advertisement


"Light Field Technology".

sq225917 said:
Who mentioned photoshop? Yes you could apply a crappy DOF effect to any image, you could even use a z-depth capture as the basis for that filter. But to do that accurately in photoshop you'd have to write a very clever filter than calculated circle of confusion values for every pixel based on the combination of z-depth and a chosen sets of values for focal length and f-stop. As far as I'm aware no one offers that filter. I should know a little about the topic, after all I did work for the first company to offer a physically accurate DOF rendering interface for popular 3D rendering and CAD apps of the day.

What the z-depth camera does is exactly the same thing as this camera, it takes one image with no focal depth blur and simultaneously stores a value for each pixel that tells you how far away it is from the camera. Just like this camera you can adjust what you get after the fact.

Where both of those will fall down is with respect to objects who's apparent depth is not their physical depth, ie objects seen through or reflected in glass. Neither a z-depth camera or this gadget will allow you to correctly focus on an object 2m behind the camera reflected in a mirror 2m in front of the camera as at the same time perfectly focusing on an object 6m in front of you. Our 3d rendering camera plug-in of course managed this trick perfectly.
Click to expand...

I did actually say leaving the accuracy of the DOF out of it, but either way none of it makes it the same as the original link if it involves using a green screen (unless that's just one way of using it, in which case I misunderstood your original post and apologise :) ).
 
Yeh, the green screen was just because it was typically used to composite live shots, with matched DOF. The data stored per 'pixel' is the same.
 
David F said:
In what way(s)?




■Huge step up in body quality and performance thanks to Nikon D200 platform
■Class-leading dynamic range with up to 12 EV in a single exposure
■Superb out-of-camera JPEG with subtle color, tone, DR (though poor sharpness)
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got those quotes from but my list would be:

- better sensor in every possible way
- Higher dynamic range through the use of two types of photosite
- Better colour rendition
- Much lower noise at all ISOs
- pretty much the camera of choice for a huge number of wedding photographers because of the low noise and skin tone rendition

the point about sharpness is a nonsense. Because some photosites are used for DR rather than simply making up the pixel count, the sensor produces fewer pixels, but they are more accurate in terms of light and colour than the Nikon, making it just as sharp [same number of collector sites] but more accurate.

cheers
Cliff

PS Check out what KR reckons too - he knows his Nikons
 
vuk said:
have you been drinking?

i happen to have a PhD, as well. on top of that, i know how to shoot a picture. the problem here seems to be the absence of mick to confirm my point of view.


vuk.
Click to expand...

Professor of Hirsute Doods? ;-)
 
cliffpatte said:
Not sure where you got those quotes from but my list would be:

- better sensor in every possible way
- Higher dynamic range through the use of two types of photosite
- Better colour rendition
- Much lower noise at all ISOs
- pretty much the camera of choice for a huge number of wedding photographers because of the low noise and skin tone rendition

the point about sharpness is a nonsense. Because some photosites are used for DR rather than simply making up the pixel count, the sensor produces fewer pixels, but they are more accurate in terms of light and colour than the Nikon, making it just as sharp [same number of collector sites] but more accurate.

cheers
Cliff

PS Check out what KR reckons too - he knows his Nikons
Click to expand...



A lot of people use dpreview to very good effect Cliff



- better sensor in every possible way


HOW is it better, quantify, be specific?
How do you know, have you owned both?


- Higher dynamic range through the use of two types of photosite
- Better colour rendition
- Much lower noise at all ISOs
- pretty much the camera of choice for a huge number of wedding photographers because of the low noise and skin tone rendition



I take it you're a fuji owner because I detect at least one or two rather sweeping, unspecific claims in there!!




TBH, I don't know either way.

I do know the D200 gets magnesium body, I think the same as my old 5700 bridge thing, which has survived more than one drop onto a solid surface and has survived.

Besides, in such a competative field as this, I find it difficult to imagine that Nikon have sporned quite such a marketing failure as you are implying.
 
David F said:
A lot of people use dpreview to very good effect Cliff



- better sensor in every possible way


HOW is it better, quantify, be specific?
How do you know, have you owned both?


- Higher dynamic range through the use of two types of photosite
- Better colour rendition
- Much lower noise at all ISOs
- pretty much the camera of choice for a huge number of wedding photographers because of the low noise and skin tone rendition



I take it you're a fuji owner because I detect at least one or two rather sweeping, unspecific claims in there!!




TBH, I don't know either way.

I do know the D200 gets magnesium body, I think the same as my old 5700 bridge thing, which has survived more than one drop onto a solid surface and has survived.

Besides, in such a competative field as this, I find it difficult to imagine that Nikon have sporned quite such a marketing failure as you are implying.
Click to expand...

David

I can't be bothered to answer this fully to be honest

DP Review used to be a decent site and these days it is just a marketing vehicle for Amazon. And yes, I have owned pretty much every Nikon and Fuji DSLR since 2001. I'm not saying the Fuji S5 is better than the D200 based on having read a website.

cheers
Cliff

PS, for the record my current DSLRs are:

Hasselblad H3DII-39
Nikon D3X
Nikon D7000
 
cliffpatte said:
David

I can't be bothered to answer this fully to be honest

DP Review used to be a decent site and these days it is just a marketing vehicle for Amazon. And yes, I have owned pretty much every Nikon and Fuji DSLR since 2001. I'm not saying the Fuji S5 is better than the D200 based on having read a website.
cheers
Cliff

PS, for the record my current DSLRs are:

Hasselblad H3DII-39
Nikon D3X
Nikon D7000
Click to expand...


...and neither have I, have I? :)



(That's why I say your usual voice of sense appears to have deserted you.)
 
David,

I also have a Fuji S5. It's a good camera, but it may be harder to find used than the D200. It may also be slightly more expensive, so if cabbage is an issue the D200 (or D70 if you're really cash strapped) would be the way to go.

Joe

P.S. The D200 and Fuji S5 share the same body. The difference between them is the sensor and image processing bits. (Disregard that I couldn't find two pix the same size. They are outwardly identical.)

s5.jpg


Nikon_D200_large.jpg
 
Joe P said:
David,

I also have a Fuji S5. It's a good camera, but it may be harder to find used than the D200. It may also be slightly more expensive, so if cabbage is an issue the D200 (or D70 if you're really cash strapped) would be the way to go.

Joe

P.S. The D200 and Fuji S5 share the same body. The difference between them is the sensor and image processing bits. (Disregard that I couldn't find two pix the same size. They are outwardly identical.)

s5.jpg


Nikon_D200_large.jpg
Click to expand...


Thanks

the impression i have is that the fiji is nice for portaits

the nikon for landscapes

i'm miles of any decision any way (xmas first I think) so more digging to do
 
David,

The S5 shines with flesh tones...

2483701640_b9025a1cd6_z.jpg


... but it's fine with landscapes, too.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
David,

The S5 shines with flesh tones...

2483701640_b9025a1cd6_z.jpg


... but it's fine with landscapes, too.

Joe
Click to expand...

Nice...


YOu reckon it trashes the d22 like cliff has said?

How much are they? This is the trouble,you go out looking for a d70, some one says no go a d200 instead (extra 200 notes). Christ!! don't buy a d200 for the love of god, they are complete garbage in comparison with an S5 (already noted to be "rarer" than a d200)........another 100 or so.......do I detect a hifi-esqu slipperly slope appearing??
 
David,

You should spend what you're comfortable spending, and only you can answer that.

Personally, I'd pick a Fuji S5 over a Nikon D200 because I value Fuji's colours and the extended dynamic range of its sensor. It's not impossible to blow out highlights with the S5 but it's harder to do than with the D200.

So, if money is really tight, get a D70. If you can stretch it a couple of hundred squid more, get a D200. If you can go another 100 UKP higher, consider the Fuji S5.

Obviously, you can always spend more, but my advice was based on your desire to buy a good camera for reasonable money.

Joe
 
David F said:
...and neither have I, have I? :)



(That's why I say your usual voice of sense appears to have deserted you.)
Click to expand...

David

I'm not a hamster, I don't go round in wheels just because you supply them

I have used S5, D200, D300, S1 and more recent Nikons

You've implied that you read and used quotes from DP Review, whereas I have simply posted my own opinion based on experience - nothing more and nothing less.

The S5 Pro is better than the D200 in almost every respect. In the respects where they are equal it is because Fuji used the D200 as the base for the S5 so some DNA is in common.

Rather than reading DP Review why don't you try and find one and see how you get on ?
 
Joe P said:
David,

You should spend what you're comfortable spending, and only you can answer that.

Personally, I'd pick a Fuji S5 over a Nikon D200 because I value Fuji's colours and the extended dynamic range of its sensor. It's not impossible to blow out highlights with the S5 but it's harder to do than with the D200.

So, if money is really tight, get a D70. If you can stretch it a couple of hundred squid more, get a D200. If you can go another 100 UKP higher, consider the Fuji S5.

Obviously, you can always spend more, but my advice was based on your desire to buy a good camera for reasonable money.

Joe
Click to expand...


Fair enough:D

where would a D90 be in the pecking order?




Yes I suspect when the time comes its going to have to hover in the 200 to 300 area.

The D70 worried me with its 1.75 in LCD which is not much bigger than the hopeless thing on my 5700.

The D200 appeared to sort that with a 2.5" monitor (IIRC)......so was/am happy to encompass it as a possible goal




ta:cool:
 
David,

The D90 is not a camera I've played with, so I'm reluctant to comment.

Cliff's your resource here. The dude has bought more cameras than most stores stock. It appears to be an addiction of some sort, but I'm encouraging him to spend more in case in a moment of weakness he gives me a Leica M9 and a couple of lenses.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Cliff,

Do you still have an S5?

Joe
Click to expand...

Sadly not, although I wouldn't mind having one again. I've just offloaded the D3S (too many cameras and not enough time at the moment), so there's an opening on the camera shelf at the mo for a low mileage classic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top