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.

[aaydogan]

Canon and Nikon not all that they are hyped to be...

It's always interesting when so-called professionals weigh in on <br />these issues. He switched to Canon because of the full frame <br />sensor? The full frame CMOS sensor is rather noisy and it's high <br />ISO response is awful. Oh, and let's not forget that Canon's <br />color accuracy is ghastly, requiring hours of Photoshop work just <br />to get something usable. On the plus side the build quality, the <br />high frame rate and the great glass are reasons to consider <br />Canon (particularly for sports and journalism where speed is the <br />ultimate criterion.)<br /><br />Nikon? Great (legendary) glass. Superb mechanicals, but the <br />similar color accuracy issues and also slower frame rates. I'm <br />excited about the D3, not for the full frame sensor, but hopeful <br />that the image processors have been reworked.<br /><br />I love the Fuji S3 for it's unmatched dynamic range and superb <br />color rendition. Too bad it's so slow and in a non-professional <br />body.<br /><br />I'm amazed that photographers still insist on shooting medium <br />format digital. Cameras like the Hasselblad (FUJI!!) h2, h3 are <br />great to show off but very few clients need 39 megapixels for <br />their images.

[dexn8r]

high ISO is not apples to apples comparison

I am a Nikon shooter and yet I'm responding more like a Canon <br />one but read on because this may be something many reviewers <br />seem to be missing when they look at those fancy new D3 <br />sample shots at high ISO.<br /><br />Mostly I shoot weddings with a Nikon D2X, probably overkill on <br />the camera body but hey, I?m not complaining. It?s a great <br />camera, fast, rugged, and more. Canon can thank the D2 series <br />for a few of their new 1D improvements, the battery for <br />example.<br /><br />I run into a problem every so often regarding wedding <br />photography being that once in a while I have to shoot in low <br />light with no flash. Many wedding photographers I know use <br />Canon gear and they don?t seem to have an issue with low light <br />/ high ISO yet I do with the D2X. I found out why.<br /><br />I took a Canon 1Dmk3 and test shot it next to my D2X. I <br />learned of something interesting. The Canon did better in low <br />light ? high ISO when saving files as RAW images but not <br />significantly better when saving as JPEGs. It wasn?t because I <br />was comparing a new technology to a two-year Nikon one. It <br />was, and is, because Canon seems to process all images prior to <br />saving them to memory whether raw or jpeg while Nikon ONLY <br />processes jpegs in-camera and stores raw completely <br />untouched. In other words Nikon raw files are full of noise at <br />higher ISO settings such as 1600 and above and Canon's raw <br />files are not.<br /> <br />I went on to test other Nikons and other Canons at ISO 3200 <br />shots. In every case the Canon raw files have much less noise <br />than the Nikon raw files while in every case the Canon jpegs and <br />Nikon jpegs are much different and both have been noise <br />reduced in camera. Yes I admit depending on the actual camera <br />either a Nikon or a Canon may produce better jpegs but that's <br />not my point in this case. Same can be said about auto white <br />balance and auto focus but that will have stated another time.<br /><br />It was interesting and something I didn?t know about until I <br />happened to be test shooting the Canon 1Dmk3. Raw files from <br />Canon verses Nikon are drastically different in terms of high ISO <br />noise. Jpegs are not.<br /><br />Why say all of this? Because last week I took a new Nikon D300 <br />and tested it and to my (lack of surprise) ? it did the same thing. <br />In fact I see no difference in the images produced with the Nikon <br />D300 compared to the same ones on my D2X. Raw files are <br />noisy and jpegs are not.<br /><br />I have not tested a D3 but I would be willing to bet its raw files <br />are very noisy and its jpegs are not.<br /><br />So with all the hype about high ISO shots Nikon is failing to show <br />us raw files. All their ?official? sample shots at higher ISOs are <br />jpegs and have had their noise reduced in camera by their <br />Expeed? chips. <br /><br />If you want jpegs from your camera than believe the hype but if <br />you want raw files be prepared to do more post-work on them <br />with Nikon.<br /><br />The reviews and comparisons are just not always comparing at <br />the same level. They aren't always apples to apples. Sometimes <br />they are apples to oranges and they aren't telling us so.

[NikonMikeRubin]

High ISO Post is inaccurate and incorrect

Hi Mike Rubin from Nikon Inc. (U.S.).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In Capture NX you will find the noise reduction turned on (if it was shot with it) in Base Adjustments under Detail Adjustments.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Our RAW files basically consist of RAW sensor data with some adjustment depending on compression or other settings plus a list of instructions.<br /><br />Feel free to contact me directly (anyone reading this on CNET or the poster):<br /><br />mrubin (at) nikon (dot) net<br /><br />Thank you,<br /><br />Michael Rubin<br />Sr. Manager, Product &#38; Software<br />Nikon Inc.<br />1300 Walt Whitman Road<br />Melville, New York 11747

[NikonMikeRubin]

Clarification

Hi Matt,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Michael

[kinowerken]

It's all about money

And not much else.