Jump to content

My Nikon D700 is not sharp!!!


paul_rankin

Recommended Posts

<p>I purchased my D700 in late July 2008 along with a new 24mm-70mm lens. I was using a D80 with a 18-200.<br>

I was hoping for better low light capability and sharper image quality. The low light ability is awesome, but the image sharpness is not good. At first I thought it might be that the new lens is very heavy and doesn't have VR, so it was camera shake. However, I did some test shots on a tripod and still felt they weren't as sharp as my business partner's D300. She uses a 50mm 1.8 and everything is SHARP as a tack. So, I bought a 50mm 1.4 (nikon lens) for multiple reasons, one is its light weight and two the great aperture or 1.4. This still hasn't seem to cure the problem. Are any others having this same problem? Are there some adjustments in the camera settings to address this? Do I need to send it to Nikon to be checked?<br>

Frustrated,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, don't worry, I had the same impression when I moved from a D300 to a D700. There is just no noise, which does make the image look slightly softer than the D300 did, which had noise even at ISO 200. Try adding some noise in Photoshop. Suddenly your images will look "sharp" to you. I think all of us who grew up with photography in the film era, are used to seeing film grain when an image is "sharp". No film grain, and our brains say "hey this isn't sharp".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Paul, I have the same rig as you and my experience is completely the opposite -- the combination is razor sharp. Right now there are 2 degrees of freedom: camera and lens. I might suggest that you do a little test: invite you friend over and swap lenses so that you can isolate your problem to the camera/settings or the lens. And dont be frustrated - you will eventually get to the bottom of things.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Pual, without seeing some sample images, it is impossible to discuss any sharpness issues. Typical problems are camera shake, subject movement, and focusing errors.</p>

<p>Equiment problems are not as common as photographer errors, but if it is equipment, it is more likely to be the lens than the camera body. However, the AF system on a body could be off.</p>

<p>Are your subjects moving? Have you exchange cameras with your business partner to see whether she can capture sharp images with your camera and you with her camera? That seems to be a "test" I would try.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You may want to use one of these focusing charts, e..g I found one <a href="http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf">here</a> and see if there is any back focusing issue. I have not used it, and there is a whole debate about this test which is told in the linked document, so maybe use some caution, but this might be the issue....</p>

<p>Also, if you open up the 50/1.4 all the way, it WILL be soft.... at least mine is</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Paul, I had the same thoughts as you, moving from a D2x to the D700. These are a couple of ideas that people have put forward about this;<br>

1 - the same number of pixels in a larger sensor means there is not the acutance (sharpness of the edges) of the D300 (or the D2x). This is just on a pixel-peeping level.<br>

2 - the lack of noise of the D700 gives the images a 'softness' (don't know what would cause this).<br>

I have found that by using different sharpening techniques than the ones I used on the RAW files from the D2x, I can acheive the same degree of acutance (sharpness) but with far less noise. This gives superb results, and I am now very happy with the improvement over the D2x. I suggest you experiment with using a pre-sharpening software as you convert the RAW file. <br>

BTW, I also have the 24-70 and find that the 50 1.8 is superior at equivalent apertures. I am sure the 50 1.4 is similar.<br>

Good luck, and don't give up of the D700.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 1 - the same number of pixels in a larger sensor means there is not the acutance (sharpness of the edges) of the D300 (or the D2x). This is just on a pixel-peeping level.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This certainly has to be the reason. I have done several tests between a Canon 40d and a 1d MkIII - both of which have 10mp - and the "prosumer" 40d outresolves the MkIII every time. In fact, in Bob Atkins/Hannah Theim's 5dII review on this site they present a chart that shows the 21.1MP 5dII is much lower resolution than the 50d. (Sorry about the Canon analogies... the principle still applies, though.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>That is very strange. I did the same upgrade from D80 to D700. Without doing any serious tests, my impression is that image quality went from sometimes dissappointing (noise) to spectacular. I am still mostly using the same lenses though (AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, 50mm f/1.4D).<br />How do you focus? Can we see some samples?<br />/Jonas</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I dont think my D200 is as sharp out of the camera as my D70s was either. But I figure this is in camera processing associated with AA, noise reduction etc. It sure sharpens up acceptably in Photoshop.</p>

<p>When you say "it is not sharp" - are you pixel peeping? I try not to get too obsessive about this. What counts is the image quality after YOU have finished processing it in your software of choice. I do not believe ANY shot straight out of the camera is worth a damn (and this includes the D70s shots which as I said to my eye were "better" than those from the D200.)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>IMHO... I upgraded from a D200 to a D300 recently.<br>

I really love the D300 and have some great lenses. I find that when I push the ISO my images look pretty grainy.<br>

I am attenpting to do swimming events and have used the 50mm 1.8 (sold it) and replaced it with a 17-55 2.8 which is awesome.<br>

I thought the high ISO performance would blow me away. While it does give me the ability to up the shutter speed and extend the range on my SB-800, there is still objectionable noise, especially when cropping moderately.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>2 - the lack of noise of the D700 gives the images a 'softness' (don't know what would cause this).</em><br>

It your brain. It selectively filters noise in a way that is nearly impossible to achieve in image processing. Your brain ignores the noise on flat parts of the image, while it uses it to better imagine where the edges are. If you zoom in too far, this mechanism stops working. When there is no 'bigger picture' you see the noise for what it is. That's why pixel peeping is so bad for you.<br>

Apart from this, it is important to realize that when comparing sharpness between different image formats you should do a fair comparison. You can either compare same subject distance or same framing, depending what you are after. For the rest, use the same settings, same lens, same subject and same light. And of course, the same in-camera and post-processing. Be aware that a sharpness setting of 'medium' may not mean the same on two cameras, so it's best to compare NEFs developed in the same way.<br>

I would be very surprised if the outcome of such a test is that the D700 is less sharp when comparing the same framing. In good light with a good lens the D80 may come on top when comparing same subject distance.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi, Paul,</p>

<p>First, please let me express sympathy that you're having these issues with a new camera.</p>

<p>I'm a new D700 owner, a recent convert from Canon, and -- although I'm using a different lens -- have been quite satisfied with the sharpness of the photos it produces. </p>

<p>The D700 offers an important feature, found (to my knowledge) on only a handful of relatively new cameras: AF fine tune, which can correct front and back focus issues specific to a camera - lens combination. Michael Reichmann on Luminous Landscape has a terrific introduction in his review and tutorial of LensAlign, a product that helps make the most out of AF fine tune. The link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/lensalign.shtml</p>

<p>LensAlign costs about $140, but there are much less expensive solutions available.</p>

<p>I'm sharing this information because it <em>might</em> be related to your problem -- or perhaps one of the others responding has the answer.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><i>1 - the same number of pixels in a larger sensor means there is not the acutance (sharpness of the edges) </i></p>

<p>This doesn't make any sense. By increasing the sensor size while retaining total pixel count, the contrast of the detail should be going up because the lenses MTF is sampled at lower spatial frequency. Only if the corner performance of the lens is poor or the lens doesn't match well with the sensor optics, would there be an issue. But generally speaking the details are reproduced with higher fidelity on a larger sensor. This of course assuming that the focal length with the FX camera has 1.5X the focal length of the DX camera, so that the angles of view match.</p>

<p>The improvement is very substantial at wide apertures with a fast lens, as the MTF is typically low wide open at high frequencies. By reducing the spatial frequency by a factor of 1.5, the FX sensor displays a better defined image. That said, there are also lenses which have extremely poor corners outside of the DX area; in this case it might be better to use a DX camera if you're concerned about corners; whereas in the center the FX would always show superior detail contrast. Again, this requires a 50% greater focal length for the FX camera, which one would normally choose.</p>

<p>Also if the microlenses, low-pass filters are designed differently in the two cameras, different results can be observed. Another aspect is the raw conversion and post-processing which plays a considerable role and it's rarely exactly comparable.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for all of your help! I'm going to try the focus test charts and test shots with my partner's d300 and 50mm 1.8...... then my d700 and 50mm 1.8. I would like to narrow it down to either my camera body or the lens. I will keep you posted and thanks again.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Paul, just FYI, if you wan't your test to be more "scientific," use the same 50mm f/1.8 (be it yours or your friends) on both cameras. This elliminates the chance of any sample variation between lenses - so your pictures should be a tiny bit more consistent. - unless of course your intention is to test the entire imaging system, or the lens for deficiencys... I might not have understood your intentions completley.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Paul,<br>

D700 is definitely sharper and cleaner than D300, you have to remember that the DOF for identical setting is narrower so you need to stop down to get the same DOF as the cropped sensor. That said I did find that the D700 AA filter is a bit on the strong side compared to my Canons, see my thread here http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SLoN but nevertheless it is sharper than D300. It also depends on your sharpening work flow, I found that NX2.0 RAW sharpening is not very optimal and ACR produces better results. again, see the linked thread. If everything is normalized and your photos are less sharp than that of a D300 you are doing something wrong.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em> 1 - the same number of pixels in a larger sensor means there is not the acutance (sharpness of the edges) of the D300 (or the D2x). This is just on a pixel-peeping level.</em></p>

<p>This is actually against the laws of optic and image processing, everything including the optical low pass filter (AA filter) being the same the sensor with larger pixel will deliver better sharpness because:<br>

1) larger optical fill factor and less aberration due to the more relaxed curvature of microlense on top of each pixel compared to APS-C.<br>

2) smaller optical cross talk at a given wavelength due to larger pixels area.<br>

3) larger full well capacity and thus better dynamic range preserving sharpness at contrasty edges.<br>

As some people pointed out some of the "texture" you see in D300 photos even at ISO 200 is just noise and not real texture.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I know this isn't my thread, but I'm still trying to get somethig out of it so:<br>

Just so I get some things straight, Arash - your saying that the larger pixels are <em>sharper</em> due to all the aforementioned physical properties- however, this in no way entails that the camera has a <em>higher resolution/resolving power</em>, correct? Or am I just dead wrong on my facts?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Mike,<br />Resolution and sharpness are two different concepts,<br />First, resolution as a term in image sensor engineering is defined by areal pixel density so D300 has a higher resolution sensor but that doesn't mean that D300 can capture more detail or a sharper image from a particular scene compared to D700 because the sensor <em>areas</em> are different. At <strong><em>equal FOV</em></strong> both cameras have 12 mega pixels of information from a particular scene so the level of detail should be identical on paper but for the mentioned reasons above D700 wins due to its larger pixels. Also a higher pixel density means that the lens should have a tighter margin in terms of lpm (line per mm) resolution to cope with smaller D300 pixels, while D700 is more forgiving on the lenses.<br />In photography resolution is usually measured in terms of <strong>lpm</strong> or <strong>lph</strong> in the final image of a standard test chart produced by the camera/lens combination. This measured resolution in the final image will be slightly higher for D700 as confirmed by the tests done by dpreview.com<br /><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page31.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page31.asp</a><br />D700: 2200/2650 and D300: 2100/2600<br />These are in ideal studio ISO 200 conditions, in real life when light is not perfect and as soon as the ISO is cranked up the gap opens quickly as D300 loses signal to noise ratio and fine detail is dissolved in noise.<br />Now sharpness is a different and somewhat subjective concept, sharpness in a digital camera is a function the optics of the lens as well as the optical low pass filter which filters out the higher spatial frequencies to prevent aliasing as a result of interference with pixel array on the sensor or what is known as moire. Assuming the lens is not the bottle neck for either camera and that the low pass filter is the same, again for the mentioned reasons the perceived sharpness from D700 image will be slightly higher than D300 at base ISO and noticebly higher at high ISO.</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...