Does the D100 still have any issues?

If you look at the Fuji (CCD technology) and the Canon you can see that the noise levels are the same which to me suggests that they're using NR in both formats where it appears the D100 clearly abandons NR when using NEF but the noise isn't that big of an issue.

Jim T H said:

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Ok, looking good. Last issue is the sharper but noiser RAW
pictures. Any opinions about whether it is really a problem? Has
Nikon dealt with the problem?

Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

Thanks Pete. I had not thought of it that way. thanks.

Pete Perry said:

Jim T H said:

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Ok, looking good. Last issue is the sharper but noiser RAW
pictures. Any opinions about whether it is really a problem? Has
Nikon dealt with the problem?

Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jim

Except for soft Jpeg, I think most issues were user related ...

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

--
Yves P.

(some pictures I like here
http://www.pbase.com/yp1/images01
http://www.pbase.com/yves_pinsono23

I had a considerable investment in Nikon 35mm equipment, so, after considerable research, I decided to stay with the brand and purchased a D100.

So far, no complaints. However, purchase the Nikon Capture software as well so you can take full advantage of the NEF file format. You can process the NEF files with the Nikon View software that ships with the camera, but Capture provides a larger selection of tools.

Yves P. said:

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

--
Yves P.

(some pictures I like here
http://www.pbase.com/yp1/images01
http://www.pbase.com/yves_pinsono23

Click to expand...

Jonathan Swenson said:

My problem with the d100 is that it does not swivel around so you
can take pictures of yourself.

Click to expand...

If that is the primary use of the camera, no comments. If not, check if any other DSLR let you do that. No one.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

Pete Perry said:

If you look at the Fuji (CCD technology) and the Canon you can see
that the noise levels are the same which to me suggests that
they're using NR in both formats where it appears the D100 clearly
abandons NR when using NEF but the noise isn't that big of an issue.

Click to expand...

Nikon has a less agressive noise reduction (if any) and rightly so. No artifacts out of the D100. It is the closer thing to to film that money can buy.

Fuji has (just a little) less noise. In exchange you get some artifacts and you miss the VERY IMPORTANT dark frame noise subtraction for long exposures. While the S2 does a pretty good job with long exposures, eventually hot pixels pop-up while the D100 doesn't have the issue (using the dark frame function).

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

Pete Perry said:

Jim,

Phil refuses to take some cameras out of their default
configurations

Click to expand...

Phil and many othe reviews are P&S based. They are basically useless unless you use the camera in P&S mode only. The 300D comes out very good indeed however I would never buy the 300D.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori
--------------------
Equipment list in profile

I was just joking.

Pete Perry said:

Phil refuses to take some cameras out of their default
configurations and that has led him to make claims that others have
found were easy to get around with some of these cameras.

Click to expand...

That's probably better than Pop Photo reviews, where every product seems to be perfect. I found Phil's review to be useful when I was deciding on the D100.

The most bizarre review I saw was in the Washington Post, where they tested a D100 alongside three or four P&S's. They shot indoors with auto WB, and proclaimed the D100's color qualities to be horrible. IIRC, that was the only test they did.

Member said:

Personally, I don't think the D100 has many issues to begin with
and it's certainly proven to be very reliable if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I have really enjoyed mine. I initially had issues with dull color and softness. Once I learned about color space, the dull colors went away. Once I learned that cheap lenses need to be stopped down, most of the softness went away.

Ken Plotkin

Underexposure is not a big problem, you can download a Custom Curve and upload to the camera to correct it.

I usually use a write paper to make good custom WB when taking in artifical light.

Paul

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

... Thanks everyone for your help. I look forward to being part of this community.

Jim

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

--
Jim

Hi Jim,

Here's what the D100 manual says about matrix metering: "In ten-segment matrix metering, optimal exposure is determined on the basis of information from ten areas of the frame, each of which is metered independently. 3D ten-segment matrix metering, which is activated automatically whenever a type G or D lens is mounted on the camera, makes use of information on maximum brightness, contrast, and the distance for the subject for still more accurate exposure control...Matrix metering will not produce the desired results with autoexposure lock or exposure compensation, but is recommended in most other circumstances." Unfortunately, most shooting situations require some exposure compensation to get a perfect histogram, and this is indeed tricky to achieve with the D100 in matrix metering mode. Be prepared to settle for the less-sophisticated centre-weighted and spot-metering modes, coupled with a more-sophisticated exposure technique on your part.

The more severe issues with DTTL flash metering with this camera are well-documented elsewhere on this site and others.

Cheers,

Eric

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

Jim,

The anti-aliasing filter on the D100 reduces image sharpness somewhat. This is not unique to the D100, but the effect may be more pronounced than with other DSLRs, and particularly with wide-angle lenses. If this is important to you, I would suggest you ask around in the different DSLR forums for full-size samples (particularly with wide-angle lenses), for comparison.

Personally, I've been quite disappointed with the shapness of images with my expensive 17-35mm AF-S on the D100, particularly when I compare the results to those from Canon DSLRs with an equivalent Canon lens.

But with my 70-200mm VR lens, I get very acceptable sharpness.

Cheers,

Eric

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

Eric V said:

The anti-aliasing filter on the D100 reduces image sharpness
somewhat. This is not unique to the D100, but the effect may be
more pronounced than with other DSLRs, and particularly with
wide-angle lenses. If this is important to you, I would suggest
you ask around in the different DSLR forums for full-size samples
(particularly with wide-angle lenses), for comparison.

Personally, I've been quite disappointed with the shapness of
images with my expensive 17-35mm AF-S on the D100, particularly
when I compare the results to those from Canon DSLRs with an
equivalent Canon lens.

But with my 70-200mm VR lens, I get very acceptable sharpness.

Cheers,

Eric

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jim

Eric V said:

Hi Jim,

Here's what the D100 manual says about matrix metering: "In
ten-segment matrix metering, optimal exposure is determined on the
basis of information from ten areas of the frame, each of which is
metered independently. 3D ten-segment matrix metering, which is
activated automatically whenever a type G or D lens is mounted on
the camera, makes use of information on maximum brightness,
contrast, and the distance for the subject for still more accurate
exposure control...Matrix metering will not produce the desired
results with autoexposure lock or exposure compensation, but is
recommended in most other circumstances." Unfortunately, most
shooting situations require some exposure compensation to get a
perfect histogram, and this is indeed tricky to achieve with the
D100 in matrix metering mode. Be prepared to settle for the
less-sophisticated centre-weighted and spot-metering modes, coupled
with a more-sophisticated exposure technique on your part.

Click to expand...

Eric,

I use matrix metering and exposure compensation in my coolpix. No problem. Why should the D100 be different?

Yes, I raised the issue of the flash under-exposure. The other guys seem to be ok. How many shots have you done with the D100?
--
Jim

Hi Jim,

Between the two D100s I've used, I've taken about 10,000 shots. I don't know exactly what it is about the design that compromises the exposure lock and compensation with matrix metering on the D100, but there's definitely a design limitation there, or Nikon wouldn't make that statement in the owner's manual.

Concerning DTTL, this is something that a lot of guys have been complaining about with the Nikon DSLRs. Guys have been asking for "true" TTL flash metering, like they enjoy on their F5s and F100s, and on their Fuji S2s.

Cheers,

Eric

Jim T H said:

Eric V said:

Hi Jim,

Here's what the D100 manual says about matrix metering: "In
ten-segment matrix metering, optimal exposure is determined on the
basis of information from ten areas of the frame, each of which is
metered independently. 3D ten-segment matrix metering, which is
activated automatically whenever a type G or D lens is mounted on
the camera, makes use of information on maximum brightness,
contrast, and the distance for the subject for still more accurate
exposure control...Matrix metering will not produce the desired
results with autoexposure lock or exposure compensation, but is
recommended in most other circumstances." Unfortunately, most
shooting situations require some exposure compensation to get a
perfect histogram, and this is indeed tricky to achieve with the
D100 in matrix metering mode. Be prepared to settle for the
less-sophisticated centre-weighted and spot-metering modes, coupled
with a more-sophisticated exposure technique on your part.

Click to expand...

Eric,

I use matrix metering and exposure compensation in my coolpix. No
problem. Why should the D100 be different?

Yes, I raised the issue of the flash under-exposure. The other guys
seem to be ok. How many shots have you done with the D100?
--
Jim

Click to expand...

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

Well, I think that JPEG files are unusable. With the D100 you'll have to use RAW.

I shoot NEF and only NEF. Someone here has mentioned the noise reduction system that seems to be less in the D100. Well, Nikon capture (which I highly recommend) seems to produce more noise than JPEG and more then CaptureOne. As far as I can tell, Nikon Capture is not using any noise reduction. But, Capture one is defiantly using some noise reduction. The images that C1 is making seem to have more of "water color" effect which you may find in other DSLR high ISO images.

So my tip for you: Get Nikon Capture. It is as critical as a good lens.

...when compared to its siblings. Unfounded, but compounded by owners who believe that one can be measured by whether the word "pro" appears in the product name.

The only artificial light WB problems I've had were when there were multiple temps of artificial light in the same image - faced with incandescent on a dimmer, cheap flourescent tubes, and a couple of shafts of sunlight, the camera chose a different WB in almost every image, depending on what the predominant light was for that image. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd have done either - but since I shot RAW, I could pick one color temp after the fact, and all the images looked the same. Weird (almost stage lighting quality, dramatic by colors instead of shadows) but the same.

And the SB80 flash performs magnificently at distances ranging from inches (I use it all the time when shootiing macros) to yards. (I think the internal flash is almost useless, because like all the pop ups, it's so weak.)

Almost all of the reputatation that people ascribe to the d100 comes from its overwhelming orientation to protecting the detail in the highlights. As a long-time transparency film shooter, I'm both familiar with the drill, and agree with it. You can lighten a picture easily and pull detail up from shadows. You can not unblow a blown highlight.

I have more issues than the camera does.

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

because the 17-35 is the sharpest lens I own, sharper than the Nikkor primes I have. Could you please point me to an example of what you're talking about? Along with the EXIF data?

Eric V said:

The anti-aliasing filter on the D100 reduces image sharpness
somewhat. This is not unique to the D100, but the effect may be
more pronounced than with other DSLRs, and particularly with
wide-angle lenses. If this is important to you, I would suggest
you ask around in the different DSLR forums for full-size samples
(particularly with wide-angle lenses), for comparison.

Personally, I've been quite disappointed with the shapness of
images with my expensive 17-35mm AF-S on the D100, particularly
when I compare the results to those from Canon DSLRs with an
equivalent Canon lens.

But with my 70-200mm VR lens, I get very acceptable sharpness.

Cheers,

Eric

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com

...in mixed-surface or normal images until up over ISO 800, from my experience. If you're shooting a big expanse of smooth surface, you may see some at 800, but not much - so little that the old photoshop trick (used sometimes to minimize grain of high speed films) of adding a touch of monochrome grain pretty much wipes it out. I think I've had to do that four times in the last 5000 images. I've used the dark-frame subtraction, too, for shooting fireworks, and I got grainless black (well, because I live in light-polluted NYC area, nearly black) skies at exposures of 4 and 5 seconds.

There's so little noise at ISO 400 that I use it as my "carrying a camera all the time" ISO speed, because if I see something I know that I can get one shot off fast before I start to work the image no matter what the light levels. Without looking at the EXIF data, it's hard to tell 200 from 400 with a normal subject. Again, if you have big smooth expanses, it's possible to figure it out, just as it is with the d1x or other cameras.

Jim T H said:

Jim T H said:

Hi People,

I am thinking of buying a D100. At this late date, does the D100
still exhibition any of the issues raised by Phil Askey's review in
July 2002.

The most serious is the flash underexposure and the inaccurate
artifical light WB.

Has anyone brought the D100 in the last 6 months? Could I hear from
you, please? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Ok, looking good. Last issue is the sharper but noiser RAW
pictures. Any opinions about whether it is really a problem? Has
Nikon dealt with the problem?

Thanks.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

--
Ed

Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.

http://www.onemountainphoto.com