Nikon D50 - review

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by _.-:-._, Apr 20, 2005.

  1. _.-:-._

    _.-:-._ Guest

    _.-:-._, Apr 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. A lot will depend on the pricing but this looks like a lemon to me.
    Check this from the dpreview.com's preview:
    "A key advantage and one source of the fun associated with Nikon
    digital SLR photography is the ability to take advantage of the
    creative possibilities offered by interchangeable lenses."

    Eh? So other camera makers don't let you change lenses? Hmmm ....
    Interesting.

    Anyways, lets see how they've crippled it vis-a-vis the much nicer D70.
    - Uses SD card instead of CF.
    - No control over AF modes
    - No DoF button
    - No white balance fine tuning

    And we are still at 6MP including the much hyped D70s. I think Nikon
    bought a trillion of those 6MP sensors from Sony so isn't going to 8 or
    10MP.

    And the review talks of the D50 competing with the Rebel XT. I just
    love the way these marketing droids play this *competes-against* game.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. _.-:-._

    Steve Guest

    "we are still at 6MP"

    Why so hung up about how many megapixels we have? You don't need more
    than 6MP unless you need very large prints or want to crop the hell
    out of everything you shoot.

    Yes it's important to note that 6MP cameras are not the last word in
    image quality but they are more than good enough for most of us - even
    for some professional use (especially photo-journalism). I can see it
    now in five years:-

    "we are still at 3 gigapixels"

    Oh no no no what the hell are we going to do then? We'll only be able
    to crop out an eyeball and blow it up to A3 at 300dpi...that won't be
    anywhere near enough......
     
    Steve, Apr 20, 2005
    #3
  4. _.-:-._

    Larry Horse Guest

    Larry Horse, Apr 20, 2005
    #4
  5. _.-:-._

    JR Guest



    Mych hyped D70s? THEY BARELY ANNOUNCED IT! It's not a replacement,
    it's an update to an already awesome camera...I shoot professionally and
    NO magazine has turned down my 6mp D70 image and said it was
    inadequate...Quite the opposite actually, I was told that my images are
    so nice, I can actually downsize them if I wanted to....

    JR
     
    JR, Apr 20, 2005
    #5
  6. I am not hung up on megapixels. I probably won't move up from my 6MP
    Canon 300D until I can get atleast 12/16MP for the same price that I
    paid for the 300D. But as a customer, I would like to see newer
    products come out with more to offer for the same price. Its been two
    years since Canon came out with the 6MP 300D. And in two years the
    camera manufacturers have come up with only 8MP for the sub-$1000
    category? Whatever happened to Moore's law or whatever law kept driving
    up processor speeds in the last one decade?

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 20, 2005
    #6
  7. _.-:-._

    Alan Browne Guest

    The hype is coming from the Nikonian fan base.
    See what I mean?

    I shoot professionally and
    6 MP SLR's are more than enough quality for most magazines. I remember
    a poster on rpe35mm linking to a Japanese friend who was doing a story
    on London for the Japanese ed. of Nat Geo. ... with a Canon G3 ... JPG's
    only.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Where did I say its a replacement or that the D70 isn't a nice camera
    or that D70's image quality isn't good?

    As for the hype, maybe you haven't been following the forums and
    message boards but news of the D70s has been out for a while and people
    took it for granted that the sensor would be atleast 8MP to compete
    with the Canon 20D. Also, check the spec differences at dpreview
    between the D70 and the D70s, nothing to drool at exactly.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 20, 2005
    #8
  9. If you look at the speed of Intel CPUs in the last year or so, you will
    notice that Moore's law has come to an end. CPU manufacturers are now
    trying to bypass it by incorporating more cores (e.g. HT) per CPU or by
    going to 64 bit (or both).

    Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
     
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Apr 20, 2005
    #9
  10. _.-:-._

    Walt Hanks Guest

    How about this stat:

    Nikon D70s - MSRP $899.95 body only
    Canon 20D - BH Price after rebate $1265 body only

    A $365 difference might not matter to some, but I am having a hard time
    justifying it for me, especially since the same trend exists in lenses and
    accessories.

    Yes, the Canon has 2 MP extra - but do I need it? No, I don't.
    Yes, at high ISO settings the Canon produces less noise - but do I need to
    shoot at high ISO? Rarely.
    The D-20 is just too small for my arthritic hands to manipulate, and with
    the D-70s I am disappointed that there is still no vertical shutter release.
    Why can't someone make an affordable camera with everything I need? <selfish
    grin here>

    I do agree that the D-50 is a dud. That tiny RGB sensor will really play
    havoc with image quality. That's a $300 difference I'll spend.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Apr 20, 2005
    #10
  11. _.-:-._

    Alan Browne Guest

    Moore's law is "how many transisitors" per CPU, not clock speed. So a
    dual core CPU or a 64 bit CPU would accomplish quite a leap.

    http://www.physics.udel.edu/wwwusers/watson/scen103/intel.html
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1229

    Beyond that, given that "CPU's" do so much more than what a CPU did 0
    years ago, the "law" may still hold w/o being as obvious. Much of what
    is on a "CPU" chip is not what traditionally went there.

    Look for more clustering as well. So chip densities might not grow but
    processing power can increase dramatically at low cost.

    Cheers,
    Alan.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2005
    #11
  12. [snip]

    My mistake. Sorry 'bout that.

    Dragan

    --
    Dragan Cvetkovic,

    To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

    !!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!
     
    Dragan Cvetkovic, Apr 20, 2005
    #12
  13. _.-:-._

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2005
    #13
  14. _.-:-._

    Charles Guest

    Moore's law does not apply to sensors. Sensors and processors are
    different animals.
     
    Charles, Apr 20, 2005
    #14
  15. _.-:-._

    Alan Browne Guest

    1) Moore's law is a doubling of components on a chip every 18 months,
    not processing speed.

    2) Has held pretty true over the last 40 years.

    3) If you look at the curve at: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1229
    you will see that manuf. cost/component has a price 'kick' premium
    for the final order of magnitude of density for each given year of
    10^1.5 (about 30X)... if a 1 Mpix sensor costs $100, then a 10 Mpix
    sensor could cost $3000... [assumes the 1 mpix sensor is in the bottom
    of the cost/comp. curve for that year].

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2005
    #15
  16. _.-:-._

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2005
    #16
  17. _.-:-._

    Steve Guest

    Processor speeds in computers are only one parameter in system
    performance (albeit an important one). Other parameters include hard
    disk speed, the data bus speeds (especially the front side bus),
    graphics performance, memory performance etc.etc.

    The same can be said for the number of megapixels parameter in a
    digital camera 'system'. Other factors are the image
    processing/compression algorithms, CCD/CMOS sensor size (and hence
    photodiode density), lens quality, shutter quality etc.etc.

    People of today like to be able to say they have something bigger (and
    hence apparently better) than the rest and this numbers game with
    CPU's and camera megapixels gives them just what they need. "oh i've
    got a 3 gig pentium 4" they chime at the bar in my local pub. I have
    not yet felt the need to enlighten them that they don't have enough
    memory, the hard disk is only 5200rpm, and the motherboard can be
    obtained from hong kong for £15 on eBay.
     
    Steve, Apr 20, 2005
    #17
  18. Right, but that was after the processing speeds went from 33MHz to 3GHz
    in the last ten years (as far as I remember). Thats a hundred-fold
    speedup. CCD/CMOS chips - in the last five years, I remember them going
    from 1MP to 8MP. I'll say 8MP because a 3GHz processor is bought by
    huge number of people whereas the 8MP+ cameras are bought only by pros.
    So thats just 8x improvement. Even if you took the 16MP Canon 1Ds-II,
    its still just 16x improvement.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 20, 2005
    #18
  19. _.-:-._

    John Francis Guest

    16x in five years isn't bad. That 100x in 10 years that you quote
    for CPU speeds was around 10x in the first five years, and another
    10x in the next five years.

    So that "just" a 16x improvement is ahead of the CPU speed increases.
    (not to mention the fact that the new sensors are considerably faster)
     
    John Francis, Apr 20, 2005
    #19
  20. In 1995, I could buy 286 PCs that ran at 33MHz. In 2000, I could buy
    1GHz boxes. How's that 10x in five years? Thats more like 30x. In 1995,
    33Mhz was affordable (to me and lots of people around me). In 2000,
    1GHz was affordable. Is 16MP affordable for me today? No. So to me, its
    still just 8x over the last five years.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.