Seems strange. Can only suggest that you do a side by side test with a "good" camera. Have you send the camera back to NIkon for service?
--
Jim
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Does the D100 still have any issues?
- Thread starter Jim T H
- Start date
--
Jim
Hi Jim,
I'm pointing out a limitation of the D100 that's documented by Nikon in the D100 owner's manual. I've noticed this limitation on both the D100s I've used.
I thought you were interested in knowing about any limitations with this camera before buying one. You seem to have some other agenda here, since you won't even accept the limitations spelled out by Nikon.
Cheers,
Eric
I'm pointing out a limitation of the D100 that's documented by Nikon in the D100 owner's manual. I've noticed this limitation on both the D100s I've used.
I thought you were interested in knowing about any limitations with this camera before buying one. You seem to have some other agenda here, since you won't even accept the limitations spelled out by Nikon.
Cheers,
Eric
Hi Ed,
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5873361
Now, would you be so kind as to point me to a sample of your own that's sharper?
Cheers,
Eric
Certainly:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5873361
Now, would you be so kind as to point me to a sample of your own that's sharper?
Cheers,
Eric
E
Ed Nazarko
Guest
The sentence you're talking about isn't Nikon "oh dear"ing about something that they can't make work. They're warning you that the matrix metering system is designed to work in a certain way, and should you choose to do something different - don't blame them. The limitation is the same as that imposed by any averaging meter system, which is what matrix metering is - a fancy, algorithmically driven averaging system. Think about this, Eric. Here's the sentence.
"Matrix metering will not produce the desired results with autoexposure lock or exposure compensation, but is recommended in most other circumstances."
A matrix meter reads an average brightness in ten different areas, and then averages them together, using some formula that favors certain parts of the image (closer vs farther, rule of thirds or centered versus edge, preserve the detail in the highlights, etc.) What Nikon is saying in the passage you quote is not that it's something that doesn't work - what they say is that if you let the matrix algorithms work to get the best possible exposure, and then you AE lock and reframe, you've completely defeated the purpose of matrix metering, and it won't produce the desired results. Period. (No, not period, actually - you may produce absolutely hideous results.)
Matrix metering produces excellent results the majority of the time. But the formulas are pretty inscrutable. Unless you KNEW where the 10 zones were, and KNEW what the matrix calculation was for a highlight of a specific brightness in a specific zone when there's a shadow in another specific zone - by trying to do the autoexposure lock, you're basically throwing the dice on the craps table, and hoping you land on a lucky matrix box.
And the part about exposure compensation not working - that's also correct, and expected of something algorithmically driven. I use exposure compensation with matrix, and it does darken the image when you subtract, and lighten it when you add, but it does it to the calculated value from the matrix - not necessarily sufficiently for the part of the image that is driving you to want to change the exposure. The -.7EV gets factored against the calculations. Matrix metering is, in mathematical terms, non-linear. EV implies a linear adjustment - a bad thing with a non-linear system.
That said, changing EV does change the exposure, and I use it all the time, because I often will bracket six or seven exposures. You can clearly see the non-linearity of matrix metering then, but across 3 or 4 EV it doesn't matter, I'll catch the right exposure. Funny thing - the FIRST exposure, the one the matrix calculated, is almost always the best. (Not always, which is why I still bracket.)
If you have an image with something difficult enough in it that you need to use exposure lock, you should be using spot metering, and using it correctly, to meter several different areas and then decide on the exposure. Or center weight - which is perfectly predictable and linear in how much weight it assigns to each zone. Nikon's manual is perfectly clear, and perfectly accurate - check some books on photography and metering, and you'll find it agrees with the manual.
I don't think Jim has an issue. Really I don't.
And the TTL flash does an amazing job from two inches (for macro work) to 30 feet (the furthest I've used it.) I usually bracket, and they're usually wasted pixels. But just in case, I bracket.
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
"Matrix metering will not produce the desired results with autoexposure lock or exposure compensation, but is recommended in most other circumstances."
A matrix meter reads an average brightness in ten different areas, and then averages them together, using some formula that favors certain parts of the image (closer vs farther, rule of thirds or centered versus edge, preserve the detail in the highlights, etc.) What Nikon is saying in the passage you quote is not that it's something that doesn't work - what they say is that if you let the matrix algorithms work to get the best possible exposure, and then you AE lock and reframe, you've completely defeated the purpose of matrix metering, and it won't produce the desired results. Period. (No, not period, actually - you may produce absolutely hideous results.)
Matrix metering produces excellent results the majority of the time. But the formulas are pretty inscrutable. Unless you KNEW where the 10 zones were, and KNEW what the matrix calculation was for a highlight of a specific brightness in a specific zone when there's a shadow in another specific zone - by trying to do the autoexposure lock, you're basically throwing the dice on the craps table, and hoping you land on a lucky matrix box.
And the part about exposure compensation not working - that's also correct, and expected of something algorithmically driven. I use exposure compensation with matrix, and it does darken the image when you subtract, and lighten it when you add, but it does it to the calculated value from the matrix - not necessarily sufficiently for the part of the image that is driving you to want to change the exposure. The -.7EV gets factored against the calculations. Matrix metering is, in mathematical terms, non-linear. EV implies a linear adjustment - a bad thing with a non-linear system.
That said, changing EV does change the exposure, and I use it all the time, because I often will bracket six or seven exposures. You can clearly see the non-linearity of matrix metering then, but across 3 or 4 EV it doesn't matter, I'll catch the right exposure. Funny thing - the FIRST exposure, the one the matrix calculated, is almost always the best. (Not always, which is why I still bracket.)
If you have an image with something difficult enough in it that you need to use exposure lock, you should be using spot metering, and using it correctly, to meter several different areas and then decide on the exposure. Or center weight - which is perfectly predictable and linear in how much weight it assigns to each zone. Nikon's manual is perfectly clear, and perfectly accurate - check some books on photography and metering, and you'll find it agrees with the manual.
I don't think Jim has an issue. Really I don't.
And the TTL flash does an amazing job from two inches (for macro work) to 30 feet (the furthest I've used it.) I usually bracket, and they're usually wasted pixels. But just in case, I bracket.
--
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
E
Ed Nazarko
Guest
Actually, about 90% of what I shoot now is with this lens, so if you wandered through the Brooklyn and Urban Landscapes stuff, anything you find there that's clearly not a telephoto is almost certainly shot with the 17-35. But here are three specific images for you.
The first one is shot at 17mm, f20 because I needed both foreground and background sharp. Foreground crisp, background crisp. I know it's got to be critically sharp because the payment I got from Time suggests they ran it large (although in Asia.)
The next one was shot in a photo class I took at ICP in New York. At 19mm, 1/30 of a second, f 4.5, so only the foreground subject is sharp, as it should be. Sorry about the circular jpg artifacts from the lights, but I assure you they're not there in RAW.
Last one, part of a set of portraits I shot for a friend of mine of his new son. Everything done with the 17-35. Shot at 35mm, f4, 1/60. It's a marvelous close up lens.
I shoot probably 200 images a week, so although I looked for something 17mm and f2.8, I couldn't find anything off hand - I know I've got some almost every week, it's just that they're buried in with all the other stuff.
This lens is every bit as sharp, perhaps sharper, than the 28-70AFS and 80-200AFS, both of which I've had since they came out. Nikon does not make a better lens for general purpose shooting, I believe.
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
The first one is shot at 17mm, f20 because I needed both foreground and background sharp. Foreground crisp, background crisp. I know it's got to be critically sharp because the payment I got from Time suggests they ran it large (although in Asia.)
The next one was shot in a photo class I took at ICP in New York. At 19mm, 1/30 of a second, f 4.5, so only the foreground subject is sharp, as it should be. Sorry about the circular jpg artifacts from the lights, but I assure you they're not there in RAW.
Last one, part of a set of portraits I shot for a friend of mine of his new son. Everything done with the 17-35. Shot at 35mm, f4, 1/60. It's a marvelous close up lens.
I shoot probably 200 images a week, so although I looked for something 17mm and f2.8, I couldn't find anything off hand - I know I've got some almost every week, it's just that they're buried in with all the other stuff.
This lens is every bit as sharp, perhaps sharper, than the 28-70AFS and 80-200AFS, both of which I've had since they came out. Nikon does not make a better lens for general purpose shooting, I believe.
--
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
Hi Ed,
Thanks for the samples. Your original dispute was with my complaint about image sharpness, and at your request, I pointed to a full size 3008 x 2000 sample from my D100 and 17-35mm lens. But you didn't comment on the sharpness of that sample. Instead, you made further claims about the sharpness of your 17-35mm lens.
The tiny 640 x 426 samples you've shared here provide no evidence that your lens performs any better than mine.
Once again: please feel free to offer a no-excuses, top-quality, full-size sample from a 17-35mm lens at 17mm on a D100, which is sharper than the sample I've provided. I have yet to see one. On the other hand, there seem to be lots of much sharper full-size samples from Canon's comparable bodies and lens, over in the Canon forums.
Cheers,
Eric
Thanks for the samples. Your original dispute was with my complaint about image sharpness, and at your request, I pointed to a full size 3008 x 2000 sample from my D100 and 17-35mm lens. But you didn't comment on the sharpness of that sample. Instead, you made further claims about the sharpness of your 17-35mm lens.
The tiny 640 x 426 samples you've shared here provide no evidence that your lens performs any better than mine.
Once again: please feel free to offer a no-excuses, top-quality, full-size sample from a 17-35mm lens at 17mm on a D100, which is sharper than the sample I've provided. I have yet to see one. On the other hand, there seem to be lots of much sharper full-size samples from Canon's comparable bodies and lens, over in the Canon forums.
Cheers,
Eric
The first one is shot at 17mm, f20 because I needed both foreground
and background sharp. Foreground crisp, background crisp. I know
it's got to be critically sharp because the payment I got from Time
suggests they ran it large (although in Asia.)
The next one was shot in a photo class I took at ICP in New York.
At 19mm, 1/30 of a second, f 4.5, so only the foreground subject is
sharp, as it should be. Sorry about the circular jpg artifacts
from the lights, but I assure you they're not there in RAW.
Last one, part of a set of portraits I shot for a friend of mine of
his new son. Everything done with the 17-35. Shot at 35mm, f4,
1/60. It's a marvelous close up lens.
I shoot probably 200 images a week, so although I looked for
something 17mm and f2.8, I couldn't find anything off hand - I know
I've got some almost every week, it's just that they're buried in
with all the other stuff.
This lens is every bit as sharp, perhaps sharper, than the 28-70AFS
and 80-200AFS, both of which I've had since they came out. Nikon
does not make a better lens for general purpose shooting, I believe.
--
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
Justin Kuek
Member
JPEG file from the D100 are unusable???? That is a GROSS overstatement and is totally unfair for the camera. If that was so, then all Point and Shoot cameras are useless, as they mostly use JPEGs and the D100 will beat any point and shoot in the JPEG department, all things being equal!
It depends on what you are wanting to use your images for!
There are those who swear by JPEGs, making all the necessary adjustments at the point of capture. In any case, if you are after prints, the D100 can handle 13" prints from JPEGs - no sweat!
Statements that are made like the one above should be qualified. This is how the "rumours" about the D100 start....
It depends on what you are wanting to use your images for!
There are those who swear by JPEGs, making all the necessary adjustments at the point of capture. In any case, if you are after prints, the D100 can handle 13" prints from JPEGs - no sweat!
Statements that are made like the one above should be qualified. This is how the "rumours" about the D100 start....
I did say "I think" 
. I should have written "IMO". Sure you can use JPEG, but the JPEG engine of the D100 is really TOO soft. Not only that, some detail is getting lost (that is more natural though).
JPEGs from P&S have noting to do with this, have you seen a JPEG file from a D1X? Almost perfect in terms of JPEG.
One thing the JPEG engine is good at is keeping image artifacts to minimum, I suspect it has something to do with the lost sharpeners, but I'm not sure though.
I would love to use JPEG with the D100, but I just can't afford the lost sharpens.
BTW, it is very interesting to see the new Pentax JPEG's…but I am really waiting to see the Image sharpening tests in the up coming review.
. I should have written "IMO". Sure you can use JPEG, but the JPEG engine of the D100 is really TOO soft. Not only that, some detail is getting lost (that is more natural though).JPEGs from P&S have noting to do with this, have you seen a JPEG file from a D1X? Almost perfect in terms of JPEG.
One thing the JPEG engine is good at is keeping image artifacts to minimum, I suspect it has something to do with the lost sharpeners, but I'm not sure though.
I would love to use JPEG with the D100, but I just can't afford the lost sharpens.
BTW, it is very interesting to see the new Pentax JPEG's…but I am really waiting to see the Image sharpening tests in the up coming review.
Clark Hampton
Senior Member
Murray Bowles
Senior Member
Yeah! Must be some kind of conspiracy!
Clark Hampton
Senior Member
Another birder
Veteran Member
The Canon 6.3 MP CMOS sensor is better than the one in the D100. Plain and simple.
Hi All,
Seems to be a lot of complaints from people who don't show much evidence of fault analysis. I have seen a shaky pic (no EXIF) from one guy who complained about softness.
This is a recent quote from Phil Askey on the home page
"Exclusive: I have just posted a gallery of 25 sample images from a production Pentax *ist D. This is in advance of completing our full review which should be up within the next two weeks. So far the *ist D is looking quite good, there are two sides to the *ist D's image quality story. Firstly tonal balance and color response are both good, a natural color response and lifted shadow detail with highlight clipping at about the same point as most other digital SLR's. Noise is also quite low, about the same as the Nikon D100 (which is what we'd expect as they both share the same sensor). The other side is that Pentax has clearly chosen a low sharpening approach, at 100% view most images have a soft look but do sharpen well and can be delivered sharper out of the camera by pushing up in-camera sharpening. The lenses available to me meant I was most likely to be shooting 'wide open' and thus have less sharp images as a consequence. Overall the *ist D is looking 'so far so good'
--
Jim
Seems to be a lot of complaints from people who don't show much evidence of fault analysis. I have seen a shaky pic (no EXIF) from one guy who complained about softness.
This is a recent quote from Phil Askey on the home page
"Exclusive: I have just posted a gallery of 25 sample images from a production Pentax *ist D. This is in advance of completing our full review which should be up within the next two weeks. So far the *ist D is looking quite good, there are two sides to the *ist D's image quality story. Firstly tonal balance and color response are both good, a natural color response and lifted shadow detail with highlight clipping at about the same point as most other digital SLR's. Noise is also quite low, about the same as the Nikon D100 (which is what we'd expect as they both share the same sensor). The other side is that Pentax has clearly chosen a low sharpening approach, at 100% view most images have a soft look but do sharpen well and can be delivered sharper out of the camera by pushing up in-camera sharpening. The lenses available to me meant I was most likely to be shooting 'wide open' and thus have less sharp images as a consequence. Overall the *ist D is looking 'so far so good'
--
Jim
E
Ed Nazarko
Guest
Just read your post and I can't stop laughing. Sorry, Eric, but if you're clearly so determined that everyone else out there is lying to you, pretending that THEIR lens is just fine even though you know better, even having you over to my house for coffee to see the images printed out at 12x18 wouldn't convince you. I have no intention of posting 10mp images here. (Aha, what's he hiding? Hmmm?) Buy one, I'll send it to you.
My suggestion is that you ditch that crappy Nikon gear and get something that makes you look better. Why keep it if all it does is make you unhappy?
May you find peace in some aspect of your life. And stop wasting people's time.
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
My suggestion is that you ditch that crappy Nikon gear and get something that makes you look better. Why keep it if all it does is make you unhappy?
May you find peace in some aspect of your life. And stop wasting people's time.
--Thanks for the samples. Your original dispute was with my
complaint about image sharpness, and at your request, I pointed to
a full size 3008 x 2000 sample from my D100 and 17-35mm lens. But
you didn't comment on the sharpness of that sample. Instead, you
made further claims about the sharpness of your 17-35mm lens.
The tiny 640 x 426 samples you've shared here provide no evidence
that your lens performs any better than mine.
Once again: please feel free to offer a no-excuses, top-quality,
full-size sample from a 17-35mm lens at 17mm on a D100, which is
sharper than the sample I've provided. I have yet to see one. On
the other hand, there seem to be lots of much sharper full-size
samples from Canon's comparable bodies and lens, over in the Canon
forums.
Cheers,
Eric
The first one is shot at 17mm, f20 because I needed both foreground
and background sharp. Foreground crisp, background crisp. I know
it's got to be critically sharp because the payment I got from Time
suggests they ran it large (although in Asia.)
The next one was shot in a photo class I took at ICP in New York.
At 19mm, 1/30 of a second, f 4.5, so only the foreground subject is
sharp, as it should be. Sorry about the circular jpg artifacts
from the lights, but I assure you they're not there in RAW.
Last one, part of a set of portraits I shot for a friend of mine of
his new son. Everything done with the 17-35. Shot at 35mm, f4,
1/60. It's a marvelous close up lens.
I shoot probably 200 images a week, so although I looked for
something 17mm and f2.8, I couldn't find anything off hand - I know
I've got some almost every week, it's just that they're buried in
with all the other stuff.
This lens is every bit as sharp, perhaps sharper, than the 28-70AFS
and 80-200AFS, both of which I've had since they came out. Nikon
does not make a better lens for general purpose shooting, I believe.
--
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
Ed
Make pictures, don't take them - it leaves more for others.
http://www.onemountainphoto.com
Justin Kuek
Member
I have made MANY actual 4x6 prints from JPEGs straight out of the camera and no PS. I am more than satisfied with the sharpness... I have the F90X as well and at that size (and I am told at larger sizes as well) the D100 has equal or better results!
I was comparing the JPEG of the D100 wioth P&Ss since you say it is useless. And since the D100 JPEGs are in my opinion better than JPEGs out of P&Ss, then according to you, all P&Ss are useless!
Just my 2 cents...
I was comparing the JPEG of the D100 wioth P&Ss since you say it is useless. And since the D100 JPEGs are in my opinion better than JPEGs out of P&Ss, then according to you, all P&Ss are useless!
Just my 2 cents...
Another birder
Veteran Member
Nice pic's - How about one full size image?
Thanks for the sample. That's very sharp, indeed, Clark. Confirm that was shot with the 50mm 1.8? It's every bit as sharp as what I get with my 50mm 1.4 (which, I've come to realize, is not worth the hefty price premium over the 1.8).
Have you had similar success with very wide angles (
Cheers,
Eric
Have you had similar success with very wide angles (
Cheers,
Eric
Hi Ed,
Sorry for anything I said that deserved your response. I'd still appreciate your comments on the sharpness of the sample that I provided for you at your request (even if you're unwilling or unable to share a comparable sample in kind, for any reason). Please let me know if any relevant info is missing from my post or from the EXIF header.
Thanks in advance,
Eric
Sorry for anything I said that deserved your response. I'd still appreciate your comments on the sharpness of the sample that I provided for you at your request (even if you're unwilling or unable to share a comparable sample in kind, for any reason). Please let me know if any relevant info is missing from my post or from the EXIF header.
Thanks in advance,
Eric
Clark,
I take my hat off to you. Real photography from a pro. Indoor and handheld.
BTW, I assume that you loaded a custom curve. Any exposure issues after you did that?
--
Jim
Thanks Ed. So if I matrix meter a scene, and I simply want to increase exposure by +1.0 EV using the exposure compensation control, can I expect to get +1.0 EV compensation (i.e. 1 stop of exposure increase)?
Cheers,
Eric
Cheers,
Eric
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum