Is the D100 a bad camera?

bartP

Senior Member
Messages
2,342
Reaction score
0
Location
US
To get the best out of it you actuallly have to set the right exposure and White Balance. If you just go and shoot: wow the pictures come out really badly lit: where one is expecting to see perfect and beautiful pictures, the pictures don't look like Mark Seligers pictures in Rolling Stone, even if one doesn't use reflection screens and softboxes or umbrellas or two or more assistants, while one is using the built in flash or even a dedicated flash! Nor do they look like Bruce Weber's BW pictures of Tom Cruise from years ago! Even worse: Terry Richardson does a lot better with a point and shoot film based camera with built in flash: models showing everything you tell them to show. Maybe with the new firmware, everything comes in place?

I think not. Being a photographer who knows what he or she is doing is enough. Bummer, the answer is no.
Bart.
 
I'm just not seeing the underexposure/sharpness/white balance issues that everyone else is seeing with the camera when running in auto mode.

If I put the D100 into full auto, I get really good pictures. They're properly exposed, provided I use the correct metering for the scene. With full auto white balance, the color is pretty darn close - even in mixed light conditions. I keep one of my presets configured as a full-auto fallback in case I have to shoot in a quickly changing environment.

As for the sharpness issue...with sharpness set to "Normal", my pictures have sharpness that's relative to the lens in use at the time. If I use my 105mm Micro, the edges are so sharp you can cut your finger on them. If I use the cheapie 28-85, they're a little soft. You get what you pay for.

Dave
To get the best out of it you actuallly have to set the right
exposure and White Balance. If you just go and shoot: wow the
pictures come out really badly lit: where one is expecting to see
perfect and beautiful pictures, the pictures don't look like Mark
Seligers pictures in Rolling Stone, even if one doesn't use
reflection screens and softboxes or umbrellas or two or more
assistants, while one is using the built in flash or even a
dedicated flash! Nor do they look like Bruce Weber's BW pictures of
Tom Cruise from years ago! Even worse: Terry Richardson does a lot
better with a point and shoot film based camera with built in
flash: models showing everything you tell them to show. Maybe with
the new firmware, everything comes in place?
I think not. Being a photographer who knows what he or she is doing
is enough. Bummer, the answer is no.
Bart.
 
As for the sharpness issue...with sharpness set to "Normal", my
pictures have sharpness that's relative to the lens in use at the
time. If I use my 105mm Micro, the edges are so sharp you can cut
your finger on them. If I use the cheapie 28-85, they're a little
soft. You get what you pay for.

Dave
The problem with the sharpness resides with the NEF format, w/o any in-camera sharpening, which is how some of us like it. With the pure raw image, not conteminated by any in-camera post-processing, we can manipulate the images better on the computer.

--
JR
 
The RAW mode provides excellent sharp picture. It is also very relative of the quality of the lenses used and how fair the exposure is.
As for the sharpness issue...with sharpness set to "Normal", my
pictures have sharpness that's relative to the lens in use at the
time. If I use my 105mm Micro, the edges are so sharp you can cut
your finger on them. If I use the cheapie 28-85, they're a little
soft. You get what you pay for.

Dave
The problem with the sharpness resides with the NEF format, w/o any
in-camera sharpening, which is how some of us like it. With the
pure raw image, not conteminated by any in-camera post-processing,
we can manipulate the images better on the computer.

--
JR
--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.)
Nikon D-100 with assorted lenses

http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top