sdai Posted August 25, 2007 Share #101 Posted August 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Howard, in my own experience, the best manual focus setup for Nikon is a F6 with the factory 45 degree split image rangefinder style screen ... I guess they'll probably make one for the D3 but I really don't know but hey, nothing beats a Leica on this, right? I have no exact number to give out regarding the electronic rangefinder, but when you bring your camera to the Nikon service center they'll know what to do. The focusing confirmation system in the Canon is much more reliable IMO ... I've tried the AF confirmation adapter for R lenses on 1Ds2, 20D and the 350D, they're all spot on even wide open. Based on the lab test reports I've seen, among the 11 cross type sensors in Canon's 45 point system, 4 of them are calibrated to zero tolerance, among the 11 cross type sensors in Nikon's 11 point system, only 1 is calibrated to zero tolerance - and it's not necessarily the one in the middle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 25, 2007 Posted August 25, 2007 Hi sdai, Take a look here HE-llo! Whole new ballgame!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ho_co Posted August 26, 2007 Share #102 Posted August 26, 2007 Simon--Thanks for the response; all that information is helpful and new to me (I don't even know what a 'cross-type sensor' is or why I should care!). I have no exact number to give out regarding the electronic rangefinder, but when you bring your camera to the Nikon service center they'll know what to do. I'm sure Nikon can adjust them; thanks for reassuring me on that. But I guess I didn't phrase my question well. You say the D2x and D200 are in different leagues as regards their AF. How so? Different technology? Different numbers of sensors? Different location of sensors compared to meter and mirror? Different speeds of built-in focus motor for the earlier lenses requiring the camera-resident motor? In other words, what about them puts them in 'two different classes'? The accuracy of the electronic rangefinders in D2X and D200 are in two different classes.... Thanks in advance! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 26, 2007 Share #103 Posted August 26, 2007 Sean's review of the D200 remarked that it is easier to focus manually than are his Canons; and if I'm not mistaken, the D200 manual doesn't say anything about changing screens. My feeling was that the D200 would be adequate without changing screens. (Doesn't the D2 offer user-changeable screens?) In other words, is it generally recommended or necessary to have the screen changed on a D200 to be able to use manual-focus lenses? Simon--Can you be more specific in regard to the "two different classes" and where one could read more? Thanks! --HC Hi Howard, The simplest answer would be to try it and see how well the stock screen works for you. You can always swap if needed. I found it to be fine and it was, indeed, better for MF than the stock screens in my Canons. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 26, 2007 Share #104 Posted August 26, 2007 You say the D2x and D200 are in different leagues as regards their AF. How so? Different technology? Different numbers of sensors? Different location of sensors compared to meter and mirror? Howard, The D200's AF sensor is CAM-1000, the D2x and D2Xs use CAM-2000, the D300 uses CAM-3500DX and the D3 uses CAM-3500FX. Long story short ... the major differences are numbers of cross type sensors, arrangement of sensors, sensitivity of sensors, etc CAM 1000 only has one cross type sensor, 8 verticals and 2 horizontals, CAM 2000 has 9 cross type sensors, CAM 3500 has 15 cross type sensors, however, the difference is not only in the number of cross type sensors, they're also different grades of sensors, better sensors have wider coverage areas, lower grade sensors are loosely calibrated etc. Just to give you an example ... you might think that the most accurate AF sensor is always the one cross type in the middle ... not ... I know somebody in Japan who has tested 10 D200s in a batch and found the one with highest spot on hit rate is the horizontal sensor right below the center cross type sensor. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted August 26, 2007 Share #105 Posted August 26, 2007 Welcome to the Nikon Canon users forum! Leica are really missing the boat. The M8 is functionally unique and the peak of its kind. Leica R digital is way behind the field in features and at the moment without a product. The question is how do you get back to the head of the field in digital performance. The lenses are not a problem the body is. If Panasonic are OK for bodies then why not Canon. A Canon body with the functions to read Leica lens data is not such a great tech feat. Zeiss have not dropped their standards to fit other camera makes. I now consider digital bodies as expendable, but good manual lenses keep on delivering. Some autofocus ones can deliver good results within their limited mechanical lifespans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 26, 2007 Share #106 Posted August 26, 2007 Simon--Thanks; that's usable info for me. Why does Nikon need designations like CAM-1000, CAM-3000 etc? For me they are just marketing gobbledygook to confuse the issue; I'm glad you gave some explanation. What are "cross-type sensors" and do I care? Is there information on the topic in the D200 instructions? (I don't want to keep pumping you and others for information; everyone has been quite helpful already.) BTW--in regard to your last paragraph: I don't understand the "LOL." (Yes, I do know what it means. ) You say one might expect the center AF sensor to be the most accurate, and you're right, one _might_ think that. But I try to go at the matter without presuppositions, so for me, it's added information to know that a test shows that the one below center is more accurate; and that information isn't something that deserves laughter or snideness. Curious--Has he tested cameras like the D2X in the same way? It may be sloppiness, but it may be designed that way for a particular reason. But I do thank you and your friend for the information! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 26, 2007 Share #107 Posted August 26, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Howard, cross-type sensors are sensitive to both horizontal and vertical lines, while vertical sensors are only sensitive to vertical lines, horizontal sensors are only sensitive to horizontal lines. It's really just market segmentation to separate the professional products from consumer models, nothing unusual. Nothing special when I used a LOL or ... please don't read too much into it. A similar AF sensor test for the D2Xs was also conducted by the same guy who tested the D200s, statistically, the most precisely calibrated sensors in the D2x are the bottom cross-type sensor in the middle and the far left end vertical sensor in the middle row. Although I started taking pictures with a M3 but I'm a SLR guy at heart ... I've used Nikon cameras for more than 25 years, it's really just because after the transition to digital, now everything seems to be so expensive and I had to give up one system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted August 26, 2007 Share #108 Posted August 26, 2007 Why does Nikon need designations like CAM-1000, CAM-3000 etc? It is generally assumed that the number refers to the number of pixels of the AF sensor. More pixels allow for a greater number of distinct focus points, with cross-type focus points requiring more pixels than ordinary focus points. For example, the Multi-CAM2000 of the D2Xs supports 11 focus points, 9 of which are cross-type, whereas the Multi-CAM1000 of the D200 and D80 also supports 11 focus points, but with just one, central cross-type focus point. The Multi-CAM3500FX and Multi-CAM3500DX of the D3 and D300, respectively, are the highest resolution AF sensors employed in Nikon DSLRs so far (or any DSLR, according to Nikon). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted August 27, 2007 Share #109 Posted August 27, 2007 It will take up a bit of space, but consider adding either a 28/1.9 Ultron or (for really low contrast) a tiny little Canon 28/2.8 from the 50s/60s. I shot a whole set of picture for Robb Report (editorial) with just the R-D1 and that little Canon. The lower contrast lenses will let you pull the highlights down further without hitting the noise floor in the shadows. The difference can be remarkable once one gets the hang of it. Cheers, Sean I am hanging in there, but still have yet to tame this beast into production. Here is a low contrast shot with the 28/2 ASPH wide open. The tops of his glasses break apart in CS3 raw and have strange pits with C1, I also get strange noise lines in the C1 shot. ISO 160. Both have zero sharpening and a tad of noise reduction. Correction, the C1 files were writing jpegs, when I went to 16 bit tiffs, the line noise was not quite as bad, glasses still show pits though... It's like this camera needs a more custom raw souping profile... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/31726-he-llo-whole-new-ballgame/?do=findComment&comment=339054'>More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 27, 2007 Share #110 Posted August 27, 2007 Simon & Michael--Great! Thanks again for the info! So dare I ask, what on earth is "Color Matrix Metering"? Michael--your and Olaf Stefanus' article "Sinn u. Sinnlichkeit" is first rate! You two have covered the topic from all angles, including some that I hadn't thought of, and leave us wanting to go out and buy another lens, even if we already have one with backfocus problems! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #111 Posted August 27, 2007 Howard, The 3D color matrix meter is not only a exposure meter, it's also a color meter. The sensor is a 1005 pixel CCD chip and each pixel has their own R, G and B filters so it doesn't not only evaluate brightness and contrast but also colors. Then the microprocessor processes the information gathered about brightness, contrast, focus point, subject distance and color characteristics, and matches it to about 30000 possible exposure settings stored in the database before picking one the machine thinks is right for you. It's the No.1 selling point of the Nikons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 27, 2007 Share #112 Posted August 27, 2007 Again, my thanks. But I'm amazed that this metering is supposed to be special. Just my experience, and not trying to start a fight--but the D200 seems to me not to meter as well as either my Digilux 2 or my D-Lux 2. I've been just about ready to give up on the matrix metering and use one of the center-weighted patterns. It seems unable to respond to any kind of backlighting, including the appearance of sky in an image, although it works fine under relatively flat lighting. Just to veer slightly into Leica history: the R3 had the best meter I've ever used, and I've been spoiled ever since. The R3 was built on the chassis of a Minolta XE-3 as I recall; they looked almost identical outside, but the mirror cavity was completely different and showed the Leica input. The Minolta body had what they called CLC for 'contrast light compensation,' so Leica took advantage of the two metering ports in Minolta's (hideously dim) porroprism, and added their own center cell on the floor of the camera. Depending on the light, the contributions of the three cells changed. Theoretically I dislike this kind of thing because you never know what the metering system is seeing; but in fact, I quickly learned to just trust the thing and not try to outthink it. As I recall, in flat light the upper cell determined 40% of the exposure, the center cell 10% and the lower cell 50%. As contrast increased, the ratio changed until the top cell was responsible for 25%, the center cell 20%, and the bottom cell 55%. All analog, didn't compare a pile of experiences, just varied sensitivities to go from almost straight averaging to strongly bottom-center-weighted. And in my experience, it worked. And the funny thing about it is, Leica didn't make a big deal of it. They didn't even mention it. They just said the camera had center-weighted metering in addition to the selective ("spot") metering that both the R3's German-made predecessors had had. That's the kind of thing that annoys me about Nikon (and others): They have a special name for their metering system (for example); they use that name as a selling point; and it doesn't work as well IMHO as a 30-year-old Leica whose marketing department hadn't named the meter, but which gave superb exposures. In other words, this troglodyte sees Leica as saying, "Well, it works well, doesn't it? Just go out and use it"; while others are saying "Wowsers! Looka me! Man, have I got a meter! It's so good that I named it! I call it Chuck! And boy, does Chuck know how to work! Gosh, that guy's good! Just buy the camera and you'll see! Boy, will you see! Just buy, buy, buy! And bye-bye!" Seriously, thanks for the explanation, Simon. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #113 Posted August 27, 2007 But I'm amazed that this metering is supposed to be special. Just my experience, and not trying to start a fight--but the D200 seems to me not to meter as well as either my Digilux 2 or my D-Lux 2. That's not my experience, Howard. Nikon's metering is known to be decent in handling sophisticated lighting conditions. I'm not sure what's happening in your case but even the best meter can't replace exposure compensation, perhaps some fill flash would help in strong back light condition ... I do prefer center weighted to color matrix as I found color matrix works the best within P mode. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted August 27, 2007 Share #114 Posted August 27, 2007 I am hanging in there, but still have yet to tame this beast into production. Here is a low contrast shot with the 28/2 ASPH wide open. The tops of his glasses break apart in CS3 raw and have strange pits with C1, I also get strange noise lines in the C1 shot. ISO 160. Both have zero sharpening and a tad of noise reduction. Correction, the C1 files were writing jpegs, when I went to 16 bit tiffs, the line noise was not quite as bad, glasses still show pits though... It's like this camera needs a more custom raw souping profile... I started a new thread to address RAW processing issues with the M8. I posted some images that address the noise pattern you are seeing in C1: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/32422-raw-processing-issues-c1.html I'm going to dig up some chrome images shot with the Canon and compare them to shots of similar subjects from the M8 to get a look at speculars and highlight fall off. I'll post them to the same thread. Maybe I have been overlooking some issues that you have noticed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #115 Posted August 27, 2007 If you want to see some D3 sample shots, somebody has posted images taken from the IAAF games in Osaka on Xitek. My humble feeling is the AF tracking performance of the CAM3500 is only so so ... the pictures are soft as hell. Pilot errors may be, it's really hard to tell. D3 images from IAAF Osaka posted on Xitek Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted August 27, 2007 Share #116 Posted August 27, 2007 Howard, in my own experience, the best manual focus setup for Nikon is a F6 with the factory 45 degree split image rangefinder style screen ... I guess they'll probably make one for the D3 but I really don't know but hey, nothing beats a Leica on this, right? I have no exact number to give out regarding the electronic rangefinder, but when you bring your camera to the Nikon service center they'll know what to do. The focusing confirmation system in the Canon is much more reliable IMO ... I've tried the AF confirmation adapter for R lenses on 1Ds2, 20D and the 350D, they're all spot on even wide open. Based on the lab test reports I've seen, among the 11 cross type sensors in Canon's 45 point system, 4 of them are calibrated to zero tolerance, among the 11 cross type sensors in Nikon's 11 point system, only 1 is calibrated to zero tolerance - and it's not necessarily the one in the middle. I had the exact 180 degree different experiences with Nikon and Canon AF - so I am not sure what you really compared :-)) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted August 27, 2007 Share #117 Posted August 27, 2007 I had the exact 180 degree different experiences with Nikon and Canon AF - so I am not sure what you really compared :-)) That's not a surprise because Canon and Nikon's AF work in different ways so you have to learn. Besides, how many people have the chance to try 10 D200s, 10 D2xs all at once? I know dpreview can't do this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted August 31, 2007 Share #118 Posted August 31, 2007 Something of a follow up on Canon 1Ds3 21.1 MP details on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-1Ds-Mark-III-Digital/dp/B000V5LX00/ref=sr_1_6/103-6632904-9598204?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1187517273&sr=1-6 Nikon to read Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobold Posted September 1, 2007 Share #119 Posted September 1, 2007 D3: ordered. Why? 1. can take ZF lenses; the 35/2, the 50/2 and 100/2 are fantastic lenses. They produce sensational results on the D2Hs and the S5 Pro. They will prodice even better results on the D3. 2. the 12-24/2.8 3. the Nikon flash system 4. 12 Mp is enough, even for my book illustration work. With big pixels, Quimage can make double page spreads perfectly. 5. big pixels usually mean good DR 6. Even if an 18Mp D3X comes along, 12 hi-qual. pixels is enough. 7. FF 8. Aperture stopdown on Nikon/Zeiss MF lenses What else needs to be said? Cheers to all, kl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoarne Posted September 1, 2007 Share #120 Posted September 1, 2007 Hi Kit, congratulations, seems like eminently good reasons to choose the D3, and I hope it will serve you well. I have just ordered the 1DsIII to replace my 1DsII. Why? 1. I like to print my best images in A2. In this size my current cameras (M8, DMR and also even the 1DsII) are beginning to show to a smaller or larger degree the limit of resolution. While an increase of 4,5 Mp is not dramatic, I expect it will be visible at this print size. Besides I hope Canon has listened to critics and reduced the strength of the AA filter (removing it would have been even better, but for some inscrutable oriental reason they deem an AA filter to be necessary in the face of all practical experience (DMR, M8, all MF DBs)) which would increase resolution even further. 2. Mirror up for more than one exposure (actually an unlimited number of exposures) and live view with 5x or 10x enlargement. This will allow ANY lens that can somehow be adapted to the EOS mount to be used on the camera without modification or shaving off the mirror etc. A huge benefit for us with various alternative lenses. Live view appears to allow more precise focusing for macro images, one of my particular interests. 3. Micro adjustment for each lens of the AF. I have some great Canon lenses as well, but aside from the L 35 1,4, none of them focus 100% correctly in AF mode. 4. 14 bit depth signal processing. My experience with the DMR indicates a substantially better colour fidelity with increased bit depth, this should improve colour rendition visibly. Reports from users of the 1DIII indicates that this is indeed the case. 5. Better low light AF performance. One of the weak points of the 1DsII. 6. It's exiting to get a new camera The one thing I miss is better DR, apparently it's on the same level as the 1DsII. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.