Jump to content

Can you tell which Nikon it is?


jaymichaels

Recommended Posts

My favorite is the one in the middle by D300. It's crisp and pleasant - both visually and technically. My least favorite is the last one by D500 - it is bland and lacks contrast. Actually I do like the first one by D100 very much. Technically it may not be the best but it's a lovely image, perhaps just needs to be denoised a bit.

 

Naturally, the end result is the end-total of interaction with lighting, composition and other elements along with the capability of the camera.

Edited by Mary Doo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "more meaningful" comparison could have been presented if each camera had been used to capture the same scene. It would also have been beneficial to eliminate another variable and use the same lens on each camera.

 

Use the same lens with each camera restored to factory setting using the same parameters (speed, f-stop, ISO...) shooting the same scene with the same lighting, on a tripod - working toward the goal of having the camera as the only variable.

Edited by Mary Doo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good idea and an interesting thread, but I agree with others that the methodology could be improved. In addition to using the same settings when shooting, as little differences in post as possible would also add value to the comparison.

 

As they are now, the D300 looks like it produces over-saturated colours, which I do not think it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Heimbrandt and disagree with Mary over the D300 shot. Its saturation is far too high and artificial, with the sky colour looking just plain wrong. Even if a polariser was used.

 

The D100 is looking posterised.... lack of bit-depth perhaps? Not familiar with that generation of Nikon DSLRs, but I imagine the A/D conversion was a lot cruder then.

 

I agree that any meaningful comparison should have all the same parameters except camera body. Plus using a lens that didn't have noticeable lateral CA fringing would help, or applying post processing to remove said fringes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Heimbrandt and disagree with Mary over the D300 shot. Its saturation is far too high and artificial, with the sky colour looking just plain wrong. Even if a polariser was used.

It does look over-saturated - probably due to custom saturation preset? :) My comments were based on the premise that there was no post-processing and it's the better of the three. The D100 image is lovely as a photograph. Do think all cameras need to reset to factory setting for valid comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "more meaningful" comparison could have been presented if each camera had been used to capture the same scene. It would also have been beneficial to eliminate another variable and use the same lens on each camera.

It is more than that.

 

If your subject is something static such as scenery under good light, as in the case of most of the OP's sample images, you can shoot with an iPhone and get very decent results. A friend of mine used an iPhone 7 and captured some castle images in Scotland last year, and they looked great on a computer screen.

 

If you shoot something that challenges both the camera and the photographer, such as indoor sports like gymnastics, ice skating ... where you need to use fast AF and ISO 6400, ISO 12800 ... plus high frame rate, an old DSLR such as the D100 will completely fall apart; even a D300 will not fare very well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The D100 image is lovely as a photograph."

 

- Again I have to disagree Mary. Admittedly it looks fine at a very small scale, but even as a 10x8 print I think it would fall apart visually under moderately close scrutiny.

 

The mid tones are grey with no subtle colour or gradation, and their separation from the totally black shadows is sudden and posterised. The highlights - reflections off the water - also suddenly 'pop' from the mid tones in an unnatural way. To me the specular highlights seem separated from the water. Turning to the sky; that's blotchy and broken up too.

 

In short the picture epitomises the 'digital' look that gave digital cameras a bad name in their early days. Not that a bad scan from underexposed film can't look just as poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends a lot on what cameras you're comparing and how much you're challenging them. I, on a lark, bought a Fuji S100 a while ago for nearly nothing. This, in case it's forgotten, is a DX format digital that uses a proprietary pixel-doubling scheme to get 6 megapixels sort of, based on a Nikon N60. Its lowest ISO is 320, and it saves in Tiff format. I compared shots with the 28-80 screw-drive kit lens from an N65, between that and a Nikon D3200. The D3200 takes a 24 megapixel raw file which is pretty decent. I set it to ISO 400, otherwise the same, with both cameras at F8 in A mode. The lens doesn't autofocus on a D3200, so I just used the focus confirmation dot and the chintzy viewfinder. I have always been pretty impressed with overall image quality from the D3200, and the Fuji, when shot without undue stress, doesn't come out so badly. Fuji left, D3200 right, 1659419714_fujileft3200rightshort.thumb.jpg.ffcc58fc726bf4724a16728e740fe6e9.jpg 337671262_fujileft3200rightlong.thumb.jpg.b7e534eee3111912fc9362ba19b3755b.jpg F8, straight to Irfanview and downsized with no post processing....

 

And, if we can put a second image on, we get both 28 and 80 mm, and on 28 we can see now how the Fuji falls down a bit at least without some tweaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, on a lark, bought a Fuji S100 a while ago for nearly nothing.

 

Is there an S100, or are you talking about the S1?

 

I ask because I've sort of been collecting first gen DSLRs, and I thought I had all of the Finepix range save for the S5. If there's an S100, I need to add that to the list.

 

The Fuji cameras really were interesting in their time. It's a shame that they were hampered by a slow and clunky UI. Fuji kind of oversold the resolution on them-I consider them to be really about halfway between the number of photosites and the number of pixels-i.e. the S1 and S2 to me are more like 4.5mp and not the claimed 6.

 

In any case, the photographer who shot my sister's wedding used an S3(in 2005), and I know the entire Fuji range were popular with wedding photographers for the extended dynamic range they offer. The prices S5s bring(compared to the others, which are virtual give-a-ways) show that apparently some folks are still holding on to them.

 

BTW, my biggest annoyance with the S1 and S2 is that you have to have both CR123s and AAs in the camera. Also, the S1 REALLY shows its N65 underpinnings, and the fact that it won't focus AF-S lenses is a big annoyance. The S2 and S3 were based on the N80(along with the last Kodak DSLRs)-a MUCH better platform since it's fully AF-S and VR compatible plus just a better and more full-featured body. The D200-based S5 is definitely the king here, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No,you're right of course, and it's an S1. My brain was getting interference from the D100 mentioned in the post. I hoped that I could get it converted to IR, but found that it's not a good candidate, so it sort of languishes. Still, it's rather amusing every once in a while to take it out and shoot it. Fortunately, the AA batteries do most of the work. I'm not sure it will actually die with dead CR123's, or just fail to flash, but so far mine is going OK with whatever was in it. I figure the price was about what the batteries cost at the time anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately, the AA batteries do most of the work. I'm not sure it will actually die with dead CR123's, or just fail to flash, but so far mine is going OK with whatever was in it.

 

The CR123s actually do a fair bit-they operate the "camera" part of the camera-in other words the meter, shutter, autofocus, and the "film advance" motor(which in this camera, like all Nikon DSLRs, serves to cock the shutter and otherwise ready the camera for the next exposure even though it's not moving film). The AAs only operate the "digital" parts of the camera-the sensor and all the associated controls.

 

Granted I haven't used mine a lot, but I'd expect the CR123s to last about as long as they would in an N65. Of course, that actually boils down to "a really long time." Still, the camera won't work with them dead or missing. I forget whether or not the top LCD will show anything, but if it does it shows ERR(the same thing as if the AAs are dead).

 

Fortunately, Fuji managed to refine the S3 to the point where it will run off one set of AAs. They basically insisted on NiMHs since they supplied a set and a charger with the camera. The originals for mine are long gone, but that's a nice touch since I can get new production cells with higher capacity than the originals for a little of nothing(compare that to fighting with NiMHs for the D1 series).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...