D2X can't do ISO 800? - FM Forums

Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

2

Marc Kurth
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Just opinion......

Sometimes (certainly not always) blown highlights don't ruin the shot. I think that many people get way too hung up on this issue.

Marc

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 03:37 AM

johnnymg
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

jacko wrote:
johnnymg wrote:
Jack

GREAT pic!

Can you expound on why 'blinkies' don't necessarily mean the highlights are blown. I'm struggling with this whole blown HL issue.

FWIW: I've had lots of problems with my now gone D70 blowing reds and I really like the ability of my new D200 to capture images without always blowing reds. The RGB histo seems to help me a lot with this one................... but perhaps I'm pushing the image capture a little to the left (to be ultra safe).

Thanks
JohnG

For sure, the RGB histo is one superb feature to have. When the season is right, I shoot a lot of flowers, and it used to drive me crazy on the D100 because my red's would blow. But, anyhoo....

IMO, it's not a sin to blow a highlight, especially if they're specular. But, to avoid the wrath of digital shooters,

you just try to avoid it

Seriously though, some cameras will show "blinkies" when in reality the highlights are not truly blown. The reason is, somebody, somewhere, established an RGB value for the blinkies to turn on, and on most cameras, it's not RGB 255, but some lesser value. It could be 249 or something like that, but I almost guarantee it's not 255. The fun part is figuring out where it really clips.

For example, I have an exposure that's "perfect", except the histo tells me I can go further to the right. But, I bump EV up by a third stop, and the blinkies come on. Usually I can easily recover that 'lost' highlight. One of the reasons is, it's probably the red channel that's blown, or maybe the green, but rarely is it all three channels. And usually, since it's a highlight, you're not going to see a lot of color there anyway. It's not really as wild and uncontrolled as it sounds

and once you get used to it, it's easy to see/do. The other side of the coin is, if I'm trying to maintain color fidelity, I'll come closer to underexposing, but that's probably a whole 'nuther thread.

Jack

Thanks for the clarification.

The blown reds I've seen were in pics of red roses. When that happened (almost always............ hahaha) the tonality of the rose pedals was really 'muddy'.

. I eventually 'gave up' on the D70 histogram when shotting reds.

Anyway, I'm just starting to play with the RGB histogram on the D200 so I've got plenty of experimentation to go before I 'get it'.

Regards
JohnG

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 03:53 AM

NAVPHONE
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Look here Jack if you get everyone to actually use a meter or think about exposure people might start taking images they are happy with and will not need an excuse to buy a shiny new camera that will fix all their technique issues. Than the economy will tank. You are a bad man.
The nerve, using a handheld meter.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 04:58 AM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

NAVPHONE wrote:
Look here Jack if you get everyone to actually use a meter or think about exposure people might start taking images they are happy with and will not need an excuse to buy a shiny new camera that will fix all their technique issues. Than the economy will tank. You are a bad man.
The nerve, using a handheld meter.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 09:37 AM

Ray C.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Glenn, Marc, et al

I've been shooting professionally for almost 25 years, but thanks anyway for the film grain vs. noise lesson

My whole point is that I simply ACCEPT that Nikon's high ISO performance isn't as good as say Canon's 20D. Is it better than film? Who cares? I don't shoot film anymore.

But like I said, its kicking a dead horse... I will continue to make money and photos with my Nikons and leave the pixel peeping to others. And as technology improves and gives me even better tools to do my job, I will be even happier.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 11:33 AM

LABRIEDL
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #6 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

"I simply ACCEPT that Nikon's high ISO performance isn't as good as say Canon's 20D."

Not better just different. Canon does the noise reduction for you so that you get the smooth almost fake look. Nikon lets you do it yourself. Two differnt ways of looking at that dead horse.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 12:52 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Ray C. wrote:
I've been shooting professionally for almost 25 years, but thanks anyway for the film grain vs. noise

I've done a couple of things "professionally" over the last 30 years.

My whole point is that I simply ACCEPT that Nikon's high ISO performance isn't as good as say Canon's 20D. Is it better than film? Who cares? I don't shoot film anymore.

My whole point was that with proper exposure and processing, Nikon's high ISO performance is quite good. Of course, you said I wasn't being realistic

Even though you're a "professional", you are still just expressing an opinion, nothing more. But, like you say, "Who cares? I don't shoot film anymore".

But like I said, its kicking a dead horse... I will continue to make money and photos with my Nikons and leave the pixel peeping to others. And as technology improves and gives me even better tools to do my job, I will be even happier.

Agreed. This thread was never meant to evolve into a debate that's been done way too many times. The ones that you're implying of pixel peeping though aren't the responders to this thread, they usually frequent another forum. As to technology improving, that was partly the point of my post, I am ridiculously happy with my D2X.

FWIW, in 1988 I did a major career change. I had the opportunity of "turning pro" with my photography, or starting my own software development business. I chose the latter. I had been shooting gigs professionally since 1975, but the more I was exposed to the business of photography, I came to realize that I didn't want to participate. My passion for photography is for art's sake, and that satisfies my creative unction, as does the software development. I would encourage you maybe to not look down on us amateurs as mere dunces. I have a minor degree in photography, and I've continued to study and try to better equip myself, just to become a better photographer (even though my major was engineering).

Kindest regards, and all the best for 06.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 01:36 PM

LABRIEDL
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Well said Jacko!!

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 02:42 PM

Glenn01
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #9 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Yes, well said Jack. By the by Ray, I sold my first image in 1965. But what would I know...

.

I wasn't berating you or anyone else here (as most seem to know already). I'm simply saying that whether you call it noise or grain, it's a fact of life with photography, and it has been for many of us who go even further back than you Ray. Sorry if it was construed that way. I don't (frankly) give a tinker's damn whether or not it's better or worse than the Canon. I do care that I get quality photographs (like you and everyone else here Ray), and personally I don't find noise/grain/whatever to really be an issue. While all the photo editors/publishers I have dealt with over the years have had concerns about it, it's certainly never stopped them from doing their jobs, and I've never had a photograph turned down on the basis of noise, but that's largely due to using fine grained films. The real point is (if I read Jack correctly) is that the D2X handles very well indeed at ISO 800, and from my experience ("little" though it may be), it is equal to most films I used that were ISO 200 which were sometimes pushed to 400. How that can possibly spark yet another debate about Canon vs. Nikon is beyond me, but oh well. Whatever

.

Glenn
PS - I too have been full time pro as well as semi-pro - check out the Bio on www.glenndavy.com if you care to, but it's up to you.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 03:09 PM

Ray C.
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #10 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Ok, ok, let me clarify...before this gets out of hand. I was a little ticked at the "those of us who shot film" comment and that is the only reason I mentioned how long I've been shooting or the fact that it is my job. In NO way was I "looking down" on amateurs, semi-pro etc. I just took it as insuating that I didn't know what I was talking about or was brand new to photography. Sorry, if anyone got upset.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 04:59 PM

dashley
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

, looks like a testosterone surge!
Cheers to all!
I have to love all of you.

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 05:36 PM

dashley
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #12 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

PS, I think one of you left your red goggles at my place!

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 03, 2006 at 05:39 PM

Jack OBrien
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #13 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Ray C. wrote:
Ok, ok, let me clarify...before this gets out of hand. I was a little ticked at the "those of us who shot film" comment and that is the only reason I mentioned how long I've been shooting or the fact that it is my job. In NO way was I "looking down" on amateurs, semi-pro etc. I just took it as insuating that I didn't know what I was talking about or was brand new to photography. Sorry, if anyone got upset.

No worries Ray, all is well

I hate the internet sometimes because so much gets lost in the translation. I read an article in a photo mag recently, and the editor had a piece that went something like "there are two camps waging war against each other, film shooters and digital shooters. Folks, the enemy ain't us". I think some of our bias may come out as we respond to different posts. I won't off any further analysis

I'm way too tired to think, so if this is goofy, I have a reason

Edited on Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM

Jan 04, 2006 at 12:34 AM

Glenn01
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · D2X can't do ISO 800?

Fair enough Ray. I guess I'm a bit testy on this stuff as it seems that unless the equipment is "perfect" in every way, it gets slammed (or at least badly run over). My apologies if I came off a bit heavy handed. This is a "forum" after all, and everyone is entitled to their opinion and shouldn't have to suffer abuse over giving it. As I said in another thread, it just seems that any noise can't be tolerated in digital, and yet why should noise/grain suddenly be so taboo just because we've gone digital. Physics are physics and there are still limitations. I guess I prefer to see folks work with the limitations rather than putting down equipment rather flatly, which seems to happen a bit frequently on many forums now.

I don't dispute your experience, nor do I think your voice doesn't count. I guess for some of us "old farts" who have been around for a really, really, really (ok, I'll stop now Jack

) long time, we wonder why suddenly a piece of equipment is no good when it's actually doing much better than the predecessors (in this case, film), yet it gets a bad review. When I look at the ISO 800 images, I see less grain than I did in Ektachrome 200 as I say. To me, that speaks very high volumes for the D2X, and I'd use/submit any ISO 800 image (all other things being perfect) out of this camera to almost any editor. Much of the newspaper work I did some time back was shot on fairly grainy B&W at at least ISO 400, and that was never a problem then. Maybe the "trouble" with digital and especially the higher end cameras is that they are raising the bar a bit too high, thus expectations are too high? Not sure.

In any event, sorry if I seemed a bit "out of sorts". No offense intended Ray

.

Glenn

Jan 04, 2006 at 02:26 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end