D1x on auto...

How about you sell both 300D and especially D1x and maybe Leica (if you are not too attached) and just get one recent decent camera with a proper lens. 5D is perhaps the best bang per buck, followed by 40D, or nikon D80-90 or D300 if you can stretch. Even 450D or Nikon D3000 will do a very good job with a good lens (not kit lens!) for these shots.

There are some excellent books if you need to consult regarding exposure, composition, and RAW conversion.
 
basically theres noting wrong with the camera................according to the last few posts and the person buying wasnt happy but thats a D1X thing "you love em or hate em" but they are a damm good piece of kit and you can rely on em to do the work
 
lets face it £185 isnt going to buy the best camera in the world is it .... a D1X is a good buy at that kind of money
 
I just noticed in that image EXIF data the OP is spot metering - wondered if that was the same on the Canon they compred against....

DM, I get the feeling you're spot on with your last few comments - user error rather than tech error methinks....
 
specialman said:
I just noticed in that image EXIF data the OP is spot metering - wondered if that was the same on the Canon they compred against....

DM, I get the feeling you're spot on with your last few comments - user error rather than tech error methinks....
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is user error, but newer sensors record enough information to rescue even worse exposures. It wouldn't make that scene look much better than that due to lack of proper light and interest, but would certainly help in other situations.

I will also stress that it is crucial to shoot RAW and very carefully process files (I recommend Lightroom). JPEG will give terrible results from all and especially older cameras.
 
Ambermile said:
Mostly under-exposed but large blocks of colour - like a telephone box) saturated to the point of unusability.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for the D1x, but the D100 also had a tendency to underexpose images in order to prevent the blowing of highlights. It was an issue often raised by D100 owners at the time (myself included). This was the reason I only ever shot in RAW on my D100 (although don't even think about compressed NEF, it took 30 seconds to compress a single shot - which is one of the reasons the D70 became such a popular replacement, despite lacking a grip).

As for the colour issues, plenty of people have pointed things out there. Even if you shoot in AdobeRGB, you still want to convert it over to SRGB usually when printing or displaying on the screen (there are many applications, including web browsers, that don't support ICC profiles embedded within images).
 
Daugirdas, interesting POV about raw being the only probably way to go for good images. I do like raw and will extoll the virtues of it to anyone wanting maximum image control but even on my 'old' 2005 D2x the JPEGs are amazing and probably more than enough for even high-end magazine print runs.

You are totally right about the ability to rescue a shot though; think the OP just didn't get it right from the off
 
specialman said:
even on my 'old' 2005 D2x the JPEGs are amazing
Click to expand...
Nikon had brought out 6 other DSLR bodies before the D2x though, so they had plenty of time to figure out some of those bugs (the D70 probably being the first decent leap - if you forget the moiré issues - before the D2x).

My D200 also does pretty exceptional JPG files, but I still it shoot RAW+JPG.
 
specialman said:
Daugirdas,even on my 'old' 2005 D2x the JPEGs are amazing and probably more than enough for even high-end magazine print runs.
Click to expand...

With JPEG you lose the ability to recover shadows and highlights, and use graduated filters in Lightroom, that I really find invaluable. Secondly, JPEG applies default sharpening and NR which may or may not be appropriate. I guess if you expose perfectly and use all the filters (when shooting landscapes) you may just about use JPEG. Memory cards are cheap, so why lose the data?
 
Right. Let's get something straight here if we can? See that first post? The bit where it says

"can anyone that knows about these things confirm that if you set up the camera as per the manual for first use (i.e. a complete reset to standard settings) then the camera takes absolutely poo pictures exposure-wise?"

That's what I need answering. I know how to take good shots with the camera, it's not bloody user error, I set the camera according to the manual. I can get a decent shot, in fact lots of them, but the above question is the one we are talking about here, not "Is he a tit and can't use it" or " you got the wrong colourspace there mate..." but only the above please...

I appreciate the help offered but it's not really valid to the initial post?
 
Ambermile said:
"can anyone that knows about these things confirm that if you set up the camera as per the manual for first use (i.e. a complete reset to standard settings) then the camera takes absolutely poo pictures exposure-wise?"
Click to expand...
I can confirm that the D100 was, which was the same generation of Nikon DSLRs (the first generation).
 
daugirdas said:
JPEG applies default sharpening and NR which may or may not be appropriate.
Click to expand...
If you tell it to in the camera settings. You can tell it to apply no sharpening and no NR.
 
Kaouthia said:
I can confirm that the D100 was, which was the same generation of Nikon DSLRs (the first generation).
Click to expand...

Excellent! So now I know that it is not me I can move on then. The camera is already set to Adobe and RAW, will never be on P again unless there's a csm setting I want to save, and though LR is the preferred package, I will stick with PI X3 as I am comfortable with it - even though it's bit naughty with exif data.



Thanks again for all the particiaption in this thread, especially good to see so many prepared to help over Christmas, but now I know it's not me I'm happy.

Arthur
 
by the way your next post will be about batteries..............D1X eats them fast .......lol
 
daugirdas said:
With JPEG you lose the ability to recover shadows and highlights, and use graduated filters in Lightroom, that I really find invaluable. Secondly, JPEG applies default sharpening and NR which may or may not be appropriate. I guess if you expose perfectly and use all the filters (when shooting landscapes) you may just about use JPEG. Memory cards are cheap, so why lose the data?
Click to expand...

Didn't realise about the grad filters in LR but suppose it's logical; a grad filter will look pants when the highlights are blown because it's a digital grad and not a 'real' grad.

However, if a highlight is blown, it's blown - there's no rescue. The output media is very critical I feel, to how good a final image actually loks, where it's been shot in raw or jpeg. I shuold know; I've shot both for magazine and repro managers can still f*** both file formats up :D
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
by the way your next post will be about batteries..............D1X eats them fast .......lol
Click to expand...

Ah - but there you could be wrong, I have three good and one borderline battery pack things here - with any luck I'll be OK now they are all charged. I just haven't figured out which one is the borderline one yet though :shrug:
 
specialman said:
Ambermile, the two initial 'test' shots are done on totally different days with totally different light with totally different viewpoints so can't be compared. The same scene with the same settings on both cameras are what's needed to give a true reflection of whetehr the D1 is mucking up or not...
Click to expand...

Exactly what I thought when I saw the first two images.

The first shot with the Canon has much better light giving good contrast, saturation and illumination on the trees behind, and a clearer sky (with a hint of blue). It looks as if the second shot with the Nikon was taken with the sun in providing a flat image lacking in contrast and saturation, and a cloudy sky too bright compared to the exposure for the telephone box, hence its over exposed.

Take shots with both cameras at the same time with the same settings then you can compare them.
 
Hi People, the above is not the issue, (which is now sorted) but I will try to get a couple of shots done today... just because it would make an interesting comparison.

Arthur
 
So what was the issue? :thinking:

There is nothing wrong with the shot the Nikon has produced, just the shot from the Canon had better light.
 
Jim B said:
So what was the issue? :thinking:

There is nothing wrong with the shot the Nikon has produced, just the shot from the Canon had better light.
Click to expand...

The issue was about standard settings from the manual, as stated in the first post.


Anyway, here we go then. Both shots taken at f/7.1, zooms on max so would be 55mm on the Canon 300D(Canon EFS 18-55 f/3.5 - 5.6) , 50mm on the D1x (Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5 - 5.6).

Both set on AF, aperture priority, centred on small tere in middle of pic (no, really). Nikon shooting RAW, Canon JPG - because I forgot to reset the Canon and only noticed when I loaded the two images. It's cold outside...

First image is the Nikon, I cannot read the RAW exif data so will not post the Canon data either. Second, the Canon.



DSC_0022.jpg



IMG_0395.jpg




​



Clearly there's a big difference in the colour, and while the Canon looks "nicer", the Nikon is the clear winner in the reality stakes.

Arthur
 
How did you meter these - they are both under exposed - esp the Nikon shot.
 
The exposure for both images appears to be very similar, so theres nothing wrong with the Nikon in that respect... :shrug:

Only difference is the colours which is down to the white balance or raw processing. In actual fact I think the warmer colours of the Nikon look "nicer"!

awp, how are these under exposed? It looks as if the shots have been taken at dusk and both cameras have exposed for the sky, you can't expose correctly for both the foreground and sky, as its outside the tonal range of the camera's sensors? The foreground wasn't illuminated so hence why its dark, but detail can be recovered from shadows to a certain degree, however blown highlights can't.
 
As you say, the Nikon does look better. Shot was taken this morning - so dawn not dusk - and I chose this scene as it splits the horizon dead centre so should make the cameras struggle. Metering was done by the cameras, as I stated they were both set to aperture priority on f/7.1.

In my eyes, the Nikon wins here - as expected it would (and should) - which is a relief! It still though does not explain why then it is that apparently Nikon went out of their way to instruct new owners to set the camera up at possibly it's worst settings - thereby not exactly covering the camera in roses?


Arthur


PS - interesting you say dusk though, the nikon looks a little cold, definitely morning but the Canon warms the image up... evening! The Nikon has the truer representation of the complete scene though.
 
rally-media said:
And you'd probably get a completely different result again without the ***** Sigma lens on the front of the Nikon.
Click to expand...

Quite probably, but we use what we have I am afraid... the Canon stock lens is crap too, but note the sigma is *much* sharper.

I have replaced the pix with processed versions and again, the Nikon data was so much easier to work with I was very pleasantly surprised. Last time I messed with RAW stuff was with astro pictures. This though was actually fun, I could go much further without losing detail.
 
Ambermile said:
I am, sorry.
Click to expand...
for what i feel that if you use srgb you will get more real colours a always find argd looks to bright. and you will not gain any benifits from using argb, may i suggest trying both and seeing which makes you happier, also might be worth printing one of each(same pic lots of colours), and my apoligies for being rude, i just see lots of people using argb not realising it wont benifit them (but if any thing make colours worse when printing)
 
I mean, sorry for not mentioning that after reading the article linked to previously I am now using the Nikon with the sRGB colourspace - and so the shot above is taken in that one.

Arthur
 
I'm really pleased that it seems to going fine now Arthur. :)
 
Thanks Lawrence. Here's a pic of the "armoury" now! Note the Leica replaced by the little Rollei 35, with the proof over the holidays that the Rollei is working just fine the Leica can go for sale with all the others in the collection. As you can see then, the conversion to the dark side is complete - I mean yeah, I used the Canon for the pic but it's on the way out!

armoury.jpg



Arthur
 
Looks good. Is that the 70-300 on the 1X..:naughty:?
 
Jim B said:
awp, how are these under exposed? It looks as if the shots have been taken at dusk and both cameras have exposed for the sky, you can't expose correctly for both the foreground and sky, as its outside the tonal range of the camera's sensors? The foreground wasn't illuminated so hence why its dark, but detail can be recovered from shadows to a certain degree, however blown highlights can't.
Click to expand...

These images have been edited / replaced since I made that comment!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top