Do the claimed specs make you go WOW! .. or

[arthurking83]

I have to admit I used to be squarely in the camp.

But I changed .. I'm not firmly and securely part of the community with regard to claimed specs.

So what changed?
Nikon did. Nikon first let me down with claimed specs about 10 years ago .. for me only to find out that those claimed specs came with conditions attached.

Any notion that I'm a Nikon crew/fan-boy/advocate/groupie/devotee is a misplaced observation by the folks on the other end of this communication medium.
One thing I'm not is a Nikon fan boy. I hate many of the things they do just as much as the next person.

What specifically changed was the D300!
I wasn't really suckered into getting a D300 due to the spec claims as such .. I was due for a better camera, and some of the features seemed much better in the D300 compared to what I had(D70s) and what I had planned to replace it with D200.

The specific let down(s) were:

1/. 6fps frame rate advance
and
2/. live view mode

1/. Nikon claimed 6fps for the D300 which at the time was pretty good. quite high and more than enough for the amateur, non sport-pro-10fps-speed-hungry demon!
I'd never needed 6fps before, but this camera came with it .. NOT!
Well it did if you shot 12 bit raw mode.
But as a landscaper, with an eye on future possible developments .. I shoot quality settings maxed out as much as the camera allows.
That means 14bit uncompressed raw, for me.
No problem, just set it to 14 bit raw mode.
Well not quite so fast folks!... because 14 bit raw mode only gave 1(and a small bit) fps.
For a landscapader that's fine, I hear you think! Not so, in some situations.
HDR is harder to do, bracketed images felt like ... a--dyi--ng---ba---tte---ry kind of stuttering feeling.

Anyhow, the limit on that sensor was read the specs carefully or get nothing like you thought you would.

2/. Liveview mode. We all take it for granted this newfangled Lv mode. Nikon first came to the party with the D3/D300 with Lv mode.
My first reaction was that this was the feature that pushed me from a would be D200 buyer to becoming a D300 owner.
Camera on tripod, Lv mode enabled, Lv preview now through the big screen, all lights now on, more lights added, ,ore lights added again, aperture set to about f/11, but in reality about f/128 or so .. and I can now focus properly on the part fo the image at the end of what looks like a magnifying glass, connected to vacuum cleaner stalk, connected to a drain pipe, connected to a black box. That's how focus bellows work. Image is awesomely dark, and seeing is next to impossible. Lv makes that a bit easier .. not for the digitally brightened view so much(although that's handy) but more so for the larger image and the ability then to see larger detail parts.
Then came the crash .. and more crashing and banging and clanging and blurring and .... crap!
Nikon, in their wisdom, thought that Lv mode and taking an actual exposure were incompatible procedures, so made it as hard to do it as they could work out how too.
Lv mode = mirror up. Mirror already up, so now the easy part is to actuate the shutter only. Mirror should now be rendered immovable. No! .. not Nikon. They need to do it the Nikon way. They want the mirror to flap about at 6Hz just for the sake of annoying the operator. I can't think of any other possible excuse for the way it was implemented like that. Nikon did that so the mirror which is already up, has to come down, then up again just before the exposure is shot. Imagine how that affects sharpness on a long gangly bellows setup!

So I got 2 for the price of one. the 1.5 fps limit bugged me more, and my intention was to mainly use the Lv for composition and not so much for exposure anyhow.
Lv mode wasn't as important as a let down, but it still bugged me that they did that. It seemed to be a lot more effort to engineer it that way, than to just leave the mirror up at all times, until Lv was turned off.

Then Nikon(and Sony was more to blame here) provided the other specs let down.
Before the hype over the D800's 36Mp came the D3x and the Sony A900 and then the Sony A850. They all had the 24Mp 135 format sensor.
Apparently very good sesnor back then .. except Nikon and Sony colluded to dupe the public with it yet again.
The stated specs for the D3x was 5fps from a 24Mp sensor .. quite good. Same with Sony too.
But the gotcha again was that if you don't mind using 12bit mode .. again. 1.5fps if you prefer your higher quality 14bit raw files.... thankyou!


So .. do specs make you drool, feel like a fool ... or make you fall to sleep ... at the pool!*(hey! I had to make that rhyme too).

Take2: So .. do specs make you drool, feel like a fool ... or impart your personality as being cruel(because you are intrinsically sceptical and look past the BS)?

[Tannin]

Really interesting post. Arthur.

I had no idea that there was that huge penalty for using 14-bit raws on any camera, let alone anything so recent.

What have I felt let down by, specs-wise? Hmmm ... I can't actually think of anything much.

(a) I think part of that is this Canon tend to be more conservative with their claims in the first place; off the top of my head I can't think of an example where they have overclaimed.

(b) But on the other hand, most of the things I buy a camera for are not really "counting variables". I don't really care too much (for example) whether I get 10 FPS or 9 FPS as long as it is lots, and I couldn't give a tuppenny monkey whether it has 19MP or 23. The specs for the things I care about most (e.g., AF speed and accuracy, noise at a given ISO) aren't things you look at manufactureers' spec sheets for anyway.

(c) Added to that, I suspect that most of the features specs apply to are irrelevant to me. I understand that a lot of Canon users (or at least the w**ers on DPR who say they use Canon) were upset about restrictions on the ability of the 5D IV to do 4k video, and they bounce up and down throwing their toys out of the pram about it. I can't even tell you exactly what the complaint was because the only thing I ever have to with video is looking it up in the manual once every few years when I buy a new camera so that I can find the menu setting to disable it.

(d) I also religiously download the manual of any camera I am considering and read it in detail (650 pages in the case of the 5D IV!) before I order. If Canon put misleading or untrue claims in their advertising, I'd never know about it anyway 'coz I get my detailed information from the manual. (And from trustworthy sites like TDP.)

(e) I have spent more than half a lifetime in the IT industry where as a matter of survival you never, ever believe anything the sales department says about anything. If the sales department says the sun will come up in the morning, the first thing an experienced IT guy does is buy a raincoat. So it is entirely possible that I have simply censored out any number of dodgy claims without any conscious effort. Stretching my poor little brain now to remember things I just ignored in the first place, you might count some of most of Canon's you-beaut onboard image processing trick technologies such as ... er ... the ones that offer to magically correct exposure and so on. Can't remember their names now, but the only one that seems to work well is ... er ... Auto Lighting Optimiser, which can be rather handy. Having expect nothing from it in the first place, I took that as a bonus.

[arthurking83]

Really interesting post. Arthur.

I had no idea that there was that huge penalty for using 14-bit raws on any camera, let alone anything so recent.

Yup! ... although 10 year old in Digital camera terms isn't really recent.
But yep. Just a design limitation from that sensor .. which I think was also Sony built.
The issue was the number of channels that the readout system used. Not enough.
D3's and D700s sensor used off sensor ADC which allowed them more channels to move more data, so it was never bit-speed limited in the same way.

(d) I also religiously download the manual of any camera I am considering and read it in detail (650 pages in the case of the 5D IV!) before I order. If Canon put misleading or untrue claims in their advertising, I'd never know about it anyway 'coz I get my detailed information from the manual. (And from trustworthy sites like TDP...

Same here. but a lack of interest at the moment to see how it's going. I like to push buttons while I read.
Actually a small trivial limitation I've noted in the D850 that could be important at my end. It relates to their feature for film digitisation.
When I first saw that, my ears pricked up. But then duly sagged again when it said jpg format only.

And my first thought was why such trivial silliness.
Colour reversal would be easily implemented on a Nikon via the use of Picture Controls .. I can almost do it on the PC, but can't upload the correctly working Picture Control to the camera .. and like I said, I like raw and 14 bits of them too.
So Nikon could very easily remove that stupid film capture feature, allow the camera to set up a colour reversal setting instead and let the user(implied to be more advanced simply due to the nature of the camera body!) she can do it herself without some dummy mode feature!

Like Thom Hogan sometimes implies .. (and like the Live view operation of the D300) .. good idea done so laughably dumb by Nikon .. again!

The difference between my idea of Picture Controls and their built in feature method is that digitising film is not something any photographer would do on a regular basis every day/week/month/even year!.
It may be a one off thing here and there or on the rare occasions that ... (Nikon implement a good idea in a well engineered method! )

With my Picture Control method, you would set up a film capture/reversal setting, save it to the PC and only load it up into the camera if and when needed. Otherwise it's not there to clutter up firmware space needlessly. More flash memory space for stuff that helps more of the time!
Nikon have made the feature a permanent distraction .. like video for you. Nice to have access to it every green moon, but do you want it there every day? in the way all the time?


BTW: The gripes I've relayed up there are pretty trivial in comparison to Sony A9 that other thread that twigged my memory about. They claimed 20fps but didn't mention that's only capable in electronic shutter mode.
Eshutter has it's limitations re exposure on all camera sensor comparisons I've seen to date. Maybe 1 stop .. maybe more.
And from memory if mechanical shutter is used, then that 20fps drops down to 10fps .. somewhat less than Canons 13 and Nikons 12 .. or whatever they currently are.
So many made a loud hoorah when the Sony claimed a pseudo crown as the speed king, but no one bothered to compare apples with apples, and introduced the concept of oranges into the mix.

[Steve Axford]

BTW: The gripes I've relayed up there are pretty trivial in comparison to Sony A9 that other thread that twigged my memory about. They claimed 20fps but didn't mention that's only capable in electronic shutter mode.
Eshutter has it's limitations re exposure on all camera sensor comparisons I've seen to date. Maybe 1 stop .. maybe more.
And from memory if mechanical shutter is used, then that 20fps drops down to 10fps .. somewhat less than Canons 13 and Nikons 12 .. or whatever they currently are.
So many made a loud hoorah when the Sony claimed a pseudo crown as the speed king, but no one bothered to compare apples with apples, and introduced the concept of oranges into the mix.

I suspect that using a DSLR for very rapid shooting would be effectively impossible. The A9 can take about 200 frames continuously and you can see what you are taking through the viewfinder the whole time. That is, you can track your subject and take pictures at the same time. You can't do that if you use a mechanical shutter and mirror. At best you see a very degraded, flickery, image and at worst you see nothing at all.
The use of fully electronic shutter is a huge advantage. Go into a store and try it out. It is very impressive.

[arthurking83]

I suspect that using a DSLR for very rapid shooting would be effectively impossible.

Yep, I get that. they'd have to convert to SLT type mirror designs.

..... You can't do that if you use a mechanical shutter and mirror. ....

For some folks a mechanical shutter may be an important consideration, and the microsecond blackout not so much.

My point isn't to belittle the ability of the A9 here.
More so like the D300 disappointed me in how it did(or didn't) do some things .. is that I wander into a shop and not knowing much about the A9 I decide that 20fps is what I really need.
But I'm a geek and I also want IQ and file malleability to be as good as I can get it too.
Through testing I discover for myself too that Eshutter loses a bit of dynamic range, and I prefer higher quality raw files(ie. refer back to my D300 14bit issues above) .. so I set the A9 to mechanical shutter .... and I now no longer shoot at 20fps as my initial desire lead me to the A9 in the first place
Not being a geeky type photographer and hence browsing forums and other sites that discuss camera gear in some depth .. my WOW factor now fizzles into a series of ZZZZs

ps. I pesronally have no desire to shoot at any more than about 3fps. This is all hypothetical, for highlighting disappointing aspects from any gear.


Other disappointing bit of gear for me was that 105mm f/2.8 VR lens. For general imaging it's very nice. About as good bokeh as you can get, perfect for portraits and stuff .. but for macro(1:1) is very average. closeups(i.e not 1:1) it's OK.
Also I'm not totally happy with the Nikon SB800 flash either. It works well, just the interface to switch from on board to wireless modes is extremely clunky.
Another big let down for me was the Nikon wired intervalometer MC-36 .. waste of money on all fronts. The only way to stop it depleting batteries was to remove the batteries. ie. you can't turn it off and it has no auto off ability. You have to remove the batteries to turn it off! how idiotic is that! Needles to say I sold mine at whatever someone was willing to pay for it, years ago.

[Steve Axford]

I'm not sure why you would be so upset by a camera that a) you have never tried, and b) you have no use for. Seems odd to me.
I lalso have no great use for it, but it was very impressive to use. I would imagine that sports photographers could get great value from it.

[arthurking83]

I'm not sure why you would be so upset by a camera that a) you have never tried, and b) you have no use for. Seems odd to me.
....

I think this is where people assume misconceived notions about comments made, which then degenerates a simple discussion into a farce(ie. that other thread)

Where did I say I was upset about the Sony(in particular) or even implied it.
Note the smiley icon is a sleeping type .. with ZZZs emanating.

With that, I'd have thought the implied emotional state is .. BORRRED! ie. ho hum. rolled eyes .. etc.

A little disappointed(as already stated) with the D300 and 105VR, and annoyed by the overly complicated '10 button operation' of the flash.

Now I'm thinking about starting a thread on implied psychological states ..
(note that the tongue poking smiley = I'm not serious about that last comment!!)

ps. with respect to the camera that I have (a'ed) nor Have (b) for .. those two aspects are easily altered to suit the situation.
The un-stated c) cannot afford! ... is the more pertinent situation for me. But not upset about any of this.

...I would imagine that sports photographers could get great value from it.

Same here! of that I have no doubt. and note that I am being serious here too .. no poking fun, or sarcasm .. nothing!.. just plain 'ol seriousness.
Reason is: most sports photographers (apparently) shoot jpg. So my comments re Eshutter and the consequential loss of tonal range is pretty much a non issues for those types of photographers.
If Sony bring to market the long lenses those shooter require(on the whole) .. then as noted in many discussions about it .. it'll a major dent into that field.

[Steve Axford]

This statement "The gripes I've relayed up there are pretty trivial in comparison to Sony A9 ....."

- - - Updated - - -

Just to follow on a little, you said "So many made a loud hoorah when the Sony claimed a pseudo crown as the speed king, but no one bothered to compare apples with apples, and introduced the concept of oranges into the mix." This seems a little harsh when, as you have just admitted, most sports photographers (who Sony is aiming this camera at) shoot jpeg anyway. They made no claims that it was aimed at the high resolution market.

If you hadn't assured us that "One thing I'm not is a Nikon fan boy.", I might have thought that you were just angry that it was a Sony camera, not Nikon. So what is your real gripe (your word) with the A9?

[swifty]

For a planned upgrade, I look for specific specs that I am interested in so I guess I have a personal tick-box of what I require.
There's a priority list too and no camera will tick every box so I guess the more boxes the specs tick and the higher up those boxes are on my priority list, the more interested I get.
But my tick-box items are pretty boring on a internet-wow-factor scale.

Now for the internet-wow-factor specs, I tend to treat these with a healthy dose of scepticism.
What I want to see is:
- does it actually do what the manufacturers claim
- if it does, how does it help my photography.
- what implications does this technology have on future products.

[arthurking83]

Ok, fair point. 'Gripes' could be read as being angry .. but I used the word gripe more as an annoyance(with the Nikon issues I've had).

At the time, no one was making claims that the D300 was going to take over the world of sports photography due to its 6fps, and in fact I think the Sony A77 had the spec numbers over it anyhow(SLT mirror probably helped) and achieve faster frame rates and all that.

On the point of shooting jpeg, from what I've read it is the way they prefer to shoot, or more accurately use the jpgs straight out of camera to wirelessly send off to their publishing channels and whatnot.
That doesn't preclude them tho from shooting raw + jpg.
As an example Tannin has claimed that he shoots raw + jpg, but really only uses the jpg image. He still has the raw file tho, even tho he only uses the jpg file.

Then on the other hand you have nature shooters that may strictly shoot raw only .. there's probably less requirement for speed of publishing for them so they have the time to shoot 14bit raw, batch process, and then send images 'another day' when they're back in wired internet range.
They still have a use for 'the fastest frame rate' possible too. I can't think of many I've come across that shoot jpg only.

On these other fora I've also read up on some photographers that do sports work, but still only shoot raw mode, doing all the file conversions on a laptop during intervals.
Thom Hogan(the Nikon centric blogger that he initially appears to be) also does a site called sansmirror. He writes a bit about the limitations on the A9 .. and other cameras too. On the whole, a good source of info on a few 'spec' anomalies for those interested.

For me, the 'annoyance' from not only Sony, but all manufacturers do this .. is why make bold claims that this thing does XXXX but then there are these restrictions on that ability .. and then not list that in an addendum(as is commonly done).

as another example of Nikon doing similar things recently is they released a new 70-300/4-5.6 AF-P lens .. as an update to the AF-S type lens.
The difference being AF-P type not AF-S.
The issue here is that many modern, current! cameras can't use this AF-P focusing system properly, and some only recent discontinued models can't use it at all!
In a sense. it's a bit of a debacle this new lens, as you can't be sure if it will work properly on your camera or not. And having a high end camera is no guarantee that it will either .. whereas in the past it used to be.

So Nikon have a very brief addendum saying that this lens may not be fully compatible with all models .. or something arcane like that. That's on one site(Nikon Aus I think have this, and nothing else)
But on another site(possibly Nikon USA) they have a small addendum list with some cameras that aren't 'fully compatible' .. but no list of those older cameras that aren't compatible at all!

The issue is: if you see this lens on the Nikon site and think to yourself, 'yeah, I could use a lens like that' .. and you have (Say) a D300 .. it just won't work(at all) .. and there is nothing listed anywhere easily found to know this

Lastly: I don't have a gripe/annoyance with the Sony A9 in particular, and I apologise if my comments re that device came across that way. But my gripe is really more about the manufacturers(ie. A9 = Sony) and their marketing dept claims. Mainly Nikon(as I use that gear) and Sony, because of the recent claims made.
I'm sure other manufacturers also make 'claims' that initially appear WOW too .. but turn out to be fizzers.

[Steve Axford]

Fair enough. We all have our likes and dislikes. That is only natural and only becomes a problem if we deny that we have any. I think the problem that Sony faced with the A9 was that they just couldn't pump enough data to support high res, RAW and high frame rate at the same time. The A9 was aimed at sports photographers and video works very well too. Jpeg + RAW would just make the problem worse.
But enough of that as I am not trying to plug the A9 (pointless here anyway). My gripes with the last Sony was the odd menu options, but a lot of that was really unfamiliarity. I tried using a Nikon D3 a couple of months ago. I hated it, not because it was a bad camera, but because it was totally strange for me. I had to look up the manual for virtually everything I did.
I am rarely very disappointed with cameras as I usually read a large variety of reviews before I get one.
Like most of us, I have been fooled by marketing hype in the past, but it is usually along the lines of - "This is easy to do" for something that really takes a lot of skill. Often it isn't even marketing hype, it is just my own hype. Hype is to blame for several expensive toys which I have never been able to use effectively, but hype could also be to blame for me getting into photography.

[arthurking83]

yep! even small stuff like menus still valid points.

Over the years Nikon have done some strange things .. some for the better some for worse.

D300 auto ISO is hard to do quickly on the fly, it needs about 5 or more button presses through menus(if you haven't used it recently .. I think it's about 4 button presses if it's still listed on the recent menu list).
D800(and I assume some others) press the ISO button and rotate front dial .. ON/OFF .... easy peasy when it's something to want to use.
I still stumble on using the D5500 for some things. Trying to get used to the menu based alteration of some things where a button is used on D300/800 type bodies. etc, etc.
That's a different kettle of seafood tho, as it's more touchscreen based, and I guess once it's more familiar it'll be less stumbling on my part.

As for control of camera .. familiarity is important and I guess that doesn't come into this discussion.
I've had trouble operating Canon cameras, or more specifically finding how to set/un-set things.
Same with a Sony A300-ish camera a few years ago now. DSLR type thing. Chap wanted help to set something .. I couldn't work it out. That's simply lack of familiarity on my part.
I remember tho that Pentax is more Nikon like, so I found some settings in a Pentax K3(??) maybe.

[Tannin]

^ Just so. Familiarity is ultra-important. So is logical, simple layout. The less you have to think about the mechanics of setting a camera, the more free you are to think about your real job - composing a good picture. Changing even a small, minor control throws you out and messes you up. I hate it when they change things! On the other hand, if the new idea really is easier and better, the short-term pain is worth it in the long run. But change for the sake of change drives me spare!

Luckily, Canon are very good in that regard. They very seldom make major changes, and clearly think them through very carefully before they go ahead with anything. (I imagine that they consult extensively with working pros using prototypes and sworn to secrecy, but I'm only guessing that bit.) I'd have to think hard to name more than one or two Canon control changes since 2003 or so which were not clearly changes for the better. And all the different models use the same controls. You can go from a cheap 77D to an $8000 1DX II to a $4000 5D III to a $1500 80D and pretty much be right at home. You can go from a 2004 20D to a 2017 6D II and not have much to learn. Only the single-wheel entry-level X00D models are particularly different, and even they are as similar as possible within the confines of a small, cheap product.

I imagine that Nikon have much the same philosophy.

As I said, even small changes throw you out. The newer Canons have moved the PLAY button down a bit (it's still over on the left of the back, but no longer the top left button) but you get used to that soon enough. The bit that bugs me is that you always used to enlarge the playback image with a button at extreme top right (handy to your thumb and easy to find without thinking). Now you have to (a) press a special "magnify" button over near the play button where it's hard to find, and (b) zoom in and out by rotating the top dial. PITA! Worse, you can't use the big back dial for that (which would be logical), the back dial takes you to the next picture. This is actually the ONLY control change in the last decade and a half that (in my opinion) is a clear step backward. Even the move off the power switch from bottom-half-right on the back of the camera to a lever on the mode dial (on the camera top left of the viewfinder) which I didn't like at first I have grown used to and do not mind anymore.

[arthurking83]

I generally start to look into upgrades every second 'cycle' ... or thereabouts

Nikons' philosophy on the whole is similar to Canons' there.
A notable change on Nikon bodies in the upper end was the omission of the AE-L button recently. D4 I think did it. now the D850 did too. Af-On stayed put.
But the word was that they did consult the pros about it. The common consensus on the Nikon specific fora I visit agree that the deletion of the AE-L button isn't missed.

One thing that caused me a gripe with my update from D300 to D800E(two generation of separation) was that Nikon changed the metering/exposure control indicators(through the viewfinder and the control via the dial) default working.

D70s had it set with no option to change. +ve to the left -ve to the right. That's what I got used too after two years.
D300 had the option to change this operation tho. that is -ve to the left, -ve to the right.
I thought nothing of it, but did note it as a menu option .. thinking it was a strange one.
----------> 5 years later I now have the D800E.
a gripe started to creep in. I'm dialling in -ve compensation and shutter speed to the right .. but it's getting brighter and slower. At first I'm thinking I'm doing something wrong .. do it again.



Do it the other way .. yay! .. what I want .. but why?? it's backwards(for me).
The way I was taught by Nikon of old(and recent) was right .. err left .. ummm I dunno now!
Not remembering that menu option in the D300, I ask the question on a Nikon forum.
They give me the details .. I feel stupid .. gripe turns into a heated facial situation for me .. embarrassment(not anger!!)

Weird that they did this change to default operation.
I can only assume that this was a result of many Canon owners complaining when they switched to Nikon!

Sometimes tho the change that you first feel is awkward, ends up being better than you first thought.
Nikon also changed the really easy to manoeuvre AF mode switch on the higher end bodies. It fell nicely to thumb on the D300. The switched to a two finger operation that at first felt silly, as you had to look at the camera to see which button was needed to press and you changed the mode with the rear(command) dial.
But in use, it's far more brilliant than before(ie. D300) with the D300 you had to remember that you were in one mode as you flicked the switch.
With the D800 type(and other cameras too) you press a button at the corner of the body where your hand always rested anyhow near the base of the lens and rotate the dial, and the info is there to see in the vf.

Going back to the D300 and making this change almost feels like a let down now .. just a thing to remember if changing this setting on older gear.