What Superzoom? Dissatisfied with the Nikon P100 (1 Viewer)

SueO · Mar 6, 2011

With film to CD, can you crop it and treat it like a shot from a digital camera? I mean if photos were put on a CD and I copied some to my photo manager, would it be just like an image coming from a digital camera? I'm not sure what RAW is. I had that on my 2 megapixel camera, but I barely understood the word megapixel when I got it and I didn't understand what they meant when it said I could have RAW.
Sue
You guys are so fast, there are always two more posts by the time I finish, so my posts are lagging.

crazyfingers · Mar 6, 2011

SueO said:
With film to CD, can you crop it and treat it like a shot from a digital camera? I mean if photos were put on a CD and I copied some to my photo manager, would it be just like an image coming from a digital camera? I'm not sure what RAW is. I had that on my 2 megapixel camera, but I barely understood the word megapixel when I got it and I didn't understand what they meant when it said I could have RAW.
Sue
You guys are so fast, there are always two more posts by the time I finish, so my posts are lagging.

The files that you get back will be jpg files but low resolution unless you jump great hoops to find the 1 in 1000 labs that will give you back high resolution files.

Typically you'd get small JPGs, 10% the resolution of what would have been had you used a digi9tal camera yourself. You'd have to go to high cost specialists that are inconvenient to use.

You'd find that any tweaking of the photo was automatic. It's a very poor substitute for having the original files to manage yourself.

Do not expect that more than 1 in 1000 labs will get you back the file on CD that you would have had with a digital camera to manage yourself.

RJM · Mar 6, 2011

Yes, and a CD is more than ample storage for a full roll of 24 exposure film at resolutions well beyond today's digital cameras. If you have access to the post or a private courriers like FedEx, DHL, etc,. you can get the film processed with prints, negatives and photo CD within 10days outside the USA. Many processors now even include a new roll of film as a bonus.

SueO · Mar 6, 2011

We can have the office call Fed Ex etc., but mail is prohibitively expensive. Last year, my dad sent us our tax papers and it cost $100.00. Our Aussie buddies had to send two checks home and it cost them $90.00, I don't know who they used.
Sue

RJM · Mar 6, 2011

Sue, I suggest doing a web search to help you locate film processor that meets your needs. Also, Fujifilm has done a pretty good job of supporting at least ONE full service lab in most developed countries so international mail may not be necessary.

Film is still a great medium but it demands skills as mistakes are not "free" like with digital. If you are only after record shots and not making "art" then digital is a more cost effective solution. And if you are not printing then perhaps a superzoom is still your best choice. Just buy more than one so you have a backup! FWIW, I did some test shots with the new Fujifilm HS20 a few days ago and was fairly impressed.

pshute · Mar 6, 2011

RJM said:
Ha far from it my friend! Film is making a comeback as more and more pros get fed up with digital merry-go-round.

I'm sure there are still a few people using it, but can you please provide some evidence that it's "making a comeback"? Where did you hear that?

And how is it a merry-go-round? I guess it was for a while, when digital cameras were still developing, but I was under the impression that the current lot are now generally good enough.

Manual focus lenses seem to be making a comeback in some circles (probably small ones, full of cheapskates like myself), but I haven't heard anything similar about film. I may just be reading the wrong forums though.

RJM · Mar 6, 2011

pshute said:
... but I haven't heard anything similar about film. I may just be reading the wrong forums though.

Google is your friend.

Seriously, to debate film vs. digital further is just chaff and hijacks the thread. I only wanted to tell Sue that shooting film is still a viable option since she already has the camera and her results can still be superior in most scenarios to even the best digital full frame dslr.

pshute · Mar 6, 2011

RJM said:
Google is your friend.

Seriously, to debate film vs. digital further is just chaff and hijacks the thread. I only wanted to tell Sue that shooting film is still a viable option since she already has the camera and her results can still be superior in most scenarios to even the best digital full frame dslr.

I missed the bit where she said she had a film SLR. I'd give it a try too if I had one available with a suitable lens. Actually I do have a film SLR, but no suitable lens.

What lens do you have for the Pentax, Sue? And what can that camera do? AF?

I believe lots of older Pentax AF lenses work ok on recent digital bodies too.

I did Google the film thing, and yes, there does seem to be a sort of resurgence, but a smallish one, and they do seem to be working hard to convince themselves that it's better. They seem to be doing it for the "look" of film, not necessarily something a bird photographer is seeking.

scodgerott · Mar 7, 2011

Hobbes2 said:
Hi there, I agree with you re: the new Sony. It does look promising and it's the one I'm most interesting in seeing the results of.

I'm also interested in your teleconverter set-up. I've never bothered with the 1.7x panasonic converter because it just didn't offer enough of a gain (on my camera) for the price. However, 2x is a little more tempting. May I ask what the set up is exactly that you use, please?
Thanks
Hobbes

Hi Hobbes2

Attached are some photos that may help you understand my teleconverter setup. The first picture is the TC itself. Its a Sony VCL-ES20 X2.0 one touch teleconverter for cameras with a 37mm thread. Basically its for video cameras. I've had the lens since 1999, so it may not be available any longer, but you can try a search and see. The lens comes with an adapter that is screwed onto the cameras lens thread. After that, there are two push buttons on the lens itself that allows you to take the lens on and off quickly. The second picture is of the 2 step-down rings that allow me to fit a 37mm thread to the 52mm camera's thread. The third image is the camera with the adapter fitted to the front on the lens and the last image is the TC on the camera. Hope this helps.

scodgerott · Mar 7, 2011

SueO said:
These were taken on the shutter priorty of the Nikon because the auto doesn't work at all. (Neils, I can't seem to find a menu for the 'A' setting--still messing. I did give the 'A' a try before with no luck, but I'll try to configure as you suggested.)

So, the first bird--the Gray-headed Tanager was not far and obviously doesn't have the tangle that some of my Sony examples did. I don't know how many photos I shot of this patient bird and these were the best.
In the last two of the Fulvous-vented Euphonia, the first photo doesn't look all that bad, but you can see that when it's cropped it is very fuzzy. This would have been a piece of cake with the Sony--I used it for four years and I know this would have been a great shot.
I guess I'm trying to say that I still think the Nikon should do better even on auto setting and I would be happy with the same kind of ease and quality I had with the H5.
Sue

Hi SueO, I've been looking at your images and agree that they aren't very sharp, but neither are they that far off from being sharp. All the suggestions posted about your images and the camera may be valid, but I was just wondering if you've checked your camera's settings. Its possible the sharpness control is on its lowest setting, which is probably -2. If it is, try changing it to +2 and see if that makes a difference. If it doesn't, you may just have a crappy camera and would be better of giving it the flick. I can't believe that a big company like Nikon would allow production cameras to be sold to the public with that image quality, which is one reason to think that it may be a one off thing and you just happened to be the "lucky" person who ended up with it.

scodgerott · Mar 7, 2011

Hi SueO, Further to my previous message, I've had a look at Cameralabs.com review of the Nikon100 and the images posted on that site are similar in quality to the Panasonic FZ40 and Canon S30, so your camera should be able to do much the same. If you get a chance, have a look at that site and see for yourself.

Hobbes2 · Mar 7, 2011

scodgerott said:
Hi Hobbes2

Attached are some photos that may help you understand my teleconverter setup. The first picture is the TC itself. Its a Sony VCL-ES20 X2.0 one touch teleconverter for cameras with a 37mm thread. Basically its for video cameras. I've had the lens since 1999, so it may not be available any longer, but you can try a search and see. The lens comes with an adapter that is screwed onto the cameras lens thread. After that, there are two push buttons on the lens itself that allows you to take the lens on and off quickly. The second picture is of the 2 step-down rings that allow me to fit a 37mm thread to the 52mm camera's thread. The third image is the camera with the adapter fitted to the front on the lens and the last image is the TC on the camera. Hope this helps.

Thanks Rodger, that's great. I've found the set-up online for £60 so I might give it a go. Does the converter attach directly to the lens or to the outer casing? If the outer casing, can you confirm that the set-up gives enough room for the lens to extend to its maximum behind the converter?
Thanks again
Hobbes

njlarsen · Mar 7, 2011

scodgerott said:
Hi SueO, Further to my previous message, I've had a look at Cameralabs.com review of the Nikon100 and the images posted on that site are similar in quality to the Panasonic FZ40 and Canon S30, so your camera should be able to do much the same. If you get a chance, have a look at that site and see for yourself.

As I think I have said above, try to disallow all forms of automatic choices by the camera, and especially all choices of scene modes, because they are likely to choose something different from what you want the camera to do.

Niels

scodgerott · Mar 7, 2011

Hobbes2 said:
Thanks Rodger, that's great. I've found the set-up online for £60 so I might give it a go. Does the converter attach directly to the lens or to the outer casing? If the outer casing, can you confirm that the set-up gives enough room for the lens to extend to its maximum behind the converter?
Thanks again
Hobbes

Hi Hobbes, The converter attaches directly to the lens. There is no problem with the lens extending as the converter just goes along with it all the way in or out. Of course you get vignetting as you zoom out to the wider angles, but all teleconverters do that.

Hobbes2 · Mar 7, 2011

scodgerott said:
Hi Hobbes, The converter attaches directly to the lens. There is no problem with the lens extending as the converter just goes along with it all the way in or out. Of course you get vignetting as you zoom out to the wider angles, but all teleconverters do that.

Hi Rodger, thanks for your reply. Ah, I feared as much. I don't think it'll work on my camera then as there isn't any way of attaching anything directly to the lens. It's the old Panasonic FZ8 rather than the later versions which I see have a ridge-attachment type system on the end of the lens. Not to worry. It gives me more incentive to see how these new superzooms perform

All the best
Hobbes

crazyfingers · Mar 7, 2011

Most reviews I have seen suggest that photo quality is not what people should expect from the Nikon P100.

Hard to know what exactly to make of reviews when they are not wildlife photo specific but these guys certainly give the Nikon P100 lower photo quality than the Canon SX30. Lower quality and lower overall.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2011/01/17/Canon-PowerShot-SX30-IS/p1

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2010/06/17/Nikon-Coolpix-P100/p1

Handy site anyway.

ETA: It's Odd. Here in the US, Googling for camera reviews I run into far more UK sites and I normally do Googling for other stuff. Is there something about the UK and cameras?

SueO · Mar 8, 2011

scodgerott said:
Hi SueO, I've been looking at your images and agree that they aren't very sharp, but neither are they that far off from being sharp. All the suggestions posted about your images and the camera may be valid, but I was just wondering if you've checked your camera's settings. Its possible the sharpness control is on its lowest setting, which is probably -2. If it is, try changing it to +2 and see if that makes a difference. If it doesn't, you may just have a crappy camera and would be better of giving it the flick. I can't believe that a big company like Nikon would allow production cameras to be sold to the public with that image quality, which is one reason to think that it may be a one off thing and you just happened to be the "lucky" person who ended up with it.

Quote from Niels:

As I think I have said above, try to disallow all forms of automatic choices by the camera, and especially all choices of scene modes, because they are likely to choose something different from what you want the camera to do.

You guys are GREAT! I may be able to work with this thing! Maybe. There is still way too much fuzz, but maybe more adjusting can fix it. Thank-you, Thank-you for all your help.
I was just about to contact Nikon, but I really didn’t want to deal with the headache of “Let me switch you to so-and so.” While skype tried to hang on to a decent signal. or spend hours writing up specifics via email. Earlier today I popped into BF and noticed Scodger’s additional info and got the camera and the booklet out.
Niels,
I found the ‘spot’ on in the A and S menu.
Scodgerott,
I went to Optimize Image which is the menu for contrast, saturation and sharpening. There were 7 choices. It was set on Normal. The two that sounded best were Vivid and More Vivid. I selected More Vivid.
It was about 5:00 when I got things set and went out for a test run---there weren’t any birds! Finally, I heard some singing a followed it to see four birds perched in a leafless tree. I could position myself with the setting sun at my back. Perfect! For a milli-second, I thought Social Flycatchers and Palm Tanagers but before my mind finished with the word Tanager, it registered the call was not a Social and about the same time it clicked to a Piratic Flycatcher! Lifer #855! I knew what it was because I recently had been studying this bird.
I crossed my fingers and got the camera ready. I put the circle on the bird and tried to get good focus. I took 48 shots before the birds flew off. It seemed like the photos were sharp on the little screen. I was Over The Moon, as you guys in OZ say.
I hurried home and downloaded (uploaded?). Most were not as clear as I thought they’d be, but about five were pretty good. Still not as good as they should be and still not a good percentage of half way decent shots, but I have hope now. Shutter still seemed to work better than Aperture. Here are two of the best on the new settings.
Everybody on here has been helpful and this has been an enlightening thread. Wish I could buy you all a beer!

Later….Doh! I turned the page from the Optimize Image and under ‘custom’ I found the – and + you were talking about Codger. I set it a 2+. It’s dark now so I and will try again manana. If I can get this camera set and can work with it, it will make these next few (migration) months much more enjoyable. Gene is very relieved he might not have to shell out for a new camera!
Sue

crazyfingers · Mar 8, 2011

SueO could you give more details on the setting changes you made?

SueO · Mar 8, 2011

crazyfingers said:
SueO could you give more details on the setting changes you made?

Yeah. I haven't tried the newest and most promising yet though.
Turn the dial on the top of the camera to S. Push Menu. On the left side of the menu screen you see four symbols (wrench, arrrow, video camera and S). You may have to click the multi-selection button to the left (timer symbol) to highlight those four symbols. Scroll the multi-selector until S is highlighted then click the multi-selector on the right (the symbol with the +/- on it) scroll to Optimize Image. (At first, I only saw two choices on the screen--scroll anyway and more will appear) When Optimize Image is highlighted click the multi-selector on the right again. Scroll to 'Custom'--click the multi-selector button on the right again. Highlight: Image Sharpening and click the selector button on the right again. Scroll to the number you want. I've set mine on High; push OK when your choice is highlighted.
Good Luck--maybe we won't have to take a hammer to it after all.
Sue

scodgerott · Mar 8, 2011

SueO said:
Quote from Niels:

As I think I have said above, try to disallow all forms of automatic choices by the camera, and especially all choices of scene modes, because they are likely to choose something different from what you want the camera to do.

You guys are GREAT! I may be able to work with this thing! Maybe. There is still way too much fuzz, but maybe more adjusting can fix it. Thank-you, Thank-you for all your help.
I was just about to contact Nikon, but I really didn’t want to deal with the headache of “Let me switch you to so-and so.” While skype tried to hang on to a decent signal. or spend hours writing up specifics via email. Earlier today I popped into BF and noticed Scodger’s additional info and got the camera and the booklet out.
Niels,
I found the ‘spot’ on in the A and S menu.
Scodgerott,
I went to Optimize Image which is the menu for contrast, saturation and sharpening. There were 7 choices. It was set on Normal. The two that sounded best were Vivid and More Vivid. I selected More Vivid.
It was about 5:00 when I got things set and went out for a test run---there weren’t any birds! Finally, I heard some singing a followed it to see four birds perched in a leafless tree. I could position myself with the setting sun at my back. Perfect! For a milli-second, I thought Social Flycatchers and Palm Tanagers but before my mind finished with the word Tanager, it registered the call was not a Social and about the same time it clicked to a Piratic Flycatcher! Lifer #855! I knew what it was because I recently had been studying this bird.
I crossed my fingers and got the camera ready. I put the circle on the bird and tried to get good focus. I took 48 shots before the birds flew off. It seemed like the photos were sharp on the little screen. I was Over The Moon, as you guys in OZ say.
I hurried home and downloaded (uploaded?). Most were not as clear as I thought they’d be, but about five were pretty good. Still not as good as they should be and still not a good percentage of half way decent shots, but I have hope now. Shutter still seemed to work better than Aperture. Here are two of the best on the new settings.
Everybody on here has been helpful and this has been an enlightening thread. Wish I could buy you all a beer!
Later….Doh! I turned the page from the Optimize Image and under ‘custom’ I found the – and + you were talking about Codger. I set it a 2+. It’s dark now so I and will try again manana. If I can get this camera set and can work with it, it will make these next few (migration) months much more enjoyable. Gene is very relieved he might not have to shell out for a new camera!
Sue

Hi SueO, glad to be of help. Hope the sharpening works out. It should, as the images you posted are looking pretty good, especially the second (largest one). By the way, nice bird.

What Superzoom? Dissatisfied with the Nikon P100 (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Don't Worry, Be Happy!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread