DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Nikon D100 Sucks
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/05/2005 11:20:31 PM · #1
Does anyone have experience with this camera. I have tried to talk with Tech support but they just give me prepared answeres. I am thinking the camera is seriously flawed. I cant get sharp photos. Also, when I set the white balance to auto, I get a very different picture the if I select the white balance for flash. Both shots I used the flash but the difference is night and day. Any suggestions?
04/05/2005 11:22:31 PM · #2
What lens are you using?

04/05/2005 11:26:03 PM · #3
John, unfortunately I don't have any answers for you.
I just checked your profile and found that you have been handing out an average score of 2.9, so I guess you must be much much better at this photography thing than I am, so I wouldn't even dare to attempt an answer if I HAD one.
04/05/2005 11:42:53 PM · #4
Originally posted by johnco:

Does anyone have experience with this camera. I have tried to talk with Tech support but they just give me prepared answeres. I am thinking the camera is seriously flawed. I cant get sharp photos. Also, when I set the white balance to auto, I get a very different picture the if I select the white balance for flash. Both shots I used the flash but the difference is night and day. Any suggestions?


Are there batteries in it?

Is it turned on?

Did you remove the lens cover?

sorry...couldn't help myself. ;-)
04/05/2005 11:43:54 PM · #5
Looks like a lot of people think it soft, review below says to shoot raw with the d100 to get sharper images.

Quote from review: I think it should be pretty easy to see the differences there. There are many people out there who don't like the camera to over-sharpen images -- after all, that's what Photoshop is for. But I feel that at the auto setting, in the JPEG format, images are way too soft.

Located here: DCResource D100 Review

Near the bottom they talk about sharpness in depth.

ED: Typo

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 23:44:27.
04/06/2005 12:01:14 AM · #6
Many people have produced fine images with that model so either it is broken or you need to learn more about how to operate it. There are many Nikon users here who have the knowledge needed to help you figure out what's wrong. Starting a thread by saying that the camera they own sucks isn't the best way to approach them. I don't have any expertise with Nikons. But if I did I certainly wouldn't hold back from sharing it with you based on how you have voted. That's not within the spirit of this site.
04/06/2005 12:03:07 AM · #7
get the lens checked for damage.
04/06/2005 12:05:25 AM · #8
It's usually the lens and not the camera. Also depends on whether you're using a tripod, and the shutter speed you're using and at what focal length your lens is etc.
04/06/2005 12:39:44 AM · #9
Looks like nobody has answered your white balance question. I don't use the Nikon, but I would imagine the exact same principlr applies.

When you tell the camera you are using a flash as your "primary light source", the camera knows what color the light is and adjusts white balance accordingly.

When white balance is set to auto, then the camera will analyze the color of the image looking for an "overall hue" that might be present. Then the camera subtracts that hue out.

This works a lot of times... but can easily be fooled.

For example, if you shoot pictures in your house with regular (tungsten) light bulbs, you probably have noticed that they come out with a yellowish caste. That is the color of the light. Your eyes don't see it because your brain adjusts.

Meanwhile, shooting the same image under flourescent lights will produce a greenish caste. Again, that is the color of the light.

So under good conditions, with your camera set to auto, it should hopefully subtract out the yellow, or subtract out the green, if it determines that is the kind of light you are under.

BUT WHAT IF... you are shooting a picture of a "light green car" in daylight and the car pretty much fills the frame? Now, in AUTO, the camera sees that same "caste" and tries to subtract it out and your light green car comes out a pucky gray.

In other words, the color of the SUBJECT greatly weighs in on the camera's ability to "automatically determine" the color of light that is present.

So... if you happen to know the color of light (daylight, cloudy, shade, tungsten, flourescent or flash) then it is in your best interest to *tell* it to the camera so that the colors don't change from picture to picture depending on the subject.

The absolute best option is to set a "custom white balance" by first shooting a picture of a neutral color (such as an 18% gray card -- or even just a white sheet of paper) which is in the same light as the subject you will be shooting. Then tell your camera to use that picture to set the white balance and violá, all of your pictures come out with the correct colors.

So why does the flash setting work? Because you told the camera you were using flash as the "primary" source of light.

When might the flash setting still fail you? If the flash is only a secondary (or fill) flash. For example, if most of your light is coming from tungsten lighting and you are just using the flash to fill in the shadows, then the color will still be wrong even though you did use a flash and you did tell the camera. In complex lighting such as this, a custom white balance is the only way to go.

Hope this helps...

Message edited by author 2005-04-06 00:41:49.
04/06/2005 01:30:41 AM · #10
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16648/thumb/134131.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16648/thumb/134131.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
You see here many colors of the same item - all with flash, auto WB. The color differences are from the length teh shutter was open - there were tungsten room lights on and the longer the shutter speed, the more that light affected the color.

I don't know the Nikon camera, but yo probably have several settings for focus - see what is set and check the manual for other options. Also, if you taking a pic of something close to a wall the camera may be focusing on teh wall. Check your aperture also - very large apertures (small number like 1.8, 2.8) have very small DOF and that may make it appear that the camera is not focusing correctly. This pic demonstrated how small the DOF can be -
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16648/thumb/134029.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/16648/thumb/134029.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
04/06/2005 01:32:14 AM · #11
Nikon sucks ,period !
04/06/2005 01:34:17 AM · #12
yup. can't take a good picture with a nikon, that's for sure.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/265/thumb/111547.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/265/thumb/111547.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
04/06/2005 01:54:18 AM · #13
I disagree. I've been happy with my Nikon but am learning how to play around with the WB. dwterry has given some good advice for a start. It's so easy to let the camera do all the work but better to figure out what is best for each subject/setting.
04/06/2005 01:59:17 AM · #14
I have heard that both Nikons and Canons require a lot of post processing to make good pics...Are you familiar with post processing techniques and how to sharpen pictures?
04/06/2005 09:14:32 PM · #15
First let me appologize for the silly coment about my Nikon D100 sucking. That was frustration. Second, to the people that made coments as to how I voted, I appologize for flying through those shots and voting using a low score for shots I did not like. At first I thought each shot had to be voted on and then realized I should only vote on the shots I did like. Lastly, I would like to thank the people who made suggestions. I am frustrated with what I am getting and I have been back and forth in the book. Thanks again!
04/06/2005 09:53:39 PM · #16

information about WB was good - though my personal pref. is to keep the camera on cloudy+1 & modify in post processing*
i keep my D100 on 'normal' sharpening - though i have been overriding that in post processing *
*only available using RAW modes
be sure you have "anti shock" turned OFF (unless you are using a tripod)

as far as blury images go -
what lens ?
what Fstop are you using ?
what speed ?
what iso ?
what's the subject ?

I.E. if you are using a 50mm at F1.8 - dmn near everything will be blurry (except a bit at the focus plane) - if you are using it at F16 (and there is enough light) to hit 1/100 sec or faster - things should
be in focus (depending on the subject / how much coffee you had to drink & etcc)

best advice i ever read (on dpreview but worth repeating)
ALWAYS use a tripod & ALWAYS use a lens hood -
& looking at some of the low scoring images here - alot of people don't use either
04/07/2005 12:17:26 AM · #17
Originally posted by johnco:

First let me appologize for the silly coment about my Nikon D100 sucking. That was frustration. Second, to the people that made coments as to how I voted, I appologize for flying through those shots and voting using a low score for shots I did not like. At first I thought each shot had to be voted on and then realized I should only vote on the shots I did like. Lastly, I would like to thank the people who made suggestions. I am frustrated with what I am getting and I have been back and forth in the book. Thanks again!


No, you should vote on all the photos (or as many as you can) in the order they are presented to you, not just the ones you like. Each user sees the photos in a random order, such that even if some people don't vote on every image, if people vote on the images in the order presented to them, everyone gets roughly the same number of votes. You're not saying which photos you like. You're scoring the merits of each on a scale of 1 to 10. Everyone winds up with an average score and the highest average gets the ribbon, not the one with the most votes. Note, if your average vote given is really low, your votes may be tossed out (I don't know what the cutoff is, but 2.9 is pretty darn low).
04/07/2005 12:26:10 AM · #18
Originally posted by kearock:

Originally posted by johnco:

First let me appologize for the silly coment about my Nikon D100 sucking. That was frustration. Second, to the people that made coments as to how I voted, I appologize for flying through those shots and voting using a low score for shots I did not like. At first I thought each shot had to be voted on and then realized I should only vote on the shots I did like. Lastly, I would like to thank the people who made suggestions. I am frustrated with what I am getting and I have been back and forth in the book. Thanks again!


No, you should vote on all the photos (or as many as you can) in the order they are presented to you, not just the ones you like. Each user sees the photos in a random order, such that even if some people don't vote on every image, if people vote on the images in the order presented to them, everyone gets roughly the same number of votes. You're not saying which photos you like. You're scoring the merits of each on a scale of 1 to 10. Everyone winds up with an average score and the highest average gets the ribbon, not the one with the most votes. Note, if your average vote given is really low, your votes may be tossed out (I don't know what the cutoff is, but 2.9 is pretty darn low).


If I voted on only the images I didn't like I think my average might resemble 2.9. Now I have an idea where those mystery 1s come from.
04/07/2005 12:44:58 AM · #19
Originally posted by johnco:

Does anyone have experience with this camera. I have tried to talk with Tech support but they just give me prepared answeres. I am thinking the camera is seriously flawed. I cant get sharp photos. Also, when I set the white balance to auto, I get a very different picture the if I select the white balance for flash. Both shots I used the flash but the difference is night and day. Any suggestions?


You might want to think of having the camera testing for back focus. White balance is a diff issue entirely and easy to correct.

Shoot in RAW, and adjust as needed............period.

As stated above, a lot of things are envolved in images that aren't as sharp as expected. You will have to own up to the lens you are using and what F/Stops - ISO speeds.

It's a capable camera.
04/07/2005 01:07:30 AM · #20
Originally posted by Beetle:

John, unfortunately I don't have any answers for you.
I just checked your profile and found that you have been handing out an average score of 2.9, so I guess you must be much much better at this photography thing than I am, so I wouldn't even dare to attempt an answer if I HAD one.


Aren't you being a bit presumptuous? It's his vote. I didn't know it was necessary to be a member of the numbers game club in order to get a civil response on here.

John, if you could post examples of your blurry shots we might be able to help. To test if you're really having a hardware problem, try using a tripod on a well lit subject.
04/07/2005 01:28:59 AM · #21
Originally posted by virtuamike:

Originally posted by Beetle:

John, unfortunately I don't have any answers for you.
I just checked your profile and found that you have been handing out an average score of 2.9, so I guess you must be much much better at this photography thing than I am, so I wouldn't even dare to attempt an answer if I HAD one.


Aren't you being a bit presumptuous? It's his vote. I didn't know it was necessary to be a member of the numbers game club in order to get a civil response on here.

John, if you could post examples of your blurry shots we might be able to help. To test if you're really having a hardware problem, try using a tripod on a well lit subject.


Presumptuous??? I don't think so, she was merely pointing out that from her perspective she might not be able to provide information. You are quite right to point out that it is his vote, as it is her option to provide assistance and information if she so chooses. In this instance she opted not to, and did express her reasons why in what I consider a CIVIL manner.
04/07/2005 01:42:11 AM · #22
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by virtuamike:

Originally posted by Beetle:

John, unfortunately I don't have any answers for you.
I just checked your profile and found that you have been handing out an average score of 2.9, so I guess you must be much much better at this photography thing than I am, so I wouldn't even dare to attempt an answer if I HAD one.


Aren't you being a bit presumptuous? It's his vote. I didn't know it was necessary to be a member of the numbers game club in order to get a civil response on here.

John, if you could post examples of your blurry shots we might be able to help. To test if you're really having a hardware problem, try using a tripod on a well lit subject.


Presumptuous??? I don't think so, she was merely pointing out that from her perspective she might not be able to provide information. You are quite right to point out that it is his vote, as it is her option to provide assistance and information if she so chooses. In this instance she opted not to, and did express her reasons why in what I consider a CIVIL manner.


Sorry but I don't equate attacking voting scores or passing judegement to being civil.

It's this whole I-wouldn't-answer-even-if-I-did-know attitude that bugs.
04/07/2005 01:49:44 AM · #23
Originally posted by virtuamike:


Sorry but I don't equate attacking voting scores or passing judegement to being civil.

It's this whole I-wouldn't-answer-even-if-I-did-know attitude that bugs.


Well it did sound a little rude to me when I first read it, but I will defend her right to say it. If the guy had more then a few hundred votes in and still had that type of voting average I would even agree with her. Voting down other peoples entries to that degree sounds vindictive or just plain mean, especially when he has an entry in himself.
04/07/2005 02:02:57 AM · #24
A statement of fact cannot be categorized as being uncivil... harsh perharps, but not uncivil. Just as each and everyone of us has a right to vote as they choose... she has a right to her opinion. If you read the subsequent comments made by Johnco it would seem that perhaps her comments may have had a beneficial effect.

Just a thought.

Ray
04/07/2005 02:13:56 AM · #25
Originally posted by RayEthier:

If you read the subsequent comments made by Johnco it would seem that perhaps her comments may have had a beneficial effect.



I don't think so. All he said was that he was now going to vote only on the images he likes. I guess that would be an effort to raise his average. If he had been previously voting on both the entries he liked and the entries he didn't it would seem he gave out a heap of 1s. How many honest 1s do you see in any given challenge? He has a right to his oppinion of course, but don't expect anyone to like the fact that the majority of his votes are 1s.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/21/2021 10:46:53 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/21/2021 10:46:53 PM EDT.