Reading mode: Light Dark

The D100 is Okay

Go to last post
M

Michael Elman

New member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I am not overly impressed with the D 100. The images are soft and colors are muted. The defenders of this camera have all come up this solutions to correct the shortcomings of this camera: This camera is so feature ridden that if you do this, this, and this your pictures will look great, or if you follow this these steps in Photoshop the pictures will be great, or the pictures are really great, you just can’t see it on your monitor. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if the images straight out of the camera were truly impressive. I go other forums on Phil’s site and see some of the great images people are obtaining with Nikon 5700 5000s, Minolta D7i s. Canon G2s, Sony F707s and it really makes me start to wonder about the D100. I won’t bring up D 60 and S2. Remember this is only one person's opinion.
 
Yes, it is your opinion, but you appear to be new, so let me give you a little history on some of the great cameras you list below. The CP5000 was knocked all over the place for "soft" images. The F707 was ripped for oversaturated reds. The G2 has even had some complaints. I don't have too much experience with the D7i nor the CP5700, but I'll bet there are some complaints about those too.

The reality is that people will never be "fully" satisfied with digital cameras...There's always going to be a con, and there will always be an improved model out in a year or so.

Question is do you have any of these cameras? Have you actually used them, or are you purely judging by compressed JPEGs that are posted to the web?

Teski
Michael Elman said:
I am not overly impressed with the D 100. The images are soft and
colors are muted. The defenders of this camera have all come up
this solutions to correct the shortcomings of this camera: This
camera is so feature ridden that if you do this, this, and this
your pictures will look great, or if you follow this these steps in
Photoshop the pictures will be great, or the pictures are really
great, you just can’t see it on your monitor. We wouldn’t be having
this discussion if the images straight out of the camera were truly
impressive. I go other forums on Phil’s site and see some of the
great images people are obtaining with Nikon 5700 5000s, Minolta
D7i s. Canon G2s, Sony F707s and it really makes me start to
wonder about the D100. I won’t bring up D 60 and S2. Remember this
is only one person's opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Teski, I guess I am the new kid since you have been a member 1 month longer than I have. If you had looked a little deeper into my profile you see that I have a Minolta 7. I started shooting digital with the first Apple digital camera and the went on to the Kodak DC120 so I have

been shooting digital for awhile, but that does not make an expert, and never claimed to be one. There a many who read this forum and do not like to post because of the reaction it causes, me being one of them.

No I do not only judge a digital camera only by viewing its output on the web. But you have to understand that most and I mean most people either post their shots on the web, burn them to CD or store them on a hard drive. With the costs of paper and ink cartidges few people are going to print every picture.

Finally many people in all forums should read the fable "The Emperor"s new clothes".
Teski said:
Yes, it is your opinion, but you appear to be new, so let me give
you a little history on some of the great cameras you list below.
The CP5000 was knocked all over the place for "soft" images. The
F707 was ripped for oversaturated reds. The G2 has even had some
complaints. I don't have too much experience with the D7i nor the
CP5700, but I'll bet there are some complaints about those too.
Click to expand...
Teski said:
The reality is that people will never be "fully" satisfied with
digital cameras...There's always going to be a con, and there will
always be an improved model out in a year or so.

Question is do you have any of these cameras? Have you actually
used them, or are you purely judging by compressed JPEGs that are
posted to the web?

Teski
Michael Elman said:
I am not overly impressed with the D 100. The images are soft and
colors are muted. The defenders of this camera have all come up
this solutions to correct the shortcomings of this camera: This
camera is so feature ridden that if you do this, this, and this
your pictures will look great, or if you follow this these steps in
Photoshop the pictures will be great, or the pictures are really
great, you just can’t see it on your monitor. We wouldn’t be having
this discussion if the images straight out of the camera were truly
impressive. I go other forums on Phil’s site and see some of the
great images people are obtaining with Nikon 5700 5000s, Minolta
D7i s. Canon G2s, Sony F707s and it really makes me start to
wonder about the D100. I won’t bring up D 60 and S2. Remember this
is only one person's opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Michael Elman said:
I am not overly impressed with the D 100. The images are soft and
colors are muted. The defenders of this camera have all come up
this solutions to correct the shortcomings of this camera: This
camera is so feature ridden that if you do this, this, and this
your pictures will look great, blah blah blah........
Click to expand...
I'm a D1 series user for over 2 years D1 then D1X. I made a fortune out of the crappy D1! I bought a D100 yesterday as I love having the latest gadget.

The not sharp dribble has gone on long enough - I think we should actually say 'not as sharp' or 'sharper than' to put any meaning on the phrase.

I like to say 'sharp enough' ! - here's a jpeg straight out of the camera (go to original pic) at normal sharpening.

I prefer the 'not so sharp' areas of the pic but if you're patient you'll see which bit I left sharp, er I mean sharper than...

http://www.pbase.com/themusicphotogra/inbox

--
http://themusicphotographer.com/
 
I like your closing note...

I think that you've made valid observations, the higher end P&S are excellent cameras and probably would suit many people better than the d-slrs. However, the problem that affects all P&S is excessive shutter lag, I have missed many shots with my 990 because of this. The D100 gives a near instant response which has been very helpful to me. Another downside in all P&S is the extended depth of field which seriously limits your ability to separate the subjects from the background.

Maybe we're like the blind men and the elephant, only looking at separate bits and pieces, and missing the big picture... the end results: which camera do we need to make images good enough for framing?
Michael Elman said:
Finally many people in all forums should read the fable "The
Emperor"s new clothes".
Click to expand...
 
Do you even own a D100 or are you judging the camera from your monitor? If it's the latter then you should read this:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=3093853
KF
Michael Elman said:
I am not overly impressed with the D 100. The images are soft and
colors are muted. The defenders of this camera have all come up
this solutions to correct the shortcomings of this camera: This
camera is so feature ridden that if you do this, this, and this
your pictures will look great, or if you follow this these steps in
Photoshop the pictures will be great, or the pictures are really
great, you just can’t see it on your monitor. We wouldn’t be having
this discussion if the images straight out of the camera were truly
impressive. I go other forums on Phil’s site and see some of the
great images people are obtaining with Nikon 5700 5000s, Minolta
D7i s. Canon G2s, Sony F707s and it really makes me start to
wonder about the D100. I won’t bring up D 60 and S2. Remember this
is only one person's opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Elman said:
No I do not only judge a digital camera only by viewing its output
on the web.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that you have the D100?
Michael Elman said:
But you have to understand that most and I mean most
people either post their shots on the web, burn them to CD or store
them on a hard drive. With the costs of paper and ink cartidges few
people are going to print every picture.
Click to expand...
People who buy DSLR's use them for shooting photos for printing, buying a DSLR just to put images on the web is extreme overkill. Point and shoots would be best for that, BTW all DSLR's need post processing for best results.
Dennis D
 
Dennis D said:
Michael Elman said:
No I do not only judge a digital camera only by viewing its output
on the web.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that you have the D100?
Dennis D said:
But you have to understand that most and I mean most
people either post their shots on the web, burn them to CD or store
them on a hard drive. With the costs of paper and ink cartidges few
people are going to print every picture.
Click to expand...
People who buy DSLR's use them for shooting photos for printing,
buying a DSLR just to put images on the web is extreme overkill.
Point and shoots would be best for that, BTW all DSLR's need post
processing for best results.
Dennis D
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually used the camera a while before commenting about it! Those that have, love it! So now who should I believe, someone who's used the camera for a month now or someone who just looked at a few photos on the web!
 
Kevin, you are right, a lot people who makes the similar comments does not even own or use a D100, and yet they have made their judgement,
and decided it is bad for all of us.
Kevin Forte said:
Dennis D said:
Michael Elman said:
No I do not only judge a digital camera only by viewing its output
on the web.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that you have the D100?
Kevin Forte said:
But you have to understand that most and I mean most
people either post their shots on the web, burn them to CD or store
them on a hard drive. With the costs of paper and ink cartidges few
people are going to print every picture.
Click to expand...
People who buy DSLR's use them for shooting photos for printing,
buying a DSLR just to put images on the web is extreme overkill.
Point and shoots would be best for that, BTW all DSLR's need post
processing for best results.
Dennis D
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually used the camera a while
before commenting about it! Those that have, love it! So now who
should I believe, someone who's used the camera for a month now or
someone who just looked at a few photos on the web!
Click to expand...
 
Kevin Forte said:
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually used the camera a while
before commenting about it! Those that have, love it! So now who
should I believe, someone who's used the camera for a month now or
someone who just looked at a few photos on the web!
Click to expand...
This is so true, I was guilty of this - prejudging the D100 as not up to the job - I bought one anyway as a replacement for my Coolpix 990. Low and behold the D100 now looks like it will join my D1Xs in my pro. kit - as a said in another message - sharp enough! It's nice to have a smaller, lighter camera too and I love the little clunk of the mirror.

Roger

--
http://themusicphotographer.com/
 
Michael,

I hate to say this, but you've got some really weird noise in that
picture,,right in the area where its the most sharp...there are yellowish
noise strands like banding running all thru that area.
 
Kevin Forte said:
Michael Elman said:
I am not overly impressed with the D 100. The images are soft and
colors are muted. The defenders of this camera have all come up
this solutions to correct the shortcomings of this camera: This
camera is so feature ridden that if you do this, this, and this
your pictures will look great, or if you follow this these steps in
Photoshop the pictures will be great, or the pictures are really
great, you just can’t see it on your monitor. We wouldn’t be having
this discussion if the images straight out of the camera were truly
impressive. I go other forums on Phil’s site and see some of the
great images people are obtaining with Nikon 5700 5000s, Minolta
D7i s. Canon G2s, Sony F707s and it really makes me start to
wonder about the D100. I won’t bring up D 60 and S2. Remember this
is only one person's opinion.
Click to expand...
After reading all these threads here is my opinion.
Click to expand...
First I believe that those of you who have a DSLR's and believe that all DSLR pic's have to be processed have been dupped by the Manufactures to except this level of quality. They have no choice. The technology is not cheap enough yet to blow us all away.The speed at which technology is moving will change that. You can count on it! These manufactures are after the glass and accessory sales period. So selling something is better than nothing.They had to get in the digital market sooner or later. Oh! yes, there will always be some post processing. But we are humans and we are naturally lazy and we want our pictures Sharp!, Great exposure!, Excellent colors! Here me now! I will say it again! Here me now! OUT OF THE CAMERA-NOT POST PROCESSED!!! All these short comings of camera design is what we don't want. Because of them, that is why this forum is even surviving. Soon we will have DSLR's that will be astonishing! Then it will be back at a more real playing level and again the GLASS, the COMPOSITION, and the PHOTOGRAPHER Will make the difference. Hopefully soon this forum can then be teaching all of us and exchanging concepts, design ideas and Oh! Yes, maybe some new ways of post processing. When I got my Nikon N80 and shot my first roll of film, I was blown away at the quality of the pic's, coming from an old Olympus OM2. And they were rite OUT OF THE CAMERA! How quickly we forget.

Post processing to me means, Cropping, Special Effects, Removing something that does not belong ie:hair, facial blemish, a cat tail in the background. Not having to ajust noise, sharpen, exposure. If you have noticed there is a small cottage industry springing up around us with special software programs that help to try and cope with the DSLR's short comings.

P.S. I do agree. If you are not printing many pic's and mostly using your pic's for the web, or graphics design DSLR's are way overkill.

No Offense to those that have purchased a DSLR. After all it's your money.
And everyone here knows that technology is going to change very fast.
So quit your whineing and go shoot with your DSLR's Just Kidding! :-)
Watch out for Second generation Fovean!

Save your money and buy a good P&S.

--
Leon K.
 
Leon, you fail to understand the professional side of photography, even film is processed after it leaves the camera. In terms of digital, sharpening should be the last step in processing. You never want to sharpen an image before resizing. If you plan to print your photo exactly the same size that it comes out of the camera then by all means sharpen in camera, but that is hardly ever the case. You also don't want to sharpen the image twice so if you don't sharpen in the camera then you are free to resize and sharpen to your exact liking.

I hope this helps you to understand the need for post processing. BTW I want to make my images look the way I want them to look not the way Nikon or Canon say they should look!
Now doesn't this make sense?
KF
Leon K said:
First I believe that those of you who have a DSLR's and believe
that all DSLR pic's have to be processed have been dupped by the
Manufactures to except this level of quality. They have no choice.
The technology is not cheap enough yet to blow us all away.The
speed at which technology is moving will change that. You can count
on it! These manufactures are after the glass and accessory sales
period. So selling something is better than nothing.They had to get
in the digital market sooner or later. Oh! yes, there will always
be some post processing. But we are humans and we are naturally
lazy and we want our pictures Sharp!, Great exposure!, Excellent
colors! Here me now! I will say it again! Here me now! OUT OF THE
CAMERA-NOT POST PROCESSED!!! All these short comings of camera
design is what we don't want. Because of them, that is why this
forum is even surviving. Soon we will have DSLR's that will be
astonishing! Then it will be back at a more real playing level and
again the GLASS, the COMPOSITION, and the PHOTOGRAPHER Will make
the difference. Hopefully soon this forum can then be teaching all
of us and exchanging concepts, design ideas and Oh! Yes, maybe some
new ways of post processing. When I got my Nikon N80 and shot my
first roll of film, I was blown away at the quality of the pic's,
coming from an old Olympus OM2. And they were rite OUT OF THE
CAMERA! How quickly we forget.

Post processing to me means, Cropping, Special Effects, Removing
something that does not belong ie:hair, facial blemish, a cat tail
in the background. Not having to ajust noise, sharpen, exposure. If
you have noticed there is a small cottage industry springing up
around us with special software programs that help to try and cope
with the DSLR's short comings.

P.S. I do agree. If you are not printing many pic's and mostly
using your pic's for the web, or graphics design DSLR's are way
overkill.

No Offense to those that have purchased a DSLR. After all it's your
money.
And everyone here knows that technology is going to change very fast.
So quit your whineing and go shoot with your DSLR's Just Kidding! :-)
Watch out for Second generation Fovean!

Save your money and buy a good P&S.

--
Leon K.
Click to expand...
 
It seems some people approach the DSLR's with a point & shoot attitude, this is incorrect. If someone doesn't like to post process then get a P&S or film camera, but the GREAT thing about digital IS the post processing! Even if there ever comes a day when the images coming out of digital cameras are so-called perfect (this will always be subjective) I'll still post process mine to my liking.
Dennis D
Kevin Forte said:
Leon K said:
First I believe that those of you who have a DSLR's and believe
that all DSLR pic's have to be processed have been dupped by the
Manufactures to except this level of quality. They have no choice.
The technology is not cheap enough yet to blow us all away.The
speed at which technology is moving will change that. You can count
on it! These manufactures are after the glass and accessory sales
period. So selling something is better than nothing.They had to get
in the digital market sooner or later. Oh! yes, there will always
be some post processing. But we are humans and we are naturally
lazy and we want our pictures Sharp!, Great exposure!, Excellent
colors! Here me now! I will say it again! Here me now! OUT OF THE
CAMERA-NOT POST PROCESSED!!! All these short comings of camera
design is what we don't want. Because of them, that is why this
forum is even surviving. Soon we will have DSLR's that will be
astonishing! Then it will be back at a more real playing level and
again the GLASS, the COMPOSITION, and the PHOTOGRAPHER Will make
the difference. Hopefully soon this forum can then be teaching all
of us and exchanging concepts, design ideas and Oh! Yes, maybe some
new ways of post processing. When I got my Nikon N80 and shot my
first roll of film, I was blown away at the quality of the pic's,
coming from an old Olympus OM2. And they were rite OUT OF THE
CAMERA! How quickly we forget.

Post processing to me means, Cropping, Special Effects, Removing
something that does not belong ie:hair, facial blemish, a cat tail
in the background. Not having to ajust noise, sharpen, exposure. If
you have noticed there is a small cottage industry springing up
around us with special software programs that help to try and cope
with the DSLR's short comings.

P.S. I do agree. If you are not printing many pic's and mostly
using your pic's for the web, or graphics design DSLR's are way
overkill.

No Offense to those that have purchased a DSLR. After all it's your
money.
And everyone here knows that technology is going to change very fast.
So quit your whineing and go shoot with your DSLR's Just Kidding! :-)
Watch out for Second generation Fovean!

Save your money and buy a good P&S.

--
Leon K.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Dennis D
 
I fully agree. They look at some of the pics and make immediate judgement not knowing anything about the camera, nor the person who took the shots. Just because someone claims that they have been a photographer for 20 years, doesn't mean that's true. Gotta play with the camera and make some test prints to truely judge it.

Teski
Kevin Forte said:
Dennis D said:
Michael Elman said:
No I do not only judge a digital camera only by viewing its output
on the web.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that you have the D100?
Kevin Forte said:
But you have to understand that most and I mean most
people either post their shots on the web, burn them to CD or store
them on a hard drive. With the costs of paper and ink cartidges few
people are going to print every picture.
Click to expand...
People who buy DSLR's use them for shooting photos for printing,
buying a DSLR just to put images on the web is extreme overkill.
Point and shoots would be best for that, BTW all DSLR's need post
processing for best results.
Dennis D
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually used the camera a while
before commenting about it! Those that have, love it! So now who
should I believe, someone who's used the camera for a month now or
someone who just looked at a few photos on the web!
Click to expand...
 
My bad...Saw that you had only made 5 or 6 posts...Didn't actually look at the day you started on the forums. :-)

Teski
Michael Elman said:
Michael Elman said:
Yes, it is your opinion, but you appear to be new, so let me give
you a little history on some of the great cameras you list below.
The CP5000 was knocked all over the place for "soft" images. The
F707 was ripped for oversaturated reds. The G2 has even had some
complaints. I don't have too much experience with the D7i nor the
CP5700, but I'll bet there are some complaints about those too.
Click to expand...
Michael Elman said:
The reality is that people will never be "fully" satisfied with
digital cameras...There's always going to be a con, and there will
always be an improved model out in a year or so.

Question is do you have any of these cameras? Have you actually
used them, or are you purely judging by compressed JPEGs that are
posted to the web?

Teski
Michael Elman said:
I am not overly impressed with the D 100. The images are soft and
colors are muted. The defenders of this camera have all come up
this solutions to correct the shortcomings of this camera: This
camera is so feature ridden that if you do this, this, and this
your pictures will look great, or if you follow this these steps in
Photoshop the pictures will be great, or the pictures are really
great, you just can’t see it on your monitor. We wouldn’t be having
this discussion if the images straight out of the camera were truly
impressive. I go other forums on Phil’s site and see some of the
great images people are obtaining with Nikon 5700 5000s, Minolta
D7i s. Canon G2s, Sony F707s and it really makes me start to
wonder about the D100. I won’t bring up D 60 and S2. Remember this
is only one person's opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It sure would Kevin! I read somewhere that you compared prints from the D100 and the D60, did you see any difference in resolution? I didn't, and neither did the guy who owned the D60. We looked at 8x10's from each camera and the fine detail was the same in both prints. Both were shot in raw and sharpened later (not in camera) in PS using Nik Sharpener. He couldn't understand why some people thought the D100 was soft!
Dennis D
Kevin Forte said:
Kevin Forte wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually used the camera a while
before commenting about it! Those that have, love it! So now who
should I believe, someone who's used the camera for a month now or
someone who just looked at a few photos on the web!
Click to expand...
 
I saw no difference at all in resolution between the two Dennis, my friend that had the D60, that we used to compare with the D100, was very surprised in the D100 sharpness. After swapping cameras for a while he said that if he didn't have 5 Canon lenses he would buy the D100 (he really liked the faster AF of the Nikon).
KF
Dennis D said:
It sure would Kevin! I read somewhere that you compared prints from
the D100 and the D60, did you see any difference in resolution? I
didn't, and neither did the guy who owned the D60. We looked at
8x10's from each camera and the fine detail was the same in both
prints. Both were shot in raw and sharpened later (not in camera)
in PS using Nik Sharpener. He couldn't understand why some people
thought the D100 was soft!
Dennis D
Click to expand...
 
Kevin,

Have you tried sharpening the photos that Phil has posted that look a little soft?
After additional sharpening do you think that they look as good as the Canon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top