I agree that if your workflow is RAW, then you should not sharpen at all.
However, I find that the default sharpening for D70 is good enough that withdefault conversion + adjustment in contrast is good enough for 99.9% of the shots :-) However, the default sharpening for Canon is usually not enough. It's a different philosophy i guess -- canon by default sharpens very little, so it seems that the new D2x is going to need more sharpening than the D70 based on samples i saw from Ben Horne.
Stripper wrote:
Pags,
I am not sure that a Canon WF is all that different. I have seen very few digital captures which did not need some degree of sharpening. I have owned and used most of the digital Nikons and have shot with a bunch of digital Canons. They all make nice images...they all need sharpening. Even the D2h, which might just be the sharpest out of the camera needs a little most of the time.
Am I correct in the fact that the D2X maintains Nikon's 1.5X crop?
But it is now a CMOS sensor?
I would imagine the switch to CMOS may introduce a more "Canon like" sharpening workflow given the CMOS,. as the sharpening levels required may increase,...
I could be wrong,. but despite what Canon press says,. I allways felt the additional sharpening on a Canon Vs. Nikon was infact more of a CMOS Vs. CCD issue than anything else.
Cyberdyne -- probably not a CMOS issue -- though the color similarity between D2x and 1D series is probably due to CMOS.
With 12 megapixels, if Nikon kept the same AA filter on the 6 megapixel cameras (i.e. weak AA filters, more prone to moire but with sharper images), there would be significant moire issues because 12 megapixels resolves a lot of high frequency "noises" in a scene and would end up with a lot more moire.
Canon has traditionally gone for the "moire" safe mode... the only camera they didn't put a strong AA filter was the original 1D and a lot of people complained about the moire issue there.
paganini wrote:
I agree that if your workflow is RAW, then you should not sharpen at all.
This is not what I said. I think that I especially want to sharpen when I shoot RAW. My one of my main reasons for shooting RAW is that I do not want the in-camera SW to make any final imaging decisions. If I want the in-camera settings when I make jpgs, Nikon capture will let me do that in a few seconds. If I want to make an art print, or something for my on-line portfolio, I want to do all of the post processing myself, including sharpening. Sharpening is a complicated thing, and I feel I can do it much better than any camera firmware. Therefore, RAW files do need to be sharpened.
BTW, I just made an 18 inch print of this image on my Canon 9000 printer. The detail is unbelievable.
I think it might be everything Nikon promised. I know you love your D1x's. I love mine too. I have made big prints and have been very happy with both my D1x and my D2h. I have done full page glossy product shots with the 4MP D2h and they looked great. This is really different. With digital we always got the smoothness of medium format, but there was not the detail. Now we have the detail.
It ain't 4x5 yet, but I think the days of little film are gone.
Since nobody else has answered this question allow me.
USM is Unsharpen Mask. That is a filter in Photoshop that many D-SLR owners live and die by. It can turn what appears to be a somewhat soft image into one that is razor sharp.
Sorry, i should have said -- you should not .let the camera sharpen your files if you're going to work with RAW (as it needs to be done in the last step).
Stripper wrote:
This is not what I said. I think that I especially want to sharpen when I shoot RAW. My one of my main reasons for shooting RAW is that I do not want the in-camera SW to make any final imaging decisions. If I want the in-camera settings when I make jpgs, Nikon capture will let me do that in a few seconds. If I want to make an art print, or something for my on-line portfolio, I want to do all of the post processing myself, including sharpening. Sharpening is a complicated thing, and I feel I can do it much better than any camera firmware. Therefore, RAW files do need to be sharpened.
BTW, I just made an 18 inch print of this image on my Canon 9000 printer. The detail is unbelievable. ...Show more →
I think it might be everything Nikon promised. I know you love your D1x's. I love mine too. I have made big prints and have been very happy with both my D1x and my D2h. I have done full page glossy product shots with the 4MP D2h and they looked great. This is really different. With digital we always got the smoothness of medium format, but there was not the detail. Now we have the detail.
Not having experienced a D2x file other than Ben Horne's recent post, I can't say that I have any direct user experience with the resolution of the D2x. What I would say, however, is that I think now maybe 'more people' can appreciate the fact that there is indeed a compelling argument for increased resolution (to a certain degree), just as there is a compelling argument for increasing pixel quality. To ignore either is folly. Do we truly 'need' more than the 1Ds or D2x? Doubtful for 99%+ of us. But the jump from 4MP or 6MP to 10MP+ is significant, as it sounds many are now finding. I'm thrilled to see that Nikon has delivered with this very capable and adaptable camera.
