Sensor logic

[akptc]

I love the way my R-D1 renders images. It’s been widely repeated that the sensor on the R-D1 is the same as on the Nikon D70 or D100. So does it follow that I would also like the way either Nikon renders? (I’ve never used a digital Nikon).

I ask because I am thinking of getting a DSLR with a faster AF action than my Pentax K10D.

 

[Terao]

Out of the two Nikons you mention the D100 is more "filmic". D70 is a bit sharper but prone to moire, flare, and jaggies. I've owned and used both and went from a D70 to the R-D1. I see some of the D70 in the R-D1, particularly the way it renders skies and diagonals, but it doesn't look exactly the same. This may be due to differences in filters in front of the sensor or more likely in how the processing software interprets the RAW files.

In terms of AF I'm not sure which is the faster, in some ways it depends on the lens (how highly geared it is, or whether its AF-S) but you also have to factor in motor power and AF accuracy. Out of the two I'd go for the D100 as long as you have no need to shoot fast (D70 has a better RAW buffer and higher fps)

 

[rsl]

Out of the two Nikons you mention the D100 is more "filmic". D70 is a bit sharper but prone to moire, flare, and jaggies. I've owned and used both and went from a D70 to the R-D1. I see some of the D70 in the R-D1, particularly the way it renders skies and diagonals, but it doesn't look exactly the same.

Possibly that's because the sensor in the R-D1 is the same one used in the D100, not the one used in the D70.

 

[JNewell]

I've posted elsewhere that I use a D100 and an R-D1. Epson must have better firmware, or something like that (!?!?!), because the raw files from the Epson need less processing than the raw files from the Nikon. Whodathunkit?

 

[akptc]

Thanks guys. Would you recommend the D100 for sports photography?

 

[Crane]

D100

D100

The D100's small buffer won't keep up with sports action. If you are exceptionally good at anticipating given moments in a rapidly-unfolding contest, you may grab shots, of course. But you will be disappointed if you expect a D100 to be able to match the sports-winder frame rate of newer dSLRs. The Canon D series is where I would look to kit-up for sports work, although the Nikon D3 is finding favour.

By the way, even with Nikon's best glass, none of my D100 shots ever looked as good as those from my RD-1 bodies. This, in terms of noise, colour fidelity, dynamic range, micro-contrast, et al. Don't expect a D100 capture to please your eye in the way that the RD-1 files do. The output is of a different order. I still have work in my portfolio from D100 NEFS, though, and it holds-up, even though the greater part of my output is now made up of Aptus 65 files. I saw a D100 with grip and two batteries for under 200 UK pounds, the other day. At that price, it would make a great knock-about body for someone who already owns some Nikon lenswear.

Enjoy your photography.
Crane

 

[rsl]

You might want to wait a bit. Now that the D3 is out the D2X resale price is going to fall pretty rapidly. I've done most of my work with a D2X for about three years now and it's a very fine camera with an excellent burst rate. I still hang on to my D100 for backup, and it's very usable, but, as Crane said, its buffer just isn't big enough for sports shooting -- or even for something like crowd shooting at a wedding. If you can afford it, the D3 is going to be a magnificent camera. With its incredible top ISO and burst rate It's going to blow Canon out of the water for a while. On the street, though, you can't beat the R-D1.