Replies

I haven't used a Ninon 880, but I have used just about every other model in the 2-3 megapixel range. Artifacts are a big problem in low contrast objects (read sky). They're probably all over every shot, but hidden in detail.

I have tried to photograph dishes for eBay and wind up using the tiff mode, not for detail, but for lack of artifacts. It takes my 950 about two minutes to save an exposure.

But if the exposure itself is several minutes, perhaps that's not an issue.

Once again, it appears to be up to Freepers to hold the media accountable. Good thinking, blu. Another poster mentioned the Nikon N80, which if the camera was ID'd by phone interview, could have been confused with the 880 (sound alike). If the reporter saw the camera and still made the ID mistake, then he's the kind of guy who'd look at the Grand Canyon and say, "Hey, that's my ass!" (think about it)

The mistake on the camera type might be possible, as his description of processing just doesn't fit digital media, unless this guy REALLY doesn't know anything about cameras.

js1138, your write times for TIFF with the 950 are right in line with the 880. Nikon consumer digicams don't have any compression software and a small buffer. The TIFF files, which will be close to 10 meg on a 3.3 mp camera, will take over a minute to write to disk. That makes sequential frame shooting impossible in TIFF mode.

If it was, in fact, the N80, then the film and lens type become the significant issues. With cameras like Nikon, the quality of the body is usually pretty good, so it does what it's supposed to do. Lenses then become a huge issue. If he's shooting with a 1200 mm extended lens with a 2X teleconverter (not likely, if he's using an N80, those lenses can cost over 4 grand), he could get some amazing detail. If, more likely, he's using a short consumer level zoom, like most average Joes put on their cameras, I don't think there will be much there.