Full sized D2H images released ...

[Avatar]

No it's not fast enough. Not until they give us good ISO3200.

As Darren has already covered, a DX really shouldn't be that bad.

As to the Sigma, the less said about that the better

Thanks Jed. Hmm, I guess it will be wiser to hold on a bit than. A DX one won't be bad like both of you said ... well, lets hope there is one in the pipeline cuz from what I heard, the upcoming DX one is a radically fast one with standard telephoto range.

Appreciate thy insight, many thanks

Hmmm ... but that doesn't justify a statement like "extremely noisy" which kind of puts the entire image in bad light ... :dunno:

If there is fault with the image(s), its that the red channel seems to be "speckled" and not entirely smooth, unlike the blue/green channels which are much much smoother. I would put put this down to image processing within the camera, which should be "fixable".

I agree. I too cannot find anything inside these pics to justify the term "extremely noisy". Granted these ain't the cleanest pics we had seen but these ain't shot with the official firmware either.

From what I see under the EXIF header, the firmware loaded in this prototype is v0.30. The one I had tried is loaded with v0.38, this goes to show that there are more than one working firmware in the circuit right now.

On the hindside, I find the analogy of "not every pixel is built equal" rather true in the above images, somehow I find them more resistant to saturation curves, the ability to contain color fidelity is also unusually high (ie. increased saturation without clipping highlights, etc), at least when compared to pics I have PP from D1x/h or the D100.

Exciting times ahead

 

[Jed]

Actually, those samples were extremely bad and anyone who pretends otherwise is deluding himself. This was what I was referring to in my original mention of "sensitive" issues. Since it's now fairly open information, then yes, the pictures I'd shot with the D2h contained an abnormal amount of noise in the shadow areas, of particularly sharply defined coloured specks. I will state that Nikon did emphasise the pre-production nature of the camera, and were anxious not to release images, however it was with their full blessing that we were able to shoot and examine the images on their laptop.

Thankfully, it seems that Imaging Resource has been asked to pull their samples, apparently on the basis that those pictures were in fact taken with an early camera and not one close to production as was previously indicated. Whether this is true or merely damage control I cannot verify, but for me this represents the possibility that the camera might yet deliver. It would after all be fairly curious for Nikon to harp on about it's low noise levels yet deliver something that is a step backwards from its current generation of digital cameras.

I've not heard about anything in the pipeline myself, but there are plenty of DX possibilities that I would like to see that are exactly that - not impossible. Such as a 70-200/2, a 200/2 (that's a lot smaller/lighter than the Canon full frame version), heck why not a 300/2, a smaller lighter 400/2.8... you get the idea

 

[erwinx]

This discussion reminds me of the discussion when the D100 'pre-production' samples came out which appeared to me to be 'worse' than that of the S2 Pro and D60 (thats my subjective opinion of course) leading me to the S2. On the other hand, some Nikon faithful claimed the D100 was better etc. When the D100 went into production, the tune seemed to change to 'in NEF, the D100 is just as good' and users kept quiet about D100's jpg performance. For sports shooters/journalists - i don't think they can afford to shoot in NEF, jpeg had better be as good.

Aside:
The technical battle will be interesting. Canon cameras (1D class) with larger sensors and theoretically lower noise vs Nikon cameras with smaller sensors but faster DX lenses.

 

[ahbeng]

darren, it was the skate board pics posted at imaging resources that was noisy. now the images are removed. Even Dave Etchells comments that it was noisy. But we understand that its still a pre production product after all.

 

[Darren]

darren, it was the skate board pics posted at imaging resources that was noisy. now the images are removed. Even Dave Etchells comments that it was noisy. But we understand that its still a pre production product after all.

I have the skateboard pic ... and agree that its noisier than the others, but I still cannot agree with the "extremely noisy" statement (perhaps that's just the Nikon Optimist inside me ;p).

The skateboard pics, if I am not mistaken, were taken at ISO1600 and I would *expect* some noise at that ISO level.

BTW, I have printouts of the pictures, and at 5R/6R sizes (from an inkjet), they look very acceptable to me.

Oh well, it looks like we all have to wait for *real* samples from Nikon before giving judgement on the D2H.

 

[Jed]

At 5R/6R you could shoot most things at most ISOs without any problems, you don't need a multi thousand dollar camera to do that.

The skateboard pics were taken at ISO640.

Darren, the ISO800 pictures I've seen are worse than what comes out of your current camera. Or at least, hardly any better. The ISO1600 pictures are marginally worse than the ISO800 (which is not a bad thing) and better than the camera you have, but also more objectionable noise.

Yes, the technical battle will be interesting. I'm not entirely convinced the 1D has better noise capabilities than the D2h to start with. Not saying that it's worse either. You'll understand better when the pics come out.

So Erwin, going to switch systems again? I know where there's an AF-S 500/4 for sale. Or are you going for a 600/4 this time around?

 

[Avatar]

Whatever it is, I feel it is a matter of personal preference, perception, and most importantly, real life application.

While some feel that the Coolpix SQ has an unusually amount of noise, however, the final prints (8x10) turned out perfectly fine. Close examination reveals nothing that indicates this "usual amount of noise".

The same thing goes with the D100's JPG quality, I had seen countless comments that it is bad (eg. no sharp, lack of detail, etc) but in actual application, it works well enough to go into prints for my publication (*we prints lots of circuit board layouts with fine details). Good enough? Absolutely.

Now, each individual has a different level of standard he/she adheres to, but regardless, lets not continue to hype up the already stormy "unofficial pics".

Enjoyed all the insights in this thread, really refreshing indeed

 

[ahbeng]

ok ok, will ammend my statment to "slightly noisier than ther others". btw where did you obtain the bike pic from?

 

[Darren]

ok ok, will ammend my statment to "slightly noisier than ther others". btw where did you obtain the bike pic from?

... let's not go there again ...

I downloaded a few images from Imaging Resources site yesterday, before the images were removed.

Sorry, don't ask me to send because I will honour Nikon's request (although indirectly) that the images be removed.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hi

For discussions' sake, general consensus from wat i've read off the net (dpreview not included) is that the D2h noise levels from the sample images from a recent sports meet seem to match that of the EOs 1D's noise levels at equivalent ISO. this obversation was also concurred by Canon users. Comments were based on samples from this site:

http://www.640x480.net/d2h.jpg

The imaging resource samples weren't available then.

if the observations are true then i don't think there's anything for Nikon users to worry about - if u discount the fact that the EOS 1D was released in 2001, is now 2 yrs old, and slated to be replaced anytime soon, whereas the D2h is a year 2003 body. At least Nikon caught up :devil:

but if even Jed, who has had hands on experience with the D2h is worried...then.....

 

[Watcher]

Note that all the pictures are taken with pre-production firmware, either version 0.3 or 0.38 and not final production ones. Will there be any difference? Just compare the noise of the images taken with the various versions of firmware for the Kodak 14n .

 

[Avatar]

Hi

For discussions' sake, general consensus from wat i've read off the net (dpreview not included) is that the D2h noise levels from the sample images from a recent sports meet seem to match that of the EOs 1D's noise levels at equivalent ISO. this obversation was also concurred by Canon users. Comments were based on samples from this site:

http://www.640x480.net/d2h.jpg

The imaging resource samples weren't available then.

if the observations are true then i don't think there's anything for Nikon users to worry about - if u discount the fact that the EOS 1D was released in 2001, is now 2 yrs old, and slated to be replaced anytime soon, whereas the D2h is a year 2003 body. At least Nikon caught up :devil:

but if even Jed, who has had hands on experience with the D2h is worried...then.....

Whatever it is, these are as good as ... beta images, lets not pass our decisions on it yet.

I feel that no matter what other manufacturer did or is doing, is not of any importance because it is of another system, Nikon users can't expect to use them anyway. Now, IMO what really is important is Nikon continues to deliver good and practical solutions to its users, that's about all that counts (at least for me).

 

[Jed]

...from wat i've read... the D2h noise levels... seem to match that of the EOs 1D's noise levels at equivalent ISO...

...if the observations are true then i don't think there's anything for Nikon users to worry about - if u discount the fact that the EOS 1D was released in 2001, is now 2 yrs old, and slated to be replaced anytime soon, whereas the D2h is a year 2003 body. At least Nikon caught up :devil:

I think you're getting carried away. I spent this evening editing stock from the England v Liechtenstein game where I shot with a 1D and a D1x. I can honestly, hand on heart, say that for all practical intents and purposes, the noise from both cameras are not a million miles away. The 1D at ISO 1000 at 1/500 at f2.8 is better than the D1x at ISO 1600 at 1/500 at f2.8, but the difference isn't as great as you'd imagine, particularly when you scale down the D1x to 1D resolution.

What I feel we are seeing is however that either the D1h and D1x were way ahead of their time in terms of noise, and the 1D and now the D2h are just playing catch up, or that we've reached a plateau when it comes to noise performances in the current technological era.

Don't get smug. The D1h was released earlier than the 1D and the 1D only just caught up with that in terms of noise. Not to mention Nikon had the D1 and then the D1h/x and at least Canon finally caught up with the 1D/1Ds. Not to mention the D2h will be Nikon's third generation, whereas Canon are still on their first although that apparently, *ahem*, is slated to be replaced anytime soon...

Long slippery slope, let's not go there. The fact is I have been besotted with the 1D's low light performance for some time based on one image I got hold of. I've now since realised that image must have been shot on a 200/1.8 and therefore yielding a stop and a third ISO advantage over the other cameras I've used. Under similar lighting, it really isn't lightyears ahead of even a D1x.

BTW, if you look at imaging-resource's low light, high ISO tests for the 1D, the results are shockingly poor - much worse than those obtained from a D1x. I don't for one second believe those results to be accurate... but just thought you might like to know.

And for all those Canon fans out there, please don't respond to this. This is specifically in response to Red Dawn who occasionally needs his head checked