Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end
  

Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...
  
 
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #1 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
Andre...you should, of all people know that you don't need a Ph.D. in Physics to understand Physics. Do you have a Ph.D. in Photography? Yet you do Photography. As a Ph.D you should know that all pixels are not created equal. As a Ph.D. you should also know enough to look at the situation form a larger viewpoint. The "bigger picture" so to speak. As wont with many Ph.Ds there is a tendency to focus (I swear these puns are unintentional) to narrowly on a subject (its understandable, its how we study things to glean data). When we just focus
...Show more

***********************
Stop your patronizing and show me the data regarding your software. From a physics point of view what I have said is correct. Your statement is that software changes that situation and makes pixel density meaningless. If that were the case, then we would all have 1 pixel cameras and software would magically interpret it ... but we know that is all bull shit. Pixel density matters until you surpase the resolution limit of your optics. That is the physics of the situation.

If you want to claim otherwise, PROVE IT.

In God we trust, all others bring data.

*********************************



Nov 18, 2013 at 02:54 PM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #2 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Andre Labonte wrote:

In God we trust



Good stuff!



Nov 18, 2013 at 03:11 PM
pookipichu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #3 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Nikon really needs better liveview implementation.


Nov 18, 2013 at 03:27 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #4 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


pookipichu wrote:
Nikon really needs better liveview implementation.



Agreed, though that is a feature across cameras, not a product.



Nov 18, 2013 at 04:23 PM
Osai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #5 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Pavel wrote:
Nikons problem? Where once there were photographers, dominated by the creative and right brained, now chock full of left brain engineers, needing an outlet from the walled world. But they are still engineers. A marketers favorite fodder.

Witness the ever same style, perfect and perfectly hyper-real, perfectly over-saturated, photos that are the darlings on this forum. Sublime and subtle as a Big Mac with extra sauce. Extra, extra sauce.

I don't get, that so many don't get. But its only rock'n roll, and ...


Some engineers, but I'll bet that there's a ton of IT people and electronic freaks. I know a few and they're into anything electronic.



Nov 18, 2013 at 05:27 PM
Osai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #6 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Andre Labonte wrote:
***********************
Stop your patronizing and show me the data regarding your software. From a physics point of view what I have said is correct. Your statement is that software changes that situation and makes pixel density meaningless. If that were the case, then we would all have 1 pixel cameras and software would magically interpret it ... but we know that is all bull shit. Pixel density matters until you surpase the resolution limit of your optics. That is the physics of the situation.

If you want to claim otherwise, PROVE IT.

In God we trust, all others bring data.

*********************************


Playing the Phid card are we Andre? I got my first when I was 21. The amazing thing about having one is that it makes you an expert on EVERYTHING!!! The physics here are really very simple. An image circle for a lens is the same no matter what camera it's on. As long as the focal plane is the same distance there is NO difference in the focal length of the lens.

As far as the pixel density goes Rhyder seems to make sense. By your logic using 50 ASA Kodachrome you would have more reach than if you were using Tri-X Pan. A higher resolution sensor won't bring you any closer to your subject either. You will have a high resolution image, but you will not be any closer. Wait. That isn't physics, that's just common sense. Mr. Saville refers to viewing at 100 %. Who here views an image at 22.2 mm x 14.8 mm?

I don't see you posting any real data, just opinion. I have seen people parrot this concept from the early days of digital. What you are saying is what seems to be. At one point in history Copernicus was one few of the heliocentric thinkers in the entire world. Everyone knew he was wrong. Right? He knew he was right due to something he discovered. That discovery could get him in major trouble with the Church, so he waited to publish.

Instead of getting angry, why don't you investigate what Rhyder says? What is this shift he mentions? Could it be he knows something you don't? What has he discovered that we haven't. You got angry. I got curious.

I'm also curious, is you Ph.D. in Optics? I thought I saw a post a long time ago that it was.

But then,the playing phid card? You must be in academics.




Nov 18, 2013 at 06:06 PM
anthonysemone
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #7 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Andre,

whose data? acquired when? how? under what circumstances? with what sources of bias? independently replicated by researchers whose bias was against those you hold? Published? by you? where? he who demands data has the obligation to "put up or shut up."



Nov 18, 2013 at 06:42 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #8 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Hey Guys, I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and nor am I upset regarding Rhyder ...I just trying to keep the spead of misinformation in check.

Three things to clear up:

1) Did I claim magnificaiton via a format change? NO. But I do know that pixel density is important to the final image and display sizes. To claim pixel density is meaningless is pure bull.

2) I'm asking Rhyder to explain secrets he knows about software. He implies them but gives no details. That's the data I seek.

3) As for playing the PhD card, Rhyder was staring down his nose at people, claiming it's physics, and getting some of the physic wrong in the process. (see clarification #1)




Nov 18, 2013 at 07:27 PM
kwhaley29
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #9 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Apparently Nikon's problem is that they're not considerate enough to include some free cheese to accompany all of the whine that their products seem to generate.


Nov 18, 2013 at 08:55 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #10 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


kwhaley29 wrote:
Apparently Nikon's problem is that they're not considerate enough to include some free cheese to accompany all of the whine that their products seem to generate.



guilty as charged. As a D300 owner who's been waiting for a D400, I'm rather frustrated.



Nov 18, 2013 at 09:01 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



M Lucca
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #11 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


While I kinda agree with Labonte somewhat. I also think Nikon might be trying to create a niche and dominate it at least be first to own it.
D800... compact body large MP class.
Df.... retro body dslr.
D600.... lubed by Nikon segment. I was almost expecting Nikon Lube in 5mL bottles.

Unlike Canon or Sony, Nikon is simply too small to compete head to head in the war of attrition. It doesn't have the same resource pool as the other.



Nov 18, 2013 at 09:05 PM
kwhaley29
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #12 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Andre Labonte wrote:
guilty as charged. As a D300 owner who's been waiting for a D400, I'm rather frustrated.


I can understand the frustration, especially when you see the other updates and new bodies that have been released. It makes me kind of wonder if the folks at Canon and Nikon are playing a game of chicken. It seems as though neither really wants to develop a replacement for their high end cropped sensor bodies, and yet neither wants to be caught not having one so the rumored specs continue to float about.



Nov 18, 2013 at 09:24 PM
pr4photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #13 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


I wanted a replacement for the D700. I didn't get one, so ended up with a D800. Great camera, but I don't its no D700 replacement


Nov 18, 2013 at 09:38 PM
Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #14 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


I don't have a PHD, not even in bu11sh!t. But, I do believe in WYSIWYG.

Since rhyder wouldn't provide the examples that I asked for, I did an extremely fast test to demonstrate the visible differences, ie the "reach" afforded to high pixel density DX cameras. Nikon's d800 and d7100 were utilized as test bodies and the 200 f/2 was utilized on both cameras, at the same distance from the subject. Of course, the d7100 has 24mp and the d800 DX crop, to achieve the same FOV, is about 15mp. That's a significant advantage to the DX camera, IMO.

Rhyder seems to be implying that he can do miracles with software, that negate pixel density advantages. I have no quarrel with anyone doing anything that they think gives them the images that they want, but I don't believe that software can equal real pixels.

Both images were downsized to 1280 on the long side. Sorry that I couldn't find a more interesting subject for the test.













Kerry



Nov 19, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #15 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Nice example Kerry. Just to be clear and correct, this is not magnification in the optical sense, but the higher pixel density of the collected image allows larger prints/presentation without apparent degradation of the image due to pixilation.

Of course you can do this with ANY higher resolution image regardless of format... but as reality has it, the higher density sensors are currently only available on DX cameras. The real advantage of DX is that it saves having to do the cropping in post and it saves on $$$. Also, since photography, at a practical level is done based on equivalent FOV's 99% of the time, it saves on lenses too ... but again, that is only due to the fact that DX has the higher density sensors.

There are limits of course to how far the higher pixel density helps, as the limits of lens resolution and camera shake become more apparent when doing this.

I think you have proven the point nicely ... I'm sure others will argue otherwise ... I for my part am done with this debate.

*****************************************************************************************************

PLEASE people, let's get this thread back to topic ... Nikon is missing out on opportunities not due to poor cameras or a lack of innovative cameras, but to not following up on past success and of inputting the new features people want into some of the new bodies (wifi, Bluetooth, easy interface with cell phones, etc.). That second part has been completely neglected in the conversation.

Thanks,
Andre






Nov 19, 2013 at 12:48 AM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #16 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


kwhaley29 wrote:
I can understand the frustration, especially when you see the other updates and new bodies that have been released. It makes me kind of wonder if the folks at Canon and Nikon are playing a game of chicken. It seems as though neither really wants to develop a replacement for their high end cropped sensor bodies, and yet neither wants to be caught not having one so the rumored specs continue to float about.



You know, it does seem like they are doing that, but why? They make money when they MAKE the cameras we want, not when they hold them back. The only thing I can think of is they think that avid enthusiasts will just up the game to FX where profit margins are greater ... but what they fail to see is that it's not all about IQ for all enthusiasts, but about the AF and FPS and buffer depth for us action addicts. DX was good enough then, it's good enough now ... but I need the speed!



Nov 19, 2013 at 12:54 AM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #17 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Kerry Pierce wrote:
I don't have a PHD, not even in bu11sh!t. But, I do believe in WYSIWYG.

Since rhyder wouldn't provide the examples that I asked for, I did an extremely fast test to demonstrate the visible differences, ie the "reach" afforded to high pixel density DX cameras. Nikon's d800 and d7100 were utilized as test bodies and the 200 f/2 was utilized on both cameras, at the same distance from the subject. Of course, the d7100 has 24mp and the d800 DX crop, to achieve the same FOV, is about 15mp. That's a significant advantage to the DX camera, IMO.
...Show more

Trying to achieve the same field of view is where you go wrong. This isn't about FOV. Rethink your process.



Nov 19, 2013 at 02:56 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #18 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
Trying to achieve the same field of view is where you go wrong. This isn't about FOV. Rethink your process.



How so? At the end of the day, the composition is greatly impacted by what is shown in the FOV. Rethink the process in what way?

You make a lot of statements indicating there is a better way but fail to follow up with details/data. Please, explain yourself ... we might learn something together if you would.



Nov 19, 2013 at 03:09 PM
rhyder
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #19 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


Andre Labonte wrote:
Hey Guys, I'm not interested in a pissing contest, and nor am I upset regarding Rhyder ...I just trying to keep the spead of misinformation in check.

Three things to clear up:

1) Did I claim magnificaiton via a format change? NO. But I do know that pixel density is important to the final image and display sizes. To claim pixel density is meaningless is pure bull.

2) I'm asking Rhyder to explain secrets he knows about software. He implies them but gives no details. That's the data I seek.

3) As for playing the PhD card, Rhyder was staring down his nose
...Show more

I wasn't staring down my nose at anyone. Just stating a simple fact. In fact it's simple physics....maybe to simple for a Ph.D. to see. You're over thinking all of this. Stop repeating what you've learned over the internet and observe, analyze and think about this technology..you may see things differently. Stop using the "recipe" and figure out what really happening tech wise.

You're being very defensive. I understand when someone holds on so tight to a long held belief...especially when you're using that tenet to justify your equipment purchases. Your procedure should not include moving the camera or adjusting for FOV. This is NOT about FOV. You're claiming "reach"...You're saying is about bring the subject closer.

As far as my "secrets"...it's not a secret, it's there for everyone to see...if you just know how to observe and interpret what you see. You just have to discover it...its there...waiting for "experts" like Kerry to find it. Don't get angry...investigate...its not hard to find...You're so busy trying to defend your current paradigm that you can't see the shift.

As for playing the phid card...I didn't call you on that...but you did play it...and you're not the only one on these forums with a post grad degree...



Nov 19, 2013 at 03:21 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #20 · Nikon's Problem Isn't the Cameras ...


rhyder wrote:
I wasn't staring down my nose at anyone. Just stating a simple fact. In fact it's simple physics....maybe to simple for a Ph.D. to see. You're over thinking all of this. Stop repeating what you've learned over the internet and observe, analyze and think about this technology..you may see things differently. Stop using the "recipe" and figure out what really happening tech wise.

You're being very defensive. I understand when someone holds on so tight to a long held belief...especially when you're using that tenet to justify your equipment purchases. Your procedure should not include moving the camera or adjusting
...Show more

**********************

OK, nice tirade ... and rather usless ... you still have not provided me an answer to my question: please provide the data.

To make things more clear ..

-- I know and have stated there is NO optical magnification
-- I never used the work "reach", you did.
-- I did not claim that pixel density / resolution do not matter ... you did, and that is incorrect.
-- I simple stated three things

1) Extra pixel density / resolution allows for larger print/display sizes regardless of format with limits based on the optical system.
2) At the moment, DX format cameras have the higherst pixel density and that has practical implications.
3) FOV is a key factor in the final presentation of an image.

I only care about the end product and I don't like doing lots of post processing ... I like to get it right in camera ... that includes avoiding having to crop. That's how I enjoy my hobby. YMMV and good for you if it does.

But enough of this ... provide the data or get back to the topic of the thread please. In fact, just PM me the information and don't bother to sidetrack this thread any further.

Thanks,
Andre



Nov 19, 2013 at 04:23 PM
1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password