Phil's D100 Sample Gallery

[thang]

Jason,

I agree with you in some respects. Of course, the skills of the photographer is the most important. I should have added in my original statement some thing like "given everything else being equal, i.e. skills, visions, techniques..."

Thang.

Thang,

I think it's both, actually. And that's why making a decision for
myself, is hard, and it should be for others. The greatest pictures
you will take, will be from the weakest link you have. I could have
the best lenses available, but if my camera can't "see" them
properly or handle their quality, then the lenses are a waste. On
the other hand, I could have the best camera, but if my lenses are
inferior, I will have problems too.

And then you factor in the photographer, and factor in the various
settings on the camera.

I've seen horrible photos from D1x and 1D cameras. It simply (well,
actually not so simply) had to do with the photographer, the lens
choices, and settings of the camera. I've seen better photos taken
with a Coolpix or similar.

Yes, I have said the D100, in my opinion, has better quality, but
this is just one factor among many factors that we all have to
delicately balance, to get the best shot.

The same methodology applies to Home Theater systems and speakers,
and speaker wire. You could have $50,000 speakers, but if your
speaker wire is inferior, you won't benefit. If you have a lower
wattage amplifier, and purchase expensive high-wattage speakers
that need high punchy power, you won't hear the sound quality
either. And there are dozens of other factors.

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

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

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

 

[thang]

Oh please, don't get me started with Carl Zeiss. I am sure they are very good. But then again, the selection is just too limited for digital use and this is one of the features need to take into consideration when looking at lens line.

Thang.

To me it's boiled down to the lens
selection and WE ALL KNOW WHO IS BETTER IN THIS DEPARTMENT.

Carl Zeiss?

Regards
Calle

 

[Geir Atle Ward]

Thang, for me it looks like you are a hardcore Canon man
Geir Atle

Thang.

To me it's boiled down to the lens
selection and WE ALL KNOW WHO IS BETTER IN THIS DEPARTMENT.

Carl Zeiss?

Regards
Calle

--

 

[thang]

Geir,

Trust me when I say this. There has been many times I wanted to switch to Nikon. I was doing wedding for a while and to me, Nikon's 3D flash system is much better than Canon's ETTL. But every single time, I would look at what I've already invested in (the lens line) and didn't want to lose at least $500-$600 due to having to sell all my lenses. I just couldn't afford the Nikon 28-70 AFS. I would have to sell both my 28-70L (85% of my usage) and 80-200L to be able to afford the 28-70 AFS. That's just too much.

Personally, I think both camera manufacturers are great at what they do. I hope that they both continue to be so for the consumers' sake. I hate having to rely on only one source/manufacturer for anything.

Thang.

Thang.

To me it's boiled down to the lens
selection and WE ALL KNOW WHO IS BETTER IN THIS DEPARTMENT.

Carl Zeiss?

Regards
Calle

--

 

[Don Erway]

Hi Ron, and all.

I had the thought, when reading this, that it is somehow not this simple.

The transition width will be drastically effected, by the amount of in camera sharpening. So a sharper edge means more sharpening, which is often considered not good, if you do any postprocessing on your images, as all.

Remember the "soft" d30 and G2 images, but the right info is there, to sharpen up very well.

This is one big problem, with any kind of comparison of digital cameras, is that total image quality is not necessarily sharpest edges, but some sort of "best" data, in the sense that it can be rezed up, sharpened, and so on, to produce good images.

--
Don Erway
http://www.pbase.com/derway/kona_underwater_g2

..., 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.

 

[Ron Parr]

The transition width will be drastically effected, by the amount of
in camera sharpening. So a sharper edge means more sharpening,
which is often considered not good, if you do any postprocessing on
your images, as all.

There are indeed many variables. In this particular case, I don't think that sharpening has given the D60 an advantage in this comparison. You can zoom in to 1600% and see what happens to the edges in the color chart when you sharpen. They actually get more spread out, not less as the sharpening algorithm tries to create a ramp-up to the transition.

In general, I don't think that sharpening would produce the clean edge drop offs the D60 has. You're asking a lot of the sharpening algorithm for it to do this.

The optics may have something to do with the difference we're seeing in performance. I'm not that familiar with Nikon's lenses, but I noticed that Phil used one of Canon's best lenses for the Canon color chart test, but according to the exif header, used an some kind of 55mm lense for the Nikon D100 shots. Moreover, the Nikon 24-85 seems to be inferior to the Canon 28-70. In the ISO 1000 bust shot, there's noticeable chromatic abberation on the lower edge of the sculpture (green fringe) and the shadow beneath it (red fringe). The Canon shot has none. (Note the Canon shot is ISO 400, but the ISO has nothing to do with chromatic abberations, which are optical effects from the lens.)

It will be interesting to see how things change when/if Phil puts better lenses on the D100.

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