david_walker1

Dev,

 

You really can't do any analysis of color balance from a digital camera without calibrating your monitor. I used to think my monitor was fine because 90% of the websites I looked at looked good - but my prints never seemed to match my screen (inkjet or photoprinter).

 

I finally bought a Colorvision Spyder and calibration changed the color balance and brightness of my monitor significantly. I thought it was wrong until I made my first print. The difference was outstanding. Prints I make on my Epson (with paper profiles) now match commercial dye-sub and my lab's photoprinter.

 

Now I know that 90% of the websites around are built on uncalibrated monitors.

The myths just keep on rolling.

 

1. Memory cards come out of the packaging formatted for any camera they will fit.

 

2. You can move a card from camera to camera, brand to brand without reformatting - the new camera just makes a new folder. We do it all the time in the store I work in.

 

3. You do not need to reformat a card very often. I've used my microdrive and CF cards for 1-1/2 years without reformatting and I get the same number of files on each today as day one.

Zinging Nikon for lens non-compatibility really sets me off. Try even mounting a non AF Canon lens or any other brand on a current AF body. They don't even fit. The fact that Nikon has maintained mount and basic operation compatibilty over 35+ years from the F to the D2 series is pretty good engineering in my book.

Erik,

 

The short answer is that you don't need 300ppi for a good print, especially a large one that will be viewed from normal distances. You can either deliver a lower resolution file to the printer and let the driver interpolate or you can interplotate yourself using Photoshop or any other of a number of programs.

I am a happy D100 user. That said, the D100 is not a camera that does well in any "auto" or "p" setting. Files straight out of my Canon A20 look better than .jpg's out of the D100. BUT, and its a big but, as had been said above, the D100 captures much more information and with judicious post processing the results can be outstanding. My standard workflow is to create proof files from my camera files using a PS action that applies auto-levels and some sharpening. This gives me a printable proof that shows me what the file is capabable of. For non-critical work or web publishing sometimes thats it. Otherwise, manual levels and curves is usually all it takes to bring it in.

 

I guess I'd rather have all the data and tweek it than have the camera push the histogram all the way out to 255 and always wonder what I missed.

I just shot my first wedding with digital (D100). I've always used a Hassy before. I shot the formals and aisle shots with the Hassy and everything else with the D100 (350 images). I'll never go back to film alone again.

 

Benefits (in my mind)

 

Don't have to change film.

Can change ISO and White balance on the fly (outdoor to incandescent to strobe)

Instant feedback on tricky shots

 

The jury is still out on doing formals and the aisle shots with digital.

 

Transparency density range is very limited. You may not maintain detail in black tuxedos and white wedding dresses at the same exposure. Plus you'll spend the rest of your life cloning out dust spots on the scans. Color negative is the tried and true way to shoot weddings with film.

I'm an engineer and a photographer so I have thought about this for a while. I shoot film and digital (Nikon D100). Every quantitative analysis I have seen says that film has higher resolution than digital. Every comparison of images I have seen shows digital to be superior in APPRARENT sharpness (at least compared to 35mm at or below 11*14 or thereabouts.

 

My rationaliztion is that there is better inherent resolution in film, but the processes to reproduce prints fail to transfer the resolution without low pass filtering it. On the other hand, digital printers have very high resolution (higher than the image file) and sharpening algorithms create the illusion of sharpness when prints are viewed at normal distances.

 

The bottom line for me is that in most cases, digital allows me to give my customers better looking prints than film.

I use the Nikon ASa5 adaptor on the camera hotshoe and a Wein Safesync on the input of my power pack. No reliability issues.

Sync speed of the D100 is 1/180 which is about 1/2 stop below 1/250.

The S2 has a PC connector. The D100 does not, but you can get an adaptor for $15 or less than slides onto the hot shoe and gives you a PC connector. You should check the sync voltage on older studio flahs systems before using with any newer camera. Wein makes a "safesync" that goes in series with the flash to reduce sync voltage to 6 volts.

Garrett,

 

I just mounted my 50mm F1.4 prime that I bought in 1972 76 with my FTn on my D100 and made a photograph. You can't even mount a Canon lens from a same era A1 on a 10D. I'm sick of hearing Nikon getting bashed for lens compatibility.

The lack of a pc connector is solved by a $15 hot shoe adaptor. Hardly an issue to base a $2000 plus decision on.

 

Fuji makes one (current) DSLR. Nikon makes 3 (not counting the D2 series that is presently being leaked). Each camera Nikon makes has a different CCD resolution, hence anti-aliasing filter pitch. The reflectance (as a function of wavelength) of the filter will be defferent for each filter - hence a problem getting one flash technology to work reading "off the film". Its really not fair to compare a company that is not looking at a 'system' with Nikon that is trying hard to maintain some compatiblity.

 

FWIW my D100/SB80DX has worked flawlessly in evey mode I've used.

This is not a very productive question. Nikon owners will say Nikon, Canon owners will say Canon, and people who own neither don't know. If you already own a brand of lens, that will probably be the deciding factor. You might want to compare autofocus performance in your particular application and lens choice.

I've had my D100 for 3 months doing portraits, events, and some studio flash proofing for my Hasselblad. The camera is impressive if you know how to use it. It is not a point and shoot automatic. Most people who have negative opinions about it don't know how to use it properly. Auto WB is pretty much useless as many have documented. Mine lives pretty much on Cloudy -3 for all outdoor shooting or Flash for flash. Apparent sharpness is better than I can obtain with my scanner ( Dimage Dual II) and RDP-III).

 

I'm really amused with all the pundits discussing its autofocus speed and buffer size as requirements for sports photography. They would have you believe that no good sports photographs were made before autofocus and motor drives became available. Where has timing and expectation gone in the skill of a photographer. I was at an event the other day where a local news photographer using a D1H was making photos of a guest speaker standing around. Every shot he made was a full speed burst of 10 - 15 frames. It was like he was shooting video and would pick the best frame later.

 

Is this capability contributing to the skill of photographers?

I've heard this criticism from many quarters. I've had my D100 for about 3 months now and have had no trouble using the left function dial to change ISO, WB, Quality. You rotate it with your left hand, flip the command dial with your right thumb and rotate the dial back again. Its almost one motion. It takes much longer to make the changes from the shooting menu.

 

I also get a chuckle out of people who complain that functions aren't in the same place on each model of a manufacturers line. As a pro I use as circunstances require a Leica M3, Nikon FE2, Nikon D100, Hassy 501C and a 4*5 view camera. They are all tools and all different. You learn to use each properly.

After loosing my second "open" CD-R after writing to it with multiple sessions I now only write once to a CD and verify it before deleting hard disk files. I now use Archive Creator from Picture Flow.

Most people review multiple sections or use the unified view so cross posting is wasteful of time and resources.

 

For MF I use an 80 and 60, for 35mm(or DSLR) I use a 28-70 zoom.

If the camera is working properly now, it is doubtful that you harmed it. If the "dirt" is in focus in the viewfinder it is most likely on the focusing screen. It is annoying but will not affect pictures. Dirt on the mirror or screen does not show up on negatives or slides because these elements are not in the image path during exposure.

If this was truly shot as RAW, then no in-camera sharpening would be applied. My only thought was that some weird default was set in Capture for the RAW to .jpeg conversion.

Neil,

 

I have a Sigma 28-70 EX f/2.8D purchased about 2 years ago that I have used on my FE2 and most recently my D100. I spent a lot of time comnparing it with non-zoom Nikkors that I have using film but was never convinced that it was as sharp as it should be. However, the results I've seen from it on my D100 are phenomenal (sp?). I did a portrait sitting recently for an executive headshot. At 100% you could see every follicle of the poor guy's clean shaven beard.

 

Sigma's get a bad rap on Photo.net, however the pro that runs the camera shop I bought the lens at swears by them. The bad rap may be due to uneven QC so I would suggest checking any lens you buy carefully after purchase. One warning, my 28-70 f/2.8 is VERY BIG, bigger than the comparable Nikkor I think.

 

Focus speed is ok on my D100, certainly on par with my Nikkor 20mm D. I have no Nikkor AFS lenses to compare it to.

Yes you need a memory card (a CF or Microdrive) to make photographs with the D100. Nikon does NOT include one in the kit. B+H had a deal where a 128 card came with the camera for the same price as the camera alone (if you could find that listing-it wasn't easy), But a bigger card will be needed. I bought a 1G Microdrive as well as a 512K card so I could swap them while one was uploading.

How were you using the Minolta meter? Incident, average, spot? What mode was the D100 metering in? My point was that it is impossible to evaluate a meters calibration with an arbitrary scene.

I've had my D100 for about two weeks and have shot about 500 frames, a combination of natural light, on camera strobe and studio strobe. I don't believe the camera "underexposes". Thats not to say that many shots don't come back with a histogram that can be improved by moving the white level to the left.

 

I think film shooters have come to believe that 'matrix metering' will accurately meter all situations, and if it doesn't on the D100, it must be something wrong with the camera. The only 'problem' is that the camera provides instant feedback on your metering failures, as opposed to printing fixing poorly exposed negatives.

 

I do a mixed bag of photography including LF and MF as well as 35 mm and do a lot of metering with both hand held and builtin meters. I find if you do a careful job of using the spot meter or centerweighted meter as required, the exposures from the D100 can be spot on.

 

A test of the meter calibration would be an exposure of a uniformly illuminated target. It should come out with a histogram centered on the display. You can do this with available light or flash. My D100 comes out exactly centered. If this test comes out right, I suggest looking at your metering technique.

 

Uploaded new tone curves will change contrast, but will not change exposure.

There are two main benefits of using .nef files. 1) You can apply white balance and sharpening after download so you aren't stuck with one option you chose at exposure time. 2) Color balance, curves and levels can be done on the 12 bit per channel raw data (or 16 bit .tiff) before it's reduced to 8 bit jpeg. There is no resolution advantage if both images are sharpened appropriately.

Robert,

 

I've had my D100 for about 2 weeks, and the first thing I did was run a series of tests at different white balance settings. What I found was that Auto was pretty much useless. Way to cool. I've settled on the very common Cloudy -3 for almost all of my Jpegs. The other alternative is to shoot raw and do white balance in the conversion with Capture or Bibble.

 

I don't know why Nikon couldn't get Auto to work right. Maybe its the air pollution near the Nikon factory. I have a Canon A20 point and shoot that has never been off Auto in 2 years with perfect results on each shot. But I'm thankful that the manual settings work well.