Nikon D100

I recently upgraded from an Olympus 3040 Digital to the New Nikon

D100. I already had the Nikon N70 and wanted to use the lens. I

have been taking pictures with the camera and at the high res JPG the

pics are not nearly as sharp as my 3 megapixel Olympus, I checked all

the settings and can not figure it out. Can it be the lens (it

shoots fine on my N70 and is suppose to have full functionality on

the D100) or can it be something wrong the the D100 (like a bad

Sensor or something? Help !!!

Are you shooting NEF or JPEG? If JPEG what level of compression? Have you hplayed

with the in-camera image sharpening features?

FWIW...In doing my own info collection on a similar upgrade (from C4040 to D100/10d/E-1/etc) I've read a lot of comments in reviews and in threads regarding image files from DSLRs being "softer" than those from digital p&s cameras. They've consistently referred to PShop work to get the desired sharpness level in the final files (unsharp mask, etc). None address it as a problem...just a design difference between the two types of digital cameras. I'm sure others will have the specific settings and remedies you probably hope to get in your thread, but since no one has responded yet, I thought I'd at least let you know that tidbit...even though it's second/third-hand info, rather than my own first-hand experience.

David,

 

I have to agree with you. I found the results from my D100 also less sharp. I just want to know if it is just me or what? so if could you send one sample picture in JPEG FINE SMALL size to me so i can compare with mine. Thanks. Also mention the lens and exposure you used. Thanks.

You can raise the sharpness in the camera. I shoot in RAW and keep sharpness in the camera at low or sometimes normal. I'll up the sharpness a little in Nikon Capture and then put the final touches on it in PS.

 

P&S digital cameras are designed for the consumer who wants to spend minimal time fussing with the camera or computer. That's also why you see more P&S digicams with the ability to hook up to a printer and print. DSLR's are designed so that post processing is part of the workflow. Yes you can get great results straight from the camera. But the majority is going to take a run through on the computer.

Could you shoot the same detailed subject (a page of a newspaper is a good test) with both cameras at about the same scale and post them so we can see what you mean?<P>

 

 

There are lots of things that can cause softness but it doesn't make ANY sense that a 6MP camera with a bigger sensor would be intrinsically softer than a little Oly P&S. I would first suspect the autofocus isn't working, or maybe even the auto exposure is wacked out so that it's either shooting wide-open or with some long shutter speed producing blur.

<center>

<img src="http://mysite.verizon.net/g4lamos/nyc/51.jpg">

</center>

 

<br>

<br>

i have a d100, and have no problems with sharpness at all...

what lenses are you using...?

<I>I've read a lot of comments in reviews and in threads regarding image files from DSLRs being "softer" than those from digital p&s cameras. </I><P>

 

DPReview does not support that conclusion. For the D100 their resolution test results were 1600/1300 LPH H/V, whereas the Oly 3040 is 1000/1000 and the Coolpix 990 is 900/900.<P>

 

Furthermore, it doesn't even make sense - WHY would the sharpness of a cheap P&S be better than than an expensive DSLR with a bigger, higher-res sensor and a lens that costs as much as the whole P&S?

<I>You can raise the sharpness in the camera. I shoot in RAW and keep sharpness in the camera at low or sometimes normal.</I><P>

 

I think people here need to speak more precisely. What EXACTLY do you mean by "sharpness" and "softness"? If you shoot a license plate that is just beyond the resolution of your camera so you can't really read the numbers, un-sharp-masking it will not make the numbers readable. But it will increase the high-frequency components of your image, i.e., it will make the spatial transition between the light and dark areas quicker. This creates the illusion of sharpness but I don't think most experienced photographers would confuse it with real sharpness.<P>

 

To me, an increase in sharpness would turn an unreadable license plate into a readable one. So to me, resolution and sharpness are closely related.<P>

 

What does sharpness mean to you?

"To me, an increase in sharpness would turn an unreadable license plate into a readable one"

 

 

 

Sounds like your talking about a focus aid. I wish they did have that in photoshop. You do make a good point and as always beauty or in this case sharpness is in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is an element of softness to the images in their most basic non processed form. I think it was Bob Atkins who said something along the lines of the fact that when you are using these ( more professional level cameras) you are in essence doing the work of what the printer used to do. Sorry Bob if I para-phrased wrong. I had a similar issue with my 10D but I am starting to undersatand and form the opinion that the reason they appear soft is to give you the latitude to work with it how you and your clients desire.

 

Another observation is when a good image is too small ( and I mean very small)it doesn't look as good as a low res image at the same size. This is very general but the point is when you enlarge the images, the quality will show.

 

What lens are you using?

Peter:

 

DPReview is one of the reviews that DID make that comment...it's the first item listed in the "CONS" portion of his "CONCLUSIONS" page (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page21.asp).

Peter:

 

To be clearer/more accurate...that DPReview "CON" refers to a generic "soft" apsect of his D100 review/results...not a direct comparison of D100 "softness" to Oly 3040/4040 "cheap p&s" performance, as may be what you are challenging.

<I>DPReview is one of the reviews that DID make that comment...it's the first item listed in the "CONS" portion of his "CONCLUSIONS" page (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page21.asp).</I><P>

 

The DPReview comment was that "Lacking in-camera sharpening leads to 'soft' looking images" - it didn't say it was softer than a consumer P&S.<P>

 

I think if David is getting photos softer than his Oly 3040 then something is seriously wrong.

My problem fixed. I opened my RAW file with Nikon Editor where I can adjust level of sharpness and contrast. As I increased the sharpness the more noise I got. In small frame it would be no problem (as sharp as it can be). When I viewed it 100%, I could see the noise. Is it gonna be a problem when I print 8 x 10 with 300 dpi? Can I see the noise in 8 x10 print as I see in monitor screen?

Yes, I was surprised with the results I took last vacation. I mean they are bad. They are dull, last contrast, soft focus, etc. Even though I can fix them later on with Nikon Editor or PS, new problem comes up: Noise.

My D100 images compared to the images made with my Coolpix

5000 or 5700 are real vs toy, with the D100's 13x19 looking

better than CP's 8x10. I have no idea how anyone could

compare the D100 to any P&S and say the images were inferior.

 

I am quite happy with the results acheived with the D100 which

has replaced my Leica M's of forty years as the primary camera

of choice.

Happy snaps,

Steven Alexander

<I>My problem fixed. I opened my RAW file with Nikon Editor where I can adjust level of sharpness and contrast</I><P>

 

That doesn't mean your problem is "fixed". It means you can, to some extent, <B>compensate</B> for whatever is causing the softness in the first place. Albeit at the cost of more noise.<P>

 

We <B>still</B> haven't identified <B>why</B> the images are soft to start with. As the DPReview tests showed your D100 is certainly capable of sharper results than the 3040. I think there's more work to be done on this problem.

Here's the first of 3 images. This one is with no sharpening done at all. This was taken on a tripod with timer setting with a 24-85mm G/3.5 lens. I've never had problems with the camera and have always been pleased with the results. So in all respects I can say this camera functions 100%.<div></div>

Set to Normal Sharpening in camera.<div></div>

This one is set to High Sharpening. Really I see very little difference between Normal and High settings. Except for more pronounced noise in the High Sharpening image. The only thing that was done to these images was cropped. These were taken in RAW, tone comp, hue comp, exp comp were all set to default/off. Exposure settings were ISO 640, F8, 1/3sec.

 

This would lead me to believe "sharpening" is part of the digital world. If you put a shot from a DSLR and a P&S side by side with no sharpening applied, yes the DSLR is going to give a better image. What I'm saying is P&S have the effect of looking sharper straight from the camera because there is more sharpening going on in those than there is in a DSLR at a given setting.

 

And Peter, I sincerely apologize for using the incorrect terminology before. I know the earth will shatter now, so I guess I should be stoned to death for my incompetence. Sorry.

it can be soft because of several reasons:

 

1) mirror slap

2) you have a slow zoom and this leads to a slow shutter speed on your d100, magnifying the effect of the mirror slap

3) you zoom out too aggressively

4) the depth of view of a equivalent focal length is actually larger on the camera with a small sensor, creating an apparent larger in-focus zone

5) more aggressive sharpening on the Olympus.

 

So yes, the D100 may be less sharp on occasions, but unless you have a defective machine, some of these can be blamed on improper technique or sharpening issues (unless you tell us more about your camera's specifics).

yeah..just like that. My pics are similar to Matt's first sample pics. My eyes are just hurt looking at my slightly blur/soft focus (whatever the terminology is) pics. I don't believe my technique is wrong. Yes I'm that sure! All settings are set to default. I was shooting at bright sunny afternoon with high shutter speed, but I still got unsharp object and all the pics came up dark. sure I can do touch-up with NV or PS but as you all see from Matt's pics, obviously the noise can become problem.

<I>And Peter, I sincerely apologize for using the incorrect terminology before. I know the earth will shatter now, so I guess I should be stoned to death for my incompetence. Sorry.

</I><P>

 

Don't get sarcastic. Clear, unambiguous language is required to communicate. It's not a question of "correct" or "incorrect" terminology - it's a matter of being clear what you mean so your terminology cannot be interpreted in multiple different ways that might lead to different conclusions about what you're describing.<P>

 

In the two examples you posted, with and without in-camera sharpening, there are major brightness and contrast differences between the two photos, so it's impossible to say how much of the difference between them is due to the sharpening method. But I don't see any difference in sharpness. Looking at the specular highlights off the shiny metal parts all three photos look slightly out-of-focus and there doesn't appear to be any difference in the detail between them.

<I>yeah..just like that. My pics are similar to Matt's first sample pics.</I><P>

 

All three of his photos looked slightly out-of-focus, to me. If that's what your shots look like even in bright light on a sunny day with a fast shutter speed then I agree there's a serious problem. If it was a film camera I would suspect a problem with the lens, or operator error. <P>

 

Since it's a digital camera (and despite all the nonsense we hear on P.N. about digitals giving us a "first generation" image) there's no telling WHAT they've done in the process of converting a Bayer pattern into pixels, BUT, if you look at even the "no sharpening" example from the DPReview article on the D100: <BR>

http://img.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD100/Samples/Sharpening/DSC_0005.jpg <BR>

I don't see the kind of blur in that image that I see around the shiny metal parts in Matt's images, but then again, it doesn't really have any similar content. And DPReview does note that JPEGs from the D100 consistently appear "soft", and furthermore that actual detail is lost, compared to the raw images. This distinction between something merely "appearing" soft and having actual loss of detail is what I was referring to earlier in my request for a more precise description of the problem, and apparently the D100 suffers from BOTH.<P>

 

So based on all this it sounds like the D100 has some real issues in this department and if it's not too late to return your camera I would consider doing so and buying an S2.

Peter,

I have to agree. Those pics are slightly out-of focus. Mine are not that bad. I am going to re-test again and again with tripod and cable release to see if I really shook during the shot. Ah..I forgot...my D100 is still with Nikon Service Dept. It's classic problem : dead pixel in CCD sensor. I am tempted to buy S2 but I guess I wait for S3.

<I>I am tempted to buy S2 but I guess I wait for S3</I><P>

 

<B>IS</B> there an S3 coming out? I'm this far [holds up 2 fingers close together] from buying an S2 , but if there's an S3 on the way I can wait.