a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user
Hellow fellow Nikonians and enthusiast D100 users. I've been lucky enough to own a D100 for almost 1 month now. I am currently a grad student, so that limits my time to have fun with the camera. So instead of really trying, I often look around the web and read people comments/results instead of trying on my own. Also, my only computer is a 3 yrs old notebook, whose LCD backlight is already weak.
I've read lots of good comments and even more bad comments on D100, but I've never tried to verify it on my own. Limited resource + no time. Yesterday, I've come to a point where I felt sorry for having bought the D100. And thinking about switching brands (sorry guys).
But today, this morning, I saw the review about the D100 on www.dpreview.com. The h*ll, those sample pictures (the real pictures) compete nicely with Canon D60. White balance is good. Sharpness is good. I can't see the flaws of the results taken with D100 compared to other cameras, especially D-SLR, in terms of softness and color balance.
Maybe I shouldn't switch brand at all. Maybe I should get at least a decent monitor and the colorvision spider. Maybe I should learn more on digital photo editing. Maybe I should download and try those programs Bibble and Q-Image.
MAYBE all the reviewers who give rants and complaints are all my clones: they don't give this camera a try, they don't try to learn on using it correctly.
And people do get better with more experience. This guy, Phil Askey, takes good pictures with any camera, at least technical wise. He can get quite the most out of D100. And frankly, with the same objects, the D100 compares well with the other D-SLRs.
I think I changed my mind again. Dell's got a good offer on computer. Maybe I'll get a decent, cheapish computer so I can start learning on digital imaging. I believe it's not the camera, it's more the flaw of the user.
Sorry for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker.
P.S. Last night I picked up my F100 again after 3 weeks not touching it, wow... nothing beats the feel of it. Still a fine piece of camera, and so far gives me excellent results. (non-paid ad for Nikon F100)
"Dude, you're getting a Nikkor !!!"
#1. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 0beverett Basic MemberSat 27-Jul-02 02:04 PM
First, don't worry about your English. It is fine.
Your situation seems to mirror mine to an extent. I just recieved my D100 two days ago and have had little chance to shoot with it, although I did get to take some flower shots in my garden with my Nikor 60 mm macro lens which is now a 90 mm on the D100( !) and I msut tell you I am impressed by the quality of the images. All were shot on the point and shoot default settings which came on the fast setup part of the manual. I reckon those settings to produce about the same resolution as my Coolpix 990 on the "normal, fine" settings I usually use. The color is better than my Coolpix, though, much more saturated and lacking in the obvious " digital" look I get with the Coolpix. When I get a chance to really use the camera, I will post some of the results, but on first blush, I like the D100.
By the way, I own and love an F100, too.
#2. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 0photons Nikonian since 01st Jul 2002Sat 27-Jul-02 02:54 PM
I have owned the D100 for about 3 weeks. I was initially very pleased with the images obtained with the camera. After reading several reviews and commentaries on the camera, I was becoming convinced that maybe I was not so happy with the images. Were they really not so sharp and/or poorly color balanced?
A couple of days ago, I captured an image with the D100 (JPG, Fine, Large), downloaded it onto my computer, and printed it (unmanipulated) at 12 x 18 inches on an Epson 2000P. My criterion for image quality is how it appears at high enlargement. The print is beautiful - sharp, saturated - striking! The print quality is comparable to those I print from negative scans obtained with my F100.
I am again happy with my D100. My question concerning evaluation of cameras in general - and DSLR's in particular - is what are the criteria for judging image quality? Are not sharpness and color saturation/balance functions of one's computer monitor, printer, light viewing light source and eyes? Is there an absolute standard for judging these characteristics?
Having printed color for almost 30 years, starting with acetate color filters and 13 trays of chemical solutions and ending with a digital color head and a semi-automatic drum processor, I do consider myself to be very critical of image quality (at least the printed image). I am no expert, and my level of satisfacion is obviously subjective, but I find that the D100 images are highly satisfactory - especially when one factors in the convenience of using DSLR's.
I am vacationing in Vermont next week, and instead of taking the D100 and a film backup as planned, I decided to go strictly digital. 10 rolls' worth 36-exposure film on one 1 Gb card - that's convenience!
Russ in CT
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#9. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 2mwagner1 Basic MemberSun 28-Jul-02 02:07 PM
>A couple of days ago, I captured an image with the D100
>(JPG, Fine, Large), downloaded it onto my computer, and
>printed it (unmanipulated) at 12 x 18 inches on an Epson
>2000P. My criterion for image quality is how it appears at
>high enlargement. The print is beautiful - sharp, saturated
>- striking! The print quality is comparable to those I
>print from negative scans obtained with my F100.
Wow...so the images taken with your D100 and then tweaked are nearly as good as the images made with your F100?? When you shoot 65 images with your D100, and shoot the same images with your F100, do you have to tweak them all so that they are comparable to the images you made with your F100 when you print??
If a person has to spend $2000 on a camera, buy an expensive program, buy a serious printer to get results are are nearly as good as your F100, then why buy a digital camera at all???
Mark, an Austin Nikonian!! See more about me and the team here!
Mark, an Austin Nikonian
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#12. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 9lstavast Registered since 01st Jan 2003Mon 29-Jul-02 08:49 PM
I must have missed something Mark.
a) He said "unmanipulated" which to me means untweaked.
b) He had to have the expensive program/printer anyway in both scenarios to get digital prints.
That means results of
= (in his experience).
The value of having a $2000 digital camera mentioned second paragraph should be pretty clear to anyone who has scanned 100 negatives/slides at 4000dpi in a weekend under pressure from a group of teenagers
That D1X is right around the corner - too many intrinsics in spite of other shortcomings to pass on it... I'll drive down to Austin and let you shoot it for a day.
https://www.nikonians.org/html/about/nikonians_team.html#lstavast" target="_blank">More about me and the team on the team page
My Humble Gallery
A running project
#3. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 0
Refreshing honesty (and your English is fine).
Buying a camera like the D100 and treating it like a point & shoot is part of the problem that has generated the negative comments. Nobody shooting in that mindset is going to bother with RAW image processing to get the most the camera can deliver. So in jpeg mode with the D100, you can either go with too little sharpening and slightly soft looking images; or too much sharpening and somewhat harsh edges. I agree with Phil that Nikon missed the sweet spot for in-camera sharpening (to keep noise from being more obvious), but an experienced user can easily deal with that.
The real question is, what will a casual shooter do with a 6-megapixel camera and the high res images. If you want to get great large prints from a photo inkjet printer or other output device, you need to adjust sharpness in the computer to compensate for image softness that results from printing. If you want the best color, you'll need to know how to tag your files with the Adobe RGB (1998) profile and know how to set up the camera and printer output settings. It's not brain surgery, but it is a lot more involved than dropping off film and picking up prints.
Most $1000 digital P&S cameras crank up the color saturation, contrast and sharpening so that the images will have a "wow" factor. Nevermind that these defaults can work against a more sophisticated shooter who wants real control over the image-making process. Nikon made the D100 with an eye toward minimal noise instead of more agressive sharpening, so it will tend to disappoint the casual user who is conditioned to over-processed images from lesser cameras.
With all due respect to the advanced shooters I know in the early D100 buyers group, many of the "bleeding edge" buyers are casual shooters who will only scratch the surface of the camera's capabilities. When these folks take a poor photo with a film camera, they might blame the lens or the lab. When they take shots with the D100 they tend to blame the camera for any image flaw.
So far, the D100 (at least the one Phil Askey had for his review) has a real problem with TTL flash exposure and the sharpness vs. noise compromise may not fit the expectations of many buyers. Other than that and a few minor design shortcomings, this is an impressive camera capable of very high quality results in the hands of a skilled photographer.
Finally, whenever you buy a brand new product of high complexity, you're at the risk of finding out what bugs and warts nobody has had the opportunity of discovering before. The D1 had issues as did its successors (although to a lesser degree). If you're in the early crowd, you should be prepared for some surprises - and sure enough there's a bug that requires a visit to Nikon for a firmware update. For such a minor bug fix I'd hold off and see if there are other tweaks that Nikon will offer in the next few months. It would be really aggravating to send the camera off for updating more than once.
#4. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 3Sat 27-Jul-02 05:04 PM
As BJ has said, it's very noticable that the complaints have tended to come from owners whose previous experience has been with the compact digitals such as the Coolpix series.
Some professionals, on the other hand, have praised the camera highly. You might like to read wildlife photographer Uwe Steinmueller's D100 Diary: he rates the camera very highly indeed - on a level with the D1x. Moose Peterson has also praised the image quality of the camera, and there's a pro who posts to DPReview who, having just bought the camera, is expecting to have one of his shots on a magazine cover....
You wouldn't see praise like that if the D100 was as bad as some people have made it out to be. As Phil Askey said, its only real flaw seems to be that the normal sharpening isn't strong enough to really pull out the detail the camera is capable of recording.
Changing track somewhat, QImage and Bibble aren't compatible with the D100 at the moment - the camera is too new for the authors to have updated the software and, in the case of QImage, it seems the new NEF file format is presenting problems.
#6. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 4Sat 27-Jul-02 05:24 PM
Just as a footnote to my mentioning Phil Askey's comment that the 'Normal' sharpening was lacking, take a look at his comments when he reviewed the D1, D1x and D1h.
"At anything above Low the sharpening algorithm has a tendency to introduce sharpening artifacts" every time....
Makes me feel a bit sorry for Nikon - they just don't seem to be able to win!
#5. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 3
>Most $1000 digital P&S cameras crank up the color
>saturation, contrast and sharpening so that the images will
>have a "wow" factor. Nevermind that these defaults can work
>against a more sophisticated shooter who wants real control
>over the image-making process. Nikon made the D100 with an
>eye toward minimal noise instead of more agressive
>sharpening, so it will tend to disappoint the casual user
>who is conditioned to over-processed images from lesser
And some $3000 DSLRs from a major brand do too, indeed for the WOW factor. It sells too, and gives them excellent reviews from ignorant reviewers for consumer magazines and websites.
This major brand also has a marketting budget that puts Nikon's to shame.
Personally, I'd rather see a camera that does not alter my image. If I want to do that I can do it myself, thank you very much.
any size is fullframe for a given definition of frame
#7. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 5Sun 28-Jul-02 02:28 AM
Thanks for replying to my post. This digital world is quite new to me, so I will need lots of things to catch up.
Just out of curiousity, do any of the digital shooters here who process the image out of the camera further use LCD monitors instead of CRT ? Or do the majority digital shooters use CRT monitor to view and manipulate their image further ? *I'm getting sick of the LCD screen of my old notebook*.
"Dude, you're getting a Nikkor !!!"
#8. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 7Sun 28-Jul-02 08:19 AM
I find it a lot harder to process an image accurately when I'm working on my laptop (a Sony F809K, which has a very nice LCD) even though I've profiled it: I always do that sort of work on a CRT.
#10. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 8irishgil Registered since 23rd Mar 2002Sun 28-Jul-02 04:42 PM
Spot on Alan,
LCD panels aren't as accurate as their CRT counterparts, even at the top end of the range. I'm running an €800 15.1" LCD Panel alongside my €250 second hand 21" Trinitron. I know, I got lucky on the Sony - I'm in the trade. I always carry out graphics manipulation on the Sony. The LCD panel is a fantastic piece of kit and has a very small footprint, it's bright and of course it's still a flash bit of gear to have on your desk. At the end of the day though, it's not nearly as sharp or accurate in terms of colour reproduction as a decent 17" CRT, even with reasonably accurate colour temp correction built into the LCD's utilities. Sorry, back to the point.....If you're having trouble with your laptop display panel and its reproduction, look into a S/H 17" which you can plug into for your pre-output work.
Hope this helps!
The Dublin Nikonian
The Dublin Nikonian
#11. "RE: a stupid comment from an ignorant D100 user" | In response to Reply # 10Mon 29-Jul-02 05:28 PM
Thanks for the help, guys.
I just ordered a new computer (Dell) w/ 19" FD trinitron CRT, and the colorvision monitor calibrator. I hope these will help me improving my digital darkroom skillz.
"Dude, you're getting a Nikkor !!!"