Flygga From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5330 times:
OK I have been waiting for a good side by side comparison of the D60 and D100. Here are two shots, one taken by Joe Pries with his D60 and one by Art Brett with his D100. Now to me the D100 shot looks much better, but someone suggested that Art might spend more time in post shooting processing. Maybe Art and Joe and upload some raw .jpgs prior to any adjustments?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5284 times:
Interesting, and to an extent this is going to be a matter of personal preference, but of the two images presented, I would say that at first glance the D100 has more "punch", but on closer inspection, this comes at a price - look for example at the landing gear - the D60 has preserved significantly more shadow detail, and overall, I'd say the tones are smoother.
Having said that, I'm sure very different results could be achieved with variations in processing.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5266 times:
Art uses the Nikon 80-400VR.
Joe's pic looks classic smooth Canon. Art's is slightly less smooth, but it could be because Joe's hasn't been sharpened quite as much as Art's. I'd also be interested to know what both guys have done in terms of mucking about with the colour levels etc.
Either way, I suspect with a few minutes playing you could get both pretty much the same.
Carlos Borda From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 538 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5262 times:
Joe is notoriously lazy when it comes to Photoshop... he does the least amount of work on his images due to time constraints (he claims he's way to busy to put more effort into them). He might put 1-2 minutes work into an image whereas others might put 5-10 minutes into an image. I'm sure Art put some more effort and pride into his to give it that "punch" that Colin described. Personally I think Art's image has a nicer visual kick to it, but I'm quite sure that if both raw images were processed by the same individual the results would be very identical.
>>I'd also be interested to know what both guys have done in terms of mucking about with the colour levels etc.
Either way, I suspect with a few minutes playing you could get both pretty much the same.>>
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5195 times:
I'm glad some folks can see a bit of softness in that Canon image.
Firstly, the Canon image looks slightly soft in comparison to the Nikon, but would you notice it was soft it you saw just the Canon image in isolation? Remember this topic when you get your next badsoft rejection!
Secondly, probably best if Joe doesn't upload his image as is, eh? See references to softness and rejection above!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5155 times:
The only thing that matters here is which image has the most information - if Art hasn't thrown something away in his processing choices, then the D60 has more raw material to work with - put it this way, 5 minutes with Photoshop could make Joe's shot look like Art's, but there's nothing could be done to restore the shadow detail Joe's shot has.
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 52 Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5133 times:
Wow, did this one take me by surprise. Joe and I talked yesterday about doing a RAW comparison between the D60 and D100, but it was suppose to be on a 744 we shot in the morning at JFK. How'd Richard get Joe's image so fast ... it isn't on A.net.
First, let me say ... don't look at the picture embedded in this note. It's terrible looking. Look at the original on A.net.
Look at this image instead (scroll right to the link)...
How you'll get Joe's original (that is, post processed) image I don't know unless he posts it.
My picture was shot with a Nikkor 80-400mm VR zoom, full out, 500th of a second, f10 (shot on shutter speed preferred), white balance to Direct Sunlight, ISO 200 (because it's the lowest we've got on the D100), no other compensation factors used at all.
Now, several of you pointed out that my picture "has more punch" and "nicer visual kick." Well, both of those comments come from the contrast of the picture. No doubt about it, I like a picture that has more contrast and believe it gives it that added kick.
How I processed the picture:
Converted from RAW to JPG excellent quality. I cropped it from 3008 (of which the aircraft was about 1700 pixels) to get the final composition I wanted. Resampled to 1024 x 680. Then I applied the Auto Equalize (Corel, same as auto levels) which, for this picture, was all it needed to give it that punch, or the contrast I was looking for.
About the sharpening. I did apply unsharp mask, but I can't tell you how much or how many times I might have applied it. I have to admit, I just keep playing and changing the settings until I get it the way I want. I think this one was relatively easy and quick to do.
Now, about the shadow details in the landing gear. From the two shots above they look pretty much the same to me, but my applying the contrast I want (through auto equalize) would definitely get rid of some of that shadow detail. As for the landing gear detail (see picture below) I think the detail is there. The fact that it didn't remain after post processing was my choice and nothing to do with the camera.
OK, I'll bite ... here's the converted image JPG excellent quality for everyone to scrutinize ... NOW it's up to Joe to upload his image so we can all see once and for all. Mind you, not that it's going to change anyone's mind!
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5116 times:
Mine was shot with 2x converter.
File size: 5,549KB
Image Serial Number: 260-6072
Camera Model: Canon EOS D60
Camera serial number: 0320301092
Firmware: Firmware Version 1.0.0
Date/Time: 2003.03.21 16:11:30
Shutter speed: 1/500 sec
Exposure mode: Tv
Exposure compensation: -1/3
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Continuous frame: 1
Lens: 140.0 to 400.0 mm
Focal length: 400.0 mm
Subject distance: 50 m
AF mode: One-shot AF
Focus point: [Left + Center + Right]
Image size: 3072 x 2048
Image quality: Raw
White balance: Auto
CFn 4: Tv/Av and exposure level: 1/3 stop
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5081 times:
From the large size images, I'll say this (and I'm a Canon owner it hurts). Art's 3000 pixel shot is sharper, and there seems to be less noise (check the sky).
However, for me, the best post-processed shot is Joe's. Art's is more contrasty and you lose alot of shadow detail with that, and it also appears to be a little over-sharpened. Look at the right wing, very distorted IMO .
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5085 times:
keep in mind that a 2x converter, used at full 640mm- thats the ultimate test especially compared to a lens with no conversion added. This is an extreme and thats fine, still though i'll take my D60 shot over any other any day. CMOS is the only way i know when it comes to dslr.
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 5025 times:
I've got to admit ... I'm surprised. After hearing Joe talk (and talk and talk) about that CMOS chip for so long I fully expected his RAW image to be better than mine, but I don't think it is. Mine appears sharper to me and with a bit more contrast (look at the pilot in the window, Joe's is less detailed than mine). Could be differences introduced because Joe is using the converter and also stopped down 1/3 of a stop. Don't know, but right now I think the D100, which by the way Joe stands for DELIGHTFUL 100!, shot is much better than the D60. Ya gotta love that D100!
Yes, some dust spots that are proving hard to remove. I've got to clean it again. I've only cleaned it once and don't believe I did it good enough.
Also, no coverter. Straight shot with the 80-400 zoom.
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 5019 times:
Damn Joe, looks like we clicked the shutter at the exact same moment and we weren't even trying with this shot to get an identical one. We were too happy that the pilot gave us such a wonderful angle for shooting to think about comparing the D60 to the D100.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 4973 times:
Well, without any prejudice (honestly, even though I'm a Canon user)...
I find it interesting that the Nikon has failed to pick up the subtle cloud cover in the sky below the airplane - in the Canon image, there are some very soft clouds evident whilst you'd almost believe the sky was clear blue in the Nikon picture
Having seen the camera output, I actually prefer the colours produced by the Canon too - they seem stronger. My honest opinion now is that Art pumped up the colours on the Nikon picture that we were first shown at the top of this topic, whereas Joe's first image is much as it came out of the camera
Contrast around the flight deck window is down to minor differences in vantage point. Notice how the bright area is more spread and slightly more muted on the Nikon image than on the Canon image where the sun flare on the nose is more pronounced
The Nikon image is clearly sharper out of the camera. I notice that Joe is using "Normal" sharpness in camera and I'd be interested to know what setting Art uses. None the less, there's reasons for the softness and a quick USM on the Canon picture brings it at least up to Nikon standard
Bottom line though on this is - who gives a stuff? Both these cameras seem capable of delivering fine images, both out of the box and with some minor photoshopping.
PS: I think you were both cheating. You should shoot the things full frame, rather than muck around cropping images down to almost half frame. Of course, I never do that sort of thing Seriously, both images show how good a result can be obtained from a 6mp sensor, illustrating neatly the fact that for web-images 6mp is way more than enough.
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1626 posts, RR: 69 Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 4975 times:
I just can't be happier than tonight, with Art's photo from that D100 Looks super to me!!
I found that I have firmware 2.0 on my D100, I can simply shoot jpeg Fine (L) and no problem, with the sharpness (I have it always on auto sharpening). I don't see much difference of the sharpness of the Jpeg fine compare to NEF on my D100 to be honest.. Anyone can explain???
I am not sure why the blue sky looks smoother on Art, while not so smooth on Joe's ? Is this the noise level we talk about? My camera setting is "off" on noise reduction.
Also, Jeff, I have my camera cleaned, but those dust spot still there, the guy cleanded my camera have professional equipment, and saw the sensor through the very powerful maginfied glass, seems no dust left there, but I still get them on my shots and need to do cloning everytime which is real pain. I think those dark spot are in the focusing screen?? Not sure, can you think about something please??
25 JetTrader: Hi folks, For what it's worth, those files can't really offer a fair comparison because the D100 image file size (5.2Mb) is some 20 times larger than
26 Yevgeny: Ok Dean D-60 File size is: 5,549KB Yevgeny
27 EGGD: Very good point Joe. You always lose quality with a teleconverter (as I found out with my B-300), whereas Art's was taken just with his 80-400mm VR le
28 Skymonster: Dan, Don't try to confuse matters! A Canon extender (several hundred dollars) is not the same as a tuppeny-hapenny converter. I strongly suspect that
29 JetTrader: Yevgeny, Don't confuse what the camera tells you about the size of the RAW file (5,549KB as you correctly point out) and the size of the JPEG file Jo
30 EGGD: Ah yes that too Dean, as Joe's pic is still 3000x and is only 280kb, There's a huge amount of compression right there, and thus a huge loss of detail.
31 AAGOLD: OK, Joe, what happened here. I thought you were going to upload the converted RAW file not a compressed file. Let's see the original converted file. A
32 EGGD: hey Andy that thing cost me £200!!! They told me it was the best .