Nikon D3100 disappointment
Discussion
Recently got a D3100 (with the 18-55 VR lens) as my first SLR after reading many rave reviews. I've spent a lot of time experimenting with manual settings as well as the assisted settings, but I'm really struggling to improve on the image quality I get from my Lumix TZ7 compact!
It took a long time to get the sharpness of images I get on my Lumix, the Nikon often seemingly a little out of focus. Reading the forums this seems to be a common problem, and I think I've finally got there through changes to some of the hidden settings (and following some of the KenRockwell tips) but I don't feel I'm really gaining anything in image quality (using the supplied lens) over my Lumix.
Is this normal? Perhaps my expectations were too high? (I always was impressed with the Lumix images from day1). Is the standard lens letting the Nikon down, or should I have gone for a higher spec camera in the first place? At the moment I just feel £500 lighter with no improvement in pics to show from it.
It took a long time to get the sharpness of images I get on my Lumix, the Nikon often seemingly a little out of focus. Reading the forums this seems to be a common problem, and I think I've finally got there through changes to some of the hidden settings (and following some of the KenRockwell tips) but I don't feel I'm really gaining anything in image quality (using the supplied lens) over my Lumix.
Is this normal? Perhaps my expectations were too high? (I always was impressed with the Lumix images from day1). Is the standard lens letting the Nikon down, or should I have gone for a higher spec camera in the first place? At the moment I just feel £500 lighter with no improvement in pics to show from it.
A number of issues here potentially.
First off the "common problem" you talk about.
You've got a much better sensor than you had with the compact. But Digital imaging needs/demands/begs/requires some sort of technique for sharpening the resulting image. That's nothing "wrong" - just the physics. Your previous camera just did that, but you didn't know it! - the new kit wants you to either go in and get the right settings in the camera, or better still you take control and just get right in there and wrestle those images into just the way you like them.
What are you shooting? RAW, Jpeg - and if the latter: what compression/quality? Make sure you are asking for fine.
What Post Processing are you doing?
IMHO, I wouldn't worry about the lens itself yet. But you might have to look at your technique, too. Once you get to upping the ante with higher sensitivity/resolution sensor, you need to worry about excellent camera techniques to combat camera shake and get focus spot on where you want it to be.
Lastly, throw some photos up here so we can see what you're talking about and maybe give you more targeted tips and pointers?
First off the "common problem" you talk about.
You've got a much better sensor than you had with the compact. But Digital imaging needs/demands/begs/requires some sort of technique for sharpening the resulting image. That's nothing "wrong" - just the physics. Your previous camera just did that, but you didn't know it! - the new kit wants you to either go in and get the right settings in the camera, or better still you take control and just get right in there and wrestle those images into just the way you like them.
What are you shooting? RAW, Jpeg - and if the latter: what compression/quality? Make sure you are asking for fine.
What Post Processing are you doing?
IMHO, I wouldn't worry about the lens itself yet. But you might have to look at your technique, too. Once you get to upping the ante with higher sensitivity/resolution sensor, you need to worry about excellent camera techniques to combat camera shake and get focus spot on where you want it to be.
Lastly, throw some photos up here so we can see what you're talking about and maybe give you more targeted tips and pointers?
Tbh honest I expect that its your expectation that were too high.
A DSLR wont suddenly make you photo's better then a good compact, straight out of the camera a compact will be set up to make images look punchier and more saturated then an SLR.
What an SLR allows is for you to take control of how the camera works and make the camera take the picture that you want it too.
You will find there is a learning curve with getting sharp images. The shallower depth of field (amount the image that is in focus front to back) that the larger sensor from your SLR gives you means getting correct focus is far more critical then from your compact.
Finally, its because you should have bought a Canon
A DSLR wont suddenly make you photo's better then a good compact, straight out of the camera a compact will be set up to make images look punchier and more saturated then an SLR.
What an SLR allows is for you to take control of how the camera works and make the camera take the picture that you want it too.
You will find there is a learning curve with getting sharp images. The shallower depth of field (amount the image that is in focus front to back) that the larger sensor from your SLR gives you means getting correct focus is far more critical then from your compact.
Finally, its because you should have bought a Canon
jimmy156 said:
Finally, its because you should have bought a Canon
....if you wanted a photocopier..... (And should have added in my post: don't get downhearted, because many of us have been through the same: having been using film since the 70s in SLRs, I am only seven years into digital SLRs and have only just started to really get to grips with pixel-punching)
38911 said:
The kit lens lets the 3100 down badly. Pop a 35mm 1.8 prime on and the quality will blow you away.
The kit lens is actually really pretty good! Certainly capable of producing the goods in the right hands. Whilst I agree that the 35mm is also a great lens, it doesn't seem a problem that needs money throwing at it just yet.I think it would be helpful to know a bit more about how you're using the camera. Fully auto? Scene modes, or manual modes? There is a lot to be gained from learning when how to dictate your own settings to the camera to get the results you want. I found Bryan Peterson's 'Understanding Exposure' book fantastic for getting the basics to click.
And lastly, for now, don't be too disheartened. In some circumstances I'd be hard pushed to say that my DSLR produces convincingly better results than my lumix compact. But when the chips are down (low light, large contrast, fast moving subjecrts etc..) the DSLR gets into its stride when the compact is starting to fall apart.
The DSLR also has the flexibility to use specialist lenses that you could never use on a compact. So if you want to shoot macro 1:1 or more, or shoot kingfishers from a hide, or shoot shallow depth portraits, you can do all these things.
So just to summarise, the D3100 is a great camera, capable of fantastic results. Take your time to learn to use it to it's full potential and you'll start to love it.
Thanks for the feedback (and encouragement) so far guys 
. So far I've tried shooting in both full auto, Scene modes, and Programmed auto, and a few shots with Shutter and Aperture priority, although it's all new to me at the minute so I've been following the useful "guide mode" on the camera to help me out. I've also only tried JPEG (normal and fine), no RAW yet, and no post processing.
I live close to Oulton Park and visit there regularly, so one of main reasons for wanting a SLR was to overcome the limitations I've found when I'm there with the Lumix compact (but I know I need to master the basic stuff first!)
Incidentally, a friend of mine has the Canon EOS1100 (which seems to be the direct equivalent of the D3100) and we've taken some images for comparison (in full auto mode) and there's nothing in it (well I can't distinguish between the two). I have to say though that image quality aside, the Canon "feels" a bit cheap and plasticky in comparison (!) so from that point of view I'm glad I went for the Nikon.
I'll post some pics up later when I'm back home
. So far I've tried shooting in both full auto, Scene modes, and Programmed auto, and a few shots with Shutter and Aperture priority, although it's all new to me at the minute so I've been following the useful "guide mode" on the camera to help me out. I've also only tried JPEG (normal and fine), no RAW yet, and no post processing.I live close to Oulton Park and visit there regularly, so one of main reasons for wanting a SLR was to overcome the limitations I've found when I'm there with the Lumix compact (but I know I need to master the basic stuff first!)
Incidentally, a friend of mine has the Canon EOS1100 (which seems to be the direct equivalent of the D3100) and we've taken some images for comparison (in full auto mode) and there's nothing in it (well I can't distinguish between the two). I have to say though that image quality aside, the Canon "feels" a bit cheap and plasticky in comparison (!) so from that point of view I'm glad I went for the Nikon.
I'll post some pics up later when I'm back home
There is nothing wrong with the D3100. It is an excellent camera.
If you want to shoot JPEG's, then you will need to tweek the standard settings and learn more about how to expose your shots properly. The standard settings will make the pictures rather flat -this is intentional so that the image can be easily altered later. If you want to have more "punchy" pictures straight from the camera with post processing, look at your exposure, maybe add some sharpening.
And practice. Practice a lot.
If you want to shoot JPEG's, then you will need to tweek the standard settings and learn more about how to expose your shots properly. The standard settings will make the pictures rather flat -this is intentional so that the image can be easily altered later. If you want to have more "punchy" pictures straight from the camera with post processing, look at your exposure, maybe add some sharpening.
And practice. Practice a lot.
Gad-Westy said:
38911 said:
The kit lens lets the 3100 down badly. Pop a 35mm 1.8 prime on and the quality will blow you away.
The kit lens is actually really pretty good! The 35mm 1.8 is streets ahead, whether taking snaps in full auto or fully manual in a highly technical shot - it's just better in every way.
I experienced a similar disappointment with mine after coming from a compact. Although for me it wasn't disappointment - it was expected. You do need to work hard(er) with an SLR to actually get the good results they are capable of, especially with the out of the box lens. Their automatic modes are not as capable and don't do a great deal compared to many compacts, and they suffer for it.
Things will instantly look better if you try a prime lens - I have the 35mm 1.8. However I've gone back to using the kit lens and found that it can work well in certain conditions. The sharpness is poor, however, at full zoom. It is also poorer at f/3.5 to f/5. Put it to f/11 and the sharpness improves.
Another thing disappointing about most SLRs is nighttime photos with the flash. It's a lot more powerful than a compact camera flash and as such the photos always looked washed out when the flash is in use, unless you lower the flash power.
Things will instantly look better if you try a prime lens - I have the 35mm 1.8. However I've gone back to using the kit lens and found that it can work well in certain conditions. The sharpness is poor, however, at full zoom. It is also poorer at f/3.5 to f/5. Put it to f/11 and the sharpness improves.
Another thing disappointing about most SLRs is nighttime photos with the flash. It's a lot more powerful than a compact camera flash and as such the photos always looked washed out when the flash is in use, unless you lower the flash power.
38911 said:
Gad-Westy said:
38911 said:
The kit lens lets the 3100 down badly. Pop a 35mm 1.8 prime on and the quality will blow you away.
The kit lens is actually really pretty good! The 35mm 1.8 is streets ahead, whether taking snaps in full auto or fully manual in a highly technical shot - it's just better in every way.
You mention Oulton park - so motorsport photo's..
A monopod or tripod is a sensible investment, this will provide significant stability as you pan and allow you to get a decent "stop motion" effect (high shutter speed - using shutter priority).... Especially if it's a less than brilliant (in terms of sunshine) day. Of course you may get some improvement with looking at your panning technique in the first place.
I had exactly this issue with my first DSLR and motorsport and found I was getting a conflict between zoom (the spectator areas are not that close to the track), apeture (as low an f-stop as possible) and shutter (1/250th to get stop motion) - blurring or shots too dark/noisy unless it was a sunny day, the stability of the monopod helped, and the realisation that cropping is a valid tool (reducing the zoom and therefore the minimum apeture on the kit lens and therefore getting more light into the sensor which meant I could speed up the shutter).
Don't get much chance these days as I tend to be in the pits marshalling at OultonPark, but quite fancy a day out 'togging.
Simes.
A monopod or tripod is a sensible investment, this will provide significant stability as you pan and allow you to get a decent "stop motion" effect (high shutter speed - using shutter priority).... Especially if it's a less than brilliant (in terms of sunshine) day. Of course you may get some improvement with looking at your panning technique in the first place.
I had exactly this issue with my first DSLR and motorsport and found I was getting a conflict between zoom (the spectator areas are not that close to the track), apeture (as low an f-stop as possible) and shutter (1/250th to get stop motion) - blurring or shots too dark/noisy unless it was a sunny day, the stability of the monopod helped, and the realisation that cropping is a valid tool (reducing the zoom and therefore the minimum apeture on the kit lens and therefore getting more light into the sensor which meant I could speed up the shutter).
Don't get much chance these days as I tend to be in the pits marshalling at OultonPark, but quite fancy a day out 'togging.
Simes.
I have a D3100 and to start with I had problems until I got used to it - I did, however, dump the kit lens almost immediately, but only because I already had an 18-70. The kit lens is good, but slow to focus in comparison to the 18-70.
I also have a 35mm 1.8 which I love to bits as it's, well, brilliant. In my opinion anyway.
With an 18-70
With a 35mm 1.8
What have you done to familiarise yourself with the camera - launching in to motorsport might not be the best idea as it's tricky at best (me, I've given up trying)? Try shooting in Auto to get used to the camera, then on to "P" mode, then have a play with the other settings to get used to it.
Oh, make sure you've not tweaked the viewfinder "focus" setting as I did that on my D40 and spent 2 weeks trying to work out why nothing was ever in focus until I had a moment of genuis and thought to try that....
I also have a 35mm 1.8 which I love to bits as it's, well, brilliant. In my opinion anyway.
With an 18-70
With a 35mm 1.8
What have you done to familiarise yourself with the camera - launching in to motorsport might not be the best idea as it's tricky at best (me, I've given up trying)? Try shooting in Auto to get used to the camera, then on to "P" mode, then have a play with the other settings to get used to it.
Oh, make sure you've not tweaked the viewfinder "focus" setting as I did that on my D40 and spent 2 weeks trying to work out why nothing was ever in focus until I had a moment of genuis and thought to try that....
I've not been anywhere near the circuit with it yet, so far my use has been limited to just around the house/garden!
At the moment I can only dream about the sharpness and definition shown in the pics above, but good to see what the camera's capable of.
I'm still stuck in work (typical on a lovely sunny day) so might not get chance to get out and take some more pics before dark tonight. I'll post some pics up though as soon as I've had chance.
Thanks again for all the input so far
At the moment I can only dream about the sharpness and definition shown in the pics above, but good to see what the camera's capable of.
I'm still stuck in work (typical on a lovely sunny day) so might not get chance to get out and take some more pics before dark tonight. I'll post some pics up though as soon as I've had chance.
Thanks again for all the input so far
I would also recommend getting rid of the kit lens. Money spent on glass is a better long term investment than on the body. You might also want to look at older, manual focus lenses if you are on a budget.
This was taken with a Nikon D60, lots of light and a good lens.
It is also right out of camera, so no retouching.
This was taken with a Nikon D60, lots of light and a good lens.
It is also right out of camera, so no retouching.
Edited by Olivero on Tuesday 27th March 23:12
Didn't get chance to get out and about to take some good pics for comparison, so I snapped these this morning with both cameras.
D3100 F/5.6 24mm ISO180 1/125sec(full auto mode)
D3100 F/4.5 24mm ISO100 1/80sec (P mode)using JPEG fine, sunny w/b, centre point focus
Lumix TZ7 in full auto (the only benchmark I've got)
D3100 F/4 24mm ISO320 1/60 sec (P mode)using JPEG fine, sunny w/b, matrix focus)
D3100 F/7.1 24mm ISO100 1/200sec (auto)
Whatever I do I just can't get the D3100 to focus properly - everything always seems just a bit out. I've reviewed the autofocus point displayed when using the Nikon software, and even at the actual point of focus it's not appearing to be focussed properly. I've even tried using a tripod with the self timer in case it was me shaking, but it didn't make a difference.
D3100 F/5.6 24mm ISO180 1/125sec(full auto mode)
D3100 F/4.5 24mm ISO100 1/80sec (P mode)using JPEG fine, sunny w/b, centre point focus
Lumix TZ7 in full auto (the only benchmark I've got)
D3100 F/4 24mm ISO320 1/60 sec (P mode)using JPEG fine, sunny w/b, matrix focus)
D3100 F/7.1 24mm ISO100 1/200sec (auto)
Whatever I do I just can't get the D3100 to focus properly - everything always seems just a bit out. I've reviewed the autofocus point displayed when using the Nikon software, and even at the actual point of focus it's not appearing to be focussed properly. I've even tried using a tripod with the self timer in case it was me shaking, but it didn't make a difference.
Your Lumix will naturally have a deeper depth of field than your Nikon, so the 'out of focus' could well just be that.
Looking at the flower photos above, there is a point where the Nikon is perfectly in focus, but 5 cm behind isn't and 5 cm in front isn’t. This is because you are using F4.5 (or thereabouts). Change the Nikon into Shutter or Aperture priority mode and make sure you are somewhere around the F8 or F11 mark... and then take the same photo, and you'll see that all the flowers are in focus.
HTH
ETA Just for the fun of it.... 2 snaps f4 and f22 to demonstrate depth of field in action
f4
f22
Looking at the flower photos above, there is a point where the Nikon is perfectly in focus, but 5 cm behind isn't and 5 cm in front isn’t. This is because you are using F4.5 (or thereabouts). Change the Nikon into Shutter or Aperture priority mode and make sure you are somewhere around the F8 or F11 mark... and then take the same photo, and you'll see that all the flowers are in focus.
HTH
ETA Just for the fun of it.... 2 snaps f4 and f22 to demonstrate depth of field in action
f4
f22
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 28th March 15:47
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff