D100 - sharpen ?? what a disaster ...

Alex Permit · Sep 15, 2002

Excuse the newbie question, but why is your d100-bad jpg only 1,513x1,516? Doesn't the d100 shoot 3,000 x 2,000? I'll note your "coolpix-good" jpg is 2,048x1,536.

The file size is also 50% larger, leading me to suspect that, for some reason, you chose a higher compression ratio for the d100 then you did the coolpix.

Was this an oversight, or did you do this deliberatley. If you did it deliberatley, what was the reason?

Again, apologiies if this newbie is somehow missing something obvious

block michel said:
than a SIMPLY good one is:
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/coolpix_gppd.jpg

You will remark the same picture is taken from 6.1 megapixels D100
and it is NOT sharp while the COOLPIX picture has a big contrast
and much sharpness ...

AND IT IS so for all my pictures.
I'll try other bodies D100 but always too too too soft.
sharpening 3 times and than you have a "good" photo

NO, it is not good

Don Lashier said:

I didn't have an investment in Nikon lenses to consider. You might
consider waiting a week or so to see what Nikon announces in the
way of a new pro body at photokina. My guess is they have a 1Ds
killer up their sleeve.

DL

block michel said:

just using a D100 : about 50 pictures. it is NOT SHARP !!! my
coolpix WAS ABSOLUTELY BETTER than a D100 with the NIKKOR 28-85 AF
and D100.
I re-negotiate to purchase a D60 from CANON ...
it is a shame from NIKON: very very bad;
AVOID THIS BODY ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Raul · Sep 15, 2002

or a HaMungo R200, and afterwards he will say an atrocite like "I cannot obtain good color of my R200". Incredible.

Raul

greg n · Sep 15, 2002

Why you have this silly post. Then you try to prove your point by posting pictures and you take pictures from different angles and distance and zoom. When the watch you took a picture of would be so easy to take at same distance. I mean you say you are being serious but then you do this. What are you trying to prove any way. You don't like camera, fine don't get it. But why are you trying to convince all the people that do have it, that that they should not like their camera. What's your point.

block michel said:
than a SIMPLY good one is:
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/coolpix_gppd.jpg

You will remark the same picture is taken from 6.1 megapixels D100
and it is NOT sharp while the COOLPIX picture has a big contrast
and much sharpness ...

AND IT IS so for all my pictures.
I'll try other bodies D100 but always too too too soft.
sharpening 3 times and than you have a "good" photo

NO, it is not good

Don Lashier said:

I didn't have an investment in Nikon lenses to consider. You might
consider waiting a week or so to see what Nikon announces in the
way of a new pro body at photokina. My guess is they have a 1Ds
killer up their sleeve.

DL

block michel said:

just using a D100 : about 50 pictures. it is NOT SHARP !!! my
coolpix WAS ABSOLUTELY BETTER than a D100 with the NIKKOR 28-85 AF
and D100.
I re-negotiate to purchase a D60 from CANON ...
it is a shame from NIKON: very very bad;
AVOID THIS BODY ...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

CoryC · Sep 15, 2002

I have to agree. I don't have any S lenses and I have had no problems getting sharp images from my D lenses, even the $100 50mm 1.8. Solid technique is far more important. The camera is not forgiving to sloppy shooting style. Capture 3 does some nice things but I have been getting good results going straight to Photoshop as well.

Cory
http://www.aldercreek.net

herbet said:
unless you're shooting sport or fast paced events.
the D100 performs really well with AFD lens.

Teski · Sep 15, 2002

...and can't admit that he either has bad hands or a bad lens.

Teski

John Isgren said:
block michel said:

I you want, i can show the invoice of each COOLPIX's and D100 that
i bought ...
QUESTION : if i can use a SLR camera ??
hmm hmmm
IT IS NOT IMPORTANT to answer SO IT IS STUPID.

John Isgren said:

John Isgren said:

THE D100 is a wonderful body but i REPEAT REPEAT (with enough experiences) the CCD SENSOR is not enough good

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jason-S said:

block michel said:

just using a D100 : about 50 pictures. it is NOT SHARP !!! my
coolpix WAS ABSOLUTELY BETTER than a D100 with the NIKKOR 28-85 AF
and D100.
I re-negotiate to purchase a D60 from CANON ...
it is a shame from NIKON: very very bad;
AVOID THIS BODY ...

Click to expand...

LOL!!! My first reaction was "Get some lessons" learn to use an SLR
properly and not a point and shooter.

But now I realise you probably haven't even owned a D100 (Troll)

I've not had any sharpness problems straight out of the cam from
JPEG's (Not raw)

http://www.radtweak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/D100/Tree.html
http://www.radtweak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/D100/rabbit.html

,Jason

--
http://www.radtweak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Teski · Sep 15, 2002

Where's the EXIF info on these? How do we know you're not lying? These pics are in totally different lighting and angles.

Doesn't look like a good test to me.

You also don't mention what lens on the D100, settings, etc. If you're a pro, then prove it.

Teski

block michel said:
than a SIMPLY good one is:
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/coolpix_gppd.jpg

You will remark the same picture is taken from 6.1 megapixels D100
and it is NOT sharp while the COOLPIX picture has a big contrast
and much sharpness ...

AND IT IS so for all my pictures.
I'll try other bodies D100 but always too too too soft.
sharpening 3 times and than you have a "good" photo

NO, it is not good

TSD said:

block michel said:

Mark Palumbo said:

Wow you got the DOF perfect for the rabbit shot! Awesome!

Honestly all your pics are great! Nice eye! Thanks for sharing!

Click to expand...

Thanks!!!
I was pleased with the rabbit shot because it proved to me that
lugging a monopod around was worth it.. I'd have never got it
without it as it was 300mm f6 1/60s (very flat and overcast,
WB/Cloudy -1)

Thanks again for your kind comments , I still say 70% of it is down
to the Nikon

,Jason

--
http://www.radtweak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Teski · Sep 15, 2002

He only gets defensive when someone calls him stupid. He doesn't respond to people's sharp pics and say something about them. He only responds with these same two pics stating that one is with the D100 and one is with the 995....He doesn't give any details about his lenses, settings, etc. Just keeps re-posting this same thing. Some Pro.

Teski

Dr Mark Shaheen said:
block michel said:

a bad picture from D100 : it is not crisp no contrast and not sharpen
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/d100-bad.jpg

A simply good one with a COOLPIX 995:
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/coolpix_gppd.jpg

SEE THE DIFFERENCE !!!! (test with 3 differents BODY D100)
-

Click to expand...

What lenses did you use to macro this?

Teski · Sep 15, 2002

Again, Block never gives any info on these pics, and it obviously isn't a professional comparison test. They always say it's the photographer, not the equipment....I agree in this case.

Teski

David Shay said:
block michel said:

So a D100 - taken on a "normal" manner - but very bad
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/d100-bad.jpg

than a SIMPLY good one is:
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/coolpix_gppd.jpg

Click to expand...

A few points:

1) Both point of view and exposure are quite different for these
shots. The exposure for the D100 is particularly off. Check out
the histograms. First for the D100 image:

Quite clipped in the shadows!

The coolpix photo is exposed much better:

You really can't compare these two photos. Take one with the same
position, same lighting, same exposure, and use the recommended
settings for the D100 if you really want your pictures "out of the
camera".

2) Different workflow for DSLR vs. P&S -- point beaten to death on
the forum

Steven Noyes · Sep 15, 2002

michel

I think that the D100 image is pretty detailed and can be sharpened very
much if you are into that oversharpened look as presented in the CP 995.
While a little softer than my 1D, this image is very typical of the
D100, D30, D60 and the 1D. I am not sure about the D1[X~H]. I do
agree, however, that the D100 tends to be the softest of the bunch.

But it can be sharpened.

Look at the CP 995 shot and don't look at is as sharp but over baked. By
this, I mean that it is OVER sharpened. On the second hand there are
definite black lines surrounding the outline of the hand. THIS I BAD.
This indicates a level of sharpening that will limit the print out.

Notice that the D100 does not have the halo. In fact it is pretty smooth.
If I apply a Laplace sharpening filter (very extreme) I get sharpness
very similar to the CP 995. But it is very over baked. By applying
a bit less sharpening (sharp 50%... It is a TIFFany III thing), it is
possible to almost eliminate the halo and get a very crisp picture while
keeping the noise down.

In short, the D100 image is much better. Also the DOF seems a bit less on
the D100 shot and that might impact things a bit.

If you have Nikon Glass, keep the D100. While the image quality (IMHO)
on the D60 has a light edge, either camera can take incredible images.
Also remember that these cameras are designed for high quality output like
a LightJet or Durst Lambda. At the resolution these printers print at,
the transitions between tonal boundaries happen very fast when compared
to your monitor. As a result, higher sharpening is not always required
when printing. It is needed for viewing. So you ad it there and don't add
it when printing.

It is a great solution.

Steven

block michel said:
A simply good one with a COOLPIX 995:
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/coolpix_gppd.jpg

SEE THE DIFFERENCE !!!! (test with 3 differents BODY D100)
-

Dr Mark Shaheen said:

I can't help but notice with all the photo's being shown your lack
of comment. Something is not right here. Anyone else wonder? Are
the photo's that bad on your computer? They look great on mine.

Click to expand...

--
---
My really bad summer pictures:
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/summer_travels

w4npx · Sep 15, 2002

I have a D100 and have taken probably close to 1000 shots with it since purchase.

I agree that there is a sharpen problem with it, but this problem only appears if you shoot in JPEG.

In RAW mode the pictures are sharp as a tack, even with no sharpening.

This leads me to believe that the problem lies not with the CCD, but with the firmware of the camera. I believe this because the same CCD takes the picture in both RAW and JPEG, but in JPEG, before the picture is recorded it is converted from a 12 bit per channel RAW image to an 8 bit per channel JPEG and sharpness is lost in that transition.

I believe that this problem can easily be cured with a firmware upgrade.

I just hope that Nikon will tackle the problem and make a great camera greater.

For the moment I take only in RAW.

On the off center histogram (lack of highlights), I believe that this was done intentionally in order to preserve highlights. It is easier to digitally retreive detail on the dark end of the scale than the high end if you have blown out the highlights. Also, if you dont like this you can modify the histogram you get, but uploading your own curves to the D100. Mine are centered most of the time now with a home made custom curve.

Again, I sure would like to see Nikon tackle the sharpness problem with JPEGs

Bob

Rachael · Sep 15, 2002

Wow!! I am "Impressed" with this troll Message recorder....Play , rewind , play rewind...with no input of useful or critical data.

Look!!! BLOCK!! if you are that professional, Go take a few pictures with the D100 of a resolution charts....and SEE it for yourself....

Instead of copying and pasting the same old message over and over again....

indeed proving that you are indeed a TROLL and here for absolutely nothing but putting yourself up here as a target board for shooting.

TROLL!! LOL!!!
--
Rachael.
(To do is to be, to be is to do)

Leif Olstrup · Sep 15, 2002

I think the AF-S lenses is not so much about better optical quality, compared to other PRO non AF-S lenses, but about the internal focusing motor and faster AF-focusing. I have the AF-S 17-35/2,8 + AF-D 35-70/2,8 + AF-D 80-200/2,8. The two latter perform optically just as well as the former for my use, and I saved about $1600 by not buying them in the AF-S version, since I don't need the very fast focusing (though the 80-200 is pretty fast for a non AF-S lens). But of course, since the AF-S lenses are newer designs, there may be some slight improvement, that can be seen in an optical bench, but the difference is marginal in everyday use.

It is another matter, however, if you compare the AF-S lenses with the cheaper lenses for the average consumer. Her the difference is likely to be visible.

Ger Bee said:
--- one needs to shoot RAW and convert via C3 - one also needs the
AF-S lens.

I know that RAW is as sharp as my D1x but JPEG is decidedly soft -
and the high sharp is too sharp.

I'd not call it a disaster and it gets better with use.

--
Live life to the power of Nikon!!!

Vtie · Sep 16, 2002

old photography man said:
old photography man said:

just using a D100 : about 50 pictures. it is NOT SHARP !!! my
coolpix WAS ABSOLUTELY BETTER than a D100 with the NIKKOR 28-85 AF
and D100.

Click to expand...

I have a Coolpix 990, a Coolpix 5700, and a D100 with 24-120 and
70-300D. To my experience, there is simply no comparison between
the D100 and the Coolpixes: the D100 is much sharper (even in JPEG
mode) and has much better color rendering (we don't even talk about
the noise). Therefore, your statement about the coolpix comparison
makes me suspect you may have a defective D100.

It is true that the D100 produces relatively soft images straight out
of the camera, and tends to underexpose. But I think there is
a very clear and clever strategy behind that: bot can easily be
recovered afterwards in Photoshop. The opposite behaviour is
virtually unrecoverable: moire effects (a nightmare) and blown-out
higlights (THE nightmare of digital camera's). My feeling is that
Nikon has chosen most default settings to be on the "safe" side
with respect to post-processing possibilities, and to me this makes
really sense. Some competitors have chosen to be more aggressive
on the pictures straight out of the camera. This may be a good
marketing choice because of the "oooh" effect, but it sometimes
drastically limits what you can do with the images (look for moiree
on some competing products!)

Leif Olstrup · Sep 16, 2002

block michel said:
Your answer only stupid: I am a professional and You DO NOT TAKE
thoses pictures with a D100 - you are not honest.

Well, the debate should stop here. It's hard to argue against a guy who claims, that if a picture is good it can't possibly have been shot with a D100, and anybody who says their good pictures comes from a D100 are liars.

BTW my D100 pictures are sharp - after appropiate sharpening i PS. I prefer to do the sharpening myself, because what is appropiate sharpening depends on the situation. For example you need to use another technique with high ISO pictures in order not to amplify the noise level too much than you would use with low ISO pictures without noise.

And no, I won't bother post pictures to prove my point. I think Block Michael should get a Fuji S2 - or stick to his coolpix.

Don Lashier · Sep 16, 2002

The coolpix is almost certainly doing some in-camera sharpening. And note the color aliasing and fringing in the coolpix photo. Not that I disagree with your original point - I debated D60 vs D100 but ruled out the D100 based on pre-release samples on Yamada's site because of sharpness and color issues (actually ended up with a 1D).

But that said, I've seen from samples posted here that with the proper workflow the D100 can produce acceptably sharp photos and Phil's review shows it awfully close to the D60 in resolution and image quality, although I personally still don't like the color and contrast as much as Canon's.

If you trade it for a D60 you might just find yourself bitching about autofocus instead. Consider what your needs are vs all the tradeoffs involved. If you're a professional I'd think you could justify the extra cost of a pro camera which should have less compromises than either the D60 or D100.

DL

block michel said:
So a D100 - taken on a "normal" manner - but very bad
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/d100-bad.jpg

than a SIMPLY good one is:
http://www.wezoppem.dns2go.com/gal_photos/d100/coolpix_gppd.jpg

You will remark the same picture is taken from 6.1 megapixels D100
and it is NOT sharp while the COOLPIX picture has a big contrast
and much sharpness ...

AND IT IS so for all my pictures.
I'll try other bodies D100 but always too too too soft.
sharpening 3 times and than you have a "good" photo

NO, it is not good

Ger Bee · Sep 16, 2002

... as straight forward on any system.

What many people are satisfied with is not always the best and the best may not be always necessary.

In the beginning I too was a severe critic of the D100 and its softness etc. So I had to de to the experiments – and spend some time with my system.

The final result was that with AF-S lenses or prime Nikkor lenses and capturing in NEF and processing via C3 I could match my best from the D1x.

I’ve posted these experiments and results and the lens issue several times already – for me it is over.

Personally, I don’t use C3 as I don’t need the best quality and when I do I will still use my D1x, as a system it still offers more and does not exhibit the tripod issues and is Firewire for near instant display on lap or PC.

Robert Walker said:
Why the need for the AF-S lens? Which AF-S lens are you
recommending? Why not just shoot the D100 with normal sharpening
(JPEG) and this use the unsharp mask in PS or other photo editing
program? Wouldn't that be easier than using C3?

Ger Bee · Sep 16, 2002

... I had access to AF-S lenses but did not buy my own for my personal system until the D100 arrived. I have a 35~70mm D and a few primes – well I found my 17~35mm AF-S to be sharper and had more contrast and the focussing is so, soooo much better plus the manual override – I had never tired this before buying my own – that’s a beautiful touch.

So were I used to turn to my primes for the best quality I no longer have the need – unless I also want better corrected images.

And I have the other lenses too the 80~200mm is particularly important, moreso now that Nikon are only making G lenses AFAIK.

Dave Oddie · Sep 16, 2002

Steven Noyes said:
michel

I think that the D100 image is pretty detailed and can be sharpened
very
much if you are into that oversharpened look as presented in the CP
995.
While a little softer than my 1D, this image is very typical of the
D100, D30, D60 and the 1D. I am not sure about the D1[X~H]. I do
agree, however, that the D100 tends to be the softest of the bunch.

But it can be sharpened.

How do you reconcile the above statement with what Phil said in his review of the D100 (bottom of page 17, Photographic tests) which is:

"Unfortunately it's not just a case of applying additional sharpening to the JPEG files in the 'digital darkroom', it would appear as though some detail has already been lost."

"some detail has laready been lost" is pretty unambiguous and backs up the original posters position I would have thought.

From what I have read on here some users concur with Phils view and note you must shoot in RAW mode to get sharper out of camera images.

I would have epxected a camera of the D100 class not to force you to shoot RAW and/or post process images in order not to lose detail as Phil pointed out.

As to being told "well shoot RAW then", I would imagine for professionals they will want to get the detail out of the camera with reasonable file sizes and not get involved with post processing (time is money). That is they will expext JPEG to deliver more than Phil shows us it does.

Amateurs who have the time and inclination can marvel at the ability of the D100 in RAW mode but I have to say the way people have got all defensive about the D100 shows they are less than happy about this aspect of its performance despite being in denial (LOL). In my humble opinion of course

.

Dave

Arash Hazeghi · Sep 16, 2002

I don't know why are you so insisting on wheather Nikon D100 is sharp or not. I guess all of the D100 users including myself are happy with their cameras and don't need others to tell them it is sharp or not! this is a forum intended to expand photography skills and technics not a war room between different cameras! If nikon is such a bad unsharp nasty camera people will stop buying it after a while and Nikon will stop the production line for D100... They simply don't need you to tell them if their camera is bad or not, nor do the d100 users! Ok D100 is a bad camera , you can go buy whatever you want and D100 users please stop this silly debate and instead, concentrate on what we can do to take better bictures with this camera. The debate on wheather canon or nikon SLRs are better has been going on for the past 30 years and it will likely continue for the next 30 years without any outcome!!

Enjoy photography !
regards
Arash

block michel said:
just using a D100 : about 50 pictures. it is NOT SHARP !!! my
coolpix WAS ABSOLUTELY BETTER than a D100 with the NIKKOR 28-85 AF
and D100.
I re-negotiate to purchase a D60 from CANON ...
it is a shame from NIKON: very very bad;
AVOID THIS BODY ...

Robert Walker · Sep 16, 2002

Thanks for the reply. I was having some difficulty understanding why the AF-S would help with the sharperning difficulties on the D100. No doubt that the Nikon has equipped some of the better lenses with SW, but I felt that some non-SW are just as good when it comes to sharpness. You pointed that out. I do agree that the SW lenses are wonderful.

Ger Bee said:
What many people are satisfied with is not always the best and the
best may not be always necessary.

In the beginning I too was a severe critic of the D100 and its
softness etc. So I had to de to the experiments – and spend some
time with my system.

The final result was that with AF-S lenses or prime Nikkor lenses
and capturing in NEF and processing via C3 I could match my best
from the D1x.

I’ve posted these experiments and results and the lens issue
several times already – for me it is over.

Personally, I don’t use C3 as I don’t need the best quality and
when I do I will still use my D1x, as a system it still offers more
and does not exhibit the tripod issues and is Firewire for near
instant display on lap or PC.

Robert Walker said:

Why the need for the AF-S lens? Which AF-S lens are you
recommending? Why not just shoot the D100 with normal sharpening
(JPEG) and this use the unsharp mask in PS or other photo editing
program? Wouldn't that be easier than using C3?

Click to expand...

D100 - sharpen ?? what a disaster ...

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Don Lashier

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts