Nikon D5100 - soft jpeg images?

[torres del paine]

I'm about to buy my first DSLR (long overdue), having used an LX3 for the past couple of years (a lovely camera).

Ultimately, I want the best image quality for mainly landscapes/travel shots, including mountain/landscape panoramas and high up in-the-mountain shots (I do a lot of hiking). I also want good resolution for prints at A3+.

I'm looking at the Nikon D5100 and the Canon 550d and have already handled both cameras and preferred the Nikon. I felt that it was better built and had a more comfortable grip and better ergonomics in my hands.

However, I have read comments about the Nikon's soft JPEG images, that is compared to the Canon 550d. I've also read that Canons produce better colours. Is this true? If so, are these issues easily rectified using the in camera settings or is it a case of sharpening and generally tweaking images in Photoshop?

Also, any opinions on which one would be best for my needs based on the above. I should add that I have a fairly good understanding of the fundamentals of photography and know my way around Photoshop, as I use it in my job.

Thanks in advance.

[Simpo Two]

If you're shooting JPG there are various settings in the camera's menus that determine how it processes the image. Amongst these will be saturation (probably called 'vivid'), and maybe sharpness as well, not sure. The 5100 has 16Mp so will be very demanding on lenses - to get the best out of that resolution you need to spend out on higher-quality lenses and, of course, shoot RAW. You then bypass whatever Mr Nikon thinks looks nice and get a file that you process into JPG just the way you like it. So I doubt the camera is the limiting factor, but the lens and the processing.

I did a quick Google and found a review, which may or may not be the one you saw: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D5100/outd...

First off it says: 'To compare real-life performance we shot the same scene with the Nikon D5100 and Canon EOS 600D / T3i within a few moments of each other using their best-quality JPEG settings and base sensitivities. Scroll down for a comparison of JPEG and RAW. Both cameras were fitted with their respective kit lenses...'

So whatever the camera is actually capable of, it was knackered at the start. Kit lens and JPG. But put the effort in and you will get lovely A3 landscapes, I have no doubt.

[torres del paine]

I read that review (I like camera labs) and noticed the RAW shots at the end, and do take your point that the default settings are just that, a starting point, and do not make the most of the camera's sensor and relatively decent kit lens. I've had a look at the same shot with the Canon 600D and the results are certainly warmer but the detail is not up to that of the Nikon, to my eyes at least. It would seem, therefore, that the 18 mega pixel Canon may be hampered more by the kit lens than the Nikon when pushed.

I'm sure though that a sharper lens, maybe the Nikon 16-85mm lens or decent wide angle lens (I like the Tokina 12-24mm) would yield excellent results from both the Nikon and the Canon.

[Simpo Two]

Yes, I'm sure they will both do fine.

As for 'warmth', this is white balance (colour temperature) so again, if shooting RAW, you can make the images as warm or as cold as you like. Hurrah!




In fact I often set my WB slightly warmer than is technically correct, simply because IMHO it often looks nicer.

[Lucas CAV]

The 16-85mm is a lovely lens - not sure why they bothered fitting VR to it though!

Certainly good enough to take over from my well worn 18-70mm -


Just needs to flog a few more pictures to justify the 24-70mm........

[CivicMan]

I've used the D5100 with the 16-85 for about a month now - lovely combination and produces some great images.

I tried to upload a sample with Photobucket but it looked awful after compression so not put it up!