PDA

View Full Version : Nikon DSLRs = yuck!



Rhys
05-13-2005, 11:52 AM
I just saw the photos on the gallery of the D70s and D2. Both exhibit purple/red fringing and moire. What more can I say aside from yuck? Canon seems to have Nikon so well beaten at digital cameras that Nikon should just vanish without any more whimpering.

Case in point:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d70s-review/DSC_0072.JPG
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d2x-review/DSC_0034.JPG

Rex914
05-13-2005, 12:44 PM
What lens did he use? The kit lens doesn't work on the D2X so...

palmbook
05-13-2005, 01:04 PM
Chromatic Aberration is due to lenses, not cameras.

Moire is not a serious problem, especially if you use RAW.

I don't know why people are so concerned about Moire. There are good plug-ins to remove Moire out there. Also Moire is exhibited under certain circumstances only, which are hard to find and the Moire is usually not so pronounced.

Rex914
05-13-2005, 02:03 PM
Now the plot thickens. He used a high end lens, the Nikon 17-55 F2.8G (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=230&sort=7&cat=28&page=2). I'm bewildered now too. Isn't that supposed to be a top of the line fast wide zoom?

D70FAN
05-13-2005, 03:04 PM
I just saw the photos on the gallery of the D70s and D2. Both exhibit purple/red fringing and moire. What more can I say aside from yuck? Canon seems to have Nikon so well beaten at digital cameras that Nikon should just vanish without any more whimpering.

Case in point:


We, who have been using the D70 for the past 14 months, are getting very good results and I would expect that the D70s will do the same, so it may be a bit hard for us to understand your comments. As for the D2X? I don't know much about it, except what I read over on Rob Galbraith's site. A little out of my price range anyway, so not my concern.

Anyway, you haven't driven Nikon out of business yet, although you have tried ;) , and I bet that even as a future Canon dSLR owner you can appreciate the concept of lower prices due to competition. So I would think you would be rooting for Nikon to succeed...

Rex914
05-13-2005, 03:07 PM
I don't know about that. I have a hunch that he'll stick to Olympus. I'm sure that if they released the E-2, he'd immediately jump on that bandwagon.

This assumes he gets a DSLR. He may very well never get one because none will fit all his requirements. :)

Ant
05-13-2005, 03:08 PM
That first picture is terrible, and it's not the camera. It's obviously the photographer who's screwed it up. The pillars are totally blown out, and I know from experience that you'd have to really try hard to get a bad exposure like that from a D70. It certainly wouldn't do that on it's own using matrix metering.

I blame a bad photographer rather than a bad camera.

Rex914
05-13-2005, 03:15 PM
I wouldn't go saying that. Jeff will come along and... *bonk* :D

You DO realize that he doesn't have the time to make sure every single shot is perfect, and you also realize that he won't drive out to Stanford (about a 1 hour drive from his place) just for one camera. I imagine that he brought all 4-5 cameras, went to the typical spots, and shot a good dozen shots with EACH camera.

Jeff wouldn't purposely botch the photos (as could be implied) especially considering that he got such a nice camera to review in the first place with such a great lens sent by Nikon I'm assuming. He has a busy schedule and can't make sure that every shot's perfect for every camera (which also forces him to retake shots if absolutely necessary). Who could on such a small LCD anyways?

I feel like I'm repeating myself. And no, this is nothing about companies. I'm just venting a little because a lot of people here just don't know what it's like to review cameras. There's a lot more to it than you think.

DownByFive
05-13-2005, 03:22 PM
I just saw the photos on the gallery of the D70s and D2. Both exhibit purple/red fringing and moire. What more can I say aside from yuck? Canon seems to have Nikon so well beaten at digital cameras that Nikon should just vanish without any more whimpering.



You're right, both of these cameras suck...both pictures suffer from severe pixelation at 6000% magnification and I barely have to squint and tilt my head before the moire becomes visible through my magnifying glass...I guess I'll just have to donate my D70 to Goodwill.

D70FAN
05-13-2005, 03:30 PM
Now the plot thickens. He used a high end lens, the Nikon 17-55 F2.8G (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=230&sort=7&cat=28&page=2). I'm bewildered now too. Isn't that supposed to be a top of the line fast wide zoom?

You might want to add that the 17-55 f2.8 was used on the D2X. The D70s shot is using the 18-70 kit lens. I take high contrast shots all the time and have never seen this problem even when I was using the 18-70 kit lens.

That said, I have been reviewing other pictures from the D2X and they look great. But from the looks of this picture, and the backfocus complaints that seem to be circulating, I think Nikon has some splainin' to do. You would think that with a super high profile pro camera they would have the backfocus adjusted to within a "gnats-ass".

Backfocus problems aren't unique to Nikon, but again...high profile. Seems that they might have rushed this one to market.

Rex914
05-13-2005, 03:37 PM
Canon had some problems with this too with the 20D initially, so it's nothing new to this area. I guess the release was rushed in the sense that Nikon really needed to get these hotcakes out to their customers. This camera had been on the "to release" list for far too long already.

Ant
05-13-2005, 03:43 PM
I wouldn't go saying that. Jeff will come along and... *bonk* :D

You DO realize that he doesn't have the time to make sure every single shot is perfect, and you also realize that he won't drive out to Stanford (about a 1 hour drive from his place) just for one camera. I imagine that he brought all 4-5 cameras, went to the typical spots, and shot a good dozen shots with EACH camera.

Jeff wouldn't purposely botch the photos (as could be implied) especially considering that he got such a nice camera to review in the first place with such a great lens sent by Nikon I'm assuming. He has a busy schedule and can't make sure that every shot's perfect for every camera (which also forces him to retake shots if absolutely necessary). Who could on such a small LCD anyways?

I feel like I'm repeating myself. And no, this is nothing about companies. I'm just venting a little because a lot of people here just don't know what it's like to review cameras. There's a lot more to it than you think.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned you either do something or you don't, and if you're going to do it then do it properly. That first picture really is god-awful. The trouble is that people like Rhys take that photo as an example of a typical result from the camera. I'm sure I could take a bad photo from a Canon 1Ds MkII and have everybody think that it was a terrible camera too.

Bottom line. If you haven't got time to do something properly then don't do it at all.

Rex914
05-13-2005, 03:46 PM
Fair enough. But you realize that people make mistakes too don't you? When you review 100+ cameras a year, you're bound to screw one up, especially the DSLR one because that requires a different procedure.

I don't want to argue with you, but you're expecting a flawless execution from a one man show. That's not reasonable. He doesn't do this for a living nor does he make very much off of it (all money possibly made goes back into paying for the site).

He's been running this site for 6-7 years now? Cut him some slack. Anybody sticking this out alone would mess up many times over if they had a job like this.

TheObiJuan
05-13-2005, 03:49 PM
Rhys lit the fire and ya'll keep adding wood and gas.

The moire is pretty bad on the first pic, but it can be fixed. I didn't even look at the second pic, as I know both cameras are excellent and produce gorgeous photos normally.

Ant
05-13-2005, 03:52 PM
Fair enough. But you realize that people make mistakes too don't you? When you review 100+ cameras a year, you're bound to screw one up, especially the DSLR one because that requires a different procedure.

I don't want to argue with you, but you're expecting a flawless execution from a one man show. That's not reasonable. He doesn't do this for a living nor does he make very much off of it (all money possibly made goes back into paying for the site).

He's been running this site for 6-7 years now? Cut him some slack. Anybody sticking this out alone would mess up many times over if they had a job like this.

Yeah, that's fair enough, but people who may not be aware need to be told that those results are very far from what those respective cameras really are capable of. Rhys :p

Rex914
05-13-2005, 03:58 PM
He's like that. You get used to it if you haven't already. :p

D70FAN
05-13-2005, 05:14 PM
I wouldn't go saying that. Jeff will come along and... *bonk* :D

Let me start by stating that this is not a camera thing. I have a D70, I like it, it has it's faults, end of discussion on Nikon vs. anything, and they are certainly not the Nikon of the past (except their very good customer service group).

Additionally this is not an attempt to assinate anyones character, or raise H&D. But your reply has raised the specter of the relative objectivity of reviews here of late.



You DO realize that he doesn't have the time to make sure every single shot is perfect, and you also realize that he won't drive out to Stanford (about a 1 hour drive from his place) just for one camera. I imagine that he brought all 4-5 cameras, went to the typical spots, and shot a good dozen shots with EACH camera.

Hmmmm, interesting... Why not? If you read the XT review, he didn't hesitate to take the XT night shot 100 times, with 2 different lenses (and still didn't like the results). Then proceeded to use an $1150 Canon 70-200 f4L to display a second night shot taken on a separate subsequent night. And if that wasn't enough, he then used the L-glass shots for the (very nice) cropped ISO examples which followed.

Keep in mind that a version of the kit lens was available from the 20D, but the review was put on hold until Canon could send a Mark II version of the kit lens. I'm sure that Canon sent a random, just plucked off the assembly line, or a store shelf, to ship for a review.

You can see that intentional or not this all looks pretty suspect, and at the very least negates the real world "kit" results of the second set of shots. I would think that the XT gallery would have been a more appropriate place for the L-glass shots.

I have to admit the first time I skimmed the review I was really impressed, as I had missed the part about switching lenses.



Jeff wouldn't purposely botch the photos (as could be implied) especially considering that he got such a nice camera to review in the first place with such a great lens sent by Nikon I'm assuming. He has a busy schedule and can't make sure that every shot's perfect for every camera (which also forces him to retake shots if absolutely necessary). Who could on such a small LCD anyways?

I'm inclined to agree on your first sentance but, I'm not sure which camera you are talking about in this part of your post. Because of the lens reference I have to go with the D2X.

Both the D2X and the D70s have relatively large LCD's and overexposure highlighting. While purple fringing may be difficult to see on a 2" or 2.5" LCD, it's not impossible, and focus checks are pretty easy.

As far as being busy... Aren't we all? But it's better than the alternative.



I feel like I'm repeating myself. And no, this is nothing about companies. I'm just venting a little because a lot of people here just don't know what it's like to review cameras. There's a lot more to it than you think.

Of course there is a lot of work involved, and I think we all agree that it's a competitive arena, but we all work hard to compete and succeed. You should try the world of strategic semiconductor marketing sometime. But like a lot of folks I love my job. So 12 hour days, occasional weekends, and 2 million business miles in 10 years is just part of the job.

If I make a mistake it can cost my company tens of millions of dollars, and me, my job, and reputation (it's a smaller world than you might think). No pressure or demands there...

...Hopefully like many of us, I think it was Jeffs choice to do this, and up until recently he has been very fair and honest in his evaluations which is why I like it here.

But, by making several major exceptions for the XT tests he has set a precedence which must now be extended to other makers, especially in the dSLR world where bias, intentional or not, can be at the very least, a problem.

Hey if the new Nikons suck, so be it, as mine works fine. But for the sake of the doubters, and the precedence set, it might be worth a second try. If for no other reason than prove positively that the new cameras suck. This would, of course, mean retesting other dSLR's with that same degree of caution.

DiJ
05-13-2005, 05:17 PM
I can understand the comments about D70 but the D2x pictures looks really fine to me. In fact I find the quality as good or better than Canon.

Moire wont be a problem if you use Nikon Capture. Though it add $100 more to the cost.

Bluedog
05-13-2005, 05:54 PM
These kinda post are getting ridiculous ... :rolleyes:

D70FAN
05-13-2005, 07:07 PM
Rhys lit the fire and ya'll keep adding wood and gas.

The moire is pretty bad on the first pic, but it can be fixed. I didn't even look at the second pic, as I know both cameras are excellent and produce gorgeous photos normally.

Juan, I think that, more than that, Rhys actually may have pointed to a problem that bears addressing and fixing. And his assesment is 100% correct, those two pictures really do suck, which probably is not the norm with either camera. So now you have a pair of really awful pictures, and a headline that says "yuck".

But rather than retake the pictures to verify the camera function, they were published to, potentially, millions of readers, who will forever brand both cameras as yuck.

Personally It doesn't have much affect on me, as I know that all dSLR's are capable of great pictures, but if I'm a new buyer these would immediately be the last cameras on my list, as would Nikon in general.

Again, as I've said recently, maybe these cameras really do have problems, but from other reviews and previews I know that they probably don't, and deserve better than what was published.

sarcazmo
05-13-2005, 09:13 PM
I could do a quick search and find similar pictures for just about any cameras out there, but I don't.

Let these threads die.

D70FAN
05-13-2005, 09:18 PM
These kinda post are getting ridiculous ... :rolleyes:

Which posts are you referring to? Rhys original post has opened up an interesting area of discussion, of first impressions, and the effect that poor test photos, as part of a professional preview/review can have on those first impressions. And if you look at the pictures posted I'm pretty sure that you will agree with Rhys, to a point. I do.

TheObiJuan
05-13-2005, 09:36 PM
Poor test photos because of equiment or because of methodology?
It is easier to just blame Jeff and shrug it off, but moire is visible in many of the pictures that he uses for ALL of his digital camera reviews. Your and other's results do vary, but his photos are what people use to compare cameras. So I can understand why you would want him to reshoot them. But will reshooting them eliminated the moire?

I looked at the second pic and after pixel peeping for many minutes I found a little red fringing and no moire. Other than the image being a little soft I really don't see anything wrong. I like the image and feel it would make a good print.

Bluedog
05-13-2005, 09:57 PM
Which posts are you referring to? Rhys original post has opened up an interesting area of discussion, of first impressions, and the effect that poor test photos, as part of a professional preview/review can have on those first impressions. And if you look at the pictures posted I'm pretty sure that you will agree with Rhys, to a point. I do.

The attention getting heading of course ... "Nikon DSLRs = Yuck!"

Maybe a little better wording like ... Nikon DSLRs First Impressions

D70FAN
05-13-2005, 10:04 PM
I could do a quick search and find similar pictures for just about any cameras out there, but I don't.

Let these threads die.

I don't think that this thread is being mean spirited, or camera-centric, but rather bringing up a good point about journalism and perception. Please read this in an even tone, as I am not upset, but I am disappointed.

Rhys said the pictures in question prove that Nikons latest efforts are not equal to the competition. While Rhys has had a "thing" about Nikon for some time we, who have been here a while, know that, and just sort-of accept it with a smile. But this is the first time that I can remember that he has actually expressed a loathing, and even hatred, based on some sample shots.

So here you have the word "yuck" associated with two apparently on-the-fly pictures, and two new cameras, and distributed to at least thousands and possibly millions of visitors.

And it appears that the posting of these pictures came without regard to possible operator setting error. This on the heals of a competitors review that is at the very least riddled with favoritism.

All I ask is that you re-read the XT review and pay attention to the care taken to make sure that everything was displayed in as positive a way as possible, including extra time to try and understand why certain shots (specifically night shots) were not comming out as planned, and including shots from a very expensive lens in place of what would normally be a kit or basic lens.

I have been a member of this board for a long time, and have always thought of Jeff as the one web based reviewer that was honest and even-handed. But recently, I am starting to have some serious concerns.

No, I'm not attacking Jeff, as I consider him to be a pioneer here. But I, and everyone on these forums do have the right to question the comparative methodologies used.

Thanks.

D70FAN
05-13-2005, 10:09 PM
The attention getting heading of course ... "Nikon DSLRs = Yuck!"

Maybe a little better wording like ... Nikon DSLRs First Impressions

That's what I thought...thanks for clearing that point.

Rhys
05-14-2005, 08:18 AM
-snip-
Rhys said the pictures in question prove that Nikons latest efforts are not equal to the competition. While Rhys has had a "thing" about Nikon for some time we, who have been here a while, know that, and just sort-of accept it with a smile. But this is the first time that I can remember that he has actually expressed a loathing, and even hatred, based on some sample shots.
-snip-
I have been a member of this board for a long time, and have always thought of Jeff as the one web based reviewer that was honest and even-handed. But recently, I am starting to have some serious concerns.

No, I'm not attacking Jeff, as I consider him to be a pioneer here. But I, and everyone on these forums do have the right to question the comparative

I regard any photo from a camera as a fair indication of what the camera can do. When I see fringing and moire, I am immediately very concerned. I know that fringing is a major headache with most digital cameras. My Nikon 995 has red fringing at times. My Canon S1 has purple fringing that's more pronounced. My Nikon 3100 even has fringing occasionally. These, of course, are consumer grade cameras. It is therefore more alarming to see fringing on professional grade cameras and does tend to indicate a major problem with the manufacturer rather than with quality control.

I have had grave concerns about Nikon for some time. Their professional grade cameras don't all work the same way. For example on the Nikon D1 and D2 it's possible to use AIS lenses and to use the D1/D2 rather in the same way as an F3 or an F301 with all functions available. On the D70 etc, this is not possible. This is a design problem.

Canon, on the other hand - no moire, no fringing. All EOS lenses are supported. If one fits the Novoflex adaptor then almost any lens can be used - including Nikon AIS lenses.

Plus... Canon's latest - the XT had 2 extra megapixels and a lighter-weight body. All good bonuses.

What;'s up with Jeff? At least his reviews aren't biassed unlike many I've seen on other boards.

Ant
05-14-2005, 09:16 AM
I regard any photo from a camera as a fair indication of what the camera can do. When I see fringing and moire, I am immediately very concerned. I know that fringing is a major headache with most digital cameras. My Nikon 995 has red fringing at times. My Canon S1 has purple fringing that's more pronounced. My Nikon 3100 even has fringing occasionally. These, of course, are consumer grade cameras. It is therefore more alarming to see fringing on professional grade cameras and does tend to indicate a major problem with the manufacturer rather than with quality control.


I thought you were an experienced enough photographer to know that chromatic abberation is caused by lenses, not cameras...apparently not. It's even been mentioned on this thread at least once, and you still don't seem to have grasped the concept :rolleyes:

Please do us all a favour. Go and buy a Canon, or a Pentax, or an Olympus, or a Sigma...in fact anything except a Nikon. Then we may at least get some respite from your ridiculous, incessant and quite frankly blatantly ignorant anti-Nikon rantings.

speaklightly
05-14-2005, 09:43 AM
All in all, I think that Jeff does a great job and through his efforts we all benefit. We are able to enjoy a great website. As George has posted, if their are problems, they should be discussed openly, as was done in the case of the XT review.

Sarah Joyce

Jeff Keller
05-15-2005, 08:49 AM
This is getting out of hand... enough with the insults...