Nikon Calibrates their LCD screens?

[inTempus]

You guys are making an assumption. I didn't say what my decision was.



I placed and order with Adorama for the 1D4 (thanks again Meyer, you rock man).

 

[inTempus]

I should also add, the only reason I decided to move was due to the fact both bodies are new obviously and if I wanted to get one before the middle of next year, I needed to get my order in now.

Hopefully I'll have it by Christmas or sometime in Jan.

 

[newrmdmike]

bwuahahaha even better that you said that! i see what you did there . . . . haha.

dang, and to think i might have gotten a good deal on a 5dm2. . .

 

[Garbz]

You can calibrate the LCD all you want. Unless you use it in a controlled environment it won't make a bit of difference. I have used most of the latest generation Nikons and my conclusion is their LCDs are nicer than my D200, but it makes no difference because I still can't see it out in the sun where I use my camera.

If you can see the LCD in the sun, chances are it's too bright when you're in the dark. They can calibrate it all they want but unless we know what conditions they are calibrating for it's utterly useless. I highly doubt they take the photographic principle and calibrate to ~250-300cd for a room that is less than 100lx bright.

 

[Plato]

I'm giving serious consideration to the D3s.

I'm curious. If you go that route, will you replace your Canon gear or will you maintain duplicate systems?

The investment in lenses and other accessories is typically a deal-breaker when someone thinks about switching brands.

I would dump everything and completely switch.

I've made my decision and placed my order. So I guess I don't have to worry about it anymore.

Wow. More power to you!

 

[RyanLilly]

Yeah, like Garbz has posted, Any change of ambient light will affect the way color, and brightness look on the screen. There are cameras with better LCD's than others, but the Histogram is the only thing that will tell you anything for sure. That and the confidence in you skill to get the shot right without needing to see it on the screen.

 

[itznfb]

You can calibrate the LCD all you want. Unless you use it in a controlled environment it won't make a bit of difference. I have used most of the latest generation Nikons and my conclusion is their LCDs are nicer than my D200, but it makes no difference because I still can't see it out in the sun where I use my camera.

If you can see the LCD in the sun, chances are it's too bright when you're in the dark. They can calibrate it all they want but unless we know what conditions they are calibrating for it's utterly useless. I highly doubt they take the photographic principle and calibrate to ~250-300cd for a room that is less than 100lx bright.

You don't carry a bag with you to slip the camera in to review? My AeroSpeed works well for pic review.

 

[GeneralBenson]

The specs on the Mk IV are absurd. Didn't take you long to get one of those.

 

[davebmck]

Yeah, like Garbz has posted, Any change of ambient light will affect the way color, and brightness look on the screen. There are cameras with better LCD's than others, but the Histogram is the only thing that will tell you anything for sure. That and the confidence in you skill to get the shot right without needing to see it on the screen.

+1 on using the histogram as opposed to the LCD jpg review. The only thing I really use the LCD for is to zoom in to see if I have a sharp shot.

 

[Garbz]

You don't carry a bag with you to slip the camera in to review? My AeroSpeed works well for pic review.

Errr not since I don't use a large format camera

Define review. If you're looking for blinking lights to check over exposed areas, and zooming in to check focus, then that's all good. If you are reviewing your colour and tone on the LCD then you deserve any crap and inconsistent results that you get.

 

[itznfb]

You don't carry a bag with you to slip the camera in to review? My AeroSpeed works well for pic review.

Errr not since I don't use a large format camera

Define review. If you're looking for blinking lights to check over exposed areas, and zooming in to check focus, then that's all good. If you are reviewing your colour and tone on the LCD then you deserve any crap and inconsistent results that you get.

There are many useful built in tools for reviewing shots. It's not really color you should be checking for but exposure. If the colors are accurate on the LCD then you can simply review the standard image to see if it's under/overexposed. And any monitor/screen calibration is done under the same lighting conditions so there is no need for you to guess lighting conditions under which it was calibrated. If you didn't use the same lighting conditions then there would be no point in calibrating since everyone's calibration would be different.

 

[Garbz]

No that's my point. It's calibrated in a consistent environment. But do you only take your camera in a room which has that identical environment?

The tone of any LCD I have seen under nearly every condition looks nothing like an accurately calibrated monitor. The usefulness of the LCD to judge exposure stops at blinking highlights and shadows, and then the histogram must be consulted to get any kind of real consistency.

There are plenty of threads in the beginners section about people complaining that their pictures look good on the LCD but not on the computer, and where there was detail there is now black (D200 likes that. It's almost like the LCD can't display black)

 

[itznfb]

No that's my point. It's calibrated in a consistent environment. But do you only take your camera in a room which has that identical environment?

The tone of any LCD I have seen under nearly every condition looks nothing like an accurately calibrated monitor. The usefulness of the LCD to judge exposure stops at blinking highlights and shadows, and then the histogram must be consulted to get any kind of real consistency.

There are plenty of threads in the beginners section about people complaining that their pictures look good on the LCD but not on the computer, and where there was detail there is now black (D200 likes that. It's almost like the LCD can't display black)

I agree in most cases. But that goes back to the original question about the D3/x/s and D300s being calibrated LCDs. The LCDs are calibrated with ambient light blocked out. So for example if I just put my camera back in my AeroSpeed back (side pocket for quick access) and lift up the flap then the LCD is sitting in a pretty isolated area. It's not perfect but it's certainly close enough to tell is something was off during a shot. Where if I did the same thing with my D90's non-calibrated monitor. No matter what it looked a bit overexposed.

It's obviously more useful in a studio where you know what to expect from the screen.

 

[Garbz]

Well is it still? I don't know of any studio who would shoot JPEG, yet that is what is displayed on the camera screen. So even if the screen on the camera was perfect, and the conditions were perfect it would still likely be different from what the RAW files look like on the screen since the applied tone curve is different.

This is a common complaint with Lightroom especially, although I would complain the other way that the Nikon's original processing looks crap. This leads to vast differences between what is on the LCD and what is on the screen with the only consistencies sort of being what is clipped. Anything beyond that is just data that can be adjusted anyway so really this discussion is all academic

 

[itznfb]

Well is it still? I don't know of any studio who would shoot JPEG, yet that is what is displayed on the camera screen. So even if the screen on the camera was perfect, and the conditions were perfect it would still likely be different from what the RAW files look like on the screen since the applied tone curve is different.

This is a common complaint with Lightroom especially, although I would complain the other way that the Nikon's original processing looks crap. This leads to vast differences between what is on the LCD and what is on the screen with the only consistencies sort of being what is clipped. Anything beyond that is just data that can be adjusted anyway so really this discussion is all academic

I'm not sure about Lightroom. I've been using CaptureNX2 recently for that reason. The RAW image I load into Photoshop isn't the image I shot. The RAW image I load into CaptureNX2 however, looks exactly how I expect it to. Just getting into personal preference at this point though...