Slashdot Mirror

Thom Hogan (Nikon expert) has a very critical take on this here , one which I happen to agree with fully, to quote Thom:
" If you're in the content business, there's one simple rule you have to remember: create the best content for your chosen media. First, you can sell great content to customers (circulation revenue). Second, you can sell your access to a great set of customers to others (advertising revenue). Corollary: if you don't invest in the content, you'll die. First, because you don't attract a large enough audience and can't hold them. Second, because the declining audience will scare advertisers away. Finally, if you just run from your chosen medium to try to dominate another one, you're playing moose to someone else's elephant. Prepare to get stepped on."

As for 14 MP, that seems ridiculously high for a camera that can't have optics to support even a fraction of that. Spend more on the lens and less on the MP count, and I might just buy one for a couple of relatives.

Yeah, where did that decision come from? For a 3 x 4 inch print at 300 dpi that comes out to around a 1 MB file. The print quality was described as 'not so good' so it's unlikely that they are printing at some insane resolution.

Kodak sold off it's sensor business to raise operating capital. Doesn't look to good for the dinos.

... the prototype required a 16mp sensor array to produce a 90kp image. Some similar relationship is expected for a production camera.

Less than a 1 megapixel image. That's pretty small - would be OK for web viewing but not for printing. However, unless you 'stack' the images together to get a very large depth of field (which would often look very unreal), printing the image would not get you much aside from deciding what the focal plane would be.

A web gallery, however, would allow you to move the focus in and out at will (as shown in the examples) and might be more commercially viable. Hogan's main complaint is that they will have to sell a metric butload of them to make a profit and that would be hard to do as a one trick, low resolution pony. I'd love a higher resolution version for macrophotography but I guess I will just do plain old focus stacking for a while longer.

A dig back for a K1000 would be about perfect, since all I really need the camera for, is to act as a light-tight spacer between the t-mount and the dig back's CCD. It should be cheaper, also?

Probably not. Think of the small number of cameras on T-mounts compared with the number of DSLRs whose owners don't know what a T-mount is. It's easier to put all of the features in that normal users want and have edge cases just ignore them than creating custom cameras.

I use a couple of Nikon DLSRs entirely in RAW mode and usually either in manual mode or aperture priority. I never use the JPEG engine, custom curves or half the very strange auto focus possibilities. So I just ignore them. It would be nice if users could play with the menus in order to hide some of the features we never use, but I don't see that happening.

A noted Nikon writer, Thom Hogan has been writing about a more modular system and how it would make financial and market sense to Nikon (or whoever adopted that strategy). Probably won't ever come to fruition as the Japanese camera makers are very, very conservative and the cost to enter the market very high,.

Canon's are fine. I don't know a hell of a lot about them because I shoot Nikons and have enough trouble with one system, much less two.

But you don't have to spend $600 for a decent lens. Both Nikon and Canon have pretty good basic lenses. Especially if you're not planning on selling your pictures to National Geographic (or Playboy) for a double page foldout, you have an enormous latitude for equipment. Basic DSLR stuff is very, very good. Better than the vast majority of casual photographers - something that should be immediately obvious by perusing Picassa or Flikr....

One site to look at for thinking about Nikon stuff is Thom Hogan's. He has a couple of columns on shooting on a budget. I'm sure that there is a "Canon Equivalent" somewhere.

Yeah, DP Review, or Thom Hogan for a good set of reviews on Nikon stuff. Get a tripod (seriously). Go outside.

You could want an office suite that actually works (looking at you Open Office). That is, isn't bloated and lacking in features that you need.

Not blotted? That disqualifies Office. Lacking in features? True OO doesn't have as many features as Office, at least I don't thing so as I haven't tried a new version in some years, however most of the features of Office I don't need and they just get in the way. One of thjose "features" is Office's Activation. If it isn't activated it quits working. That's a terrific feature. It would be much better if it were modular and nothing's stopping people from writing moduals for OO.

Quick technical modification, usually light sensors are looking for 18% grey. At least that's what I have always been taught.

However, there is an interesting post I just uncovered here that discusses the true standard as being 12%.

Of course perhaps you knew this and picked the middle ground? :)

the canon rebel is a really nice camera for under $1000 and nikon doesnt have anything in the same price bracket that comes anywhere close.

Mod parent flamebait.

The D70 is Nikon's model that lies in the same bracket and indeed was released as direct competition to outdo the 300D/Digital Rebel. It is both on paper, and in popular opinion, a superior product (software aside).

The Kodak's imaging performance is definitely in the same class with the Canon. It has superior dynamic range, superior resolution, and more accurate color. It is not built on a pro class body, does not have as sophisticated AF, metering, or shutter, and is not as good an all around camera. The Kodak is, however, the resolution and sharpness king. Kodak's reputation for noise problems is due largely to a number of factors. First, they pre-announced and failed to ship. Then, they shipped before the camera was ready. They tried to preserve too many stops of dynamic range in the output image, and they reserved too much sensor range for overexposure. In reality, the Kodak's noise performance was far better than its reputation, but the new sensor eliminates those concerns (at least up to ISO 640). The new Kodaks are faster than the Canon and provide superior dynamic range. The professional digital community is heavily Canon-biased and does not give Kodak the respect it deserves. Thom Hogan feels otherwise. Unfortunately, we still haven't seen his review of the new camera.

Yes, lots more players in the digicam market (which is much, much larger than the DSLR market). Interestingly, Canon and Nikon have quite similar market share in DSLR's, though Canon clearly has a lead in sensor development. The 1D2 looks very impressive. I personally think it caused the D2x to be withdrawn but who knows.

More unsupported Apple, err Canon, rah-rah.

Once upon a time Kodak was the only digital SLR manufacturer. Low volumes and high prices ruled. That changed when Nikon, not Canon, introduced the D1. Canon followed with the D30. Nikon and Canon have subsequently enjoyed different segments of the market and, while Canon currently has the highest end product today, the market is young and nothing is decided. Can't count Kodak out just yet.

Michael Reichman is an idiot. Try this review written by someone who knows what he's talking about and makes the effort to be correct. Kodak has replaced the 14n with an upgraded version that is significantly better.

To summarize, the Kodak camera has greater resolving power than any other current 35mm digital SLR. It also has greater dynamic range and lower noise than most. The downside is that you have to know how to work with the camera and it is very slow. Its noise performance is actually better than the acclaimed Canon 1Ds.

Kodak has just released an updated version of this camera with significicantly improved speed. It's now a full stop faster than the 1Ds yet with better dynamic range and lower noise. It is useful beyond ISO 400 so it's no longer limited to the studio like many felt it used to be. Far from being the crappy camera the parent suggests it is, in many ways the new SLR/n is superior to the Canon 1Ds at close to half the street price.

Canon is the Apple of the digital camera world. Pretty white paint, red rings, clever nicknames and a nuturing of a belief system that suggests that everything they do is better than anything anyone else does. Sound familiar? Difference is that Canon really is as good as their competitors, just not better.

Unfortunatly, this isn't the holy grail of digital camera. I'm not even sure what the holy grail would be, to be honest.

It's a very specific camera aimed at sports/news/action photographers. The Wifi addition is also a niche product, mainly for photographers in large agencies like the AP

It probably wouldn't suit anybody else, especially since most people complain about the 4mp resolution.

Anyway, here are some links to other previews:

Handson Preview:
http://www.letsgodigital.be/webpages/firstlook/nik on/slr/D2H_UK1.html

Preview:
http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD2H.shtml

Nikon expert spec analysis:
http://www.bythom.com/d2h.htm

Personally, I'm excited because this is the first Nikon DSLR to do 8fps, plus they have a new TTL flash system, and the 2.5inch LCD on the back is the biggest yet (great for "chimping", a term for gaping at your images instead of watching the action)

I received a call at 7:04 this morning from a guy asking me if I wanted to refinance my house.

After shaking the cobwebs out and clearing a pack and a half of yesterday's cigarette smoke from my throat, thanked him for waking me and asked to be placed on his company's DNC list.

He (or someone from the same company) called back three times throughout the day...

The national DNC list is a good idea in theory, but in practice, there are too many exceptions to the rule to make it worthwhile for any one.

Now, I did a little research and this is what I found...

Stopping Telemarketers

FTC Laws

More FTC info