Beware of ...

[Asmarlak]

I believe that some camera reviewers are in close contact with some camera manufacturers with whom they discuss in advance the ups and downs of the model they will review and what is allowed to be mentioned and what is not, and accordingly they are given a sample of the new product. Something which mutually serves both sides well. I find no absolute reason for reviewers not to mention that the New Nikon cameras inserts empty pixels instead of chromatic aberrations unless they're told to do so.

[SmartWombat]

And why do you post an Olympus E-510 image?
I thought I couldn't see any blank pixels, hard to tell at this resolution though.

[Asmarlak]

You are right. Here is an original image and 100% crop, no editing at all except for resizing the original image and cropping the second one.

[Asmarlak]

Here is another example.

[CaraRose]

I find no absolute reason for reviewers not to mention that the New Nikon cameras inserts empty pixels instead of chromatic aberrations unless they're told to do so.

"Unless they're told not to do so"... Basically this is a function that can be turned on or off?

--Cara

[Photo-John]

"Unless they're told not to do so"... Basically this is a function that can be turned on or off?

I think he's saying that the camera companies are dictating what reviewers - like me - are allowed to test or not test, post or not post. I can guarantee you that no camera companies tell me what I can test and what I can't test - unless it's a pre-production camera. If I get a production camera, anything goes. I have no agreement with a camera company to not test particular features and I've never heard of anyone else having such an agreement.

I didn't know a thing about this Nikon in-camera chromatic abberation control and as long as you can turn it on and off, I can't see what the big deal is. I'd like to see with and without samples before I judge, anyway. I haven't noticed any haloing like I'm seeing in the palm tree sample. It's possible I missed it, but not likely. That kind of thing is pretty obvious.

[Asmarlak]

No, John. I was not talking about you or anyone in particular, I'm not even familiar if you reviewed this camera or not. I said "some reviewers" and "some manufacturers". What didn't make sense to me is that I read many good reviews about it elsewhere and no one ever discussed this issue in details. If you look at those images you can imagine if the sky a little bluer, or cropped the image, or sharpened it what are you going to end up with?.
John, you cannot turn it on and off at all, this is how the sensor process' the images by default.

[Photo-John]

Remind me which camera you're talking about? I've got samples from the D90, D5000, D300 and D3S.

[Asmarlak]

It is the d90.

[drg]

Nikon just does CA this with in-camera JPEG's and with in-camera processing. The RAW files will be untouched. In fact until recently, Nikon's proprietary RAW conversions software didn't do any CA corrections as far as I know?

The CA info I've seen indicates that the EXPEED processor is not just putting a black pixel where there was a color fringe. It is using some algorithm or other 'mapping' to produce a pixel set that actually looks pretty good.

Shoot a white object against a solid brightly colored background in harsh(direct) sunlight and look at the RAW conversion in software of the image. You will see either the purplish/red or the green/blue (maybe both?) fringe of CA. Then look at the camera corrected version. It won't be a black line or fuzzy black pixels.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'empty pixels' by the way?

There were reviews two years ago that extensively mentioned the CA processing including samples for the D90. Nikon didn't make a big deal of it, that is true. There are some 'bad' reviewers who are indeed closely aligned with a manufacturer. With a couple of minor exceptions they get weeded out fairly quickly. Some have a cult like following because it is erroneously believed they, the reviewer/writer, has 'inside' information because they use to work for some manufacturer or the like. Caveat Emptor.

Nikon does do a lot of stuff to their images I will agree. Sometimes with certain models this has been notorious but there's been an 'out' for all of them. One example is that their full frame sensors with default White Balance settings has a tendency to produce a greenish tinge throughout the image under certain lighting conditions. Custom WB fixes 'that' one problem as an example.

Nikon cameras do require a bit of color correction for certain types of critical work.

Comparing multiple cameras, both models and manufacturers as you seem to be doing, requires a lot of images and pretty rigorous conditions to get a true picture. To just make matters more difficult, there are from time to time cameras that just don't work as exactly right or need lots of image adjustment. I've even seen some lenses that were not made correctly that will radically alter the color of the final photographs. Color correction/verification testing can usually determine that in a few dozen shots.

So, what camera(s) are you primarily using to evaluate image quality that has left you so disappointed with the Nikon D90?

[starriderrick]

Beware of the Nikon D90... That's right... What a fruit-cake!

This guy is just looking for drama & attention. The truth is... In the images...
D90 is in the Top 10 Nikon DSLR's ever made.... Again... The truth is... In the images...

Not some 200 letter long sentence from some know it all guy who has been banished & still posts here under a new name. Remember the porno spamming attack of 2011? I do...

Here is a perfect example of the poison that killed this once thriving photography site. Excuse me for being out-of-line. Enough is enough!

[wfooshee]

You had to bring up a 2-year-old thread for that???? Maybe "is looking" should be "was looking?"