Switching systems all the time...
- Thread starter chyeo
- Start date
- Status
Having the same amount of AF sensors to the 10D and better in low light sensitivity, I wonder what qualifies the statement that the D100 is the "slowest AF speed" in the market? Is this placed in quantity or quality?
The D100 is by far, definitely not what the picture many are trying to paint (smear) it to be. It is easy to blame it on the equipment, let alone comparing a pro class equipment to a semi-pro one.
The advantage of the D100 lies in its more neutral respond to tonality and in some way, ability to handle highlights better. Most importantly, its true capability can be realised with Nikon Capture 3 and its RAW file format. Try it, and you will know what I mean. Countless shots from this system in the galleries cannot be wrong.
It may sound biased since I am on the Nikon system which incidentally, is just a brand to me. Nevertheless, do look around for more information, especially from the camera users themselves for feedback.
The D100 is by far, definitely not what the picture many are trying to paint (smear) it to be. It is easy to blame it on the equipment, let alone comparing a pro class equipment to a semi-pro one.
The advantage of the D100 lies in its more neutral respond to tonality and in some way, ability to handle highlights better. Most importantly, its true capability can be realised with Nikon Capture 3 and its RAW file format. Try it, and you will know what I mean. Countless shots from this system in the galleries cannot be wrong.
It may sound biased since I am on the Nikon system which incidentally, is just a brand to me. Nevertheless, do look around for more information, especially from the camera users themselves for feedback.
The colors out of D100 are more neutral or muted as the camera does not want to blow up the highlights. If anyone wants a nice P&S pop and snap look, they can always got to the net and load the camera with the custom curve that give you that. This is something I believe that the 10D (much less the 300D) cannot do.
If you think it is bad, why not go to www.usmc.mil, under "images", look for the various high res d100 photos that US Marines shoot. Then tell us if the color is bad.
Ah, the common blame-the-tool excuse.
If you think it is bad, why not go to www.usmc.mil, under "images", look for the various high res d100 photos that US Marines shoot. Then tell us if the color is bad.
Ah, the common blame-the-tool excuse.
interpolation does not give you more image detail, thus will not give you better blow-ups.Winston said:How abt S2 Pro?
Since it's an F-mount based on the same Nikon body as the D100 (F80 body)
And it's 12MP inter-polated pics for product shoots will be able to blow-up to much larger prints too.
wacko said:
Not necessarily as some people who owns both systems in dpreview have compared blowups from the S2 favourable against the 1D and even the 1Ds. Do a search for James Russell. The Fuji sensor has greater horizontal and vertical resolution at the cost of the diagonals. Tests by magazines suggest it to be equivalent to 8-9Mps although i would think this differs from case to case.
greater horizontal and vertical resolution will add benefit for image subjects that have predominant horzontal and vertical details, and vice versa for diagonal resolution. thus the fuji CCD will only derive benefit from certain scenarios, and probably LOSE out to a normal CCD in others (predominantlt diagonal details).xdivider said:
szekiat said:
Strange, but that tag line sounds suspiciously like Nikon's latest marketing twang. Except that you couldn't wait for the marketing department to deliver, could you?
No, not all pixels are created equal. But as other people have already pointed out, you're talking rubbish. Not all cameras are created equal either. Not all prices are created equal either.
Frankly, I find the colour out of the 1D to be disappointing. I can't speak for the D100 as I have only shot with it in a limited manner, but I think most knowledgeable sources give the colour advantage to Nikon. And I have shot with the 1D more than with the D100.
If you don't have to post process your 1D shots, then clearly you're not doing something right.
2. AF SPEED. I think i can MF faster than the godddamn thing.
MF then. And you must also MF very fast.
Quit whinging. You of all people know what work I do. And I've used my F80 based AF system more often than my F100 based AF system in the last few months.
3. Buffer. What buffer? 6shots for jpeg? Try working with that when u have a fast pace event
Quit whinging. You of all people know what work I do. And I've used my 6 frame buffer system (with longer write times than your D100) with few problems.
I couldn't agree more. What MF lenses are you using with your 1D pray tell?
And you had a D1h that didn't have a problem with MF lenses. Why'd you sell that? Forgot that all pixels are not created equal?
You know, it's your money and your decisions, you can make them any which way you see fit. The reason I'm saying anything is not about your decision making process, it's about the reasons you give to try to justify them that are so flimsy it's unbelievable. I mean, MF lenses... nuff said? Excuse me you can't even begin to use MF lenses on your 1D...
Sure you may do stuff that needs faster AF and bigger buffers. And you can certainly afford the 1D. So buy it. But there's no need to come out and criticise the D100 for being a bad camera in comparison when that comparison should never be made. And not only that, the D100 really is a perfectly serviceable camera for the vast, vast majority of users.
Also a word of advice. The camera you had prior to your unuseable D100 was a D1h. That camera would have addressed most of the issues with the D100 that you brought up... AF and buffer for starters, as well as build. And better pixels. So it really begs the question, why did you down/upgrade in the first place? I would recommend in future you do your research a bit better before buying something and then realising that actually, it really wasn't designed for your purposes at all. And then promptly slagging it off to everyone else.
A
andylee
Guest
AJ23 said:
I know when I put this "CAMERA" into my camera bag, the "MATRIX" is telling me that I "CAN" take "good" pics...
wacko said:
wow, suddenly turned into a real technical discussion here
so wacko brother, where u get this info? all this that u mentioned were never brought to my attention in the past. me want to read more as me S2 user.
i'm not dispelling ur info, but it would be good for me, to allow me to make up my mind before i go out and purchase a D2H or some other supposedly much more superior DSLR... like a 10D? hahahahaha :bsmilie:
as i've seen poster(A0) sized blow-ups from a S2 and a D100, i realised that S2 is in fact a better choice than D100. all those technical details only confuses me, i want concrete evidence and i've got them, thus i believe that S2 is really better when the image needs to be blown up.
hmmm, but it would really be good to read more and learn more and perhaps convince myself to splurge on a new DSLR body...
Jed said:
Jed, well said! I couldn't have said it better! Thank you for bringing forward what is in my mind, I am sure it concurs with a great majority of readers too. As a matter of fact, this "hot" topic "made the day" for quite a handful of CSers I met just now. :laugh:
Just to add, I don't recall the "D100 is a blah ... blah ... blah" thingy in a certain D100 Buy and Sell thread sometime ago. Makes me wonder whatever happened to honest sales threads? I really wonder ... hmmm
Cheesecake
Senior Member
oh my...
so chyeo, u still looking for a D100 or a 10D or a 1D or a S2Pro?
my vote goes to S2Pro over D100. Most often than not, it is personal preference.
not much real difference besides S2Pro and D100, each has its own advantage.
though i mux admit, i've seen blown-up poster (A0 sized) studio work of some food items being taken by both a D100 and a S2Pro (i was wth sadness on that day).
S2Pro wins ... ok, albeit slightly. slight difference between the 2 DSLRs but it really surprised me that DSLRs can come up with such an amazing work... no joke.
how was it done? don't ask me. i don;t know the technical details or the technique to go about doing it. the people who did this are pro in their own field.
think they want to share wth u their secret?
so chyeo, u still looking for a D100 or a 10D or a 1D or a S2Pro?
my vote goes to S2Pro over D100. Most often than not, it is personal preference.
not much real difference besides S2Pro and D100, each has its own advantage.
though i mux admit, i've seen blown-up poster (A0 sized) studio work of some food items being taken by both a D100 and a S2Pro (i was wth sadness on that day).
S2Pro wins ... ok, albeit slightly. slight difference between the 2 DSLRs but it really surprised me that DSLRs can come up with such an amazing work... no joke.
how was it done? don't ask me. i don;t know the technical details or the technique to go about doing it. the people who did this are pro in their own field.
think they want to share wth u their secret?
sadness said:wow, suddenly turned into a real technical discussion here
so wacko brother, where u get this info? all this that u mentioned were never brought to my attention in the past. me want to read more as me S2 user.
i'm not dispelling ur info, but it would be good for me, to allow me to make up my mind before i go out and purchase a D2H or some other supposedly much more superior DSLR... like a 10D? hahahahaha :bsmilie:
as i've seen poster(A0) sized blow-ups from a S2 and a D100, i realised that S2 is in fact a better choice than D100. all those technical details only confuses me, i want concrete evidence and i've got them, thus i believe that S2 is really better when the image needs to be blown up.
hmmm, but it would really be good to read more and learn more and perhaps convince myself to splurge on a new DSLR body...
Well, the S2 ccd arranges the sensors in a hexagonal pattern rather than the standard square. In theory, by arranging this way, one can capture more vertical and horizontal details but lose diagonal ones which the SuperCCD gets back by clever interpolation. That is y native raw is actually a 12 MP file cos In layman's term u got 12 MPs worth of vertical and horizontal lines. Studies shows that our eyes are actually more sensitive to horizontals and verticals so this is a overall gain. However the disadvantage is that at full size, u tend to find artifacts like moire due to the interpolation and u have a bigger file to boot. However, when u print out big, and this is the purpose of the whole thing, the effect is very similar to having a larger number of pixels. The upsizing and subsequent downsizing also makes the 6MP jpegs look more detailed than the competitors as most of the artifacts are lost when size is reduced. For more info, dpreview's fuji forum and the SuperCCD reviews are a good read.
- Status
Similar threads
