[ D3初次试拍 · 献丑集] 9/24 更新 房前屋后

bffbffbff

哈哈哈哈哈

我一晚上连出3张白条， 偷偷看了很多精华贴，即使给你白条，上面欠的也是白条！

蓝月亮

你要发东西赶早阿, 等分分都没有了才发, 再说了, 我今天给你别地儿加了哦

dickson

原帖由 komen 于 2008-9-22 23:17 发表
ccd是很好，高反差一点紫边都没有！

扣哥你的要求很低

干物女

邻居家开的是红色 yaris

哈，我咋发现我对照相水平没感觉，倒反而充满了偷窥欲呢？ 我怎么觉得拍得最好的是邻居家呢？  

Tiger_Karen

原帖由 老song 于 2008-9-22 23:13 发表


为什么叫人家NLM?
Nikon Lens Machine ?

你太有才了，就是这个意思啊，可算有人给俺正名了。

Tiger_Karen

原帖由 干物女 于 2008-9-22 23:20 发表
邻居家开的是红色 yaris

哈，我咋发现我对照相水平没感觉，倒反而充满了偷窥欲呢？ 我怎么觉得拍得最好的是邻居家呢？  

MM看来喜欢意境小景，我也喜欢，格式化的风景很呆板，不适合俺这么跳跃的人儿

kur7

楼主到底是啥机器啊？记得是D3?

komen

所以我摄影一直不得志，还能要求我什么呀


说句老实话，D3没有给我太大的震撼，细节，宽容度上去了，似乎锐度也没有了那种眼前一亮的感觉

[ 本帖最后由 komen 于 2008-9-23 00:00 编辑 ]

Pluggedboy

拜托诸位先搞清楚CCD和CMOS的区别再来评价相机吧
D3用的是CMOS啦，它要是用CCD岂不是和D80一个档次了～～～
LZ这几张夜景，D3手持拍摄应该就能拍出这个效果，这已经很强悍了。

dickson

这个CCD还是CMOS是NIKON 自己开发的？

[ 本帖最后由 dickson 于 2008-9-23 09:24 编辑 ]

alex2008

CCD (charge coupled device) and CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) image sensors are two different technologies for capturing images digitally. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses giving advantages in different applications. Neither is categorically superior to the other, although vendors selling only one technology have usually claimed otherwise. In the last five years much has changed with both technologies, and many projections regarding the demise or ascendence of either have been proved false. The current situation and outlook for both technologies is vibrant, but a new framework exists for considering the relative strengths and opportunities of CCD and CMOS imagers.

Both types of imagers convert light into electric charge and process it into electronic signals. In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number of output nodes (often just one) to be converted to voltage, buffered, and sent off-chip as an analog signal. All of the pixel can be devoted to light capture, and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high. In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, and the sensor often also includes amplifiers, noise-correction, and digitization circuits, so that the chip outputs digital bits. These other functions increase the design complexity and reduce the area available for light capture. With each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower. But the chip can be built to require less off-chip circuitry for basic operation. For more details on device architecture and operation, see our original "CCD vs. CMOS: Facts and Fiction" article and its 2005 update, "CMOS vs. CCD: Maturing Technologies, Maturing Markets."

CCDs and CMOS imagers were both invented in the late 1960s and 1970s (DALSA founder Dr. Savvas Chamberlain was a pioneer in developing both technologies). CCD became dominant, primarily because they gave far superior images with the fabrication technology available. CMOS image sensors required more uniformity and smaller features than silicon wafer foundries could deliver at the time. Not until the 1990s did lithography develop to the point that designers could begin making a case for CMOS imagers again. Renewed interest in CMOS was based on expectations of lowered power consumption, camera-on-a-chip integration, and lowered fabrication costs from the reuse of mainstream logic and memory device fabrication. While all of these benefits are possible in theory, achieving them in practice while simultaneously delivering high image quality has taken far more time, money, and process adaptation than original projections suggested (see "CMOS Development's Winding Path" below).

Both CCDs and CMOS imagers can offer excellent imaging performance when designed properly. CCDs have traditionally provided the performance benchmarks in the photographic, scientific, and industrial applications that demand the highest image quality (as measured in quantum efficiency and noise) at the expense of system size. CMOS imagers offer more integration (more functions on the chip), lower power dissipation (at the chip level), and the possibility of smaller system size, but they have often required tradeoffs between image quality and device cost. Today there is no clear line dividing the types of applications each can serve. CMOS designers have devoted intense effort to achieving high image quality, while CCD designers have lowered their power requirements and pixel sizes. As a result, you can find CCDs in low-cost low-power cellphone cameras and CMOS sensors in high-performance professional and industrial cameras, directly contradicting the early stereotypes. It is worth noting that the producers succeeding with "crossovers" have almost always been established players with years of deep experience in both technologies.

Costs are similar at the chip level. Early CMOS proponents claimed CMOS imagers would be much cheaper because they could be produced on the same high-volume wafer processing lines as mainstream logic or memory chips. This has not been the case. The accommodations required for good imaging perfomance have required CMOS designers to iteratively develop specialized, optimized, lower-volume mixed-signal fabrication processes--very much like those used for CCDs. Proving out these processes at successively smaller lithography nodes (0.35um, 0.25um, 0.18um...) has been slow and expensive; those with a captive foundry have an advantage because they can better maintain the attention of the process engineers.

CMOS cameras may require fewer components and less power, but they still generally require companion chips to optimize image quality, increasing cost and reducing the advantage they gain from lower power consumption. CCD devices are less complex than CMOS, so they cost less to design. CCD fabrication processes also tend to be more mature and optimized; in general, it will cost less (in both design and fabrication) to yield a CCD than a CMOS imager for a specific high-performance application. However, wafer size can be a dominating influence on device cost; the larger the wafer, the more devices it can yield, and the lower the cost per device. 200mm is fairly common for third-party CMOS foundries while third-party CCD foundries tend to offer 150mm. Captive foundries use 150mm, 200mm, and 300mm production for both CCD and CMOS.

dickson

太长了，给翻译一下吧

丹儿

D3配24-70，绝了。
下次挑战D3高ISO来拍夜景，看看牛到啥地步？期待。

dickson

应该挑战一下夜间拍野生动物

WTFAUS

原来是D3拍的啊。还以为是G3呢。
怪不得那么漂亮

Tiger_Karen

7分的事实证明俺拍得很烂，很烂。。。。

Pluggedboy

第1张还可以，加分鼓励下

D3机能确实强大。

Tiger_Karen

还是别丢人显眼了，俺设置了权限，小范围批判俺一下就成了。。

华丽丽的那个谁

还好我有权限可以看。。。

dickson

不管怎么样，D3很好很强大

Tiger_Karen

原帖由 dickson 于 2008-9-23 14:53 发表
不管怎么样，D3很好很强大

那也改变不了俺技术白痴的事实

dickson

原帖由 Tiger_Karen 于 2008-9-23 15:07 发表


那也改变不了俺技术白痴的事实

我们都会流着口水看的

Tiger_Karen

原帖由 dickson 于 2008-9-23 15:08 发表


我们都会流着口水看的

骗鬼呐，，你们攒着口水吐我吧，我还信

dickson

匹夫无罪，怀璧其罪
谁让你拿个D3呢～

steveking

肯定价值不菲吧。怪不得LD要我买D3，忽悠我，才不上当呢

原帖由 dickson 于 2008-9-23 14:53 发表
不管怎么样，D3很好很强大

Tiger_Karen

更新 9月24日

蓝月亮

第一张好像油画阿

Tiger_Karen

LR 2.0 灰色滤镜使用测试练习

Tiger_Karen

邻家风景一窥

Tiger_Karen

悠闲一鸭