I am still figuring out whether or not to buy the D100 or the F100 and wait for the next generation of dSLR.
What bothers me most is that shooting RAW seem to slow things down quite a lot. I am curious about the daily experiences of D100 users when shooting RAW. Did it ever result in missing your shot because your buffer was full? I'll be rarely shooting sports photography.
#1. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 0Docklander Registered since 30th Oct 2002Mon 04-Nov-02 05:52 AM
Hasn’t been a problem for me, but then my work is of the kind which requires few frames and a lot of interaction between myself and the subject between shots in order to get the image/s I need. Uncompressed NEFs record fast, but as many will attest, here, the compressed files are just too-slow to record to be useful outside of anything but the most ponderous work session. The benefits of shooting NEF are immense. At least, they are in my workflow.
f you can afford to wait, of course there’s the prospect of the 11 -12 - 14 mp full-frame on the horizon. But the D100 is here and it does work, and will always make a great backup body when you are forced to upgrade to stay with the pack, assuming you stay with the marque.
#7. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 0anomy Basic MemberTue 05-Nov-02 11:28 AM
For what I normally do it is fine. I do almost no sports or wildlife. Mostly street. But even there, there are limitations. The other day, when photographing Tim Robbins, I did lose shots because of the buffer. However, I did have my F5 on my shoulder, ready to go. The D1h, while fine for pj's, does not produce the image quality I am looking for. The D100 just crossed the threshold for that issue. Image quality is excellent. And yes, the 12-14 mega pix jobbies will be here soon enough. Of course, you'll have to pay big bucks for that. All in all, the D100 is a nice compromise, not great for every situation, but I can't complain. Of course you might want to wait for the next generation technology cameras, which are just around the corner, according to some sources. Bye-bye digital? Bye-bye Model T. Bye-bye eight track tapes. Bye-bye 5 1/4" drives. The cheapest alternative is to just keep reading Popular Science and not buy anything. If someone waits long enough digital will be gone, and then they can say. "See, I knew it was just a phase." LOL There you go, the march of technology in photography as a metaphor for life. Dang, I better go get some coffee.
#8. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 7Tue 05-Nov-02 01:10 PM
Thanks for your extensive advice.
In contrast to your situation I do not have a spare F5 strapped on my other shoulder. I don't mind spending almost 3000 euros for a D100 body if it satisfies my needs. But I have the feeling it won't. I think in just a few years dSLR's with 11MP's and fast buffer speeds will be available in the same price range.
I'd rather spend my money on a F5 now than a D100.
Even better, rely on my old Nikon F3
#9. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 8anomy Basic MemberTue 05-Nov-02 02:52 PM
While you may not have an F5 on your shoulder, you do have an F3, which isn't exactly a Brownie. And a few other cameras I would guess.
If you've already made up your mind and that's your feeling, why did you start the post to begin with? There has certainly been a great deal of discussion regarding these questions already.
In any case, those 11mp's will definitely be around soon enough, but then again, can the 20 mp's be that far behind? In the same price range, not really, after all, how much has the D1x dropped? That will be the neighborhood you'll be looking at, if the 11mps come out based on the F5 body. Then you could probably pick up a nice used D1x fairly cheap. That could be a viable route for you.
You make some interesting posts in the critique forum. How about posting some of your own work?
#10. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 9Tue 05-Nov-02 06:38 PM
From what I read on the www the MP race is not infinite.
11 MP with good buffer speed will do the job for me and warrant the investments.
As I only have a 10 yr old scanner posting will be quite hard for me. I mostly shoot slides as well. I will dive into my harddisk for some of my work to post.
#11. "Here's another thought..." | In response to Reply # 0
...why not just shoot fine JPEGs? While shooting RAW certainly involves zero image degradation, and allows you to correct for a multitude of exposure sins after the fact (due to the extreme 12-bit latitude of digital camera CCDs), it still remains that a properly exposed image saved in JPEG fine is inconsequentially different in quality for any practical application. The final 8-bit JPEG (mapped via a built-in or customizable tone curve from the original 12-bit data) contains plenty of tonal information for making excellent prints. And saving JPEGs are very fast, allowing a 6-shot frame buffer suitable for short action sequences or fudging one sharp image in hand-held low light conditions.
I shoot mostly JPEG fine, and so do many of the pros as well. (And I have yet to submit a fine JPEG photo for competition or judging that was identified as such because of its poor image quality, artifacting, or poor dynamic range. (In fact, I have yet to have any of my images as identified as coming from a digital camera. Hey--don't ask, don't tell...) Don't overlook this option because of the theoretical advantage of RAW format. JPEG requires more care during exposure, but otherwise is of very high quality.
"RE: Shooting RAW too slow?"
I just got back from shooting the Indy Car races on the Gold Coast, i Used a D100 and F100, I did miss shots with the D100 because of the buffer so if you are shooting Sports or Wildlife it can give you a headache.
on the plus side i did great some great images with the D100 (i attached one)if you are using it for Portrait, Still Life, Weddings etc i think it would be a great camera.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Warren Downes Photography
#3. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 2Mon 04-Nov-02 11:39 AM
Speed will be an issue for me when I have to wait e.g. more than 5 seconds for my next shot. Let's say I am shooting with an interval of 5 seconds on RAW format for about 10 pictures, will the buffer hold?
#4. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 3JLP Registered since 30th Oct 2002Mon 04-Nov-02 02:38 PM
This was one of my considerations too before I purchased the camera, and yes, the Compressed .NEF setting is just way, way to slow (40+ seconds between shots after you fill the buffer). I just set up my D100 and gave it a try. The test settings were a D100, firmware version 1.1, an IBM 1 gig microdrive newly formated, manual exposure. The camera buffer fills up after four SEQUENTIAL exposures, and it is available to shoot at five seconds intervals there after. Or, to test your requirements, you may shoot every five seconds without restrictions to the capacity of you recording media, (which in this case is 107 exposures).
In practice, I have rarely come up against what I would call a somewhat limited buffer speed and size. If you don't want to worry about filling up the buffer than you do need to consider the more professional D1H or the D1X with the new "Buffer Service Enhancement". Nikon says that the D1X (this is the high res version of the D-1) with the new buffer enhancement will allow you to shoot 12-14 .NEF files sequentially (http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_firmware_upgrades/d1x_buffer.jsp).
Another alternative is the Kodak DCS 760 that, according to Kodak, has a burst depth of up to 24 frames, every 1.5 seconds and is built on a Nikon F5 body. The DCS 760 is a different class of product and certainly in a different price class as well (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcs760/specs.jhtml?id=0.2.6.30.184.108.40.206&lc=en).
Your best bet is to just rent the D100 for a day or two and or several other digital cameras and give them a try. Actual experience is the only true method to see if a camera meets your work style and needs best, or at least one that you can learn to live with.
#6. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 5warren1971 Registered since 19th Sep 2002Mon 04-Nov-02 07:13 PM
Thanks Mike, i blew it up to A3+ and was the quality was still great.
here are the settings i used (going from memory)
Sharpening = None (i sharpen where needed in photoshop last)
A prority mode.
80-400 VR lens @ 400mm
I think Normal for Contrast settings, will have to check when back at home.
any other questions just ask. the camera is quite tough it got drenched in the rain as well and kept on ticking.
Warren Downes Photography
#12. "RE: Shooting RAW too slow?" | In response to Reply # 0
It depends...The buffer will free up after about 5 seconds or so (I think you get 3 to 4 immediate shots before the buffer is full). I have found situations where I'd like more frames, but all in all you can still capture wildlife just fine. The AF works great, and for me, the results are everything I need. I've printed up to 13x19 so far with spectacular results. The buffer is the ONLY thing I've come across so far that is limiting with this camera, but I've found that workable. Otherwise it's great for the wildlife shooting that I do. The FOV crop is actually desirable for me in this case when working with long lenses. When Nikon releases a full frame camera, I'll buy it, but I'll keep the D100 for shooting with telephoto lenses.
I'd recomend this camera to a friend.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Attachment#3 (jpg file)