PDA

View Full Version : Opinions about D50 sharpness in different reviews



supagena
07-31-2005, 02:58 PM
I'm a niewbe in digital photography, and my question is quite simple:

Why there is such difference in opinions about D50 sharpness according to the different reviews?

1) Review at www.dpreview.com.
350D is sharper that D70, which is a bit sharper than D50.
So, the sequence of which camera has better out-of-kit sharpness is 350D -> D70 -> D50.

2) Review at www.dcresource.com.
Jeff say, that D50 is a bit sharper than D70, and this can be
proven looking at gallery images.
Yes, and looking at the 350D sample images on this site, we can see
fully blurred images(???) and make the conclusion that the D50 is sharper than the 350D.
The sequence is D50 -> D70 -> 350D.

3) Nikon D50 Image Samples Compared to Nikon D70s
and Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT / 350D kit at www.digitalreview.ca

The sequence is D50 -> 350D -> D70

The VERY strange thing for me is that all these opinions can be proven looking at real images in reviews :))...

I'm very frustrated, please help me!

thesween
07-31-2005, 03:19 PM
Lots of what happens here is a combination of "buyer's remorse" and "camera envy." Simply put, if you can't afford, or don't want to afford, a D70/D70s, you might try very hard to convince yourself that the D50 is a better camera at a lower price.

All that said, digital is a far different critter than film, where the camera body has about zero to do with sharpness. I cannot say what role the sensor plays in sharpness with any certainty, but I can say that the lens continues to play a major role. My best suggestion is this - don't put a crappy lens on any new Nikon digital body.

Payne
08-08-2005, 06:43 PM
Phil's review should be the worst I've seen in my life, many things have been said on the Dpreview forum, however Phil remained dumb, well, about sharpness, first off - on page 22 he states: "comparison shot taken from exactly the same tripod position within minutes of each other" ' this statement is totally FALSE - just check the EXIFs out and you can see XT pictures were taken many days ago........second, D50 image looks clearly overexposed.....third, I also have the D50 and I've never seen so soft pictures, so far.....fourth, it seems the Nikon 50mm f1.8 used on that review is a bad sample since it's soft and blurry on the edges even at f9.0.....I've seen extremely sharp pictures taken with this lens mounted on the D50......fifth, go to page 25 and you'll notice the D50 picture is sharper than ohers....how come on page 22 the 300D is sharper than the D50 and on page 25 the D50 beats the 300D, even though those pictures were taken with the same prime lens=50mm f1.8???? I guess, the resolution chart gives an exacter measure on what camera is sharper than other......so, to me the D50 is the winner / BUT who cares which of them is the sharpest - there are many other features to be considered in order to draw a conclusion which camera is better / IMHO either 350D or Nikon D50 are EXCELLENT cameras, you wont wrong with either of them and you'll be happy and totally satisified / I love my D50 / I had a 350D before buying the D50, but there's something which is true: the Canon kit lens is quite bad, it's quite soft even with parameters at +2 / Im not a PRO, so I do not plan spend more than 2 thousand dollars in buying the body and "good Canon lenses" to get sharp results / so, I sold my 350D and buy the D50 + Kit + 28-200G for just $1,200- GREAT Combo, IMO / both lenses are sharp, although the 28-200G is a better lens........thats all, the D50 is the best value for money - and it's a very very good camera, extremely fast - Im amazed :)

Regards,

D70FAN
08-08-2005, 07:12 PM
I'm a niewbe in digital photography, and my question is quite simple:

Why there is such difference in opinions about D50 sharpness according to the different reviews?

1) Review at www.dpreview.com.
350D is sharper that D70, which is a bit sharper than D50.
So, the sequence of which camera has better out-of-kit sharpness is 350D -> D70 -> D50.

2) Review at www.dcresource.com.
Jeff say, that D50 is a bit sharper than D70, and this can be
proven looking at gallery images.
Yes, and looking at the 350D sample images on this site, we can see
fully blurred images(???) and make the conclusion that the D50 is sharper than the 350D.
The sequence is D50 -> D70 -> 350D.

3) Nikon D50 Image Samples Compared to Nikon D70s
and Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT / 350D kit at www.digitalreview.ca

The sequence is D50 -> 350D -> D70

The VERY strange thing for me is that all these opinions can be proven looking at real images in reviews :))...

I'm very frustrated, please help me!

Since this is the Nikon forum, I can state my opinion and hopefully not get blasted for it.

Even after only playing with the D50 for about an hour it is my pick over the Canon XT for many reasons, not the least of which is image quality. And while the D70 is just a hair below the 20D in performance, there is little or no difference in image quality. For the price difference the D70 is the pick of the two.

Don't get me wrong as I have seen some great pictures with the Canon XT, but not with the low-cost kit lens, even at f8. And by the time you add a good lens and battery grip for normal handling, you might as well buy the 20D (definately a great camera). The D50 with 18-55 DX kit lens takes great pictures right out of the box, as does the D70 with it's 18-70 DX kit lens.

Get either of the Nikons and you will not be disappointed. ;)

erichlund
08-08-2005, 10:27 PM
And by the time you add a good lens and battery grip for normal handling, you might as well buy the 20D (definately a great camera).

I finally got a chance to handle a bunch of these cameras. I couldn't really check performance (I was at Frye's, the cameras had no batteries in them) but I could get a feel for their relative sizes.

I don't have particularly large hands, but the 350XT was just swallowed up. Taking my normal grip, the shutter release fell between the first and second joints of my index finger. The 20D was better, but still a bit small. The Pentax cameras were similar in size to the 350XT, but, all the same, they felt better. The only cameras on par for size with the Nikon D70 were the two Oly cameras. I didn't like the deep indentation for the thumb, but that's a personal issue.

I can't imagine choosing any of these alternatives over the Nikon options. Well, at least for me.

Cheers,
Eric

eastbluffs
08-08-2005, 11:51 PM
I have a Canon 20D with a kit lense (18-55). I've gotten some fairly OK shots - here's a crop from one of the better shots - its not bad. This is untampered aside from reducing it some.

However; on the same session (about 400 shots) I could show you about 200 fuzzy ones. OK OK, so I handed the camera to my 3 year old and set it on 5 fps, but the point still stands.

The demo shots don't tell you about all the dogs (oops, sorry about the pun). That's what these forums do (provided that you don't get an over zealous member pushing their decision on everyone), is getting feedback from real users.

I'd say that if a camera and lense never experiences fuzzy photos, well, that's pretty increadible. Its likely from a very experienced user since my $2000 setup gives me fuzzies all the time.

I do wonder sometimes why these comparison shots don't also use the same lense for those same shots (going Nikon to Nikon).

For sure; there's an entirely different technology going from CCD (the Nikons) to CMOS (the Canons). After all the hype, I am also very curious if one out-performs the other. I can say that at ISO 1600 (oops, rookie move), and the whole puppy's body took up half the frame, this is a pretty impressive result.

Canon 20D, 18-55 kit lense, 55mm, f5.6, 1/2000th, ISO 1600, no flash, bright daylight.

D70FAN
08-09-2005, 08:55 PM
I have a Canon 20D with a kit lense (18-55). I've gotten some fairly OK shots - here's a crop from one of the better shots - its not bad. This is untampered aside from reducing it some.

However; on the same session (about 400 shots) I could show you about 200 fuzzy ones. OK OK, so I handed the camera to my 3 year old and set it on 5 fps, but the point still stands.

The demo shots don't tell you about all the dogs (oops, sorry about the pun). That's what these forums do (provided that you don't get an over zealous member pushing their decision on everyone), is getting feedback from real users.

I'd say that if a camera and lense never experiences fuzzy photos, well, that's pretty increadible. Its likely from a very experienced user since my $2000 setup gives me fuzzies all the time.

I do wonder sometimes why these comparison shots don't also use the same lense for those same shots (going Nikon to Nikon).

For sure; there's an entirely different technology going from CCD (the Nikons) to CMOS (the Canons). After all the hype, I am also very curious if one out-performs the other. I can say that at ISO 1600 (oops, rookie move), and the whole puppy's body took up half the frame, this is a pretty impressive result.

Canon 20D, 18-55 kit lense, 55mm, f5.6, 1/2000th, ISO 1600, no flash, bright daylight.

I hate to say it but you should have used the Tamron. And you definately didn't need ISO 1600. You may not see noise, but there is a lot of detail loss.

As you spend more time evaluating your shots you will become more critical, especially when you start printing larger formats like 11 x 17 and 13 x 19.

eastbluffs
08-09-2005, 11:37 PM
I hate to say it but you should have used the Tamron. And you definately didn't need ISO 1600. You may not see noise, but there is a lot of detail loss.

As you spend more time evaluating your shots you will become more critical, especially when you start printing larger formats like 11 x 17 and 13 x 19. You're such a gentleman George. Nicely put. Yeah, I sort of laughed when I saw the ISO 1600, however its still pretty surprising that the it cropped pretty OK - not great, but acceptable for an amature considering the size of the original. The Tamron was in the mail.

I'm not saying the kit lense is really nice or anything, but a novice would probably be happy with it.

The point of it was I suppose, that as far as sharpness goes, some lenses are potentially capable of some sharp output, while others may spew it out all day long. The reviewer may have a bad copy, or may pick a bad comparison. They don't usually say (although Jeff has on occassion) "it took many tries to get a quality comparison shot, but the other one was spot on every time." But of course, they would never post an ISO 1600 shot unless trying to demonstrate high ISO performance.

As you said, I'll learn.

Here's the full photo, just so you can see how much the crop was.

D70FAN
08-10-2005, 11:00 AM
You're such a gentleman George. Nicely put. Yeah, I sort of laughed when I saw the ISO 1600, however its still pretty surprising that the it cropped pretty OK - not great, but acceptable for an amature considering the size of the original. The Tamron was in the mail.

I'm not saying the kit lense is really nice or anything, but a novice would probably be happy with it.

The point of it was I suppose, that as far as sharpness goes, some lenses are potentially capable of some sharp output, while others may spew it out all day long. The reviewer may have a bad copy, or may pick a bad comparison. They don't usually say (although Jeff has on occassion) "it took many tries to get a quality comparison shot, but the other one was spot on every time." But of course, they would never post an ISO 1600 shot unless trying to demonstrate high ISO performance.

As you said, I'll learn.

Here's the full photo, just so you can see how much the crop was.

I actually like the photo a lot. Warts and all it would still make a great 5 x 7 print.

Of the nearly 10,000 photos taken with my D70, and the nearly 14,000 taken with my old Nikon 990 and 900 before that, there are only about 75% that turned out clean, and only about 20% are "framers". Many pictures are just snapshots taken on the fly and find their way to the DVD archives, to be dragged out when the family gets together. Not all of the "framers" are clean, and in fact one of my worst shots technically (but asthetically pleasing) is hanging on an office wall somewhere in Oregon.

I'm a sucker for a Spaniel, Beagle, or Bassett, but after the trauma of loosing our 17 year old Cockapoo, a couple of years ago, not sure I could do it again.

The cool thing about digital is the instant feedback learning curve, and the speed of becomming proficient. I hesitate to use the term expert as I am still learning the D70 after a year and a half... and now high-end lenses. This isn't like using my trusty old FE or Minolta 3Si, it's a heck of a lot better.

Thanks again for the picture. Keep em comming up on the Photos Board.

eastbluffs
08-10-2005, 08:22 PM
The cool thing about digital is the instant feedback learning curve, and the speed of becomming proficient. I hesitate to use the term expert as I am still learning the D70 after a year and a half... and now high-end lenses. This isn't like using my trusty old FE or Minolta 3Si, it's a heck of a lot better.

Thanks again for the picture. Keep em comming up on the Photos Board.
Yes, and the ability to share and discuss. I've only participated on dcresource but its a great little photo-geek hangout.

I am averaging about 1 - 200 photos a day (on days the camera makes it out of the bag). Each shoot sees more keepers - and the tools (RSE particularly) allows for dealing with more. Last night's session was particularly productive with over 30 very presentable ones out of (4465 - 4340 = 125 shots). I told my wife "the problem with having so many turn out is, what are we ever going to do with this many good pictures?".

So; the mom's at daycare are getting lots. They must think I'm either energetic or nuts.

The latest realization was the need to carefully half-press on each and every photo. I'm thinking that's one reason why you get 70% in focus and I'm just happy to get a dozen or so (per hundred). The other reason of course is that I click 10 shots of the same thing trying to experiment with composures, where you probably already know what won't work.

Your mention of 'Photo Board' specifically - are you saying I should stop posting the ones I like when it makes a point relevant to a discussion on other boards? I figured it would be OK on a photo site to take every opportunity to use photos in discussions as long as they aren't junk. Well, don't want to parot my dad's practice in the 60's of breaking out the slide projector at every gathering so tell the truth (actually, his slides were pretty great, but you know what I mean).

Cheers!

D70FAN
08-12-2005, 03:12 PM
Yes, and the ability to share and discuss. I've only participated on dcresource but its a great little photo-geek hangout.

I am averaging about 1 - 200 photos a day (on days the camera makes it out of the bag). Each shoot sees more keepers - and the tools (RSE particularly) allows for dealing with more. Last night's session was particularly productive with over 30 very presentable ones out of (4465 - 4340 = 125 shots). I told my wife "the problem with having so many turn out is, what are we ever going to do with this many good pictures?".

So; the mom's at daycare are getting lots. They must think I'm either energetic or nuts.

The latest realization was the need to carefully half-press on each and every photo. I'm thinking that's one reason why you get 70% in focus and I'm just happy to get a dozen or so (per hundred). The other reason of course is that I click 10 shots of the same thing trying to experiment with composures, where you probably already know what won't work.

Your mention of 'Photo Board' specifically - are you saying I should stop posting the ones I like when it makes a point relevant to a discussion on other boards? I figured it would be OK on a photo site to take every opportunity to use photos in discussions as long as they aren't junk. Well, don't want to parot my dad's practice in the 60's of breaking out the slide projector at every gathering so tell the truth (actually, his slides were pretty great, but you know what I mean).

Cheers!

Just mentioning the Photo Board as a sharing point as you will get more exposure and feedback (if you ask for it). Other than that I would never suggest not posting anywhere on the DCRP. Fortunately for many of us the members here accept junk shots as well.

The great thing about digital is that you can experiment untill the cows come home, and beyond.

Pretty soon you will surprise even yourself, and wonder why it seemed so difficult. In the past few years I have started seeing the world as my studio. And almost everything is fair game. ;) The great thing about photography is that you can take it just about anywhere, and with digital and a laptop there is virtually no limit.

Bon Foto.

eastbluffs
08-12-2005, 04:10 PM
Just mentioning the Photo Board as a sharing point as you will get more exposure and feedback (if you ask for it). Other than that I would never suggest not posting anywhere on the DCRP. Fortunately for many of us the members here accept junk shots as well.Thanks, hopefully I'll be the one posting objects of envy some day. Really enjoying the site and your feedback.

D70FAN
08-12-2005, 08:39 PM
Thanks, hopefully I'll be the one posting objects of envy some day. Really enjoying the site and your feedback.

Generally if the shot pleases you, that's what counts. Having the envy of this group is probably pointless, as we pretty much are all in the same boat. Occasional brilliance, a lot of decent "framers", and the occasional...uh..non-framer. ;)

For the most part it's just interesting to see the world through other peoples lenses.

eastbluffs
08-26-2005, 04:08 PM
Generally if the shot pleases you, that's what counts. Having the envy of this group is probably pointless, as we pretty much are all in the same boat. Occasional brilliance, a lot of decent "framers", and the occasional...uh..non-framer. ;)

For the most part it's just interesting to see the world through other peoples lenses.True story.

Pursued "creative writing" once.

The exercise: write 3 pages a day, every day, and never show it to anyone.

The objective: find that connection to one's inner self and grow accustomed to articulating it.

I think photography has similar qualities. I can feel a better connection to how I see the world. Literally, I'm beginning to notice light temprature, print quality on posters, color combinations, over cluttered views, etc. The Digital Photography is sort of like Bio Feedback - where near instant results provides a better connection between cause and effect (of the shot).

While I'm trying to learn like hell, my tentativeness is a pretense. I really enjoy good critisizm, and find it easy to ignore bad, and all the advice is a huge short cut to doing better. The difference is already evident. And ... I think that "good shot instinct" can be developed so that the great shot percentage goes up and up and up.

My 2 cents (ok, 30 cents).

D70FAN
08-26-2005, 04:20 PM
True story.

Pursued "creative writing" once.

The exercise: write 3 pages a day, every day, and never show it to anyone.

The objective: find that connection to one's inner self and grow accustomed to articulating it.

I think photography has similar qualities. I can feel a better connection to how I see the world. Literally, I'm beginning to notice light temprature, print quality on posters, color combinations, over cluttered views, etc. The Digital Photography is sort of like Bio Feedback - where near instant results provides a better connection between cause and effect (of the shot).

While I'm trying to learn like hell, my tentativeness is a pretense. I really enjoy good critisizm, and find it easy to ignore bad, and all the advice is a huge short cut to doing better. The difference is already evident. And ... I think that "good shot instinct" can be developed so that the great shot percentage goes up and up and up.

My 2 cents (ok, 30 cents).

We accept your 30 cents and raise a nickel. I pursued "creative" everything at one time or another (even psychology). I discovered I couldn't be creative on-demand. So now I carry the D70 in the car, just in case. ;)

thesween
08-26-2005, 08:18 PM
Does anyone here remember the National Geographic "frames exposed to frames published" ratio? I cannot recall the exact numbers, but it was OUTRAGEOUS. As recently as 5-6 years ago, most NG photogs shot slide film(Fuji Velvia)and would go through something like 700(yes, 700)rolls of 36 exp. Velvia on most any assignment. The average number of photos in any article was 12-15. Hey, it ain't even math, just do the arithmetic. I often thought a trained chimp could get a dozen good frames of, oh, thousands upon thousands. Know what I mean?

OTOH, I do believe it was Ansel Adams who once observed that one of the most important things he learned over the years is that there is no compelling need to photograph everything. I agree 100%.

D70FAN
08-26-2005, 10:36 PM
Does anyone here remember the National Geographic "frames exposed to frames published" ratio? I cannot recall the exact numbers, but it was OUTRAGEOUS. As recently as 5-6 years ago, most NG photogs shot slide film(Fuji Velvia)and would go through something like 700(yes, 700)rolls of 36 exp. Velvia on most any assignment. The average number of photos in any article was 12-15. Hey, it ain't even math, just do the arithmetic. I often thought a trained chimp could get a dozen good frames of, oh, thousands upon thousands. Know what I mean?

OTOH, I do believe it was Ansel Adams who once observed that one of the most important things he learned over the years is that there is no compelling need to photograph everything. I agree 100%.

You get an amen from this photog. I just printed the best of my "Wild Horses" and latest Grand Canyon shots and got about 16 out of 150. The rest are ok, but lack the feeling I was going for.

eastbluffs
08-27-2005, 12:02 AM
Does anyone here remember the National Geographic "frames exposed to frames published" ratio? I cannot recall the exact numbers, but it was OUTRAGEOUS. As recently as 5-6 years ago, most NG photogs shot slide film(Fuji Velvia)and would go through something like 700(yes, 700)rolls of 36 exp. Velvia on most any assignment. The average number of photos in any article was 12-15. Hey, it ain't even math, just do the arithmetic. I often thought a trained chimp could get a dozen good frames of, oh, thousands upon thousands. Know what I mean?

OTOH, I do believe it was Ansel Adams who once observed that one of the most important things he learned over the years is that there is no compelling need to photograph everything. I agree 100%.700 Rolls! Film! Even for digital, taking 8 angles of anything interesting with bracketing, what a chore to process. Imagine developing all that film? Interesting stats.

Makes you wonder about all the material in their archives.

Even just as a dad shooting my own beloved little girl, I begin to wonder if I really need to document every cute moment.

Then I realize that its the journey, or in this case the exciting experience. I went to a day care function earlier this week, took 100 shots, 30 were good and I printed & shared with the other parents. Took 3 hours with RSE, photoshop, and the color laser printer. I get all the thank you's and they have good photos for their refrigerators. I'd say its worth it.

Sort of like scuba diving (back in those adventurous single days) - hunting or photography was what we called an "Activity". Without it, even scuba gets pretty boring after a while.