Phil's D100 Sample Gallery

[James Jones]

Phil,

On the second to last sample of the boat, what did you do to make that picture look so perfect because that is definetly not what the original file looks like? The color, contrast, and sharpess look incredible! But in the original it has low contrast (muddy), colors are dull, and don't look so sharp? Could you share with us your workflow because it sure whould help me alot!

If the camera is in full auto mode...why can't it take a picture with no contrast?????? There is nothing more frustrating (a least to me then having a batch of muddied looking picture that you have to adjust the contrast on!

I am moving up from my CP990 for this reason and I find it completely disheartning to see the problem exists in a Semi-Pro camera made at least two years after my CP990.

Thanks Phi,

-James

 

[Clint Thayer #32755]

The demand for this camera will certainly be
wild.

The images certainly compare well against the D60. I'm currently
using the excellent Olympus E-10, but am very frustrated by it's
very slow write times. My main criteria for a replacement was thus:
No more than 1 second delay between shots, even if buffer is full,
and it must have a PC terminal. Good build quality is a plus. I'm
going for the D60 because of the following reasons, in order of
importance:

Indeed, I own a D1X--- and the D100 looks good-- but not phenominal. For whatever reason (magic tricks?), the Canon D60 seems to look better to my eyes. More snap? Better dynamic reach? Hard to say... but if I were to guess, the D60 seems to provide more even shadow and highlight, where in these galleries, the D100 seems very light-- like it's missing the woofer (in audio speak).

1. The D60 can buffer 8 JPG/RAW shots, and be ready again in 1 sec.
2. D60 has PC terminal.
3. I prefer the smooth CMOS look.
4. D60 has completely metal chassis, and is very sturdy.
5. I prefer the 1.6x multiplier, as I don't use wide-angle in the
studio.
6. D60's CMOS has less tendancy to gather dust.

--
HighContrast

--
Clint
http://www.pbase.com/moviebear

 

[jrod7350]

Indeed, I own a D1X--- and the D100 looks good-- but not
phenominal. For whatever reason (magic tricks?), the Canon D60
seems to look better to my eyes. More snap? Better dynamic reach?
Hard to say... but if I were to guess, the D60 seems to provide
more even shadow and highlight, where in these galleries, the D100
seems very light-- like it's missing the woofer (in audio speak).

I have to agree here too. It seems as though the D60 has a deeper toe and longer shoulder than the D100. Highlights roll off smoother, and the shadows don't block up as fast. Right now it seems very subjective, but I'm wondering if there's a way to quanify this and see if the D60 has a lower contrast response curve than the D100.

Jason Rodriguez

 

[Phil Askey]

You may speculate for a long time.. But as far as I'm concerned this is the identical 'level' of camera with the same firmware.

Now I'm quite puzzled about how to explain the difference - apart
from the fact your pictures always seem to look better, no matter
which camera you use...

Camera to camera variations? Lets hope Nikon's QC to be strong on
this one.

I'm wondering if the sample used for the previous set had a
different (too aggressive) low pass filter.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Phil Askey]

Again, as I answered in your other thread that's an Adobe RGB shot (as noted in the information line above the image). Adobe RGB has a wider colour gamut than sRGB (your monitor) which will make the colours look duller, however the advantage is that this colour space can in theory capture much brighter colours than sRGB.

To appreciate it you need to load the original into Photoshop (or some other colour space smart application) and 'Assign Profile' -> 'Adobe RGB'.

Phil,

On the second to last sample of the boat, what did you do to make
that picture look so perfect because that is definetly not what the
original file looks like? The color, contrast, and sharpess look
incredible! But in the original it has low contrast (muddy),
colors are dull, and don't look so sharp? Could you share with us
your workflow because it sure whould help me alot!

If the camera is in full auto mode...why can't it take a picture
with no contrast?????? There is nothing more frustrating (a least
to me then having a batch of muddied looking picture that you have
to adjust the contrast on!

I am moving up from my CP990 for this reason and I find it
completely disheartning to see the problem exists in a Semi-Pro
camera made at least two years after my CP990.

Thanks Phi,

-James

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[Mark Wrathall54294]

Great work Phil.

I hope this is the point where people will to go back to looking at the camera as a system, and not jumping to the current "winner". The differences in image quality between this and the D-60 look pretty irrelevant compared to other issues such as which interface you prefer, lens cost, flash sytems etc.

I would pick that differences in peoples workflow/printers would swamp the raw differences between the D100 and D60 images.

It also shows that trying to predict noise based on imager pixel size is mostly rubbish, as the improvements in noise controlling algorythms and sensor technology in each generation more than compensate for the reduced pixel size.

I really hope this spurs Canon on to a EOS 3 level D-SLR with a decent focus module (1.2 crop, and BP-511 please

In the crane shot with the 80-400, there is noticible CA in the top LH corner along the border of the sign frame and the sky.

 

[Anthony Medici]

Which was sort of my point.

Phil used the 17-35 AFS, 24-85 AFS and 80-400 VR. All are ED lenses. While he might have picked the 28-70 AFS or the 80-200 AFS to bring down the aperture a bit, I thought his selection of lenses was good. The 28-70 is huge compared with the 24-85 AFS. The 80-200 doesn't have VR. With no tripod, those are exactly the zooms I would have used. I might have even used them with a tripod.

Someone said he should have used different lenses, hence the question. I don't think the pictures were hurt by Phil's selection of lenses.

Tony

Don't count out the AFS 28-70 which has become the standard lens on
my D1x. I just placed an order for 85mm 1.8. These lenses would
do well on D100. Incidentally, Phil used the 24-85 AFS in most of
his samples. That looks like a beaut also.

sarhento

 

[ronan]

some of the D60s shots with the 28-70L look better than those shot with the 24-85AFS. The 28-70L is also 'huge'. To compare 'apples to apples' a 28-70AF-S ought to have been used, but I'm sure this will be done later. The info will be useful for 1st time buyers who haven't decided on a brand yet.

As for 'ED' lenses, I wouldn't attach much weight to the tag, after all, the 18-35 is an 'ED' lens as well; doesn't mean its as good as the 17-35 (at least at the corners).

Which was sort of my point.

Phil used the 17-35 AFS, 24-85 AFS and 80-400 VR. All are ED
lenses. While he might have picked the 28-70 AFS or the 80-200 AFS
to bring down the aperture a bit, I thought his selection of lenses
was good. The 28-70 is huge compared with the 24-85 AFS. The 80-200
doesn't have VR. With no tripod, those are exactly the zooms I
would have used. I might have even used them with a tripod.

Someone said he should have used different lenses, hence the
question. I don't think the pictures were hurt by Phil's selection
of lenses.

Tony

 

[Jason Busch]

ronan,

I also think Phil used a lens that most people will be purchasing. The 28-70mm is a mighty chunk of money and glass, and I am still trying to scrape together enough money to get it and the D100. If the 24-85 AF-S is as cheap as people say (~$600 USD), then Phil made a wise decision in using this lens.

--
Forum:
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity

Websites:
http://e10club.topcities.com/
http://d100.topcities.com/
--

'I do just about everything in my CCDs...'

 

[Anthony Medici]

I've never used the 18-35 but all the review I have read about it say it is just as sharp as the 17-35 is. Of course, I might have missed something.

Tony

As for 'ED' lenses, I wouldn't attach much weight to the tag, after
all, the 18-35 is an 'ED' lens as well; doesn't mean its as good as
the 17-35 (at least at the corners).

 

[Ron Parr]

You may speculate for a long time.. But as far as I'm concerned
this is the identical 'level' of camera with the same firmware.

A strong claim given that you haven't seen the other Japanese camera.

It could just be that your shots seem nicer because we don't have side by side shots with another camera.

For the one sort-of side by side shot I could find, I took a look at your color test patterns, D60 vs. D100. I found the results somewhat interesting. The edges of the boxes seemed crisper in the D60 shots to me, but I couldn't just state this without some kind of proof, so I zoomed in to 1600%. I counted the number of pixels in the transitions between colored blocks and black edges. The D60 generally made these transitions in a pixel or two less than the D100, meaning that there is less blurring of the edges in the D60 shot.

I noticed the same thing in the Japanese D100 shots:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=2691849

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Phil Askey]

Wow Ron, where did that come from? I know what 'build' the Japanese camera was and I know what 'build' the camera I have is, they are from the same run and have the same firmware... I'm not sure what your implication is...

A strong claim given that you haven't seen the other Japanese camera.

 

[Ron Parr]

A strong claim given that you haven't seen the other Japanese camera.

I see. I think we're confusing some terminology. I'm not implying anything sinister.

When I said that the I thought the Japanese D100 might have a different low-pass filter, I wasn't talking about the software, I was talking about the physical filter they put in front of the CCD.

I think you thought I was talking about the software when you responded that you knew that your camera was the same "build" as the the Japanese one.

Still thinking about hardware, not software, I responded that it was a bold claim to say that your camera was physically identical to the Japanese one.

So, I think we were talking about different things. Of course, I believe you that the software is the same.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Phil Askey]

AT this late stage in the game they would not be 'shuffling' low pass filters around between cameras. These cameras ARE NOT like the old Kodak's the low pass filters on these sensors are cemented to the CCD.

When I said that the I thought the Japanese D100 might have a
different low-pass filter, I wasn't talking about the software, I
was talking about the physical filter they put in front of the CCD.

I think you thought I was talking about the software when you
responded that you knew that your camera was the same "build" as
the the Japanese one.

Still thinking about hardware, not software, I responded that it
was a bold claim to say that your camera was physically identical
to the Japanese one.

So, I think we were talking about different things. Of course, I
believe you that the software is the same.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

 

[photoguy]

Canonians, can you please log on the D100 gallery server later on? It is slowing down the server and I can't wait to see those D100 samples!!! (joke!)

 

[Bill Dewey]

Jason, B&H is listing the 24-85 AFS at a price of $539.95 with a $50 rebate good until the end of June. You might want to buy the lens before the body even arrives. Hold it up to your face and pretend .

When I saw the price I was shocked, happy but very surprised.

ronan,

I also think Phil used a lens that most people will be purchasing.
The 28-70mm is a mighty chunk of money and glass, and I am still
trying to scrape together enough money to get it and the D100. If
the 24-85 AF-S is as cheap as people say (~$600 USD), then Phil
made a wise decision in using this lens.

--
Forum:
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity

Websites:
http://e10club.topcities.com/
http://d100.topcities.com/
--

'I do just about everything in my CCDs...'

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

 

[Ron Parr]

AT this late stage in the game they would not be 'shuffling' low
pass filters around between cameras. These cameras ARE NOT like
the old Kodak's the low pass filters on these sensors are cemented
to the CCD.

I wasn't suggesting shuffling - just different filters on different cameras.

The firmware could be significantly newer than the camera hardware.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[zeldon]

Hey-

I agree, the samples do look great; but do you really think that they "kick ass" with regards to the images produced (at similar ISO's, of course) by the D60? If so, could you explain what differences you're seeing? (If you could leave out the profanity in your explanation, that would be appreciated, too).

Phil shot some of the same images with both cameras, and I'm not seeing any big-time differences between the two.

Folks, here's what we all have been waiting for. I'm totally sold
to the D100. I am going to place my order right now. The samples
kick ass of what's out there.

sarhento

--
Gary Shepard
Foreside PhotoGraphics
Maine, USA

 

[Robert Holloway]

Hmmmm

I thought you ordered the D60.
That's my view of picking a winner

Rob

PS - I'm not able to buy till July/August - this is an interesting fence on which to be sitting

The images are very good, but I am still disturbed by a
couple of things. One, there is still a dark noise in the
shadows. Two, the res charts still show the fuzzy soft
edges where there is high contrast in at least two shots.
Three, any dark area drops off to black with no detal at
all very very quickly. They sure are one heck of a lot better
than what we were looking at last week, and the D100
looks very promising now. Don't get me wrong. I don't give
the D60 images perfect grades either!

I agree. The D100 is back in the game, but I'm not ready to pick
any winners yet.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Ron Parr]

Hmmmm

I thought you ordered the D60.
That's my view of picking a winner

Well, Canon may win my business for now because they are shipping sooner, but that doesn't mean that I'll be blind to the facts of which camera is actually better.

At this point, I'd predict things to fall out the way Canon/Sony comparisons have in the past. I'm guessing that the D100 will turn to be be more sensitive and possibly even slightly more detailed, but that the D60 will produce slightly cleaner/smoother images when used at low ISO. I've always felt that Canon was willing to trade some detail for smoothness, as is indicated by the G2's superior noise perfmance, but worse res. chart performance in comparison to the S85.

However, this is really just a guess.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/