Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 19, 2005, 2:09 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

I appreciate Steve hasn't been able to get his hands on one for a full evaluation, but in the mean time this might be of interest to you all.

http://www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm

Happy reading!
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 19, 2005, 5:58 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Thom makes a big fuss of the white balance issue - which has been corrected in the current Camera Raw 3.1 for PS CS2. I find this review a bit more objective:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D2X/D2XA.HTM

It also contains sample images and resolution chart shots to satisfy the measurbator in all of us :lol:
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 10:10 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

marokero wrote:
Quote:
Thom makes a big fuss of the white balance issue - which has been corrected in the current Camera Raw 3.1 for PS CS2.
AFAIK, this is an unresolved issue (ACR will not support the "as shot" white balance from the D2x .nef files). Yes, they added the camera, but they have not made a decision to decrypt theas shotWB information (apparently, because they are concerned over legal issues regarding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act).

So, if this is important to you (ability to convert files with PSCS2 with Adobe Camera RAW using the as shot White Balance, versus setting it to something else later or using another product to do the conversion), I'd take it into consideration.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 4:46 PM   #4
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Hi Jim

As someone who is using the convertor, it certainly seems to support the "as shot" option. I've set the defaults to use it, and each picture changes the WB...

But I'm starting a new thread on a related issue...

dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 5:51 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

DBB wrote:
Quote:
Hi Jim

As someone who is using the convertor, it certainly seems to support the "as shot" option. I've set the defaults to use it, and each picture changes the WB...

But I'm starting a new thread on a related issue...

dave
Dave:

The last I read on it from D2X users (posts from this week at Nikonians.org and elsewhere), they indicated that the new ACR did not workwith the "as shot" white balance. Instead, they said that it is only usingAuto WB(that they claimed was not as close as the as shot WB).

You are talking about Adobe Camera RAW (and not Nikon's plugin), right?

Edit/Added:

Find something white, set the camera to Cloudy WB and take a photo using Autoexposure. Then, set the camera to Incandescent and take another photo the same way.

Open both images in CS2 and see what they look like.

If the "as shot" WB is really being used, these photos should look very different.

I suspect you're just seeing the results of Auto WB (versus "as shot" WB).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 7:47 PM   #6
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

Ahhh? Finally I get it!

But does it really matter as long as I can change the WB anyway? I shoot Auto, primarily because of the extreme light conditions of early dawn. And while I've read the advice of leaving the camera set to Cloudy 3, or some such setting, I tried it years ago and had better results in Auto.

Thanks for clearing it up!

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2005, 8:03 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

DBB wrote:
Quote:
Ahhh? Finally I get it!

But does it really matter as long as I can change the WB anyway? I shoot Auto, primarily because of the extreme light conditions of early dawn. And while I've read the advice of leaving the camera set to Cloudy 3, or some such setting, I tried it years ago and had better results in Auto.

Thanks for clearing it up!

Dave
Dave, to some users it won't matter. To others it will.

For example,a userthat wants to setthe WB to match the conditions (so that they didn't have to correct it later), may appreciate having "as shot" WB available.

But, if you don't mind correcting it later (when "auto" isn't close enough, or in this case Adobe's Auto WB in ACR isn't close enough), then it's probably not an issue.

Some users like to shoot in RAW because they can changeWB easier after the fact. Others may shoot in RAW for different reasons, and want their workflow to be as fast as possible (without the need to correct WB later).

Many users set white balanceto match conditions (via custom settings, fixed settings, etc.), so that they eliminate the need to correct it later.

Using custom white balance can be especially useful in mixed lighting conditions. Of course, you see a variety of techniques for setting it, too (everything from white cards to the Expodisc product to Pringles Lids to Coffee Filters, etc.). LOL

That's the big problem with the D2x and Adobe ACR (no support of "as shot" White Balance for users that like this feature). Even though you may not use it, many others use both the fixed and custom white balance settings a camera has available.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2005, 9:53 AM   #8
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

When this issue first came up I did not as yet have my Nikon and indeed, this encrypting issue was so important to me that I wrote Nikon an angry e-mail.

They in tunr got back to me and said what more or less they said in their public statment.

In addition however, I was told that version 3.2 of the Adobe RAW importer would completely support the camera...

All that being said, I agree with you that the enitire issue, and not just Nikon, is important to the consumer. That we are buying a camera and we want access to ALL the features - that Nikon or Sony, or whomever, has no right to set limitations on software, when this software is a necessary and INTEGRAL part of the camera itself.

Even if they have a right to do this, I question whether their not announcing this in their specifications, or advertising does not itself consist of an actionable offense.

dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2005, 10:45 AM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

From my perspective, even if Nikon and Adobe work out some kind of agreement and "play nice" so that ACR fully supports this model, encrypting the data is still unacceptable.

For all we know, some bright teenager may come up with an entirely new approach to color interpolation providing superior results. But, if a developer can't get to the data (or is afraid to for legal reasons), then it stifles competition.

Personally, I'm not going to buy a camera that encrypts any portion of the metadata, even if I have solutions available to decrypt it. It's just a matter of principle, and I don't like the precedent encrypting data sets.

What's next if we don't complain? Even stronger encryption with USB based security devices tied to your camera's serial number so that only a manufacturers softwarecan see the images from it? I just don't like the concept of encryption in images I take with a camera I bought.

Does Nikon have a right to do it? Sure. Do I have a right to avoid their products? Yep. I'll vote with my wallet.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2005, 11:18 AM   #10
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

My understanding of this problem is that the story broke because of comments by Nikon.

But, as the story moved on it became apparent they they were not the only one's doing this, in fact the majority of the industry was engaged in this practice.

So, to oppose it, one is going to have to do more than just pick Nikon out of the barrel, and boycott them...

dave
DBB 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 2:18 AM.