I have been getting some odd results with shots of greenery. So today I reset all the menu settings. This is done by pressing two buttons on the top plate – ‘QUAL’ and ‘+/-‘ for a second or so until the information in the top LCD blinks and resets.
I was not sure whether this resets every setting in all the menus, and anyway I wanted to work my way through all the settings to make sure they were where I wanted them to be. I am away from home at the moment, so I googled for the D200 manual and came up with Ken Rockwell’s guide to the settings. It can be downloaded as a pdf, but looking at it in his site enables one to hyperlink to different references.
So I discovered that I had the hue setting in SHOOTING MENU > Optimize Image > Custom > Hue Adjustment, set to -3degrees. I have no idea when I did it, but having done it, I decided to google for hue adjustment in the D200. None of the people whose stuff I read suggests altering it and Ken Rockwell says ‘leave it alone!’. Which begs the question of why it is there.
Pressing the info (‘?’) button on the D200 brings up a the following. “Hue adjustment: Adjust color hue. For example, choose positive values to make skin tones more yellow, or negative values to make skin tones redder.”
Which is more of a mystery because I cannot imagine I would ever have wanted to make skin tones redder. It is just not something the D200 needs, because it exposes skin tones very nicely without adjusting hue.
Which leaves the possibliity that I adjusted it ‘blind’ while I was intending to do something else.
The bottom line is that having seen the result of adjusting hue in the camera settings, I second Ken Rockwell’s opinion – leave it alone.
It may be that the adjustment setting can be re-adjusted in Camera Raw in Photoshop, but I have not had much success and as there are several sliders to move, it is not something I want to do as a matter of course.
Everyone who had followed the Nikon and Camera brands of SLRs over the past several years expected that Nikon would bring out models to compete with the new Canon models. So it is no surprise that they have with the Nikon D3 and Nikon D300. The D3 is the first full frame (that is, the sensor is the size of a frame of 35mm film) that Nikon has produced. And that is all I am going to say about it, because lusting after it (price $5,000) will not get me one, and the D300 has many features that make it interesting and desirable in its own right.
Features of the Nikon D300
It has 12 megapixels compared to the 10 megapixels of the D200, so the change in image quality from the pixel count is so small as to be discounted. But the sensor uses CMOS technology, unlike the D200, which has a CCD sensor. And it is a proprietory Nikon sensor. And the image processing is 14-bit.
These three features imply that the image quality will be substantially improved over the D200, that the high ISO image quality will be tremendously improved and that battery life will also be improved.
The extra bit depth of 14-bit technology (rather than the 12-bit that Nikon and Canon employ at the moment) should mean fewer blown highlights. Blown hightlights occur where an overdose of light hits all or some of the microlenses and reduces the image on those parts of the image to blank white, from which no detail can be recovered.
Small areas of blown highlights are often not a problem, but it’s a different story if it affects all the white petals on a flower, or the bride’s white dress, or the side of someone’s face that is turned to the sun. Compact cameras are notorious for blowing highlights, mainly because each microlens in the array is so small that it is easily overcharged in a high contrast scene.
14-bit technology means more steps are capable of being read between dark and light, which should result in a smoother gradation from dark to light areas.
Whether this increase in bit depth translates into images that looks good depends on the processing technology within the camera. That is something we will have to see when the first images are taken and the samples posted. I hope to post some samples. The potential is there – it remains to be seen how well Nikon (and for that matter Canon with their offerings) translate this into images that have the pzazz of a well-converted 8-bit jpeg.
Thankfully, photography is still at the mercy of the light striking the sensor chip. Which means that attractive lighting – early morning light on a dull day, late afternoon winter’s light, gentle north light filtering into a room – still drives the photographer’s quest for what will make a good image.
CMOS and CCD technology
With a CMOS sensor chip, the electronic charge generated by the light hitting the microlenses is amplified via transistors on each microlens and the values are read individually. With CCD technology, the charge across the whole array of microlenses on the sensor chip are read at one corner of the array. Both technologies are capable of making high-quality images but Canon, using CMOS technology, has shown that this seems to have a distinct edge at high ISO.
And this for me is the real break with traditional 35mm photography, because the ability to shoot at ISO 3200 and get clean images, takes the opportunities for where and when one can photograph, into a place that was unknown to film photography.
With a fast lens – say something between f1.8 and f2.8, one can think of taking atmospheric portraits in low light that were not possible with film – at least not without flash (which changes the scene completely) or without using very high speed film that had its own limitations.
One of the other advantages of CMOS technology is that it is less demanding on power. This should mean improved battery life for the D300.
Add to the features of the D300, a self-cleaning sensor, an LCD that has an astounding 922,000 pixels (the D200 has 230,000), liveview in the LCD (so you can see what you are going to shoot, rather than just what you have shot), and dimensions and weight more or less the same as the D200, and Nikon have probably held on to their lead. The lead they have built over the past six months is that they have outsold Canon SLRs.
Whether it is the big guns like these cameras that are making the difference, or whether it is the D40 that is giving Nikon its lead, I don’t know. One thing that is clear though, is that both manufacturers are still in the game, which benefits consumers of all stripes. It would have been a pity if one or the other failed to make advances in technology, for that would only mean the market would stagnate.
And as for images of the new cameras from Nikon, well Nikon is kind enough to supply a whole page of web-ready images for people to use. Which strikes me as a sensible sign of the times when a manufacturer gets everyone who wants, to be an ambassador and advertiser for its products.