Confused

[kaushikkartik]

Hello everyone,
I am new to this Forum and am in need of Help.
I have owned a D90 for the last 3 years and now want to upgrade. I do only leisure Photography. The confusion is btw D600 and D7100.
The D7100 looks a very good camera but the choice of lenses available with a fullframe and the possibility of further upgrade after a few years tilts me towards a D600.
Also the question of how good is Fx over a Dx and yes i regularly get Prints.
Also I am now not satisfied with the Image quality, WB and low light performance of the D90 specially when I compare it to the other new cameras.
I also own a Nikon Film SLR, and I got stunning results from it, which unfortunately i dont get with the D90.
Could i get similar results from a full frame without postprocessing, as I must confess I am not great at photoshop.
pls suggest

[William W]

Hi welcome to CiC

A few points and also a few questions for you to answer, so that other comments might be better tailored to assist you:

. . . I am now not satisfied with the Image quality, WB and low light performance of the D90 specially when I compare it to the other new cameras.

Have you usedthese new cameras and compared what you shoot and get SOOC (straight out of the camera) or are you just referring to the 'specifications'?


***

I also own a Nikon Film SLR, and I got stunning results from it, which unfortunately i dont get with the D90.

Using what film and sending that film to what lab?

Could i get similar results [to using my film camera and sending my film to a quality post production laboratory for printing], from a full frame [digital] without post processing??

No.

You cannot avoid the post prodcution process to ensure a better quality end result. That Post Production might be using a quality lab for processing and printing or digital post production prior to sending the file to a quality lab, for printing.

If you want quality results from your D90, and you can already get quality results from your film camera by shooting and giving he job of post processing to some other person – then either learn digital post production or pay someone to do it for you (like you already do, with film).

Another fact you may be missing is – the digital format is less forgiving to exposure inaccuracies than (most) Negative Films; therefore, you might not be as accurate a Photographer apropos exposure, as you believe, because the Film Lab might be correcting your inaccuracies to provide you with better quality prints than otherwise possible if you made the same errors with the digital format.

WW

[Manfred M]

First of all a full-frame camera does not get you a "better image" versus a crop frame camera. There are advantages and disadvantages, to both formats. I own both a D90 and D800 and an older Leica SLR. The D800 certainly beats the D90 in terms of lower noise at ISO settings above 800 and the dynamic range is higher throughout the range; but I really can't complain about image quality. White balance is another point of discussion, but there are tools and technique to fix many white balance issues that have been discussed on this site (and elsewhere). If you are getting worse results with the D90 versus a film camera, I would be a bit suspicious, as the dynamic range at ISO 200 beats what you get out of film.

With full-frame you have a physically larger sensor that will give you more image, which can be important if you crop your image or create extremely large prints. I regularly print to A2 / 17" x 22" and get great quality prints out of both cameras. If you were to go to 1m x 2m / 3' x 6' prints, yes, the full frame would give you noticeably better results; especially if you got right up close (i.e. not normal viewing distance). If you are an ultra-wide angle shooter, there are some advantages to going full-frame and you will get about an extra stop worth of shallower depth of field (i.e. when it comes to throwing the background out of focus, you would need an f/2 lens on the crop frame to get you the same impact as a f/2.8 shot on the full-frame.

The main advantage to me (and the main reason I went to the D800) is that I don’t like the tiny viewfinder in a crop frame camera. I wear glasses and find it is a lot easier for me to compose with a full-frame.

Downsides of the full frame; price, size and if you do a lot of long telephoto shots, the crop frame gives you a longer effective focal length. I also have had to invest in pro glass to take full advantage of the sensor, which is again these are very expensive and very heavy. I shoot the f/2.8 14-24, f/2.8 24-70 and f/2.8 70-200 pretty well all the time.

I personally find the D7100 a bit of an odd beast. The sensor give you the equivalent of a 50.8MP if it were upscaled to full-frame size (which will no doubt happen in the next generation of full-frame cameras). This is very much what happened with the D7000; the pixel pitch is very similar to the D800. This really means that you are going to find yourself lens limited; i.e. the weakest link in your workflow will be the lenses you shoot with. The sensor is going to perform best with pro glass, and I’m not sure if I would buy pro glass for a DX camera.

One thing that is critical in any digital work flow, and that is that you do have to tweak your images in post-production. I can't think of any instances where I don't massage the image. This is no different than I have done with film.

[GrahamS]

I also own a Nikon Film SLR, and I got stunning results from it, which unfortunately i dont get with the D90.
Could i get similar results from a full frame without post processing, as I must confess I am not great at photoshop.
pls suggest

I suggest that, if you aren't happy with the results you get from the D90 and if you don't want to do any post processing, you won't be happy with a D7100 or a D600. I suggest that you re-visit the picture control options of your D90 and adjust the picture settings to get Jpg output that should be equal to, or even better than your film images when viewed on a calibrated monitor straight from the camera, or when printed by a competent lab. See here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d30...re-control.htm

And here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90...uide/index.htm

Theoretically, all digital images require a certain degree of post capture processing which is best carried out using editing software such as Photoshop or the software that came with your camera such as View NX2. However, it is possible to set the camera to do the editing itself by fine tuning the picture control settings to suit your taste. These settings will only affect the Jpg image files, not the RAW files. The bottom line is, I don't think that a camera with higher resolution will solve your problem.

[jcuknz]

The whole point about digital is that it has freed us from the restrictions of shooting colour film where one had/has to expose for the processing laboratory's conditions. True the average post processing programme can be a horribly complex thing but believe me it will get better with practice and experience and is an essential aspect of digital. Since you sound to me to be interested in the quality of results rather than editing I'd suggest you get Lightroom which I gather makes tweeking very easy and does it well.
When I started editing I was ready to give it all away for the first month but then it started to make sense and now some years later I cannot imagin being without my editing programme.
I too am quite sure you don't need another camera but knowledge and ability of how to use what you have properly ... it is not a film camera

[William W]

The whole point about digital is that it has freed us from the restrictions of shooting colour film

+1

I too am quite sure you don't need another camera but knowledge and ability of how to use what you have properly ... it is not a film camera

+1 also.

WW

[William W]

One thing that is critical in any digital work flow, and that is that you do have to tweak your images in post-production. . . This is no different than I have done with film.

+1 also, also.

WW

[jcuknz]

Why not start another thread with perhaps just a couple of your disappointments and ask members here what they think could be done and how you could use whatever editing programme you have. I hope that the fairly blunt comments you have received as a newbie to this forum will not deter you from future posts as we are here to help each other and not score points except perhaps against other members who we know are experienced and should be able to handle it

Follow up by telling us when we meet your aims becuase different people see various things in photos.
.
So post a couple of shots and keep you fingers crossed Let us know what editing programme you have because 'photoshop' covers a lot of programmes and there are differences between them.

Another point is it can help people to help you if we know roughly in the world you live ie. Europe, Asia, or perhaps down-under like WW and me It took me some time to tumble to the fact, I think anyway, that "Sraylya" is phonetic for Australia

[Adrian]

People often buy cameras because of desire, which is different to need. If you want to change, then you want to change.

The D600 is a superb camera. However, if you are not a photography enthusiast then really it is not for you. Aside from the fact that image processing is a necessity to get the best from the camera, there is really little point in spending substantial cash on a high end camera body unless you are willing to invest even more money in suitably high end lenses.

[kaushikkartik]

Thank You everyone for your thoughts on my question. But I think you guys have not understood my question, I never said that the D90 is not a good camera, but I have tried a couple of other cameras namely D7100, D300s, Canon 7d, and i have found the results better. I dont know how good a photographer i am but i am sure the results were better. Now the thing about knowing the camera, then I can tell u I own the camera for the last 3 years and I think is enough to learn how the camera functions.
Yes I know its not a film camera, but I will never agree that my D90 is better than the film slr I used, that is without the post processing..
Also the WB on the D90 can not compare to the ones I experienced on the 7D or 300s.
I have waited for 2-3 generations of new cameras and the Idea was that should I go for D7200 or D600.
If the older cameras are so good why do people upgrade at all. We should all be shooting with the age old ones.
Please dont take this mail as a retaliation but I know u guys know a lot about Photgraphy but pls dont think that if someone is new to the Forum he is new to Photography also.....
thanks

[Colin Southern]

Generally, newer generations have advances in areas such as auto-focus performance (and speed) - dynamic range (with it's associated benefits towards low-light photography) - pixel count - and other whiz-bang features such as the ability to shoot movies etc.

How useful these are in improving someone's existing results really depends on what they're shooting and how they're doing it, eg

- If you're shooting action sports, then a faster & smarter AF might get more keepers, whereas if you're shooting landscape then it's probably not going to make any difference.

- If you're shooting landscape then and increase in dynamic range might be advantageous (or it might not).

- Pixel count usually isn't that significant as 95% of captured data gets discarded by the time most images are down-sampled for internet display, and are capable of higher resolutions than the eye can resolve in typical print sizes.

Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice ... so you probably need to give folks more specifics as to what your specific areas of shooting are before anyone can comment on the strengths and weaknesses of a particular model.

Shooting film was always a 2 part exercise; camera setting such as shutterspeed & aperture affected the result -- and so did developing choices. If you didn't develop your own film then the "post-processing" was done by the lab. Digital is no different; at the end of the day, the camera is still just a little box that lets "x" amount of light in through a "Y" side hole, onto a sensor with "Z" "sensitivity" - and - digital is no different in that it also still requires "developing" either in-camera if you're a JPEG shooter or in "Photoshop" if you're a RAW shooter (as most of us are).

Photography is all about managing limits, and although limits are "additive" (sub-optimal images are an accumulation of photographer limitations - camera limitations - and processing limitations), any advantages realised from changing camera bodies are going to be proportional to the amount existing photography was limited by existing hardware (and not photographer knowledge and technique, and not by post-production skill); generally - unless folks are hitting hard technology limits - then usually there's more to be gained from working on photographer skill (both in the capture phases and post-production phases. As a case in point, I do a lot of studio/portrait + landscape + commercial/product photography, and over the years I've had Canon 350D, 20D, 1D3, 1Ds3, and now 1Dx cameras. I'm sure that if I were to shoot a series of images with all of those bodies now (and removed all metadata), folks wouldn't be able to tell which camera produced which image. You might then ask "so why did I change" - easy - the later cameras are like later cars ... but more comfortable to use - few more features - but bottom line was really "because the old ones had had a hard life - I wanted to by a new toy - and I could afford to do so".

Why not post a few examples of images that you shot with the D90 (where you felt that the camera was the significant limiting factor), and we'll put our thinking caps on from there?

[DanK]

Yes I know its not a film camera, but I will never agree that my D90 is better than the film slr I used, that is without the post processing..
Also the WB on the D90 can not compare to the ones I experienced on the 7D or 300s.

The key, as several people have said, is "without the postprocessing." All images need postprocessing, just as all film requires developing. If you are shooting jpegs and not postprocessing, you are simply handing off the postprocessing to a fixed set of algorithms in the camera. The results tell you a lot about the algorithms and not much about the capabilities of the camera. It's analogous to dropping off film at the local drugstore for processing and then assuming the problem is the film if you get mediocre results.

Re WB: this is a case in point. It is trivial--literally a matter of seconds in many cases--to fix WB in postprocessing. Your camera may have mediocre AWB. I have never used a D90, so I don't know. But even if it does, that says nothing about the quality of the images the camera is capable of producing.

I have seen a lot of very constructive postings from the people who have posted here, so I know that they are only trying to give you constructive advice. So am I. If you want better results, you would do far better to learn a bit about postprocessing than by buying a new camera. Photoshop is indeed a very tough program to learn, but you could make huge strides with something simpler--for example, by shooting raw and using Lightroom. I rarely need to take images into photoshop.

[Donald]

First of all, it would be much nicer of we knew your name. Then we can address each other correctly. So that you don't continue to get people asking you what your proper name is, because most us use that on here, you can go to Edit Profile and enter your proper name under 'Real Name'. Then it will appear underneath your Username in all your posts. You can also enter your location so that it does the same, just as in my details alongside this message. Then we all know where everyone is in the world.

Please dont take this mail as a retaliation but I know u guys know a lot about Photgraphy but pls dont think that if someone is new to the Forum he is new to Photography also.....

Also the WB on the D90 can not compare to the ones I experienced on the 7D or 300s.

I think the problem I have and perhaps some others do as well, is illustrated by your statement that the WB on the D90 can't compare with that on those other cameras you mention.

Given that you are an experienced photographer, you will know that if you are shooting RAW as opposed to JPEG, then the WB setting on the camera is totally irrelevant. I think this demonstrates why so many people above are referring you to the need to see that post-processing is an integral part of the process of making a picture.

When you say that the D90 can never be "better than the film slr I used", what do you mean? How was it 'better? If you can explain this to us, then perhaps people will be able to offer comments that you might find helpful.

[kaushikkartik]

Thank You for the advise. I have altered my Profile.
I shoot mostly jpeg fine. I will give you an example of the WB problem. the two comditons where the WB lets me down very often is when I shoot in light from a fire or in broad daylight. In fire the colours are not accurate the Warm nature of light is missed and in Broadday light the pictures are more towards the Blue spectrum of light.
I know that in Raw the WB can be altered but the moment the Picture was taken is missed and one must use there imagination to recreate the scene and sometimes it does not work for me as I told u I am not that good at post processing.
I will Post some of my pictures taken recently so that u can help me further.
Now going back to the film days, with minimum fuss it used to give such vibrant colours with accurate WB that I have made the above statement.

[William W]

. . . I think you guys have not understood my question.

I believe that I did understand your (main) question.
I understand your main question to be:

"Could i get similar results [to using my film camera and sending my film to a quality post production laboratory for printing], from a full frame [digital] without post processing?"


My answer your question is - NO.


Have I understood your question?

Do you understand my answer? The fuller explanation of my answer is above, in post #2 and is endorsed by others who are suggesting to you that you learn to better use the Digital Medium and that also includes learning and using Digital Post Processing.

Also answering the questions that many have asked of you, would bode well for a better understanding and conversation and ultimately more and better quality assistance to you.

WW

[William W]

The key, as several people have said, is "without the postprocessing." All images need postprocessing, just as all film requires developing. etc

+1 also also also

WW

[William W]

I shoot mostly jpeg fine. I will give you an example of the WB problem. the two comditons where the WB lets me down very often is when I shoot in light from a fire or in broad daylight. In fire the colours are not accurate the Warm nature of light is missed and in Broadday light the pictures are more towards the Blue spectrum of light.
I know that in Raw the WB can be altered but the moment the Picture was taken is missed and one must use there imagination to recreate the scene and sometimes it does not work for me as I told u I am not that good at post processing.
I will Post some of my pictures taken recently so that u can help me further.
Now going back to the film days, with minimum fuss it used to give such vibrant colours with accurate WB that I have made the above statement.

OK - I also shoot JPEG.
So, when you shoot JPEG – WHAT do you have your Camera’s White Balance set to?

IF you have your white balance set to 5600°K - AND not “AUTO”, then if you shoot jpeg SOOC (and have NO JPEG enhancements set in the camera), then you will get the warm look of using colour daylight balanced film when shooting scenes by a an open fire light.

You can manually set the White Balance of the Digital Camera to mimic the Colour Temperature Balance of Film – if that is what you want to simulate.

But the real question is: Why would you want to do that?

You stated:

“I know that in Raw the WB can be altered but the moment the Picture was taken is missed and one must use there imagination to recreate the scene and sometimes it does not work for me as I told u I am not that good at post processing.”

Well as we are ONLY discussing WHITE BALANCE – then IF you shoot raw you can reset the sensor’s COLOUR TEMPERATURE to whatever you want – AFTER the shot.

Surely this procedure is advantageous and it is not very difficult to learn how to do?
This procedure of setting the White Balance AFTER the image is made just akin to "selecting" the colour Balance of Film and or the Colour Correction Filters to use AFTER the shot is made - n most Photographers find that scope and availability of selection is an advantage and not a disadvantage.

However IF you want to mimic Film Processing Workflow and shoot JPEG SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) - then you will need to "set-up" your camera such that the JPEG file mimics the Film type you want to use: and this "set-up" will include always selecting the White Balance manually, to the Colour Temperature the Film you would have selected would have had.

You will also need to "tune" the in camera JPEG enhancements (termed something like: 'contrast' saturation' 'vibrancy' etc.) to get the result you desire. I have completed these processes for the Digital cameras I use. As I mentioned, I do shot JPEG. Specifically, as I mentioned, I always shoot raw + JPEG (L). And I sometimes use the JPEG file SOOC.

But the question I suggest you ask yourself, is "WHY would I (you) want to shoot JPEG SOOC?"
And if there i not a good reason - then I suggest that you learn Digital Post Production such that you use the raw file to make the final image you require - and in doing so that the Digital Medium is just changing the methodology of the process whereby the YOU, the Photographer now has all the lab technology on a computer and works on a file; whereas with Film, you had to send the negative to the Hand Finishing Lab and instruct the Technician as to the nuances of Colour and Tone etc., that you required in the final print - and you PAID them for that expertise.

Of course the other matter with the Digital workflow is - if you are not happy with the first attempt - you just recalibrate and tweak the image differently -AND you don’t end up with sixty two thousand test strips on the darkroom floor - and paying truckloads of cash for the Darkroom Tech to produce them.

Most Photographers see this as a step forward in the photographic process: they see that the control of the final product is broader and the opportunities and ease for minute adjustments offers tem more artistic scope.

But an already mentioned: of the desire is to mimic a film wold - then that can be done also.



WW

[Manfred M]

If you find that the D300s gives you superior results to the D90, then you have an issue with the settings in the D90. From an electronics standpoint (sensor and Expeed2 image processor), the two cameras are virtually identical and should give you results that are indistiguishable. The main difference is the body layout and the D300s uses a larger, metal body.

[William W]

“Training at Sunset”

NOTE – the warmth of the Colour Temperature enhances the warm feel of “Sunset” - (like fire’s glow) - she is NOT sun-tanned - her natural skin colour is quite pale.

This image was made from the JPEG file and in the camera the WHITE BALANCE was MANUALLY set to 5600°K.

This Digital Capture approximates mimicking making the same shot, at the same time, with the same lens, using DAYLIGHT FILM (typically rated at 5600°K) and asking the lab NOT to correct for White Balance, when printing.

At Sunset, the Colour Temperature typically, is betwen 2000°K and 3000°K.

WW

[PhotomanJohn]

WB lets me down very often is when I shoot in light from a fire or in broad daylight. In fire the colours are not accurate the Warm nature of light is missed and in Broadday light the pictures are more towards the Blue spectrum of light.

Kartik,

I would like to comment about the camera not reproducing what you "saw" when you took the photo. Our brains correct the color balance to show us what we know the colors should be. When we look at a white piece of paper under incandescent light it looks white to us even though it is really quite yellow under that light. Auto white balance tries to look at the scene and change the colors in the same way our brain would and some algorithms do a better job with some scenes than others. In my opinion, the only way to get exactly what you think you saw when you took the picture is to adjust it in post processing as others have mentioned. A camera won't always to a good job of distorting the colors to fit the image and mood you experienced when you took the photo. There are many excellent tutorials on Lightroom and I support the others who made the suggestion that you give it a try whether you upgrade cameras or not.

Good luck and have fun.

John