Nikon Terminology Snafu

In the post "Nikon D3 and D300," we reported about the Nikon D3 that "the new 3-inch LCD has almost a megapixel of resolution." This was the result of a somewhat disingenuous if not deliberately misleading specification by Nikon, but it turns out it's not true. As LCDs are usually specified, the D3's LCD has 307,000 pixels of resolution. The confusion was over a point of terminology that Michael McNamara of Popular Photography and Imaging has now explained in the McNamara Report.

Sorry for the error.

________________

Mike  (Thanks to Albano)

Featured Comment by Nikos Razis: "The McNamara report got it right for the D3, wrong for all the rest. The 230K LCDs are in fact QVGA resolution (320x240 full color pixels) and the D3 is VGA (640x480 full color pixels).

"Think about it this way. How can the 230K screens be 960x240 output pixels? This will not fit to the screeen dimension ratio. The linear resolution (in both vertical and horizontal axes) on the D3 is 2x what was in the other Nikon (and Canon) LCDs. That amount to 4x the area resolution and that's what matters.

"The McNamara report is misleading in that, while correctly stating the D3 resolution, it implies that the actual resolution of the older screens is 230K or 960x240. This is simply not true. So, the truth is that Nikon has not misled anybody since they have always been quoting 900K dots and saying VGA resolution. If someone is misleading it is the manufacturers who quote 'pixels' instead of dots or 'subpixels.'"

Comments

[Awake]

A million pixels sounds good to me... after all, the Foveon sensor is a 10MP sensor, although it only has 3.5 million photosites. And Olympus just put out a 300mm lens that is physically and optically the same as a 150mm lens.
And asking for $50 billion for the upcoming budget for the Iraq war, while not mentioning at all that $150 billion has been allocated already for that time frame is not bending the truth.
And having sex with an unconscious (maybe even dead) person is alright because...
Ahhh... never mind.

[Carsten]

As far as I know, Nikon's specification is actually standard business practice. Other manufacturers do the same. Canon's 230.400 dot displays have an effective resolution of 320 x 240 or 76800 pixels. Nikon's new 921.600 dot display has an effective resolution of 640 x 480 or 307.200 pixels. So it is in fact a big leap in resolution and the article you quoted is actually misleading.

[mcananeya]

I agree with Carsten. A big fuss has been made about this by various posters over at DPReview for no good reason that I can determine. Nikon is getting slammed for something that every other manufacturer does as well. There are two ways to look at this: (1) What Nikon and all other manufacturers do is misleading, or (2) Nikon is just following market practice.

Whichever approach you take, the bottom line remains that the Nikon D3 and D300 have LCD screens that offer resolution far in excess of competitors' screens. Reviews have been universal on this point.

I'm not a Nikon fanboy (I have Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus and Fuji cameras, among others), I just don't see why Nikon is taking the heat for this particular issue. This seems like another molehill being turned into a mountain by the Internet gossip mill...

Please reconsider this post, which just feeds the animal.

[Stephen Best]

No more disingenuous than counting Bayer filter sensors by their primary colour photosites.

Regardless, the new LCD is an attractive feature of new Nikons. It's going to be a problem for follow-on bodies smaller than the D300 though ... they'll have to move some buttons around to accommodate it or squeeze them together and sacrifice some ergonomics. I'm interested to see what they come up with.

[Moose]

Carl & Ernest, yes, the differences between all the different sorts who practice photography about what is proper or legitimate will go on forever.

Fortunately, some cases are straightforward. A few days ago, I helped a friend on a photography list. He was lucky enough to capture a rainbow right over the church where he is Minister. Unfortunately, there is a big utility pole with many wires right in front.

Oddly enough, as I'm not a pro who sells his images, the largest single number of prints I've had a hand in creating will now be in the hands of a bunch of Canadians I've never met who live 3,000+ miles from me.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/WayneC/RainbowChurch2.htm

Moose

[Robert Roaldi]

You mean marketing people exaggerate?