D100 Sharpness Revisited

[Jay107706]

I have been working with the D100 for about a month now. I have read all the criticisms of lack of sharpness in jpg mode and have even confirmed them myself.

I would like to say though that although yes, there is a lack of sharpness in jpg 'normal' sharpening mode, this in no way means anything at all in concluding on the quality and performance of this camera. ALL one has to do is one of two things...

Either set Photoshop unsharp mask to about 100, or set in camera sharpening to 'high'.

Other's opinions notwhithstanding, in my opinion doing so not only improves jpg sharpness to that of what one might expect from raw, but actually surpasses it. At this moment I am looking at 2 shots..one done in raw, the other jpg with 'high' sharpness setting. I swear the jpg looks better. And not just in edge sharpness...the detail is all there!

It's becoming obvious to me that what people are terming a 'flaw' is actually a concious decision on Nikon's part...perhaps to keep noise down.

Try experimenting a bit and make the camera work FOR you. After all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do so?

Jay

 

[Heike]

After all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

...because they are even more expensive than a F5?

...or perhaps because the other manufacturers managed this issue much more better (S2, D60)?

Heike

 

[Jay107706]

Bad comparison.

The D100 is NOT an F5!

Have you worked with either an S2 or a D60?

Battery issues abound with the S2 and the D60 is so slow at focusing, I have heard moans come out of people's mouths while using it.

Jay

After all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

...because they are even more expensive than a F5?
...or perhaps because the other manufacturers managed this issue
much more better (S2, D60)?

Heike

 

[hokie]

I just bought my first digicam 6 months ago. I had shot film with a Nikon FA for about 15 years but felt the urge to try the new digital age.

The auto focus on the G2 was simply the worst experience of my life. Beautiful photos for general purpose and some decent macro so the camera provides most of what I wanted BUT> > > > I still use film cameras for important action stuff but the move to a Digital SLR is being lookked at a lot sonner than I wanted.

I don't know if I want to go through college football season without a decent Digital SLR. I am so nervous about this speed issue I am contemplating the Canon D1 even though that kinda of money scares me.

If the Nikon D100 can get me through 80% of my sports needs I probably will go with it..The D60 is just not an option (even current Canon enthusiasts admit it failings here) and the S2 sync is making me hesitant even though I prefer its resolution.

Maybe the Nikon D1x? But doesnt the D100 have a slight edge in resolution and speed is about the same? (cept for sync ).

I don't know..need some more time to figure this out.

Bad comparison.

The D100 is NOT an F5!

Have you worked with either an S2 or a D60?

Battery issues abound with the S2 and the D60 is so slow at
focusing, I have heard moans come out of people's mouths while
using it.

 

[Heike]

Bad comparison.

The D100 is NOT an F5!

I never stated it as a F5 - I just kept in mind that the camera is more expensive than the F5 and this is something we should not forget...

Have you worked with either an S2 or a D60?

Yes, I mainly worked with the D1x and the D60 the last months

Battery issues abound with the S2

There are no issues on the battery of the S2. I know some users who got their cameras within the last weeks and they were more than convinced with the batterylife and stated that the CR123s aren't needed and the camera works well with just 4 AAs. Also Phil stated it clearly in his review and was amazed of the duration of these batteries...

and the D60 is so slow at focusing, I have heard moans come out of people's mouths while using it.

This is true. Compared with my D100 there are worlds between.

But anyway: Counting the fact that I have many shots on my computer to compare with, I more and more come to the conclusion that I actually bought the worst camera of this trio of new 6 MP cameras... I am a Nikonuser for quite a while but I now feel that I maybe should go with the S2 for now and see what Nikon is doing in the next year (Photokina will be an interesting fair...). I give them two months to provide an upgrade for the D100, if not I go with the S2...

After all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

...because they are even more expensive than a F5?
...or perhaps because the other manufacturers managed this issue
much more better (S2, D60)?

Heike

 

[Digichrome]

Actually the F5 when it first came out (5 or so years ago!) was more expensive than the D100 is today.

Of course this is really meaningless as they are two completely different beasts. What's the point in comparing them?

As long as we're not forgetting things...don't forget that the F5 cannot capture a digital image.

Digichrome

Bad comparison.

The D100 is NOT an F5!

I never stated it as a F5 - I just kept in mind that the camera is
more expensive than the F5 and this is something we should not
forget...

--

Digichrome
http://www.pbase.com/digichrome

 

[Digichrome]

I SWORE I wouldn't get into any more of these sharpness debates but Jay, I just have to agree with you. I truly believe that the perceived problem with the D100 is really a matter of looking at undersharpened images. I've done a LOT of playing around with various settings and came to the same 100,1,1 conclusion you have. Sometimes even 200,1,1 or multiple passes. Its night and day after that.

I also agree (and of course its just conjecture) that Nikon has deliberately left the output of the camera only lightly "touched" allowing the photographer to make more of the decisions.

Bottom line (for me) is this...shots straight from the camera don't usually dazzle me but apply some USM and BANG....world of difference. Some folks see it as a limitation of the camera...I see it as more freedom and control.

Digichrome

I have been working with the D100 for about a month now. I have
read all the criticisms of lack of sharpness in jpg mode and have
even confirmed them myself.

I would like to say though that although yes, there is a lack of
sharpness in jpg 'normal' sharpening mode, this in no way means
anything at all in concluding on the quality and performance of
this camera. ALL one has to do is one of two things...

Either set Photoshop unsharp mask to about 100, or set in camera
sharpening to 'high'.

Other's opinions notwhithstanding, in my opinion doing so not only
improves jpg sharpness to that of what one might expect from raw,
but actually surpasses it. At this moment I am looking at 2
shots..one done in raw, the other jpg with 'high' sharpness
setting. I swear the jpg looks better. And not just in edge
sharpness...the detail is all there!

It's becoming obvious to me that what people are terming a 'flaw'
is actually a concious decision on Nikon's part...perhaps to keep
noise down.

Try experimenting a bit and make the camera work FOR you. After
all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

Jay

--

Digichrome
http://www.pbase.com/digichrome

 

[Cribbage]

There is a comparison of the D100 and the S2 on
http://bythom.com

that points out that the S2 has a slight advantage in terms of sync, considering its minimum ISO of 100.

the S2 sync
is making me hesitant even though I prefer its resolution.

 

[Jay107706]

Exactly!

My point here was to point out that people tend to dismiss some hardware because there is a nagging issue. This nagging issue (the sharpness one) though appears to be a very minor one. A few days ago, I was resigned to the thought that I would just leave the camera set to raw and accept the fact that I would get less shots per card, and have to maybe to some post processing to make the raw file look the way I wanted it to. Thinking about this, I decided to do a comparison between raw and a jpg put through some unsharp masking. I compared very carefully and decided that there really was no reason to use the raw file mode. After unsharp mask was applied, I really couldn't tell any real difference at all between the two. At that point, I decided to do the same comparisons using a high sharpness setting for the jpg mode in camera. Here too, I then saw no advantage to going raw. As a matter of fact the jpg shot actually looks a bit sharper.

Some reviews have stated that using the higher sharpening in jpg mode was not a substitute for what could be achieved by using raw...not true. They look wonderful..and again, sometimes even better.

At any rate, again I am only saying..don't dismiss this camera if you are deciding which to buy...just based on this sharpness issue. It really is a non-issue from what I see.

Jay

I also agree (and of course its just conjecture) that Nikon has
deliberately left the output of the camera only lightly "touched"
allowing the photographer to make more of the decisions.

Bottom line (for me) is this...shots straight from the camera don't
usually dazzle me but apply some USM and BANG....world of
difference. Some folks see it as a limitation of the camera...I see
it as more freedom and control.

Digichrome

I have been working with the D100 for about a month now. I have
read all the criticisms of lack of sharpness in jpg mode and have
even confirmed them myself.

I would like to say though that although yes, there is a lack of
sharpness in jpg 'normal' sharpening mode, this in no way means
anything at all in concluding on the quality and performance of
this camera. ALL one has to do is one of two things...

Either set Photoshop unsharp mask to about 100, or set in camera
sharpening to 'high'.

Other's opinions notwhithstanding, in my opinion doing so not only
improves jpg sharpness to that of what one might expect from raw,
but actually surpasses it. At this moment I am looking at 2
shots..one done in raw, the other jpg with 'high' sharpness
setting. I swear the jpg looks better. And not just in edge
sharpness...the detail is all there!

It's becoming obvious to me that what people are terming a 'flaw'
is actually a concious decision on Nikon's part...perhaps to keep
noise down.

Try experimenting a bit and make the camera work FOR you. After
all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

Jay

--

Digichrome
http://www.pbase.com/digichrome

 

[Jim K53618]

Bad comparison.

The D100 is NOT an F5!

Have you worked with either an S2 or a D60?

YOU obviously have NOT!

Battery issues abound with the S2

There are no battery issues with the S2. You get just as many shots or there about .

and the D60 is so slow at
focusing, I have heard moans come out of people's mouths while
using it.

Please, the D60 is plenty fast for all but fast action sports, and even then it does pretty good. People like to complain, and they usually find somethng to complain about.

Jay the truth be told, both the S2 and the D60 produce excellent images. The S2 is the new resolution King. The D60 can boast of silky noise free clean rich images. The D100 is a capable camera, but I wouldn't shout too loud about it and point fingers at other cameras. It makes you look desperate : )

Jay

After all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

...because they are even more expensive than a F5?
...or perhaps because the other manufacturers managed this issue
much more better (S2, D60)?

Heike

--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!

 

[DavidMillier]

Perspective.

The 2% or performance that separates theses 3 cameras is rather small compared to the wide spread in lens performance but more importantly the wider spread in photographer performance.

If you cannot get top quality results out of any one of these cams you won't out of the others either.

Bad comparison.

The D100 is NOT an F5!

I never stated it as a F5 - I just kept in mind that the camera is
more expensive than the F5 and this is something we should not
forget...

Have you worked with either an S2 or a D60?

Yes, I mainly worked with the D1x and the D60 the last months

Battery issues abound with the S2

There are no issues on the battery of the S2. I know some users who
got their cameras within the last weeks and they were more than
convinced with the batterylife and stated that the CR123s aren't
needed and the camera works well with just 4 AAs. Also Phil stated
it clearly in his review and was amazed of the duration of these
batteries...

and the D60 is so slow at focusing, I have heard moans come out of people's mouths while using it.

This is true. Compared with my D100 there are worlds between.

But anyway: Counting the fact that I have many shots on my computer
to compare with, I more and more come to the conclusion that I
actually bought the worst camera of this trio of new 6 MP
cameras... I am a Nikonuser for quite a while but I now feel that I
maybe should go with the S2 for now and see what Nikon is doing in
the next year (Photokina will be an interesting fair...). I give
them two months to provide an upgrade for the D100, if not I go
with the S2...

After all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

...because they are even more expensive than a F5?
...or perhaps because the other manufacturers managed this issue
much more better (S2, D60)?

Heike

 

[ajs2107922]

Hi,

I think you are missing the point Jay. The sharpness as comes out of the camera is not the issue. The problem is that may pro's who do weddings and the like, don't want to spend time adjusting 100's of pic's. Time equals money and all that!

Some of us like getting peak performance in photoshop and raw mode is for US. Nikon will surely change sharpness settings in due course.

S2 battery problem? Work just fine! You are correct in say each has it's pro's & cons. I just say Nikon got this one slightly wrong.

Next Camera I will look at Nikon again. Hopefuly a full sized CCD based on a F100, will be out in a few years for less than $1500?

After all, very few FILMS come out of cameras looking perfect without
some kind of intervention! Why do we expect digital cameras to do
so?

...because they are even more expensive than a F5?
...or perhaps because the other manufacturers managed this issue
much more better (S2, D60)?

Heike

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

I SWORE I wouldn't get into any more of these sharpness debates but
Jay, I just have to agree with you. I truly believe that the
perceived problem with the D100 is really a matter of looking at
undersharpened images. I've done a LOT of playing around with
various settings and came to the same 100,1,1 conclusion you have.
Sometimes even 200,1,1 or multiple passes. Its night and day after
that.

I agree concerning sharpness but I disliked the pushed up noise using USM... I was dissapointed by this even in print in moderate sizes of about A4. And there is even noise in less sharpened images using "normal".

In addition I have revised my opinion that N* uses a strong AA filter. There is still slight moiree visible. And to end, the super CCD moiree issue is the only reason why I didn't try the S2... but if this gets less visible in print than the D100 noise, maybe I decide to go this way.

I also agree (and of course its just conjecture) that Nikon has
deliberately left the output of the camera only lightly "touched"
allowing the photographer to make more of the decisions.

This is not the dissapointing fact, but why not having a better choice here? Untouched with RAW is ok, but for JPG output there should be practically usable settings...

Bottom line (for me) is this...shots straight from the camera don't
usually dazzle me but apply some USM and BANG....world of
difference. Some folks see it as a limitation of the camera...I see
it as more freedom and control.

If there were not the pushed up noise thing I would agree 100%... but to keep (or even smooth) noise down while getting better sharpness is a time (at least CPU processing time) consuming task I dislike as a standard procedure, especially if I intend to get JPG's for normal purposes only...

Wasn't it called a prosumer (or consumer) camera rather than an digital imagers expert tool...? A SLR camera "that just happens to be digital" as N* advertises?

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[DavidMillier]

Alfred

I really don't know if your camera is just a worse sample than mine, but I just don't see this noise problem you keep reporting.

On an A4 print (200 ISO) the D100 images are sharp and essentially noise free both in jpeg and raw.

I can see differences in sharpness and noise beyween the two modes on screen under high magnification but not in prints which are superb (better in detail, sharpness and noise than my E10 at ISO 80). For the most part, comparisons with other cameras are just academic - at A4 the D100 is as good as anything.

Maybe noise will become an issue in larger prints but I don't understand why you are obsessing about it. If you are so worried why not go to a shop and shoot some comparisons with other units?

I SWORE I wouldn't get into any more of these sharpness debates but
Jay, I just have to agree with you. I truly believe that the
perceived problem with the D100 is really a matter of looking at
undersharpened images. I've done a LOT of playing around with
various settings and came to the same 100,1,1 conclusion you have.
Sometimes even 200,1,1 or multiple passes. Its night and day after
that.

I agree concerning sharpness but I disliked the pushed up noise
using USM... I was dissapointed by this even in print in moderate
sizes of about A4. And there is even noise in less sharpened images
using "normal".

In addition I have revised my opinion that N* uses a strong AA
filter. There is still slight moiree visible. And to end, the super
CCD moiree issue is the only reason why I didn't try the S2... but
if this gets less visible in print than the D100 noise, maybe I
decide to go this way.

I also agree (and of course its just conjecture) that Nikon has
deliberately left the output of the camera only lightly "touched"
allowing the photographer to make more of the decisions.

This is not the dissapointing fact, but why not having a better
choice here? Untouched with RAW is ok, but for JPG output there
should be practically usable settings...

Bottom line (for me) is this...shots straight from the camera don't
usually dazzle me but apply some USM and BANG....world of
difference. Some folks see it as a limitation of the camera...I see
it as more freedom and control.

If there were not the pushed up noise thing I would agree 100%...
but to keep (or even smooth) noise down while getting better
sharpness is a time (at least CPU processing time) consuming task I
dislike as a standard procedure, especially if I intend to get
JPG's for normal purposes only...

Wasn't it called a prosumer (or consumer) camera rather than an
digital imagers expert tool...? A SLR camera "that just happens to
be digital" as N* advertises?

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[Jim K53618]

DMillier the noise is THE number one issue which is keeping me from getting the D100.

I too feel Nikon fell a little short with the D100.

Perhaps a firmware upgrade would change my mind, that is if one came out to address this.

People keep harping that there is no sharpness issue, but there is. True you could shoot in raw (more noise) or use more sharpening, also more noise. So even if we put the softness issue aside, there still remains the noise issue, and if you can see more noise at 100% viewing of full size image, then there is more noise. It fails. Or falls short.

Regards,
Jim K

--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!

 

[Anthony Medici]

A Ferrari is more expensive than a Honda but I wouldn't drive one to work everyday. The cost of the tool has nothing to do with how good it is.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

I never stated it as a F5 - I just kept in mind that the camera is
more expensive than the F5 and this is something we should not
forget...

 

[Anthony Medici]

So can you name all the digital cameras that have less noise than the D100?

If you can, you used all your fingers on one hand, didn't you because there isn't more than 5 of them.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

DMillier the noise is THE number one issue which is keeping me
from getting the D100.

Regards,
Jim K

 

[Jim K53618]

So can you name all the digital cameras that have less noise than
the D100?

If you can, you used all your fingers on one hand, didn't you
because there isn't more than 5 of them.

D30
D60
S1
S2
D1
D1X
D1H
DCS720
DCS760
1D
E10
E20

Of the 12 I can think of, I'd say 10 have less noise then the D100 at lower ISO's,
D30
D60
S1
S2
D1
D1X
D1H
DCS720
DCS760
1D

and 7 have less noise at every ISO then the D100.
S2
D1
D1X
D1H
DCS720
DCS760
1D

Is this suppose to boost the D100's integrety? Or were you hoping I could only count up to five : )

--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!

 

[Ger Bee]

…. I too was a bit disappointed with the JPEG softness issue but having then tried NEF and NC3 I am satisfied that I can achieve a very high degree of sharpness. I am also personally satisfied that I can achieve an even higher quality using NEF against high sharp, fine JPEGs.

This week I am going to set my camera to ICS+H and not change it for a week or so to see if it effects anything – for most of my work the JPEG is fine and has been printing quite sharp enough from ICS+N and normal capture.

 

[Cribbage]

People keep harping that there is no sharpness issue, but there is.

If you shoot in JPEG.

True you could shoot in raw (more noise) or use more sharpening,
also more noise.

Phil's comments (including the elaboration he's provided on this forum) translate as follows.
If you shoot raw unsharpened, no "noise".

If you sharpen up converted raw, "the way most everyday users will", there is "noise" -- more "noise" than "everyday JPEG".

Why this leads Phil to state conclusions that the "everyday Joe" will interpret as criticisms of the hardware is beyond me. These seem pretty clearly to be software issues and, in the case of NEF, issues related to software that isn't even in the camera!

"Everyday users" will sharpen up converted raw using "the camera's defaults" and "NC3 default sharpening", including processing by a relatively poor and stupid sharpening algorithm that makes no distinction between areas of the picture that need sharpening and those that don't. In other words, an aggressive unsharpen mask is being applied to shadow and monotone areas.

I'd be interested to see the "noise" you'd get if you converted a D60 raw image with sharpening off, then applied a dumb sharpening algorithm that hits the shadow and monotone areas hard. "Noise", lots of it.

Obviously, Canon's in-camera algorithms and converter algorithms are smarter than that. It is also obvious that Nikon's are not. That may make Nikon less suited to an everyday Joe, but that's not me, at least when I'm shooting in NEF.

[I'm looking for that one shot out of three "rolls" (i.e., 1 out of 100 if I'm truly lucky) that's simply outstanding, worthy of printing at 8x10 or 20x30 or more (!), and for that I'll want a NEF. But I can't predict when I'll get so lucky, not in my photography. Anything else I'll maybe want in a quality JPEG for viewing on-screen, that's about it.]

So, what workflow gets the most out of the camera? Simply convert with all sharpening OFF, then apply an intelligent sharpening method like Fred Miranda's action or the methods documented/explained step-by-step on luminous-landscape.com as "high pass sharpening" or better yet "smart sharpening".

At that point, you have a finished product that has nothing to do with the "standard all defaults" product evaluated by Phil.

Smooth, sharp, virtually without noise.

Can't say whether Nikon will show up with something better w'r/t JPEG for this camera.