Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 6, 2010, 11:28 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Birmingham, West Midlands UK
Posts: 18
Default 5000 picture quality

Having bought my 5000 over 4 weeks ago at last finally had chance to try it out. Iíve tried it in auto, P, S, and other settings and find the picture quality is ok but not crisp. I have an old Fuji at quarter of the price and the Fuji appears to be better. Iím sure itís down to me but would appreciate any help. Iím using the lens that came with the 5000 18-55m VR lens would I get better results if I changed the lens for an 55-200mm even if not would the 55-200 be a better all round lens?

Appreciate any help Ė johnmac
johnmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 6, 2010, 11:36 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Hi John,

I'm pretty certain that you are right and it is probably you

You are not the first and won't be the last who moves from a P&S to a dSLR and notices worse results. There are a few reasons for this, not sure which you are seeing without having some sample photos. With the dSLR you will have a shallower depth of field, meaning the amount that is in focus is reduced, depending what you are shooting it could be only a few cm either side of the focus point. Another thing is that a dSLR doesn't give much in camera sharpening, you will need to do this in post production (PP) with whatever editing package you have.

As for changing the lens, nope, that's probably not it (for now), the 18-55 although not great is a perfectly fine lens for the body and will allow you to learn well.

If you can post some photos showing what 'problems' you see we can hopefully find some quick solutions to get you moving in the right direction.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 12:59 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

In its review of the D5000, Dpreview suggested setting the standard sharpness setting at 4 (the default is 3) and increasing the contrast gain from 0 to 1. When that is done, they found the Nikon images to have the same basic default appearance as the comparable Canon et. al. Nikon tends to set its internal settings softer than other camera companies.

If you shoot RAW, you can just put off any decision on sharpness and contrast until you import the photos with ViewNX. Then you can play with various settings and choose the ones you prefer. BTW, the Dpreview suggestion to set contrast to 1 is probably suboptimal -- you can only do that by disabling the auto-D Lighting, which seems more useful to me than a hard-coded bump in contrast. FWIW
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 5:34 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Birmingham, West Midlands UK
Posts: 18
Default

Thank you for your help, I do shoot in RAW and noticed when I edit it, it looks better.
I was surprised that the quality once downloaded onto my PC didn't appear clear and looked like they could have been taken by any point and shoot camera. I'm at a friends wedding the end of this month so I need to improve my knowledge on it's settings.

Thanks again
johnmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 6:00 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Koolpc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Under The Desk (UK)
Posts: 597
Default

I was under the impression that a DSLR would give you better pics without editing than say a compact?

I wouldn't be happy if i had to edit every pic i took to make it look crisp etc etc!
Koolpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 6:37 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmac View Post
Thank you for your help, I do shoot in RAW and noticed when I edit it, it looks better.
I was surprised that the quality once downloaded onto my PC didn't appear clear and looked like they could have been taken by any point and shoot camera. I'm at a friends wedding the end of this month so I need to improve my knowledge on it's settings.

Thanks again
Ah, yes when looking at RAW things can look soft as you are looking at just what is captured without any 'intelligence' applied.

If you looked at a jpg you would probably have been happier with the results but with less control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolpc View Post
I was under the impression that a DSLR would give you better pics without editing than say a compact?

I wouldn't be happy if i had to edit every pic i took to make it look crisp etc etc!
Look crisp for what purpose? If you mean pixel peeping at the full size photo then you can make a dSLR look sharp, vivid etc right out of the camera, however this will reduce how much you can do with the photo, it will also likely reduce the actual quality in that noise would likely be added from the in camera sharpening.

If you mean look good for web or for printing then you will want to edit to get the best results no matter what camera you use so there is no difference.

It is better to do the editing out of camera rather than in as it gives you the control and also the software to do the editing is a lot better than what is in the camera.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 7:49 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Koolpc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Under The Desk (UK)
Posts: 597
Default

I have a Canon A80 4mp and have printed many pics without editing them and they have turned out awesome.

I don't like the idea that to get an awesome picture you are saying one should then edit it 'out of the camera'. Aren't you good enough to take a good pic without having to edit the crispness / quality in?

Most peope want a good pic from the moment they press the shutter button.

Last edited by Koolpc; Jun 6, 2010 at 7:58 PM.
Koolpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 7:55 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

It sounds like you have found a camera has suits your purposes, so there really isn't any reason for you to get a different one AFAICS.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 8:13 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolpc View Post
I have a Canon A80 4mp and have printed many pics without editing them and they have turned out awesome.

I don't like the idea that to get an awesome picture you are saying one should then edit it 'out of the camera'. Aren't you good enough to take a good pic without having to edit the crispness / quality in?

Most peope want a good pic from the moment they press the shutter button.
They probably were really good photos, but you can often improve for printing (depending on size of print etc) with a little editing. Especially if you have lots of pixels and are not doing a large print, reducing the size and adding some sharpness (yes even on a P&S) will help.

I'm not even going to lower myself to the level of the 2nd point as you've not been here long, but feel free to check out some of my work if you want to see if I'm good enough to take a good photo or not. We are a very friendly forum (unlike some) if you want to make wise comments it's probably better to look elsewhere!

With regards to getting a good photo from the point of hitting the shutter release, sure, this is where a good photo starts, and it needs a good eye etc. However, for a lot of us, a part of the craft and technique of creating a good final piece of work is the editing. This is not new, in film times editing took place, but rather than using the PC/Mac, it was in the lab then processing/developing. As I mentioned earlier, you can set the camera to process the photo for you, but it is not as good as doing it using the right tools.
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2010, 8:24 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolpc View Post
I have a Canon A80 4mp and have printed many pics without editing them and they have turned out awesome.

I don't like the idea that to get an awesome picture you are saying one should then edit it 'out of the camera'. Aren't you good enough to take a good pic without having to edit the crispness / quality in?

Most peope want a good pic from the moment they press the shutter button.
The olympus e620 would be the best entry level dslr that will give you great results out the camera. As olympus has the best jpeg engine in the industry. But if you shot in RAW with any camera, you will have to edit to get a end result.

I shoot a epl-1 an hardly ever have to edit any jpeg right out of camera.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:29 AM.