD_Crop_IPRL045.jpg> .

--
Bart
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

> The D70 must be bad indeed! There's so much grain (the film equivelant
> of noise, for all intents and purposes) that I'm surprised that you
> can pass that off as an example of how there's no noise and grain.
> Did you actually look at that image?
> Just look at one corner (pick the upper right); what are all those
> dots and colors?
> I'm using Firefox,and it's displaying at 100% size, and there is
> definitely a LOT more noise/grain than my DRebel ever gave except at
> very high ISOs, and my 30D is much better than that.

That one was raw off the scanner, single pass. I replaced it now with
another shot, which I multiscanned. It's a crop but the original was
approx 5600x3000 pixels. Scanned from ISO 200 consumer grade negative
film. Sure there's still a little noise in there but you're not going to
get this kind of detail from digital yet and certainly not at a < $1000
price tag.

I know digital is less noisy than film at low ISO's but noise can be
processed to go away to a very large degree. The lack of proper shoulder
on CCD sensors can not be fixed by processing, leaving you with less
than optimal highlights especially when they're very sparkly. That's my
gripe with digital at the moment and unless some miracle happens, it'll
always be as long as CCD's are used.

Bottom line: if you need high pixel count on a budget, which this was
all about in the first place, nothing beats film yet. For everything
else: just use what suits you best. I'm happily using both film and digital.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:33:16 +0200, Bas van de Wiel
<beetjebrak78.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > The D70 must be bad indeed! There's so much grain (the film equivelant
>> of noise, for all intents and purposes) that I'm surprised that you
>> can pass that off as an example of how there's no noise and grain.
>> Did you actually look at that image?
>> Just look at one corner (pick the upper right); what are all those
>> dots and colors?
>> I'm using Firefox,and it's displaying at 100% size, and there is
>> definitely a LOT more noise/grain than my DRebel ever gave except at
>> very high ISOs, and my 30D is much better than that.
>
>That one was raw off the scanner, single pass. I replaced it now with
>another shot, which I multiscanned. It's a crop but the original was
>approx 5600x3000 pixels. Scanned from ISO 200 consumer grade negative
>film. Sure there's still a little noise in there but you're not going to
>get this kind of detail from digital yet and certainly not at a < $1000
>price tag.
>
>I know digital is less noisy than film at low ISO's but noise can be
>processed to go away to a very large degree. The lack of proper shoulder
>on CCD sensors can not be fixed by processing, leaving you with less
>than optimal highlights especially when they're very sparkly. That's my
>gripe with digital at the moment and unless some miracle happens, it'll
>always be as long as CCD's are used.
>
>Bottom line: if you need high pixel count on a budget, which this was
>all about in the first place, nothing beats film yet. For everything
>else: just use what suits you best. I'm happily using both film and digital.

Look at the gauge face; see all those dots? That's the grain/noise you
think isn't there.
Here's an image direct from my 30D; no manipulation at all. ISO
400(!), EF 28-135IS lens. Over 3.5mp, so it'll take a while, but
where's the noise?
http://pippina.us/images/img_0297.jpg
You show an image with far more grain/noise, say that your method
gives a better image than digital at all but the lowest ISOs.
Remember?
>I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
>resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I
>mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain. It's a 5MB
>JPEG file raw from the scanner, all I did was convert the TIFF to JPEG
>to save you a 145MB download:
And yet, yours has much more noise than mine, at ISO 400.
Maybe that closes the discussion?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

nikon is coming out with a new slr in about 4 days - more info at:
http://www.ibseo.com


http://mike.rinnan.com

On Aug 3 2006 3:41 PM, Dave Lotek wrote:

> A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP
> SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard
> similar rumors?
>
> Still Shopping

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:39:56 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> You show an image with far more grain/noise, say that your method
> gives a better image than digital at all but the lowest ISOs.
> Remember?
>
>> I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
>> resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I
>> mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain. It's a 5MB
>> JPEG file raw from the scanner, all I did was convert the TIFF to JPEG
>> to save you a 145MB download:
>
> And yet, yours has much more noise than mine, at ISO 400.
> Maybe that closes the discussion?

Accompanied by a sound similar to Law & Order's "doink doink" fx.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

"Bas van de Wiel" <beetjebrak78.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above the 6MP
> resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just pixel count, I mean
> real detail that's actually there. Not noise and grain. It's a 5MB JPEG
> file raw from the scanner, all I did was convert the TIFF to JPEG to save
> you a 145MB download:
>
> http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this closes the discussion indeed.

If you downsample that image by a factor of 4 (2 linearly) and then upsample
the result, you don't see any significant difference in detail.

That's a 3 MP image masquerading as 12MP.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 13:32:12 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
> <bvdwolf.DeleteThis@no.spam> wrote:
>
> >
> ><mark.thomas.7.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1154648787.423540.40590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Bas van de Wiel wrote:
> >SNIP
> >>> I have a shot from my scanner right here that's way above
> >>> the 6MP resolution that I get from my D70. And that's not just
> >>> pixel count, I mean real detail that's actually there. Not noise
> >>> and grain.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.kompasmedia.nl/fileadmin/crop0004.jpg
> >SNIP
> >> That image is lacking any detail down to pixel level.
> >
> >That is indeed not a very sharp scan example. However, for better
> >examples of scanners and digital captures and comparisons one can take
> >a look at:
> > <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> .
> >
> >I also made a comparison between several scan resolutions some time
> >ago;
> ><http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-2.htm>,
> >which show the enormous potential of film, but it takes a good capture
> >technique to get that detail on film in the first place (same
> >technique is required for digital capture). Higher resolution scans do
> >not only produce larger files, but also finer graininess (in fact less
> >grain-aliasing). I've stopped updating those pages because I've by now
> >switched to digital capture.
> >
> >Technically a scan of lower ISO film will exhibit higher resolution
> >(despite graininess), but with a lower modulation than a capable
> >lens+sensor array setup can achieve. The CMOS/CCD sensor arrays in
> >general perform rather good (or better) right up to their limiting
> >resolution (as fixed by the sampling density or sensel pitch) but is a
> >bit lower than what film achieves.
>
> So what you're saying is that film is better than digital, but you
> can't manage to demonstrate that, and besides, it's a lot more work
> than digital.
> But film really is better than digital.
> Take your word for it?
I missed where Bart said film was better. He said it can have a lot of
resolution, but at low modulation and with high noise. In fact a good
low iso film can capture a fair bit of detail, but it is so low in
contrast as to not have much use in a print.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? 

MikRin wrote:
> nikon is coming out with a new slr in about 4 days - more info at:
> http://wspamablogortwo.

When spamming rec.photo, kindly bottom post and quote properly.

--
lsmft
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000?