I have no leaning or interest, pro or con, relative to Nik*n DSLRs. On
the other hand, I'm pretty sure that it is accurate to say that none of
the 'big guns' is producing actively crappy cameras in so many aspects.
Both reviews and the experience of many users say the the D100 is
capable of capturing excellent images. I know Tom S. has been very happy
with his. So if you aren't able to get reasonable results, it seems
possible that there is a problem with your camera or something in the
way you are using it. Have you checked it against another D100?
Doing some very quick research, I discovered on dpreview, that the TTL
flash performance of the D100 is poor, underexposing with both on-camera
and external Nik*n flashes
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page17.asp>. I always read
reviews before buying cameras. I would not have bought this one if auto
TTL flash performance were important to me. In fact, I find it hard to
see how he could have given the camera a Highly Recommended rating with
the flash issue unresolved, but at least it is clearly documented in the
review. Have you checked the Nik*n forums and/or Nik*n themselves to see
if there is a firmware update that addresses this issue? Such things are
sometimes fixed with updates.
Further down in the review, in the conclusion, he says:
- Lacking in-camera sharpening leads to 'soft' looking images (to keep
noise down?)
- JPEG files not tagged with correct colour profile when color mode II
selected
So blah and/or funny looking results may need sharpening and/or color
profile fixes.
- Internal / external D-TTL flash metering problem
So you are right, crummy flash results
Then he says:
"Image quality is also excellent, good colour and metering, nice tonal
balance (if sometimes a little 'contrasty', this can be modified using
the tone setting)."
Sounds like your "most contrasty slide film" problem is common and can
be fixed with parameter adjustment.
I've never considered Nik*n DSLRs for the simple reason that I can't use
my OM lenses with them. The only ones that make any sense to me are the
E-1 and the Can*ns.
Moose
PS, I see Tom has just weighed in. Perhaps you could compare firmware
versions with him. Perhaps your camera simply is in need of repair?
Jim Sharp wrote:
>I'm curious if anyone has done any direct comparisons of image quality and
>overall performance between the other approximate $1500 DSLR's and the E1? The
>reason is simple. I'm considering buying one to replace my D100 provided I can
>really better myself by doing so. I've taken some really wonderful photos with
>my N$kon but honestly, it suffers from a few problems that are to me
>insurmountable. Such as -
>
>Poor metering especially with flash. My early 80's OM2 and beater OM4 are far
>better in normal use, and in another league altogether as far as using flash.
>I can depend on them every time. The N$kon is more like a Holga. Whatever you
>get, just call it art.
>
>Lack of dynamic range. Think of the most contrasty slide film you've ever
>shot, but with less latitude. Dark subjects and blown highlights are the
>typical D100 shot and it happens so commonly it's almost impossible to guess
>what exposure to use for a given scene. Lots of bracketing and check the
>histogram.
>
>Tons of post process to get decent quality images. I work in front of a PC all
>day. I want to practice photography, not be a photoshop guru. Are the E1
>images any better straight out of the camera or is this just the current state
>of the digital world?
>
>Anyone that has any 1st or even 2nd hand information to guide me, I'd love to
>hear it...
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|