Jump to content

Buyers remorse (Nikon)


porter

Recommended Posts

<p>I know that there are a few people kicking around that have thought about or have made the switch to a larger sensor camera-usually Nikon or Canon-but I recently did the move to a Nikon D90 and am having some serious buyers remorse! I saved my pennies for a few months to get this camera and after using it non-stop for about a month now to see what I could get out of it, I find myself picking up my Olympus E620 instead... I got decent glass for the Nikon so that isn't the issue, as I know some people might raise that question.</p>

<p><strong>Anybody else ever find themselves turning back and thinking, well maybe the grass wasn't so green on the other side?</strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<ul>

<li>The high iso performance is good, but not that much better. It seems like it just has more post processing done to clean it up. I have made 8x10 prints at iso 1600 on the Olympus and nobody who looks at them can even tell. Now when I go to 3200+ on the D90 you would think that might look like 1600 or 800 on the Oly, but it doesn't. It isn't super grainy but the image just looks horrid... Long story short the iso performance isn't much better and I thought it would be miles ahead of 4/3.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Colours don't seem to be very nice looking. They are either dull in a neutral or standard mode or kinda fake looking in vibrant. </li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>LCD only appears sharp if you zoom in once or more on an image. The full image display is very hard to tell if your focus was accurate and I have no idea why this is.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Not having that super menu or whatever it is called on my Olympus really stinks. I figured I would enjoy the more professional individualized buttons but I find it more annoying than anything.</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>In Body Image Stabilization is something I took for granted BIG TIME. I have a couple D lenses (eg. the 50mm f/1.4D) and it stinks not having stabilization. Even if there was a real improvement in iso performance, it actually isn't enough to compensate for having to keep your shutter speed at the required speeds to avoid shake. For example, with the Olympus I can shoot at f/1.4 and have a low shutter speed of like 1/10 on a 30mm lens, the 50mm f/1.4 on the Nikon is relatively close to that in equivalent length and needs the old lens length shutter speed calc to avoid shake (1/50 or faster). Well now I have to crank the ISO up to 3200 on the Nikon but I can leave it at say 800 on the Olympus. I haven't gained anything, I've actually lost! Grr.</li>

</ul>

<p> Vibration reduction lenses perform relatively well in comparison to in body IS, but the costs start to sky rocket. 70-200 VRII is like $2500 compared to the non VR which is basically the same lens and costs around $1100 (Cdn prices)<br>

What I will give this camera is that the viewfinder is nice and bright, ergonomically it feels nice, and the autofocus is always bang on, doesn't give up, and can track fast moving subjects with NO problems (speaking from experience with the 70-300vr)</p>

<p>One more purely opinion based point to note- the shutter sounds really weird on the Nikon and Canon cameras I find. I know it isn't cheap, but it sounds like it is...</p>

<p>I'll leave it at that for now.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Patrick -</p>

<p>Here's some suggestions from a long time Nikon user<br>

1. Double check the exposure settings on your Nikon. Images that are underexposed are going to be grainy / noisier than images with proper exposure. With that being said - you're comparing apples to oranges - 3200 to 1600? compare 3200 to 3200 or 1600 to 1600. The D90 isn't the low noise champ of the Nikon line - The D700 / D3s / D3 / D3x are. Also not sure if you're shooting raw or Jpeg - try shooting in raw - that way you determine the amount of adjustments, not some engineer in Japan. </p>

<p>2. See #1... If you're shooting in JPEG - the colors are going to be what someone in engineering and marketing think they should be. I've shot Nikon for 5 plus years now and am thrilled with the colors - from RAW images. Even Jpeg isn't that bad - if exposed properly.</p>

<p>3. Remember you're dealing with a much bigger sensor / image on the D90 then the e-620. So there is more "image" to display.</p>

<p>4. On most Nikon cameras there is a simple menu that covers 10 - 15 of the basic settings. Especially on their "consumer" models such as the D90. Check the manual again - I'm not 100% sure what the Super Menu gives you - but I'm 90% certain there is something close to that on the D90.</p>

<p>5. I.S. is something that is lacking on the Nikon - and they don't make a "Standard" 50mm IS lens - that I'm aware of... They do have several I.S. zooms that cover the 50mm range, but none that offer the fast aperture. Nikon made a decision early on that I.S. would be lens vs body - The trade offs are obvious... Also - even with I.S. in the lens - (say an 18-200 vr zoom set at 50mm) I don't know of too many people that can hand hold a 1/10 of a second shot. The best I've ever managed is between 1/20 - 1/30 - which is about what Nikon promises - 1 - 2 stops of extra speed.</p>

<p>Yes - VR lenses are expense - but you can get them relatively cheap (albeit for slower lenses) at under $500.00 US for the 55-200VR, 18-55VR and for a little more the 18-200VR</p>

<p>As for the shutter - I've found that it is personal taste / acquisition - I shot a D200 for 2 years and felt it was a solid sounding shutter. 2 years ago I switched to the D300. Now when I shoot a D200 the shutters sounds like it is going to break...</p>

<p>Just some counterpoints from a Nikon user.... There's always the return policy or CL / Epay to sell it if you truly don't like it.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ah, you get and you give. No system has all advantages. I really like my E-410 for it's small size, I could afford it once it was discontinued and the prices dropped 40% and, with a cheap adapter it will take all my old OM Zuiko glass (albeit with a 2X AOV penalty). That said, if I was shopping without any of those restrictions I'd be looking at the Pentax K-7 as a serious contender.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't find I really need IS/VR on standard zoom lenses as much as I would on a fast prime. My zooms (like my 12-60SWD) are often shot at smaller apertures in decent light anyways so I don't find much point in having the stabilization most of the time. But on the fast prime, I want that for shooting in poor light so IS/VR seems like it would be common sense to include...</p>

<p>And yes I always shoot in RAW. I find the NX2 software to be quite good in terms of the modifications you can make, but the way it is laid out is terribly slow when I have a decent number of shots to process. I can live with that though. But, in saying that it has a good ability to post process, I also find that I NEED to do a decent amount of post process to fix colours, darken the sky, etc.</p>

<p>Regarding a similar quick menu- Pressing info twice brings up a small menu on the bottom of the LCD but it pretty much only contains noise reduction parameters and shot type (standard/vivid/etc) and you can't quickly change them. You have to click what you want and it just takes you into the regular menu for it instead of being able to thumb wheel thru them.</p>

<p>For exposure, I bracket in dark situations with bias to the right for just that purpose you mentioned and drop the exposure in post so that I don't have too much noise.</p>

<p>But this is all getting into reasons that I am not overly happy that I got a Nikon. It is an alright camera, but I expected more. <em>What I really was asking in the thread was if anyone else has done the same thing-went to "greener pastures" and found them brown instead...</em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think we have all been down the greener pastures route. I left Pentax and limited primes for m4/3, and even though I had barely used my Pentax gear for over a year before I sold it all, I still miss those limited lenses. In dark moments, I wonder if I did the sane thing. <br>

Then when looking at my most recent images taken with my G1 (and Panny LX3), I realize that the delta between my skill level and my camera is vast, and I should not really look to the equipment as much. :) <br>

But - if you find you use the E620 more than the Nikon, maybe that is telling you something, all specs and 'capabilities' aside. There is real value to 'feel' and getting a camera kit that you get along with.<br>

Scott</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I always advocate that people buy into a system based on ergonomics and available lenses and accessories, not so much on the image quality. The reason is that buying from any of the big brands, image quality evens out pretty quickly on digital and what counts is to be able to produce the shots on a consistent basis. Given this, I bought into Nikon in the film age, but have also tried friends' cameras that are from other manufacturers and they all seemed like pretty much good cameras. That said, I need to comment on some of your opinions on Nikon as I have been using a D300 for two years now;<br>

1. I haven't tried a side by side by side test, but I wouldn't expect a huge improvement anyway.<br>

2. I only shoot raw and have found the colors to be excellent with the standard profile. Can't say that I've ever run into any evidence of poor color performance of current Nikons. Post an example.<br>

3. I've found the current 3" 920 kpixel screen to be excellent, but you can zoom over 100% with it. Are you sure yuo're not doing that? My images look tack sharp in live view and playback, but if I display for example at 400% zoom, then it gets harder to say if everything is in focus.<br>

4. Can't comment on this one, I don't have enough experience of Olympus. Nikon's menu system ahs some weaknesses, but I also suggest working out whether some things can be done more than initially appears.<br>

5. I don't usually miss IS, but I see that this can be an issue. What I don't understand is this sentence "70-200 VRII is like $2500 compared to the non VR which is basically the same lens and costs around $1100" -- there's no equivalent to the 70-200 VR II in the Nikon line, are you talking about some Olympus lens? That VR II does, by the way, seem like a very strong performer, it's not just the VR that costs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have a similar experience and maybe similar frustrations too. <br>

I was not happy with the image quality of my old E-510 last year and bought a Nikon D90 last fall. I got some really nice fall foliage and landscape photos with D90. I think it is a quite good camera, but not perfect. Of course, nothing is perfect.<br>

Last winter, I sold the old E-510 and upgraded to E-620. That is a huge improvement. In most respects, E-620 and D90 are comparable. The resolution, dynamic range and high ISO performance of E-620 are pretty good. One thing I really love E-620 is its color accuracy. And since I have a lot more good lenses for olympus system, now most of the time, I still use E-620. The D90 is a backup, especially for low light condition. <br>

Nikon tends to give over-vivid color if Jpeg is used and sometime I feel there are color casts under certain conditions. These may be good for shooting the fall colors though. E-620 seems more accurate, which may be better for other occasions. I will use E-620 next fall and compare side-by-side with D90.<br>

I guess it is not because one camera is much better than the other. It is just my personal preference. Because I have been using olympus for a long time, I may have developed a nostalgic feeling towards it. I always remind myself not to fall in love with my gears, because at the end of a shooting day, what really counts is the quality of my photos.<br>

It often makes me laugh to see some people fall in the tricks of one manufacturer and become its fans. There are many Leica fans in this world. But practically speaking, I don't see their photos are much better than other camera users. Sometime, they talk about the so called "german flavor". But when they show their photos, they just make me laugh, "What the hell!". And how many pros are really using leica day by day? Those cameras mostly become luxury collections.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lihong, I had issues with the e500 series image quality as well. I found the 620 to be far more consistent and overall a better performing camera by leaps and bounds. </p>

<p>Colour accuracy and proper white balance and quite important in my opinion and the Olympus cameras are pretty good at this. Rarely do I have to play with white balance. I am uploading some pictures to my flickr as comparisons between the 620 and d90 for those who care to see the difference. E620 pictures are straight from camera. D90 pictures I have included one straight from camera and another that required some NX2 modifications to the sky, and another indoor shot that required white balance modifications because the auto wb was out severely.</p>

<p>my flickr is Dharmics and all the pics are right at the top with descriptions as to whether or not they are the original or edit version</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used Canon exclusively from 1971 to 2004. I was drawn to the E-1 and the 14-54 mm in 2004. No, I have never "philandered," with Nikon, Pat. I take that back. I bought a Coolpix P 5000 two years ago.( I like Nikon's approach to flash management).</p>

<p>Never screwed around with ISO over 800...why would I ever want to I think for day to day and there is the flash guns,the FL 50 and the power pack..<br>

The Oly jpegs out of the camera need no colour management, and little else on my screen. (At first I was told in this very forum that I am blind and that Olympus reds were luminescent even garish)And that I had chosen a dead end line of gear. Now then, since you wonder would I stray? Hmm.... If someone handed me a Canon D something or a Nikon D something I am sure I could use it with some pleasure. Someone caught the kernel of truth nowadays...they are all good image makers...go for what feels right and you can adapt to. Olympus is quirky in some of its product. Brilliant in others. Does that sound like the state of the camera art on 1/17...Be assured, that after PMA next month at Disneyland here Patrick, there will be some other fudge factor to consider. Like which takes the best on the fly video...I wish you well, gerry</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ah yes, PMA. Well, I hope E-5 comes out cause I had been waiting for that. I like to hang my camera off my back while I ski (not joking) so something that can take a bit of whipping snow would be fantastic.</p>

<p>To be honest, I always forget the video function is there on the D90. I don't really know how to edit videos or put clips together so I have no real use for it. Would be kinda neat to learn I suppose, but then I think I would want something that autofocuses while shooting (which the d90 doesn't).</p>

<p>I feel like I have been really hard on the D90. It is a good camera, for sure. But I don't think I got the upgrade that I expected by going to aps-c and that chapped my _ _ _</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Pat, you have some really nice photos. On the first page of your flicker site, the photo of the snowy landscape taken with E-620 is underexposed though. So it is hard to compare with those taken with D90. But I still think it is better in terms of color. The raw from D90 looks washed out. <br>

I am waiting for E-5 too! I hope it will debut this year.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Lihong. Yes, the 620 shot was underexposed a bit but I felt it still served its purpose so I didn't bother going back outside haha</p>

<p>The washing out on the D90 is precisely what my main issue is (other than plain old enjoying the Olympus more). I don't feel that I should have to post-process EVERY picture to get an acceptable result.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Video can be seductive. Editing is easier than it used to be when I took the Olelo Tech course with Betacams. It is not in my plans to be more than a casual videographer at the moment, but I could be tempted. If I had young kids, more than tempted. I wonder what Panasonic has up their sleeve...son of GH1-wise :-)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The washing out on the D90 is precisely what my main issue is (other than plain old enjoying the Olympus more). I don't feel that I should have to post-process EVERY picture to get an acceptable result.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have both a Panasonic GH1 and a D90. I believe the sensor in the former is very similar to that of Olympus E620. Overall I find the D90 to be a better camera for still photography than the GH1. I shoot RAW for both. The ISO performance of the D90 is clearly better and so is dynamic range; this impression agrees with the overall impression by most professional reviews. Your issues with the Nikon is more of a personal one — you do not like what Nikon does for you, even though you are working with a camera that is capable of delivering more than the Olympus that you own (although not by much). By many tests, Nikon and Canon tend to aim to maintain the "true" color of what we actually see, while Olympus and Panasonic like to tweak it to give you different looks. Also the anti-aliasing filter on the Nikon seems a bit strong so you need sharpening in post to bring out the sharpness. Nikon's approach is to give you an image that is closer to what your eye actually see and leave you with the freedom to tweak it, and in its standard mode, it does not go out its way to change things. Olympus by contrast has a good reputation in bringing out very good JPEG images to save you the troubles of tweaking it in post. If you do not like to PP, then go with Olympus as the difference between different sensor technologies is unlikely to matter that much to the average users. Furthermore when you buy a camera, you should really be thinking about the whole system (flash, selection of lenses, etc) before you buy. Nikon's flash is just spectacular. It is very easy to get natural looking pictures with a D90 + SB600 combo.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding a similar quick menu- Pressing info twice brings up a small menu on the bottom of the LCD but it pretty much only contains noise reduction parameters and shot type (standard/vivid/etc) and you can't quickly change them. You have to click what you want and it just takes you into the regular menu for it instead of being able to thumb wheel thru them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should able to create a menu with as many features as you wish to include and then by pressing the "func" button, this list of YOUR menu will become available to you. (I may not get the terminology right as I don't have my camera with me but check the user manual) You can change ISO, turn auto ISO on and off, reprogram the AE-L/AF-L button, etc</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I certainly considered the lens/flash availability when choosing the D90. I got the sb600 with the camera and I must admit that the flash metering is right on the mark every time. However, I don't use flash very much so that is kind of a nicety not necessity.</p>

<p>I'm certainly not going to sell this camera, if for nothing else than for the fantastic af accuracy/speed on the telephoto lenses (I do love my trips to the zoo). I doubt I will invest anymore in lenses for this camera though. Everything other than telephoto is great on the Olympus (Oly telephotos tend to hunt and have trouble with moving subjects) so I might invest in their line up a bit more. I sold a couple lenses I had for the Olympus, but they weren't anything special so I'm not worried. I still have the 12-60 and 50mm macro. 8mm fisheye would be a nice touch?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies guys and gals.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have had an experience that is somewhat along these lines, I was using Nikon primarily and I picked up an Olympus E-30, and relatively quickly dismissed it. Not too long after using another borrowed E-30 for a work project I realized I enjoyed using the camera more than I remembered. </p>

<p>Since then I spent some time with an E-P1 and now, E-P2, and find that the Nikon gear has pretty much been relegated to the shelf. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, just don't enjoy using it as much, and having a lightweight setup has significant advantages when out and about.</p>

<p>As many others have said, many of the items you are mentioning are 'changeable' - but the primary item, whether or not YOU like/enjoy the system, is not. You can pick up alot of advice here and in Nikon forums on how to possibly make changes to your setup to help you find more satisfaction with it, but ultimately its going to be your highly personal opinion that carries the most weight.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"The D90 is a good camera and you'll be happy with it once you learn the tribal knowledge needed to get the images looking how you like. It's never easy changing systems, so hang in there."</em><br>

<br /> Keith's statement above reminds me of the days when it only came down to proper exposure and the photographers abilities. Now you practically have to have a BS degree to get the camera to work right.<br>

I picked up a G1 to do some work for a friend because I didn't want to spend hours scanning in film. It's so much easier to quickly offload images and take a look, perhaps at hundreds at times, which seems to cause my back and butt to go sore from sitting in front of the computer too much; (and I think my tanned face is from radiation). The G1 is a nice little camera, but what I have realized is that there are now so many settings to screw up before shooting a particular scene or subject matter that one has to almost be more diligent about whether the settings are correct. Whereas with my film body all I had to do was set the right ISO and put the needle where I wanted it. It causes me to wonder whether these computer cameras are worth all the trouble? I have had at one time or another, set the wrong ISO, set the wrong picture format size, (4:3, 3:2, 16:9), set the wrong size of the picture, (L, M, S) taken the picture on Program in the heat of battle at too slow a speed, and I'm sure there's more that I've forgotten such as resetting compensation. Now I guess that this response is not to much to the point of the OP's original question, but I do feel that I made a mistake, not by buying the camera, but by thinking that it would make for an easier workflow. So far that answer is a big NO.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wayne, I loved your comments as I can so relate. The bulk of my photography was during the film age, and besides learning the quirks of different films, it was all pretty straight forward. And if in doubt, bracket!<br>

I imagine we all have shot not-so-happy photos because we forgot about changing some of the crucial settings in "the heat of battle," including with film. That's why the push and pull processes came about! LOL! :o)<br>

Yes, the digitals have a LOT of gadgetry. That's one of the things I've always liked about the Leica philosophy so much - even with their digitals - keep it simple! Wished I could afford an M9! But I digress. The only thing I might suggest is to put all your settings where you want them, and if you ever do change anything, remember to set it back before it goes back into your bag.<br>

Having done all my own lab work in the past, I can assure you however, that digital post-processig (PP) is much faster and easier. I loved the darkroom then, but now I kind of appreciate the speed and ease of digital PP. And, the expense is far less too.<br>

I too, now own a G1, and I can tell you that it is childsplay compared to some of them out there! But you're right, about the time you get through the learning curve of your current digital, it becomes totally obsolete, and you have to start all over again. But that's technology you know! :o)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Patrick, you've identified the very reasons why I've considered either adding an Olympus dSLR or switching over entirely. And I've used Nikons for many years.</p>

<p>While I was very impressed with the D90 and it felt familiar, I've been more impressed by the unedited high resolution JPEGs I've seen comparing typical Nikon and typical Olympus dSLR photos. The Oly appears to deliver very good JPEGs without any editing, just as my Oly P&S digicams have for the past 10 years. While I enjoy the traditional b&w darkroom I've never enjoyed digital editing, so getting good results straight from the camera appeals to me since I mostly use digital for snapshots, candids and informal stuff.</p>

<p>And your perception regarding high ISO noise seems reasonable. The D90 appears to do heavier in camera processing than the D300, which has misled many folks on Nikon forum discussions into misinterpreting DxO tests to mean the D90 is "superior" to the D300, when they're not considering everything in context.</p>

<p>But if you attempt to justify your preferences in some discussions you'll hear the usual tiresome rhetoric: "You need to learn post processing" or "You just need this new Photoshop plug-in."</p>

<p>I'm also tempted by in-camera stabilization, especially since I need to save weight to avoid back and neck strain (which is also why I rarely tote a tripod). Ten or more years ago I could easily handhold steadily down to 1/15th second. Not now. And having image stabilization with any lens, including a small fast prime, is very appealing. Nikon's most affordable VR zooms are slowpoke variable aperture types and the fast lenses with VR are too big and heavy for my preferred casual approach. I can fix high ISO noise if necessary, but I can't fix motion blur in post.</p>

<p>Anyway, the D90 is a heckuva good dSLR for the money. But your objections to some of the drawbacks don't surprise me at all. It reminds me of why I regret selling my OM gear, which was more compact and lightweight than even my smallest Nikon rig.</p>

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...