Nikon lures back prominent photographer
Michael Reichmann just bought his way back into the Nikon fold with the $1,800 D300 SLR.
(Credit: Nikon)One data point does not a statistical trend make, but Michael Reichmann is a pretty high-profile data point in the fight for SLR camera market share.
The photographer, instructor, and author of the Luminous Landscape Web site switched from Nikon to Canon in the late 1990s. But he said Monday he's resumed buying Nikon gear again, though not switched completely back.
"I had few regrets at the switch (to Canon) through the first seven years of this decade and the move to digital because it's my opinion that with its full-frame sensors and superior high-ISO noise capabilities, Canon had a clear edge," Reichmann said. "But with the introduction of the D300 and D3 a few months ago, I now believe that Nikon is back in the game--big time!"
That's a pretty strong endorsement, but bear one caveat in mind here: Reichmann, who also shoots with medium-format Hasselblad and Phase One gear and with high-cachet Leica cameras, isn't a typical photographer with a typical equipment budget. Most of us in the SLR realm think carefully about buying a single lens, much less multiple lenses, lens bodies, filters, flashes, and other accessories.
Reichmann said he just bought a D300 and several lenses and will shoot with it regularly. And when a higher-resolution full-frame cousin to the D3 arrives, he'll buy that, too.
"I feel that there is now going to be a huge resurgence in use of Nikon gear by pros and amateurs alike, and as a teacher and a writer it is appropriate for me to become much more familiar with what this platform now has to offer," he said.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
these issues. He switched to Canon because of the full frame
sensor? The full frame CMOS sensor is rather noisy and it's high
ISO response is awful. Oh, and let's not forget that Canon's
color accuracy is ghastly, requiring hours of Photoshop work just
to get something usable. On the plus side the build quality, the
high frame rate and the great glass are reasons to consider
Canon (particularly for sports and journalism where speed is the
ultimate criterion.)
Nikon? Great (legendary) glass. Superb mechanicals, but the
similar color accuracy issues and also slower frame rates. I'm
excited about the D3, not for the full frame sensor, but hopeful
that the image processors have been reworked.
I love the Fuji S3 for it's unmatched dynamic range and superb
color rendition. Too bad it's so slow and in a non-professional
body.
I'm amazed that photographers still insist on shooting medium
format digital. Cameras like the Hasselblad (FUJI!!) h2, h3 are
great to show off but very few clients need 39 megapixels for
their images.
one but read on because this may be something many reviewers
seem to be missing when they look at those fancy new D3
sample shots at high ISO.
Mostly I shoot weddings with a Nikon D2X, probably overkill on
the camera body but hey, I?m not complaining. It?s a great
camera, fast, rugged, and more. Canon can thank the D2 series
for a few of their new 1D improvements, the battery for
example.
I run into a problem every so often regarding wedding
photography being that once in a while I have to shoot in low
light with no flash. Many wedding photographers I know use
Canon gear and they don?t seem to have an issue with low light
/ high ISO yet I do with the D2X. I found out why.
I took a Canon 1Dmk3 and test shot it next to my D2X. I
learned of something interesting. The Canon did better in low
light ? high ISO when saving files as RAW images but not
significantly better when saving as JPEGs. It wasn?t because I
was comparing a new technology to a two-year Nikon one. It
was, and is, because Canon seems to process all images prior to
saving them to memory whether raw or jpeg while Nikon ONLY
processes jpegs in-camera and stores raw completely
untouched. In other words Nikon raw files are full of noise at
higher ISO settings such as 1600 and above and Canon's raw
files are not.
I went on to test other Nikons and other Canons at ISO 3200
shots. In every case the Canon raw files have much less noise
than the Nikon raw files while in every case the Canon jpegs and
Nikon jpegs are much different and both have been noise
reduced in camera. Yes I admit depending on the actual camera
either a Nikon or a Canon may produce better jpegs but that's
not my point in this case. Same can be said about auto white
balance and auto focus but that will have stated another time.
It was interesting and something I didn?t know about until I
happened to be test shooting the Canon 1Dmk3. Raw files from
Canon verses Nikon are drastically different in terms of high ISO
noise. Jpegs are not.
Why say all of this? Because last week I took a new Nikon D300
and tested it and to my (lack of surprise) ? it did the same thing.
In fact I see no difference in the images produced with the Nikon
D300 compared to the same ones on my D2X. Raw files are
noisy and jpegs are not.
I have not tested a D3 but I would be willing to bet its raw files
are very noisy and its jpegs are not.
So with all the hype about high ISO shots Nikon is failing to show
us raw files. All their ?official? sample shots at higher ISOs are
jpegs and have had their noise reduced in camera by their
Expeed? chips.
If you want jpegs from your camera than believe the hype but if
you want raw files be prepared to do more post-work on them
with Nikon.
The reviews and comparisons are just not always comparing at
the same level. They aren't always apples to apples. Sometimes
they are apples to oranges and they aren't telling us so.
If you are using Capture NX or Nikon View NX with your RAW NEF files your noise reduction settings will be applied just as they are saved in JPEG.
Should you use your either program and you make no settings changes, you can convert your RAW NEF files to JPEG and should get a similar file. I say similar since the ViewNX and Capture NX RAW processing engines can do more than the in-camera process due to the extra "horsepower," if you will.
In Capture NX you will find the noise reduction turned on (if it was shot with it) in Base Adjustments under Detail Adjustments.
If you are using any other program (Bibble, Adobe Camera RAW, Lightroom, DxO, etc.) then these noise reduction settings will be ignored and you may be seeing odd results as you seem to have found.
Our RAW files basically consist of RAW sensor data with some adjustment depending on compression or other settings plus a list of instructions.
Feel free to contact me directly (anyone reading this on CNET or the poster):
mrubin (at) nikon (dot) net
Thank you,
Michael Rubin
Sr. Manager, Product & Software
Nikon Inc.
1300 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, New York 11747
As we discussed privately, you'd have to ask Adobe how they process the different camera manufacturer's files in Lightroom and why one looks one way and another looks another way.
Thanks!
Michael
- It's all about money
- by kinowerken December 10, 2007 4:19 PM PST
- And not much else.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(7 Comments)