D100 still producing good results :<) - Who's staying the course

...Is precisely what you just mentioned...the ability to utilize advances in imaging software to extend the capability of your older images. JPEGs will always be what they are (they still produce great images) but as Capture evolves, your Raw images evolve along with it. This is true with any camera...

--
http://www.carlmphotography.com

'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'
 
I shot some more pictures today, handheld, with various sharpening settings (and no teleconverter LOL). I'm a lot happier now, it looks as though the camera is fine, just needs not such a cheapo zoom, in camera sharpening turned on, and a user who knows a lot more about it :-)

Thanks everyone for the ideas.

Now then ... For a new lens ... If i don't get ideas about handholding anything bigger that 200mm zoom, how much benefit would there be from VR ? I do mainly motorsports (ie panning, a bit of movement is often a good thing) and people. The camera doesn't get taken out on rainy or very dull days and doesn't do much indoors, generally there is plenty of light where I'm shooting. I'd love an 18-200VR, but the non-VR is so much more affordable.

Thanks
Gary



 
I just sold 3 photo's to a magazine with shots from the D100. As long as my market keeps buying what I take, why step up?
 
I have a d2h that I only use for sports. I use my d100 for almost everything that I do. I have and use a d200 also but truthfully like the pictures out of my d100 better. My poor d100 is actually going to nikon for a CCD sensor replaced because of all the dead pixels on it. But it will be well worth the money that I have to spend to fix the d100.
 
I also use the D-100. I really have enjoyed it. I also use the 80-200 with the 1.4 Kenko, a good combo. I picked up a 17-55 last year and that has worked well also.

Lar
 
I have a d2h that I only use for sports. I use my d100 for almost
everything that I do. I have and use a d200 also but truthfully
like the pictures out of my d100 better. My poor d100 is actually
going to nikon for a CCD sensor replaced because of all the dead
pixels on it. But it will be well worth the money that I have to
spend to fix the d100.
Why did you have to replace it? How many dead/hot pixels did you have? And how much does this cost?

My D100 also produces a large amount of hot pixels during long exposures (short, low-ISO exposures are absolutely clean, however). What did yours do?

Basil
 
Why did you have to replace it? How many dead/hot pixels did you
have? And how much does this cost?

My D100 also produces a large amount of hot pixels during long
exposures (short, low-ISO exposures are absolutely clean, however).
What did yours do?

Basil
I have talked to Nikon about it that is about all at this point. I have not had the time to get it sent in yet because of jobs and college. Nikon said they are not overly certain about what the overalll cost would be because they are not overly certain about the stock on the ccd's for that camera right now. They said at least that it would not be over 425 USD for the ccd, shutter, and a cleaning of the camera. I had about 25 to 30 dead pixles at this point. That will show up no matter what I am doing. It works great for shooting stars at least lol.
 
Mine still is great. Some here suggest going with the D70 instead, but I would not suggest that. I have a D70 which I had before getting my used D100 about a year ago and since the D70 has made a pretty fair paper weight. Just can't bring myself to use it when I have the D100 available. I intended for the D100 to be a backup, but it's the other way around after getting the D100. No comparison in my book.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top