Take the D100 SHARPNESS challenge!

[Ger Bee]

... the D100 is just soft - plain and simple. I've seen nothing close and so far have produced nothing close myself.

http://photothumb.com/d100/emma_DSC_0006.html

This shot from a closed thread shows reasonable sharpness but then just look at that noise as a result. And in comparison to the D60 shot – nuff said.

Call Ni-one-one.

Not a flame but I'm impressed by this shot from the D60. Sharp
indeed...

 

[John Manuel]

......
http://www.pbase.com/image/2977873

surely the D100 can do better than this?

Well, I don't know if these are really sharp (or what you are looking for). I'm still learning the D100 and these are in the first few hundred shots I took. In camera sharpening was (unfortunatly) set to auto. All the photos there are straight out of the camera with no additional processing. The 2 that have " sharp" in the name were sharpend using USM in PS5.

http://www.pbase.com/john_manuel/portland_zoo
(the originals are there if you care to grab them and do some post-processing)

-JohnM

 

[darren kelly]

Darren thks for your entry.

not sure what you mean by 'better' - care to clarify?

Sharper, better colour.

It wasn't meant as a shot, but I thought it qualified in your challenge. perhaps stating it was better was not the correct frasing..

Have a look at the tifany picture on my pbase site. It is the original with minor USM and colour correction.

You seem to be impressed with the hawk in a post further down.

Do you really belive it hasn't had some Photoshopping done to it? I can assure you it has. The background shows that

DBK

 

[Jens(Sweden)]

Hi Ger,

Your shot is great Ger..cute kid and for this shot the softness goes well..

Here's another nice one from the D60

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=80155

Cheers / Jens

... the D100 is just soft - plain and simple. I've seen nothing
close and so far have produced nothing close myself.

http://photothumb.com/d100/emma_DSC_0006.html

This shot from a closed thread shows reasonable sharpness but then
just look at that noise as a result. And in comparison to the D60
shot – nuff said.

Call Ni-one-one.

Not a flame but I'm impressed by this shot from the D60. Sharp
indeed...

--
Forum* http://pub57.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity

 

[Terry Cioni]

looks like you have the PERFECT model to create a comparison photo
to end this challenge ;-)

would it be possible for you to do another shot w/ more light & dof?

Terry Cioni wrote:

From the first few frames I shot with D100. I did turn off in
camera sharpening, but the rest is default out of the box..... Lens
was wide-open at F4 so the dof is very narrow. Sophie says hi to
your kitty....
http://www.pbase.com/tcioni/sophie

Thanks. Sophie is great. I did post a few more as you requested.

Cheers. Terry.

 

[raka]

you mistook me for someone else - i didn't comment on the hawk photo.

the hawk is also a small resized version, so not very useful (it is also a bit of a threadcrap, since it wasn't taken w/ a D1 or D100)

Darren Kelly wrote:

Darren thks for your entry.

not sure what you mean by 'better' - care to clarify?

Sharper, better colour.

You seem to be impressed with the hawk in a post further down.

Do you really belive it hasn't had some Photoshopping done to it? I
can assure you it has. The background shows that

DBK

 

[Mike Tichon]

We are looking at sharpness - I'm undecided. The D100 is tagging
along on assignments with me and this is some of today’s work.

Ger, still awaiting my D100. Not very many of your shots are sharp. The Miller Beer sign one, and the Bee are, and possibly the tall building. An observation and several questions. My favorite uncle said you could judge a country by its beer. I am not sure Miller's is the best of the American batch, and if that's what you all get to drink, no wonder your disposition (from your messages here) is sometimes contentious instead of content. As to the photos, I am not a pro, but doesn't dof have a lot to do with the "sharpness." The shot of the castle and the boy are at low numbered aperatures, like 2 or 2.8. The shots that are most in focus are at higher numbers. I don't know which way is which, and I am not deliberately accusing you of shooting with an extremely low depth of field setting, I am just questioning the settings and whether the apparent lack of sharpness is really a very shallow dof. Finally, I am a fellow survivor of the Oly E-10 focusing problems/wars. I think the E10 problem was really a focusing problem, maybe also somewhat a dof problem, but there were physical problems with some cameras, and the focus beam had parallax errors in it. I don't know yet about the D100 until I try it, but again, I wonder if the program mode is setting the aperature to yield a very shallow dof, as opposed to the chip or the camera not focusing correctly.
Regards, and sorry about the bad beer

--
Mike Tichon

 

[Ger Bee]

... through a Millers glass - not! )

But wide open. There should be an area of critical sharpness in every photo - no matter what aperture or focus area.

Thereafter, the use of a small aperture and the use of a tripod or steadying device combined with good or great glass will all enhance the appearance of sharpness.

I have more samples – not posted – that show camera shake, which rob the photographer of sharp pictures – that’s obviously an avenue to explore as the camera is lightweight and quite prone to this condition – but it’s not the only one.

There exists a condition with the D1x whereby, if one does not employ vibration reduction, even on a steady tripod, one cannot achieve critical sharpness. However, my D1x no longer exhibits this condition after its two visits to Nikon. I’m personally convinced we have a similar problem here, with the D100 – and it can be fixed by tech support – just as soon as Japan tells them to fix it, that is.

Nikon are already saying they never heard of the problem – read – they know d* well about it and are working furiously to “not” fix anything – but it always actually gets fixed anyway – so no panic – just pile on the pressure.

All that said the D100 is a fabulous camera, well worth the money and you’ll really enjoy yours when it arrives.

 

[photo-op]

U R Right.. D100 is a dud.. plain and simple!
Not impressed the least and strictly a sub average offering from Nikon!
Please get it right and then bring it out!

http://photothumb.com/d100/emma_DSC_0006.html

This shot from a closed thread shows reasonable sharpness but then
just look at that noise as a result. And in comparison to the D60
shot – nuff said.

Call Ni-one-one.

Not a flame but I'm impressed by this shot from the D60. Sharp
indeed...

--
Tom A. Brink

 

[Terry Cioni]

U R Right.. D100 is a dud.. plain and simple!
Not impressed the least and strictly a sub average offering from
Nikon!
Please get it right and then bring it out!
Tom A. Brink

Tom,

I am curious after having looked at your profile - what camera do you own? How do you come to this conclusion. It is a very dramatic statement and I would appreciate knowing the supporting data that got you there. You seem to speak with some knowledge and authority and it would help us all to understand 'sub average' etc. Surely it is not based on the posted images in this or any other forum, so your research would be invaluable to the rest of us. Of course I could go over to the Canon or Fuji forum and make the same comments but I haven't had the opportunity to handle either the D60 or S2 and this would be grossly simplistic on my part - especially if I based negative comments on what I have seen sofar in the forums from those particular cameras'. I noticed for example Canon issued a firmware upgrade today - I guess perfection is hard to achieve be it Canon, Nikon, or Fuji.

Kind Regards. Terry.