What's Your Favorite Nikon CCD Sensor Camera (and why)?

[Akira]

Not sure if it matters, but the D3000 uses the Picture Controls menu for rendering JPEGS, while the D40 uses the Optimize Image menu.   When I first bought the D40 (2009) was just returning to photography as a hobby, it was my first DSLR, and I shot JPEGS.  In recent days, when I use the D40, as mentioned, I shoot Raw and am pleased with the images.  It's a real nice camera in its simplicity.

I started to use DSLR (and eventually mirrorless) with the premise of shooting RAW and post-process.  I've always set the camera to RAW+JPEG fine mode only to use JPEG file as thumbnail to check out the focus and camera blur.  Maybe that's why I wasn't really aware of the color rendition of CCD.

I look for D3000 also because it uses the conventional mechanical shutter, unlike D40 with the electronic first curtain, and it is free of the smearing issue of the strong point light sources.

[OCD]

I started to use DSLR (and eventually mirrorless) with the premise of shooting RAW and post-process.  I've always set the camera to RAW+JPEG fine mode only to use JPEG file as thumbnail to check out the focus and camera blur.  Maybe that's why I wasn't really aware of the color rendition of CCD.

I look for D3000 also because it uses the conventional mechanical shutter, unlike D40 with the electronic first curtain, and it is free of the smearing issue of the strong point light sources.

Sounds like fun plan.   I'm remembering one of the things touted about the D40 is the 1/500 flash sync.  I've not really taken much advantage of it though.  And I think you've explained why the D40 has it, the different shutter perhaps?

[Zang]

...Is it true that CCD do not have dead pixels? They are either all "clean" or have banding issues.

Cheers,
Zang

[Akira]

Sounds like fun plan.   I'm remembering one of the things touted about the D40 is the 1/500 flash sync.  I've not really taken much advantage of it though.  And I think you've explained why the D40 has it, the different shutter perhaps?

I suspect that the electronic first curtain of D40 was to reduce the cost, and the 1/500 flash sync could have been an unintentional bonus.   

[Jack Dahlgren]

...Is it true that CCD do not have dead pixels? They are either all "clean" or have banding issues.

Cheers,
Zang

I don't believe that is true.
Dead and hot pixels can exist without banding.

[Birna Rørslett]

CCD-based cameras most definitely may have dead or stuck pixels.... The frequency of those ill-behaving pixels tended to increase over time as well as the camera aged.

I had those irregularities with D1, D1H, D2H, D2X, D200, and D40D40x.

[Zang]

Hmm... I thought CCD sensors are "read" by shifting the data line by line. If one pixel is dead then you will get the whole vertical strips (or banding in another word).

Cheers,
Zang

[Birna Rørslett]

Nah. Saw very little signs of that after the D1-generation.

[Seapy]

Nah. Saw very little signs of that after the D1-generation.

I had a D1x with a complete line of dead pixels running North-South, with a little bunch of others along the line.  I suspected the camera may have been dropped before it came to me. I took it to pieces, put *most* of the bits in a box and sold it for a profit on eBay - Those were the days!

[Peter Forsell]

.

[MEPER]

You showed a trampoline shot in another thread with your daughter head down in the air. When I looked at this pictured I observed some red outline around the feet. So I wondered if it was some photoshop artifacts but maybe this is a fault in the camera that now shows up very clearly?

Electronics may fail after many years. Bad connection / bad solder / bad capacitor etc. can cause problems when electric circuits gets old.

[Peter Forsell]

.

[BruceSD]

I had the most interesting thing happen a couple of days ago. I shot a few trampoline shots of my daughter with my D1X using flash at high shutter speeds (needs other but middle contact taped). I shot too rapidly and some of the shots came out dark as the flash didn't have time to recover. I needed to adjust image lightess afterwards by a huge amount, like 3-4 stops in Lightroom. There was naturally a lot of banding.
I thought that maybe the banding is fixed (turned out not to be) and shot a few dark frames with lens cap on in order to subtract the banding. Well, that didn't work out, it is random.

But my dark frames have a ghost of my daughter jumping on the trampoline, but I shot the dark frames the next day! And not only one, but all four of them.

Any ideas what might have caused this? I will definitely try it again.

I told everything I did in order to explain all the steps. I don't have an idea what could have caused this.

First the individual dark frames shot the next day after the original. The subject is hard to see, but the fifth one shows the mean stack of those four, and the subject is clearly visible. And the last one is the last actual image with +3.40 stops "exposure" push in Lightroom.


The dark frames, tones strongly compressed.

drk2 by foppa2009, on Flickr


drk4 by foppa2009, on Flickr


drk3 by foppa2009, on Flickr


drk1 by foppa2009, on Flickr



The mean stack, compressed even more.

drksum by foppa2009, on Flickr


And finally the image whose ghost survived overnight 

brt by foppa2009, on Flickr

Sorry, but I fail to see any connection between your lengthy post and the theme of this thread that I started.    Maybe might have been better if you had just started a new thread with your problem?

[Peter Forsell]

Sorry, but I fail to see any connection between your lengthy post and the theme of this thread that I started.    Maybe might have been better if you had just started a new thread with your problem?

You're right, I'm very sorry. Withdrawn.
And it wasn't a problem, but an interesting phenomena, at least to me.
Please forgive me.