Author Topic: Image Quality  (Read 1304 times)

Paul.S

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • You ARE NikonGear
Image Quality
« on: April 02, 2023, 18:11:15 »
what does image quality actually means in a photograph. I will not bore you with much background but I am not a photographer. I started to mess with cameras later in life when my kids were in HS sports a number of years ago. Picked up a Nikon D2Hs. I did okay with it. Got some nice prints and lots of good memories. I also have a V1 and just recently a D3 cheap (no FX lens yet).

These are all "old" cameras by digital standards but obviously can produce a picture just like any film or digital new or old. Playing with the three of them, I see no appreciable difference to the images on my small MacBook Air. Mostly snap shots of daily life in various lighting conditions. I am quite good at taking miserable and or boring photos. The only place where there is a more noticeable difference is the pond shots ("landscape") taken on daily walks with my dog. I find the brightness range seems to make the V1 struggle most. Perhaps it is the smaller sensor.

I know there are lots of variables in play here. Lens used, sensor rendering, technology and size, firmware,  range of brightness or exposure value at each end and many more. However, if using any of the aforementioned cameras in a non professional manner for a variety of captures in multiple environments, I have yet to see a significant difference. Perhaps in print size and file size needed for professional work, these tools would no longer be advisable.

I have zero post production knowledge so that also may be a factor to consider in terms of the final image. How much do I really want to change anyway from what I just captured through the viewfinder? Maybe brightness and contrast but otherwise am I not just changing the entire scene thereby representing something other than what I just viewed?

Matthew Currie

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 676
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2023, 18:42:25 »
I'm also a pretty poor and un-artistic photographer most of the time, and plenty of people would find fault with the image quality of most of what I do with my long-obsolete, noisy, DX camera,  but I must take issue with a couple of things.

If what you're doing is taking documentary snapshots of your environment, and they look all right to you, then yes, no point in seeking more. It kind of depends on what you want out of a photograph.  If the image quality you have is enough, it's enough.  But it's not absent.  When you choose a focal length and perhaps an aperture for depth of field or a shutter speed to stop motion, you are relying on image quality whether or not you think of it as such.

When you translate what you see into an image in two dimensions, you are already transforming what you see.  You are recording what, in the environment, you want to be seen, and choosing how it will be seen. You have certain freedoms, and certain constraints.  How much art you put into this can vary. 

No photograph duplicates what you see. We see in three dimensions (or at least most of us do when our eyes are working right). Our visual field is wide, our ability to mentally zoom in considerable, our dynamic range far beyond what most cameras render, and our depth of field huge. A still image is never the same as the video we see.  A photograph must select its subject, its position and its time.  I've had children who took photographs, often with some competence, but who were unpleasantly surprised when the subject they considered the point had no prominence.  A photograph cannot duplicate the way we see things.

And, of course, there are plenty of instances where what you want to do is to create a photographic image, in which the literal content of the scene is not the point anyway.  Some of us like abstraction in some degree from absolute non-subjectivity to a visual enhancement of what's there. 

And as for image quality, while it's true that often enough, the thing you're showing is far more important than the exact coloration, or the sharpness of the pixels, and so forth, it's also true that there are times when it's just as important.  If you're cruising down the Amazon and you see a sloth in a distant tree,  which you know you will need to crop like crazy, you had better have good image quality or just skip the shot and get out the binoculars.  Sometimes it does not matter if the pixels are scrambled at the margins you can't see, or the image is blurry at the edges, or the straight lines have curves. Sometimes it certainly does.

Paul.S

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2023, 19:22:38 »
Matthew, thank you for your reply. I am not criticizing in any way how it is defined or what actually "looks right" to anyone. I am trying to understand it better. Your example of cropping in a situation where the lens is not nearly long enough makes perfect sense. In that case, I suspect you need a lot of pixels where the image quality would deteriorate if there are too few. Yes, for the most part all I have done is document what has been on front of me in two dimensions. Still....looks like for the most part what is there. I was mostly referring to the three cameras I have and the experiences I have had. I am a rookie in every way and thus asked the question to have a better understanding of the varying circumstances and situations where this evolving technology has made a difference in what can be captured with a camera. I suspect Image quality is defined differently by each person. That is why I asked the question and how I can further my understanding.

Robert Camfield

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • Hello from MadTown
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2023, 01:46:13 »
Paul,

The issue you raise is fundamental...what constitutes a good photograph. Jazz musician Duke Ellington at one point reported said, "if it sounds good, it is good." Similarly, if a photograph or the process of engaging in photography is somehow satisfying, that's arguably enough. Contemporary digital cameras provide astonishing capabilities, capturing images which may not otherwise be availing with earlier vintage gear. It does not follow, however, that early, less-capable gear yields less satisfying photos or a less satisfying experience.   

Paul.S

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2023, 11:21:18 »
Thank you Robert. I should have phrased the question in a different context. A great image can be achieved with any camera even if said camera has specifications that would be considered poor by more modern standards.

So let me try again. I am trying to take the time and shoot a bit more. I have a D2Hs, a V1 and a newly acquired D3. These are all different in their generation and specifications. As I go through the process of transfer to the computer and attempt to assess what should be adjusted, I am also looking for the nuances that make these machines different from one another. Where one might be stronger than the other in various shooting situations. Now to date, I have not done much and mostly in average to decent daylight. Thus far, I have not seen a lot of differences between the three. My computer is an old one (2012 MacBook Air) so that may not ideal in terms of viewing the final image.

Image quality may have been the wrong term. This endeavor is more of a personal experiment to determine the strength of each camera and where I would most likely use one over the other depending on the circumstances. I do need to get a dedicated lens for the D3 as I currently only have the 17-55 DX.

Thank you for your responses and my apologies for the poor initialy phrased question.

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 6480
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2023, 11:38:25 »
The differences between the three cameras will not be obvious in images shot during daytime or well lit scenes with similar focal length lenses.

If however you for instance would like more depth of field, by stopping the lens down, you would need to raise the ISO, the 'light gathering' of the camera, you will see the D3 will be superior in image quality.

This also goes for when the light is low.

The D3 has large sensor sites and the electronics development of the sensor itself is much improved to the D2Hs

Please note: The highest potential of these cameras are not revealed until you start shooting the images in RAW format, edit them and then save them as JPG files - Straight out of the camera JPG files are hard to shoot in an optimal way in camera, even for experienced photographers,,,
 
Erik Lund

Birna Rørslett

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5183
  • A lesser fierce bear of the North
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2023, 12:23:59 »
A further point is that mounting a DX lens to the D3 means you lose a large part of the 12MPix of the latter. Thus it behaves like approx. 5MPix and  the distance to the 4MPix native of D2Hs is insignificant.

Thus, first step would be to use an FX lens on your D3.

Dogman

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 444
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2023, 16:43:17 »
I come from the documentarian generation--Life and Look magazines, Farm Security Administration, Robert Frank, New Topographics, Walker Evan, Eugene Atget, etc....and Tri-X film.  Image quality here means a lot of things to a lot of people but actual technical perfection doesn't enter the picture for me.  I don't shoot color...at least not often.  I don't care about sharpness...not much anyway.  Mainly image quality is an emotion that can be shared with others by a beautiful photograph.  Not a pretty picture (necessarily), a beautiful picture whatever the subject matter might be and however the emotion is conveyed.  My pictures aren't pretty but hopefully someone feels a little something from the images they see.

That said, I use old gear.  Mainly D3 and D700 bodies and old manual focus and AF Nikkors.  I shoot JPEG only yet I do a fairly substantial amount of post processing using Lightroom and DXO Silver Efex.  I shoot for my own pleasure and for posting online and for family and friends.  I printed a lot until my second expensive Epson printer died just after the warranty expired (thank you, Epson).  If I was doing work commercially, working for clients or publication, I would very likely shoot differently using different gear and methods.  It would also mean a different definition for image quality.

As for your gear, the D3 is more capable for shooting in subdued light, cropping and making large prints.  Of course it depends on lenses.  You should be able to use higher ISOs with it and get less noise.  I've not used either of the other cameras you mention so I'm just talking in generalities.  But if you are shooting the D3 in DX mode, it's probably basically the same as the DHs.  My suggestion is to buy a used Nikkor 50/1.8D lens for the "full frame experience".  The lens is cheap but darn good.  Look on the KEH or MPB sites and you'll find it for less than $100.  It's a small expenditure for a large reward.



"If it's more than a hundred feet from the car, it's not photogenic."--Edward Weston

My Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/197057338@N03/

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2600
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2023, 10:02:03 »


Thus, first step would be to use an FX lens on your D3.
This is key. 
You'll not see the great results that the D3 can deliver---it was a miracle when it came out in 2007-- until you use 100% of that big 24x36 sensor.
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA

Paul.S

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2023, 15:25:43 »
A 50mm is on my list to get sometime in the near future. However, if I understand the D3 correctly, it will shoot at the full 12MP as long as I keep it set to FX mode? I have DX mode off. So even shooting the 17-55 DX lens will continue at 12MP. The down side is the limited focal length options without vignetting.

Matthew Currie

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 676
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2023, 19:27:12 »
A further point is that mounting a DX lens to the D3 means you lose a large part of the 12MPix of the latter. Thus it behaves like approx. 5MPix and  the distance to the 4MPix native of D2Hs is insignificant.

Thus, first step would be to use an FX lens on your D3.

I don't have a full frame digital camera handy, and all my DX lenses are G types, so I can't tell for sure, but how is the sharpness, distortion, etc. on the non-vignetted DX lens on an FX camera?  I know from the other direction that FX lenses that were rather lackluster on FX can be great on DX when the outer portions are cropped out (love that old 28/3.5), but wonder if the reverse is true.

Birna Rørslett

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5183
  • A lesser fierce bear of the North
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2023, 00:41:50 »
A 50mm is on my list to get sometime in the near future. However, if I understand the D3 correctly, it will shoot at the full 12MP as long as I keep it set to FX mode? I have DX mode off. So even shooting the 17-55 DX lens will continue at 12MP. The down side is the limited focal length options without vignetting.

Well, it "depends". Many DX lenses do project image circles larger than the absolute minimum for the DX sensor, but the image quality outside the DX format tends to be poor and/or severe vignetting may occur. The default settings for FX Nikons is that using a lens with electric contacts will set the camera to record DX format if the lens itself is designed for DX.

Gerhard2006

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2023, 20:41:12 »
Seems to me you’re already set up with good image quality. The D3 is a great camera for portraits and landscape and  low light photography. The D2H is great for high speed  photography, soccer games, etc. the V1 is great as a travel camera. It also shoots great black-and-white pictures and is super compact and you can take it anywhere. I love my V1. I’m still useing it when I just want to go for a walk in the park and not have a big camera bag. Keep what you’ve got and buy some cheap manual focus lenses and enjoy photography. Regards Gerry

Paul.S

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2023, 01:43:42 »
Did a little bit of testing with the D3 and the DX 17-55. It is useable on the D3 in FX mode from about 32mm - 55mm without vignetting. However, as Birna stated, the image quality along the edges of the frame is poor. It is obviously not intended for FX.

Gerry, you are correct. The three cameras make a decent combination for a variety of situations. I just need to add a few primes to make better use of the D3 while also being useful on both the V1 with the FT-1 and the D2Hs.

Appreciate the help and comments from everyone.

Paul

paul hofseth

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Image Quality
« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2023, 09:48:43 »
I prefer a multitude of pixels so that I can reframe ad libitum. Just like years ago I preferred Panatomic and FP3 in microphen to Tri-X due to the options of reframing while enlanging. Also, I have a primitive urge to have the entire frame sharp just like a Brueghel painting.

p.