|
Rangefinder Magazine
Archives
September 2000
Digital Photography: Another
Look at the Nikon D1
by John Rettie
After my positive review of the Nikon D1 digital camera back in
the April issue of Rangefinder, I was somewhat surprised when I
received several e-mails from readers complaining that I ignored
problems they were having with their D1 cameras. I personally know
four photographers who own D1s and only one of them has any complaints,
yet even he recommends I buy one.
There are numerous web sites and discussion groups with lots of
first hand accounts by D1 owners. The vast majority of owners appear
to be delighted with their cameras, yet there are a few dissenters.
There appear to be three areas of concern. The most serious is that
many D1 owners complain there is a strong magenta color shift when
Caucasian people are photographed, especially with flash. Secondly,
a common complaint is that the Nikon Speedlight SB-28DX flash produces
inconsistent results. Lastly, Nikon advises against owners cleaning
the CCD themselves if it should get dust and dirt on it. Instead,
they suggest sending the camera in to Nikon for cleaning, which
is obviously highly inconvenient and costly.
Because of these complaints and because I really wanted to try the
camera again, I borrowed one from Nikon for a second try out. Despite
the naysayers I am still of the opinion that this is one finest
cameras on the market-digital or otherwise. It feels like a cross
between a Nikon F5 and an F100. It's a delight to use; ergonomically
it feels right and operates rapidly. I shot over 2000 photographs
in a three-week period and only once did I manage to shoot faster
than the camera's capabilities. It can shoot at 4.5 fps for up to
21 images before the memory buffer is filled. I'll admit that most
of the time I shot at the medium compression setting, as I did not
need the additional quality included in a raw file.
And, yes I did come across some images with a magenta cast in them.
One dark-skinned model had an area of skin that was not tanned and
it turned distinctly red. On another model I noticed a magenta cast
on the (white) soles of her feet. Yet one model with white skin
showed no magenta cast. It made me realize that part, if not all,
of the problem is caused by people with thin skin. It's as though
the camera is seeing through thin white skin and reflecting off
their blood! I know this is not scientific but it is a simplified
explanation, in my opinion. It produces a ruddy complexion on skin
that has a tendency towards that type of color naturally.
Another way of looking at it is to discuss the problem in terms
of film. We all know how different the rendition of colors can be
between different films and processing labs. Over the years we have
all learned what emulsions to use under what circumstances and what
to expect. The same can be said for the color shifts that can occur
with digital cameras. In each case the remedy can be taken care
of with filtering and/or post processing in a digital or film camera.
In the case of D1 digital images there are several remedies for
correcting potential color shifts. In reality, although the majority
of images obtained from the camera are fine, it is possible to improve
the colors or exposure on almost any image just as it is in color
printing. Images can be altered and/or improved in Photoshop or
with one of several programs that have come on the market and are
uniquely aimed at the D1.
While it is possible to take a D1 and use it immediately to produce
great results there are lots of settings that can be adjusted to
suit individual requirements. For example, white balance, which
is a crucial setting in a digital camera, can be left on auto or
adjusted for different lighting conditions. It can also be set for
a warmer or cooler look. It's like having a wide variety of filters
built into the camera.
Even after the camera has captured the images, they are most likely
to be viewed on a computer screen which can lead to yet another
set of problems. I have two monitors on my Mac and one on my PC
and each of them displays different colors for the same photograph.
What's more, the image then looks different once it is output on
a printer.
This whole issue of color management is critical and extremely difficult
to nail down. I am hoping to try out a new monitor and some color
management tools in the future so I can discuss this further-but
don't hold your breath. Again, in all fairness, it's really no more
complicated than the wide variety of colors that can be obtained
from different films and processing in the traditional film world.
The Nikon D1 camera can be set to produce several different types
of files including a raw NEF file, which captures all the information
gathered by the CCD and is not processed or compressed in size by
the camera. Nikon sells a program called Capture that processes
these raw NEF files and also allows remote operation of the D1 from
a computer via a Firewire cable, which could be useful in studio
environments. This software costs $499 and is sold separately from
the D1 camera.
No doubt because of the popularity of the D1 and the demand for
top notch images, there are several shareware programs-Qimage Pro
and Bibble-that have appeared that also process these images. At
the time of writing this column I have only had a chance to download
demos of the programs and take a cursory look. Each of them can
process NEF files and also automatically improve colors and exposures.
Sadly, Qimage Pro is only available for a PC and Bibble's Mac version
is still under development.
On the whole I have found that the majority of images I've taken
on the D1 have been captured, processed and stored by the D1 as
JPEG images and are more than adequate for producing good 8x10 prints
and for posting on the web. NEF files take up about 3.8 MB compared
to around 600K for a medium JPEG file, which severely limits the
number of images that can be captured on even a 96MB Compact Flash
card (25 vs. 150). Fortunately, help is right around the corner
with IBM's recent announcement of a 1 GB Microdrive which will be
capable of holding 260 NEF files or over 1000 JPEG files, even at
the smallest compression setting.
I have grown to like the D1 so much that it was tough to have to
return it to Nikon. Instead, I purchased the camera. Now I can spend
more time exploring the strengths and weaknesses over a period of
time. I plan to upgrade my computers (the newest dual processor
Mac sounds intriguing) and monitors so that I can critically judge
colors using Qimage Pro and Bibble to process images.
I'd like to get feedback from Rangefinder readers who own the D1.
For those of you who want to know more about the D1 make sure you
check out the numerous web sites about the camera. One of the most
comprehensive ones can be found at www.nikond1.net/.
Anyone who's keeping up with the rapid development in high-end consumer
(prosumer) digital cameras in the past few months will be aware
that there are now several cameras on the market with 3-megapixel
CCDs. Considering that there are no professional cameras under $20,000
with as many pixels, this is quite amazing. Of course, that's not
to say that they can produce better images than a professional camera,
but they do come amazingly close especially in controlled environments.
I reviewed the Nikon Coolpix 990 a few months ago and was suitably
impressed with the improvements; so much so that I sold my Coolpix
950 and replaced it with the 990. Now I have had the opportunity
to try out a couple of other cameras with similar specifications
and functionality. Each of these cameras has features that will
appeal to different users.
Olympus has one of the widest ranges of digital cameras on the market
and the company continues to unveil new ones at an unabated pace.
One of its newest models is the C-3030 Zoom which is housed in a
body all but identical to the C-2020 and C-2000. As its name suggests
this is a 3.3 megapixel camera. It comes with a black body and has
a wider than usual 3X zoom (32-96mm equivalent). Pictures of the
camera are deceptive, as it is much smaller than you'd expect. It's
almost half the size of the Coolpix 990, although once it is switched
on it grows in size somewhat as the lens moves out of the body automatically,
ready for shooting. High-end Olympus digital cameras have consistently
produced great images and the C-3030 is no exception.
The camera is pleasant to use and it operates quickly with little
pause between shots. If anything it is quicker than the 990 thanks
to a larger buffer. Of course, it is still not as quick as a professional
camera like the D1, but it's a vast improvement over older and/or
lower cost cameras. It will also capture short video clips including
the ability to record audio. The C-3030Z sells for under $1000 and
as with its predecessors, uses SmartMedia storage cards.
Like the Olympus upgrade, the newest Fuji digital camera is also
housed in a similar body to an earlier 2700 model. The Fuji 4700
is about the size of a small silver cigarette case with the 3X (38-
108mm equivalent) lens hidden behind a metal window that moves aside
when the camera is switched on. The lens moves out some distance
for picture taking. The camera really is palm sized and because
of this I found it too small for taking good shots as it is difficult
to hold in a steady manner. Also, the buttons and switches are pretty
small. The camera brings a smile to your face as it has a unique
and friendly operating system that says hello and bye as it is switched
on and off.
Fuji has garnered a lot of publicity and created some controversy
with this camera because it uses a Super CCD with a different pixel
pattern. Initially Fuji described the camera as a 4.3 megapixel
camera. In reality it has a 2.4 megapixel Super CCD which is interpolated
in the camera to a 2400x1800 image (4.3 megapixels). In all honesty,
it did not produce images any better or worse than other cameras,
so I fail to see the improvement Fuji claims.
If you're looking for a small point-and-shoot camera that can be
thrown in a coat pocket, either of these cameras will fit that bill.
I can recommend either one for those of you who still haven't taken
the digital plunge.
John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara,
CA. He has been using a camera as a professional for 29 years, a
computer for 19 years, and has combined his knowledge of both for
the past seven years. Readers can contact him by e-mail at john@johnrettie.com
or by snail-mail c/o Rangefinder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
