Image Quality
One of the
main reasons that the 950 generated so much excitement
was because of the promise of the great image quality
which it would bring. Coming from the background of the
900s, Nikon had already proved that they could put together
a package which delivers excellent image quality, but
what of the new camera?
The Good
Well, it's
considerably better. There, I said it. And to be honest
the 950 has what is probably the best image quality in
it's price bracket (US$1,000) and even some MUCH more
expensive digital cameras. And here are my reasons:
-
Detail:
the levels of detail captured by this camera are
stunning, down to the very finest hair (nth of
a pixel wide) or slightest colour gradient.
- Colours: bright,
vibrant but ACCURATE. And this is an important point,
it's not often that a camera can deliver accurate colours
brightly. There's always an "easy way out" of
the right colour balance by not saturating colours fully
and therefore toning down any slight inaccuracies, we
see non of this in the 950.
- Sharp: details
are sharp, focus is accurate and sharp which leads to
an image which requires little-to-no post-processing sharpening.
- Exposure:
second to none, the 950 manages to expose almost perfectly
every time, probably due to the matrix metering system.
- Algorithm:
every consumer digital camera uses a colour pattern where
each pixel of the CCD is painted a unique colour (generally
in an RGBG square pattern), the internal software of the
camera then combines the values of surrounding pixels
to produce a full RGB colour value for that pixel. The
950 does this VERY well.
- Little to no post-processing:
regular visitors to my site will know that I'm a firm
believer in the digital darkroom and the importance of
"correcting" images before posting / printing
them. I found with the 950 that I had to do much less
of this than with other cameras, images are "right
out of the camera".
As you can see from the above list I'm pretty
impressed with the 950, I suggest that you take a look through
the samples gallery after you've read this review and formulate
your own opinion of the image quality.
Image Problems
With every review I also report
any problems with the image quality, and the few problems
with the 950 didn't escape my notice. Bear in mind that although
I've found these problems doesn't mean you'll suffer from
them every day of your shooting, that they would necessarily
appear in your images (it depends on your shooting style)
or that they don't exist in many other digicams.
| Barrel Distortion |

|
As previously spotted on some Japanese
sample shots the 950 does indeed suffer from barrel
distortion at it's widest angle (38mm). Barrel
Distortion is an effect where the image is "punched
out" slightly towards the edges giving a
spherized look, and is most noticeable when taking
shots where a straight edge is close to the edge
of the frame (at wide angle). How often you'll
notice this in real life photography is up for
debate however it's there. Examples of barrel
distortion from the 950:
 
|
| Colour Fringing |

(image portion 200% blowup) 
(image portion 200% blowup)
|
I was surprised to discover that
the 950 does occasionally suffer from colour fringing
on the edge of extreme contrasts (most noticeably
in overexposed images). The jury is unfortunately
still out as to the cause of this. I've had a
rally of emails backwards and forwards to the
author (and digital imaging expert) of Vueprint/Vuescan
Ed Hamrick, we're still not sure about the exact
cause:
- Chromatic abberations - no because it can
appear anywhere in the frame
- Binning - the overflow of electrons from one
CCD pixel to another - possible.
- Infrared light - the effects of strong Infrared
light entering the CCD (I'm trying to get
a "hot filter" to prove this)
One other theory is that has CCD
resolutions increase the quality of lenses comes
under more and more scrutany (having to sharply
focus 2.1 million pixels of detail down onto to
a 1/2" CCD is no mean feat).
I must place a disclaimer that
it is only apparent in very high contrast areas
of a very small percentage of images (normally
when the image is overexposed). Examples:
|
| "Stuck-on"
pixels on long exposure images |

(image portion 200% blowup)
|
Long exposure "stuck-on" pixels, this
two second exposure shows the effect of pixels
which "stick-on" (they're only noticeable
on exposures >1s). Normally appearing in exactly
the same place in the image each time it would
be possible to take a "black levels"
image first and use something like Photoshop to
subtract the noise from the image. Example image:

|
| Miss-firing /
low-power flash |
 |
Believe it or not the flash actually fired in this
shot, the red light was steady indicating the
flash was fully charged (and the batteries were
a freshly charged set). This has happened a couple
of times in the time I've had the camera and I
can only put it down to the camera being an early
production model. Below you can see two images
taken one after another with the flash, the first
one was a miss-fire (it went off but with little
power) and the second is fine (6 seconds later).
 
|
|