Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15, 2004, 9:41 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
Default

I keep hearing people complain about these cameras but it seems that none of the people that complains uses one of them. I have the Nikon 8700 and I get as good if not better results then when I was using A Hasselblad 503CW. I do Family portraits and Pet Photographs. I also do people on their Motorcycles ( Still or moving ) I have had NO problem at all with noise or fringing or anything else. The final results are always just perfect and none of My customers have ever complained at all about the photographs I did for them. I deal with mouth to mouth referals so I have to produce Quality work. The only thing about this camera is the digital viewing screen goes black when shooting continous bursts. I have learned to aim it like A rifle. Nikon needs to put A sight on these cameras or sell one like I had for My Hasselblad. I also Had a sight for My old Grayflex. In the real world of Photography this is A truly great camera. Wow, You can actually see what You have before You leave A customers house or office or store. I have not had to reshoot A project since I started using this Nikon 8700. I have the Nikon 990 but it never produced the great results this camera gives Me. It was only good for still product type photographs with no cropping. I can now crop without any color or picture quality loss at all. The largest print I do is 13 X 19 but most of the time the people only want 8 X 10's or 5 X 7's. I just photographed A Border Collie and the results were just perfect. I was the third person the owners hired and I was the only one that they decided to buy pictures from. 2 11 X 14. 6 5 X 7's and 16 wallet size pictures. Not bad for A camera that everybody that does not use one hates.
Ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 15, 2004, 10:59 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I'm with you on this... :?:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...rnatives.shtml
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2004, 8:45 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
pavaros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 484
Default

i totally agree,
unfortunately, digital photography has attracted all sorts of gadget freeks and knowalls that more often than not are interested in the size of their sensor instead of how to take a good photo...
im not saying that one shouldn get in grips with his or her equipment or staying informed about new technology..but if the means distract from the actual aim, then it is just an arguement for argument's sake..

________________________________

[color=red]Olympus C-750,CLA-4,Hoya UV,HP5550

http://pavelis.fotopic.net/




pavaros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2004, 10:34 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

... and here's another personal experience:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=8256216

:idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2004, 12:54 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default


I think some people don't account for technical advances. They project the noise going from 2 to 3 Mp and assume an 8Mp sensor the same size would be unacceptable. The 8Mp sensors are a little noisier than the 5Mp were, but if you compare apples to apples and compare them at the same print or screen size I doubt you would see much noise difference. But you would definitely see a resolution improvement on a 13 X 19 print. Viewing them 100% the 8Mp images are noisier, but that is effectively magnifying the image so the noise is more visible.

And for the occasional extreme crop or large print the better noise reduction programs like Noise Ninja and Neat Image do a very nice job. For smaller prints and normal screen viewing you don't see noise unless you use a high ISO.

I see a pretty big difference between the D1 and Pro 1 shots on NHL's Luminous Landscape link. But with a little Noise Ninja and some contrast boost in selective color I think it would be hard to tell 13 X 19 prints apart. The DSLR print would still have slightly better resolution and shadow detail, but not enough to account for about 5X the price including the lens and more hassle transporting lenses and a larger camera to the photo.

I've become enamored with stabilization. Minolta suggests 3 f stops for the A1/A2 but that might be a little generous. People are getting sharp images at ΒΌ second at 28mm, and that allows for a lower ISO. If you can't lower the ISO at that speed you are taking shots you couldn't get without a tripod on an unstabilized camera without using a DSLR at extremely high ISO.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2004, 3:46 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 259
Default

Personally I don't see a problem with them either. All are using a 2/3" sensor offering 2x the resolution as my c-750uz but is more than 2x the overall size of the 1/2.5" sensor in my current camera. Since I find the noise and performance of my current camera acceptable for my needs im sure when/if I go to replace it with say a c-8080 I will be happy.They are tiny sensors crammed full of pixels compared to the dslr models out there....but are less crammed than some of the cameras alot of us are using right now including myself.
tkmckay is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:12 AM.