Soft images from a D90, what could be the problem?

[ShunCheung]

<p>J W, as long as your two images have such a big difference in exposure, the rest of the discussion is moot. I would suggest redo your testing so that both images have the same exposure, as close as you can get.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Stuart, those dpreview comparisons are very helpful, however I wonder if the subtle differences they show will show up in any kind of print. Even if our OP's softness issues are different (exposure differences, setup differences, etc...), for us to think that a D90 can ever give exactly the same result as a D300? Nope. Can they produce functionally identical 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 prints? I bet.</p>

<p>(Interesting: on the "High ISO" page of that review, the D90 actually looks better than the D300. Of course, the newer D300s gets even better. I love progress!)</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I don't doubt that that the D90 can give prints that look just as good as the D300 in many situations. When the only way to see the difference with static shots is to shoot identical images and then pixel peep them at 100% then the differences can't really be that great. The D300 will likely do better in situations that allow one to take advantage of the D300 AF system.</p>

[mart_e]

<p>Not sure if I'm missing something that has already been noted, but checking the EXIF data fort he first few images.</p>

<p>(EDITED: sorry realised Peter had already pointed this out in his first reply.)</p>

<p>The D300 shot with the 70-300 - had in-camera sharpening set to Hard (+2) and saturation set to +2.</p>

<p>The comparative D90 shot - was Sharpening 0, Saturation 0.</p>

<p>Hardly suprising the D300 looks more saturated and sharper.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[j_w13]

<p>This time both cameras had the same setting. All were taken on a tripod. Small images are clickable.<br /> <br /> <strong>D90</strong>, with the 100-300 lens, f/8 1/30s, JPEG small:<br>

<br /> <a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=DSC_0004.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_DSC_0004.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

<p><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DSC_0004-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>D300</strong> with the same setup:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=DB1_8233.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_DB1_8233.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a><br /> <img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DB1_8233-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>These were cropped from RAW images. <strong>D90</strong> with 100-300 lens, 100mm 1/30s f/8:<br /> <br /> <img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DSC_0005.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <strong> </strong></p>

<p><strong>D300</strong> 1/40s f/8:<br /> <img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DB1_8240.jpg" alt="" width="470" height="353" /></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Those differences are pretty incidental I'll bet, in a final print.</p>

<p>Why in the second set of two above is the exposure not exactly the same? Just curious.</p>

[j_w13]

<p>These from my 35mm AIS manual lens. Again all images taken on a tripod. Focus set at infinity. The EXIF data says 24mm for the D300, but I accidentally forgot to change the settings on the camera.<br>

<strong>D90</strong>, 1/40s f/8:</p>

<p><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DSC_0011.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>D300:<br>

<img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/DB1_8239.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Concerning the images posted at 7:50pm, I think it is mainly a sharpening issue. The D300 image has more sharpening, including the noise. Pay attention to the building with a large flat wall right behind the SUV. The D300 version looks more noisy (the noise is sharper) and the overall image looks sharper.</p>

[steven_p]

<p>Perhaps the lens that you are using focuses slightly past infinity, causing the lack of sharpness.</p>

<p>Try stopping down and use the depth of field scale on the lens to place your infinity mark. Give yourself some leeway. Say stop down to F16 & place infinity at F11.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>In the shots with the cars, and the little building on the bottom right with the slanted roof, I can see some difference in the white railing, between the two cameras. The latest pictures are much closer in quality than the original. Both have the same exposure. Other than that, the difference is quite small. I wonder how big the print would need to be for me to see that railing as I do in the examples ?</p>

<p> </p>

[j_w13]

<p>If you look at these pictures from a distance, the differences become more noticeable though.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>In the last two they are pretty close. There are slight differences but even two D90 bodies would likely show very slight differences. The D300 and D90 are different cameras and may only share a very similar sensor.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>These images are the same, plus or minus a margin of error that can be accounted for in the raw processor. I'll say again, if you must split these hairs (I don't think there's much point here, but if you must) shoot raw (without d-lighting or any fancy stuff like that) and<em> use your raw processor to try to make them the same</em>.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Let`s apply some philosophy here:<br />Premises---</p>

<ol>

<li>Good Anti Aliasing filters are very expensive, highly affecting manufacturing costs.</li>

<li>Software variations are relatively cheap, hence a minor manufacturing cost issue.</li>

</ol>

<p>Conclusions---</p>

<ol>

<li>Same sensor + elaborated AA filter = higher priced camera (=higher performance product, =higher end target).</li>

<li>Same sensor + economic AA filter = "average" priced camera (=consumer performance, =consumer end camera).</li>

</ol>

<p>I bet Nikon don`t use the very same parts on such different products like the D300 and D90; probably, they use software to maximize performance.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>The cameras use the same sensor. D90 may actually give a <em>slightly</em> better image in some respects since the image processor in camera is a later development. In a very real sense you have the same camera twice.</p>

<p>I do not think this is an equipment issue in the least. Both cameras have myriad settings, especially the D300 which allows four selectable, separate setups of virtually every setting on the camera to coexist, essentially four different identities of the camera. The D300 is softer default on sharpening, in jpeg settings, to allow greater freedom in PP.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd spend more time with more comprehensive courses/books in the vagaries of sharpening, contrast, color spaces, and processing, both in camera and in post processing. You might consider getting Thom Hogan's guide for the D300 and/or the D90. These are both a lot of camera, and they both demand a lot more of the photog compared to the consumer DSLRs in order to produce quality images.</p>

<p> </p>

[tony12tt]

<p>I recently started shooting with the D90 myself so Im relatively new to the system. My first batch of shots were indeed soft as well until I started playing with some settings. Im shooting handheld but pretty pleased with the sharpness I get perhaps 80% of the time. Firstly, I turned on the shutter release delay. I suspected some of my blurring was due to mirror shock when the mirror flipped. This helped, it delays the shutter for about 1 second until the shake from the mirror settles. I also of habit usually shoot on as low an ISO as possible (depending on situation). I personally prefer to as much as possible, avoid post-capture sharpening but thats just my preference. Also watch your aperture, shallow DoF can sacrifice some sharpness in various parts of your composition.</p>

[digimage]

<p>dear to JW . in this case I had the same problem in CANON , one of my friend reffer me to do TEST CHART . let go to .

<p>

<p><a href="http://FocusTestChart.com">http://FocusTestChart.com</a> <br>

good luck & having fun .</p>

</p>

</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Jordan, with respect, there's a place for test charts, this ain't it. I can see, especially by the last two images that J W posted, that there is no issue with his camera. Shooting test charts to "solve this problem" is, again with respect, a waste of time. Again, I love test charts, they have their place.</p>

<p>There is nothing "wrong" with either of his cameras, and I have to add, shooting digital without mastering Post-processing is simply setting up a system designed to fail and get sub-optimal results. All these issues can be solved by mastering camera settings (as J W is doing, evidenced by the much closer results in his most recent images than the first set) and post-processing, which some want to avoid, much to their detriment.</p>

<p>We are so far beyond basic nit-picking here it's almost not funny. Both cameras are fine. Both images (in the last example) are great.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>Don't use such test charts. They simply cannot be relied upon. I note the author on the referenced site tries to defend his own test by basically claiming all the detractors are ignoramuses. Very convincing strategy, indeed.</p>

<p>To ascertain whether two cameras really behave differently, rigorous testing is necessary and all spurious influences have to be removed. You need to work under stable light conditions, for example, midday sunshine on a clear day, or under heavily overcast skies. Intermittent cloud cover will cause a lot of trouble for later side-by-side comparisons and should be avoided.</p>

<p>Use the cameras set to exactly the same settings, which should be: RAW, no tone curve adjustment, identical colour space, no in-camera shapening, fixed white balance, etc. Switch off AF and VR (on lens). Turn off any noise reduction. Use mirror lock-up and a reliable cable or remote release. Hopefully at least one of the bodies have Liveview (LV) and that feature should be used for critical focusing. Also, use a lens with its own tripod mount. Put the lens on a sturdy tripod and focus the lens using LV. Then, tape down the focus collar so it won't move, recheck the focus to ensure it still is perfect, and remove the camera. Take a full series with each camera, running though the entire aperture range. Allow at least 3 seconds betwwen each time the camera is activated. Never ever try to push the release button on the camera for tests like this.</p>

<p>Process the RAW files in a good conversion program at default (zeroed) settings, then do A/B comparisons on *unsharpened* output files at 100%.</p>

<p>Since the electronics and AA filters are unlikely to be identical, one should expect small differences between the two test series. A huge difference is unlikely considered the general high quality level now offered even on lower-priced gear.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>We dont see much difference anyway. Even though the exposure settings and infinity focusing are the same. The difference of the inaccuracies of the two cameras create the differences in exposure, white balance, and focusing</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>sorry, I looked but cannot see where you give the working lens size in the first group of shots.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>SIGH. I could be a Smart a** and say this is a great argument for shooting film...you know whether the shot is on focus or not! No reason to blame the camera.<br>

But I will resist and say that:</p>

<ul>

<li>I see very little difference between the 2 camera samples.</li>

<li>Any difference I detect could be attributed to the monitor I'm viewing on</li>

<li>You need to make some large (16 x 20 Inch) prints to really know if your camera or lens is malfunctioning</li>

<li>These differences are negligible and you should concentrate on making better photos by choice of subject and composition.</li>

</ul>

<p>Not to make light of your concerns. Nikon does occasionally screw up and churn out a bad camera. My original D70 had two nasty problems; backfocus and "Blinking GReen Light of Death syndrome". Nikon USA fixed both of these....and BGLOD was out of warranty repair which they did NOT charge me for.<br>

So bottom line is if you really think it's a bad camera send it off to Nikon with as much documentation as possible. If there is a problem they will fix it. If you're in the USA send it to the New York Repair facility, whether you're in the Western Region or not! New York is way faster and better than the LA LA repair facility.</p>

[j_w13]

<p>I'd like to send it off, but the cost to do this would be prohibitive. I am at least the second owner of the camera.<br>

I like the film days too. Focusing was never an issue with any film SLRs that I've owned.</p>