D2X problems, or?

[david-m]

After much soul searching, I just bought a Nikon D2X with 17-55 f2.8. First of all, the

camera is a great piece of kit but I am still in the first few days of the learning curve

(coming from RZ67 and Leica M6), so I can't give too much comment on it. But, (and this is

just shooting finest, large jpg) I seem to end up with a bit of a soft image, as in - not pin

sharp - hairs or stubble looking a little indistinct. These are all just on the screen at

100%. I have printed a couple on an epson 1290, which look the same as the screen.

Is the lens a bit soft, or am I expecting too much from Nikon lenses (compared to Mamiya

and Leica), or is this just a digital issue. I am pretty up to pro speed on PS CS, so I can't

blame

my computer work. Will raw files be so much different (I imported one as a comparison but

it looked only slightly improved). I have taken shots with flash/tripod/carefully focussed/

f8 etc etc but no improvement. I have downloaded files from the internet from the D2X

which seem amazing, so could this be the difference between a zoom and a prime? If I

should be using raw, any suggestions about a convertor - I can import the raw files using

picture project, but is this good enough?

 

Any thoughts or suggestion PLEASE.

 

Thanks

 

David

[edward_h]

The 17-55 is good, but not THAT good. Sure, it looks nice on a D2H or D70, but squeezing 12mp through that tiny glass is a bit much for it.

[jan_willem_roeloffs]

David,

I have just bought the same combination a week ago. Initially thought there's something wrong with the camera. When I stuck my 15 yr old 50mm/1.8 af on, I could not believe the improvement. I am VERY happy with the D2x now, and have sent the 17-55mm/2.8 back to the dealer for (hopefully) a better one. I really hope that it will be better, as it is otherwise a lens that I could use for most of my shooting.

See the thread in Nikon forum "17-55mm/2.8 DX - poor performer?"

(Sorry - don't know how to give link!)

[ray]

It also sounds like you're new to the digital workflow. It is customary to sharpen digital

images (such as by using USM in PS) as part of the workflow. This is to counteract the

softening introduced by the bayer filter. There is a great example of how the <a

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter">Bayer filter</a> introduces softness over

at

the Wikipedia.

<p>

Btw, negatives that are scanned into a computer also require a touch of USM. All that

being said, most portraits (such as head shots) don't require additional sharpening as

nobody is interested in seeing too much detail (stubble, facial fuzz, acne scars, etc.).

Therefore, the amount of sharpening (if any) is dependent on the subject material.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>David, I have just bought the same combination a week ago. Initially thought there's something wrong with the camera. When I stuck my 15 yr old 50mm/1.8 af on, I could not believe the improvement. I am VERY happy with the D2x now, and have sent the 17-55mm/2.8 back to the dealer for (hopefully) a better one.</I><P>

This illustrates what I've been saying here on Photo.net for years (I would say I sound like a broken record but most people are too young to understand the term "broken record").<P>

People have to <B>stop expecting miracles</B> from zoom lenses! A zoom lens is a basket of compromises. And it gets dramatically worse as the zoom ratio gets longer. There are some decent zooms on the market but they are all less than 3:1 ratios.<P>

 

I'm not familiar enough with Nikon's line of lenses, but I assume they must have something similar to the Canon 24-70 "L" lens which is reputed to be pretty sharp. That might be the way to go.

[robert_fisher]

David, I have two D2X cameras and 4 ZOOM lenses (17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and 200-400). These "crappy" zooms produce absolutely razor sharp images on my 23" Apple. These are RAW files with absolutely no PS work of any kind. I just recently dumped all my MF gear, so I know what a sharp image is.

[peter_nelson1]

<I>These "crappy" zooms produce absolutely razor sharp images on my 23" Apple. </I><P>

You may have MEANT to make a meaningful statement in that, but stated that way it doesn't tell us anything.<P>

 

The size of the display screen has no bearing on this. An Apple 23" Cinema HD has a display resolution of 1680x1050 which is way less than the pixel dimensions of a D2X image. So to display a full D2X image, there would be so much scaling down that you wouldn't be able to see if it's soft.

[david-m]

Sorry, but out of all these answers, do I take it that I should get rid of my ?980 zoom and

get a couple of prime lenses instead OR is this 17-55 2.8DX zoom a good lens? Totally

confused.

 

BTW, I know all about sharpening (please see the bit of my question which relates to be PS

savvy - ie - I am a pro PS user). Thanks, for the er, help.

 

Any other ideas, please?

[jeffrey moore]

The 17-55 can hardly be called a "crappy zoom." It is a terrific lens, in my opinion. I am hardly the only one who shares this assessment of the 17-55. Two of the more objective reviewers of all things Nikon, Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett, give the lens their highest ratings with respect to optical performance. Their respective reviews can be seen here http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm and here http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html.

 

So I suspect there are two possibilities here: 1) You have unfortunately acquired a defective sample, or 2) User error.

[lens marcel krijger]

I think that it is almost impossible to compare leica m6 output with d2x output. although

we have come a long way on the digital highway, the technology is to young to be fully

developed. Notice that we still are comparing to old-school cameras and technique. this

still is the standard.

 

Anyway: my experience is that old real glass lenses are the best way to go. And of course

no zoom lens is better that any single mm lens. I've been using a d2x and have had the

same disappointment. Now I use digital for fast journalistic stuff. but when quality is

important and time is on my side: bring out the hasselblad, use a slide film and a high-

end scanner will do the trick better than anything else. I would say buy a 24mm 50mm

and a 85mm of real nikon glass and choose your material wisely according to the

assignment.

[jorge_torralba2]

I experienced a similar thing when I originally bught a d2x. I had the 14, 17-35, 12-24 and every single image was soft on the edges. I loved the camera but the lenses were not what I expected.

 

Maybe the camera had a missaligned sensor or I was expecting too much from the lenses. None the less, I have moved on to a leica with the dmr and am very happy with the sharpness I am getting. I still prefer the d2x body to the r9/dmr combo. The nikon really shines with high marks for ergo. So does the leica but I still think the d2x body is nicer and more rugged.

[michael_bradtke]

David M

I do not have a D2x I use a D2h cant come up with the $$$ for the D2x yet. But I would say find a good prime and shoot some tests. A 50mm 1.8 at around f2.8 should give you a good idea on how sharp the camera is. I understand that the D2x is very unforgiving to lenses and shooting technique.

 

Michael

[sanyi_deme]

The moral of the story is "Try before you buy".

 

Economy zooms have a lot of compromises. Leica and Zeiss and elite Canon and Nikon zooms have many fewer compromises. You get what you pay for.

 

Don't expect miracles from the zooms on digitals. People still put adapters on high end Canon digitals to use their Leica lenses.

[lex_jenkins]

It's almost certain that your equipment is fine. Don't worry about it for now.

 

There are two major factors involved in getting the sharpest results from a camera like the D2X:

 

1. Master the admittedly complex autofocus system. There are lots of choices to be made and it's easy to choose an inappropriate setting for a particular situation. For example, the focus brackets at the leftmost and rightmost edges seen through the viewfinder don't operate exactly the same way as the other focus brackets and zones. Check the instruction booklet for a more thorough explanation.

 

Also, one of the focus settings that appears to set focus to a single bracket will, in fact, track motion. Yes, the camera will eventually lock on the target it thinks you want using a single bracket, but it may not be the bracket you intended to use. So if you want to use a single, particular focus bracket that won't track, be sure to set the controls appropriately.

 

The D2X autofocus system is fantastic - it's the same system my D2H uses. It's quick, positive, capable of focusing in very dim light and tracking elusive targets, or locking onto a stationary target without drifting. The trade-off for these capabilities is spending a lot of time practicing to find out how it all works. I've had mine since March this year and every time I think I've mastered every aspect of the AF system, I discover something else I hadn't known.

 

2. As at least one person has already said, sharpening during post processing is absolutely essential. Regardless of the settings you choose on the camera's menu, few of these are applied to the NEF (RAW) files.

 

For a quick demonstration, try this: set the camera to shoot full size NEFs and JPEG-Fine files simultaneously. Set the in-camera sharpening to maximum sharpness. Compare the NEF and JPEG files in Nikon View, Capture or any viewer that can display NEF files. You should see that the JPEG files are clearly very sharp while the NEF files are soft, even a bit fuzzy.

 

Why? Well, folks with a far more technical expertise than I can manage, experts who have designed and tested these cameras, decided that the best results are achieved when the photographer is allow to make his/her own decisions regarding sharpening and other factors.

 

And theories about sharpening abound. Some favor the familiar unsharp masking with its usual two or three adjustment settings. Others prefer specialized sharpening utilities designed for particular purposes, such as output to a specific type of printer. Still others prefer using a brush to "paint" sharpness selectively onto certain areas while leaving others soft. Some folks believe sharpening should be done in one shot as the final step in post processing. Others prefer smaller amounts of sharpening in two or three steps. Choose what's best for you for a particular image. Not all photos will respond the same way to the same adjustments.

 

Okay, now then, if after trying these experiments and you still are dissatisfied with the sharpness of your photos, sure, it's a good idea to have your camera and lens checked out while they're under warranty.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yeah, I was never happy with 35 mm film and the f/2.8 zooms for that, what has changed with digital is that people have gotten used to 6 MP DSLRs which the zooms give nice images on. Now, to compare a DX size image taken with a zoon with a 6x7 film image shot with a slow prime, don't you think you're asking a little too much from Nikon!?

 

You can also expect that the wide angle images won't be as good as those from your Mamiya. But for tele work the D2X should be fantastic. Get some nice prime lenses and enjoy it. Test each lens first before buying it.

[melvin_bramley]

Re buy some nice primes! Such as a digital optimised 17mm F2,35mm F2,70mm F2!!How about a digital optimised 120mm F2.8 to replace the Nikon 180 AFED? Dream on..digital lens technology would seem to drag far behind the megapixel race.Go with the flow; buy a slow 8X zoom with no wobble technology; that will solve your problems!

[david-m]

Thank you, these are all good answers, but ...

 

as I have said (twice now) I have am a pro PS user. Let me explain. I have used PS for about

6 years now on scans from my film cameras and know the software inside out, so I cannot

imaging it is my PS skills (sharpening being one of the most basic proceedures in PS).

 

Also (and thanks Lex for the long email) I seem to have managed to sort out the focussing

and exposure system on the D2X, so although I sometimes misfocus, my complaints are

about focussed images that are just very soft.

 

I am very interested to hear that maybe other people are impressed with this zoom

because they are coming from a purely digital background, with lower MP cameras, and so

this is an improvement for them. But I find it hard to beleive that this lens can be SO bad.

For heavens sake, it cost me 980GB Pounds. Even my 25 year old Olympus OM1 and a ?20

28mm is far far sharper.

 

So, have I been taken-in by the digital hype?

 

No, I don't thinks so (yet). I have been to

many pro websites and seen their comments on moving over from film to DSLR, and

nobody complains about the quality. I have two good freinds who switched from RZ67 to

DSLR and they both love the quality (admittadly with primes). Maybe my standards are a

little too high; I remember

when I first got my RZ67 complaining that it wasn't up to scrath compared to my very old

Hassy lenses - I could just be an awkward bugger!

 

So my next step is to test a couple of primes, or maybe take this lens back and see if it is

faulty.

 

Oh yes, and one more thing. I do not have image Capture, but can import raw files directly

into PS for adjustments. Would a bit of software like Nikon Capture or Bibble etc actually

import a better RAW file?

 

And, of course, a couple of recommendations for good Nikon primes in the 17mm, 35mm

and 50mm range vey welcome.

 

Thanks

[basscheffers]

Why don't you post a sample, so we can see for ourselves how bad it is?

 

I really like Phase One's Capture One software for RAW conversions. It especialy shines when faced with a high volume of images you need to trawl through. Download the free trial is what I would say.

 

Every RAW converter is different, so what looks better to you may not look better to someone else. The trick is to try a few and see which image quality and workflow you like best.

[david-m]

Ok, so trying to post a couple of images.

 

First one is full-frame

 

Second one is close-up of head/hairs.

 

This was a large/fine jpeg (no in camera adjustments) with PS sharpening of amount-180,

radius- 1.2, Threshold-3. Otherwise no other adjustments.

 

BTW, I do really like the camera (build, features, ease of menus, ero)!!!

 

Hope these 2 images post OK.<div></div>

[david-m]

Blimey, that's a bit small.

 

Try this one<div></div>

[david-m]

This is the crop<div></div>

[edward_h]

F3?

 

Stop it down to F8 and then complain about it.

 

Very few 2.8 zooms are really, really sharp at 2.8. They all need to go down to at LEAST f4 before their ultimate sharpness comes up.

[ilkka_nissila]

You can't expect the zoom to be really sharp until you stop down to f/5.6. None of the Nikon f/2.8 zooms which I've used were (4 of them). Do you shoot your Mamiya 6x7 at f/3? I didn't think you do.

 

Even with primes, you may need to stop down to f/2.8 or f/4 (from f/2 or 1.4) to get critical sharpness on a D70 and that's just a 6 MP machine, here you are asking for a 40% improvement in resolution. Stop down to the optimum aperture and see if things are then ok. This would be around f/5.6 in most good fast lenses.

 

I've used almost all AF Nikkor primes shorter than 300 mm. I'd recommend 20/2.8D, 35/2D, 50/1.8D, 105/2DC, 180/2.8D. These all have excellent center sharpness (fitting the DX sensor perfectly) and should mate with the D2X really well.

[basscheffers]

The general consensus even with pro zooms is that while they can be used at 2.8, they need stopping down to f/4 to be realy sharp. I can see what you mean about your image - especialy compared to primes om medium format - but I think that if you are realistic, if you were a wedding snapper, a good image with this "problem" would certainly sell.

 

So use this zoom for that kind of situation. But it will probably work just as well when shooting in the studio stopped down to f/11. If want really shallow DOF and sharpnes, you'll have to go for a fast prime, just like you always have.

 

So depending on your requirements, either get some primes to go with it, or bring it back and spend the grand on primes.

[david-m]

original poster here again

 

so additionally yesterday, I discovered a fault with the camera (it wouldn't always lock the

focus area

with the multi-selector, and could accidentaly be moved to select another focus area), so I

took the camera back to the retailer (Park Cameras in Burgess Hill, UK) and within 2

minutes they had given me a new body. Fair enough.

 

Even with a few minutes testing, I can easily see an improvement in sharpness with this

new body, and can only assume that the other body had a fault/sensor problem/dirt - who

knows. But I am now much happier with the system.

 

I will absolutely try a few primes (thanks Ilkka) and will be looking for something like the

105/2 DC for my portrait work.

 

Thanks for all the advice.<div></div>