What???!! Image Quality Nikon D100 vs Canon S400

[spardacus]

I am very dissappointed by what I am seeing in the side by side test of a $400.00 Canon Elph S400 and my $1,500.00 Nikon D100.
On the linked page you'll notice from a distance both images are not bad, however on closer review the Nikon takes a very soft image that looks out of focus.

http://www.creativeresource.org/compare/compare.html

I have some stunning closeups with the D100 - which is primarily why I bought it. However! I need this camera to take crisp images for press coverage as well.

Why are the Nikon images so soft?

I have used normal and high sharpening to no real effect.

The Nikon of course does not pixelate as fast as the Canon - that's to be expected. But why the soft images at 40 feet?

My first shots have been with the FINE Large JPEG format, but the RAW was no better.

I'm thinking of bailing on the camera for simply because it was so much more expensive than the pocket sized Canon and stick with FILM for closeups!

Any insights?

Thank you,
i am spardacus

[Sebastian]

Damn, that is simply crappy performance on the D100. I have never seen anything like that with either of my D100s or my 10D.

Leads me to think the lens is at fault. What did you shoot this with?

[spardacus]

I used the lens from my Nikon N80 ... it's a Nikon AF Nikkor 28-80mm 1:3.3-5.6 G

Where am I going wrong here?

I bought a Tamron AF19-35mm F/3.5-4.5 but haven't suited it up yet.

thanks sebastian!

i am spardacus

[Sebastian]

I used the lens from my Nikon N80 ... it's a Nikon AF Nikkor 28-80mm 1:3.3-5.6 G

Where am I going wrong here?

I bought a Tamron AF19-35mm F/3.5-4.5 but haven't suited it up yet.

thanks sebastian!

i am spardacus

Ah, yes, that'll do it. Your N80 kit lens is mediocre at best. SPend 100 bucks on the 50mm f/1.8D, you'll see what that camera is capable of.

For wides, I had great luck with the 18-35mm Nikkor.

And always remember to stop down a few f/stops from wide open to make the lenses sharper. Middle is always best, wide open is soft and stopped all the way down is soft as well.

Your gut instinct is to blame the camera, but the camera has much less to do with quality than the glass. The S400 just happens to have a good lens designed for digital on it, hence the difference in quality.

Rent a really good lens to find out for sure, and from now on don't waste money on cheap lenses, wait longer and buy the good stuff. Especially since I get the vibe that you may be needing this for some sort of commercial endeavor.
.

[Photo-John]

There's a lot more in-camera processing going on with the Canon. I don't know how you have your D10 setup. But in general, you'll need to do more post-capture processing - including sharpening - with digital SLRs. I agree with Sebastian that the lens might be contributing to the problem. But I could tell that there was a fair amount of sharpening on the Canon image and the D100 image looked like there was none. I turn sharpening off on all of my cameras and sharpen later, after adjustment and resizing, with Photoshop.

[Sebastian]

There's a lot more in-camera processing going on with the Canon. I don't know how you have your D10 setup. But in general, you'll need to do more post-capture processing - including sharpening - with digital SLRs. I agree with Sebastian that the lens might be contributing to the problem. But I could tell that there was a fair amount of sharpening on the Canon image and the D100 image looked like there was none. I turn sharpening off on all of my cameras and sharpen later, after adjustment and resizing, with Photoshop.

PJ,

You do have a very valid point, but that D100 sample was BAD. It should have been slightly softer than the S400, but not missing that much detail. The S400 definitely oversharpened, but I really don't believe that is what's causing this discrepancy.

[spardacus]

Thanks for the feedback ...

I can handle the post processing ... I live in photoshop all day everyday, However, Sebastian's point is well made. The original image is weak...seemingly out of focus.

I have just added some images taken with the Tamron 19-35mm F/3.5-4.5 lens.

The camera is on P (Auto) .. no manual override for Aperture or Speed.

It seems to me the depth of field is so quickly dropped that a VERY narrow space is actually in focus. In the gumball shot (better noticed in the original large file) the gumball is slightly out of focus the sand in the mortar next to the gumball is in focus and the leaf, sticks, remaining mortar just inches away is blurred.

In the flower, only a small portion of the flower's petal is in focus. One inch closer and further and all focus drops.

When I shoot with my ancient Canon AE-1 I never have this kind of drop off in depth.

http://www.creativeresource.org/compare/compare.html

I just don;t know what to think. Lens ... Body? I don't know.

thank you for you input.

[Sebastian]

These new ones look fine to me, although larger crops would be nice.

The first flower, notice the area BEHIND the flower has some sharp petals. Did the flower shift after you focused? Did you move to reframe?

The rest look fine. The thing is, how often did you put your slides/negs to this kind of scrutiny? Did you really check every shot for maximum sharpness, or did you just stop down to get better DOF? Digital cameas will very quickly show us our weaknesses in technique simply because of the way we view the images now.

You're also using P mode, which is probably using large apertures in favor of fast shutter speed, softening the images and making the DOF very shallow. You don't mention the focal lengths or the apertures. WIth close-up shooting, DOF drops off VERY quickly. At 1:1 I have dealt with DOF in the milimeters, having to stop down to f/64 at times to increase that to centimeters. The closer you get the worse the DOF, you just might be noticing it for the first time due to how you are viewing the files.

To me, the first batch looked bad, but the second looks normal in regard to DOF. As far as sharpness goes, I think crops would help like you had from the first batch.