Nikon 5700 and image quality

External Since: Nov 23, 2004 Posts: 8

I'm new to digital photography, having jumped right in and bought this
5700 last spring. I was into photography when I was a teenager way
back in the 70's, but it was too expensive a hobby and I did nothing
but vacation snaps with inexpensive film cameras for years and years.
Now I'm getting back into it, and really like the Nikon, but I'm still
feeling my lack of experience. Hence my question:

How does the Nikon 5700 compare in image quality to other ZLR's in its
class? I've made some darn nice 8x10 prints with it (after some image
improvement and Unsharp Mask in Photoshop), but when I compare my
results with, say, the work that people like Ansel Adams and Edward
Weston did with their view-cameras, my prints are obviously not as
razor-sharp as theirs. I know that's an unfair comparison, but is
this just a limit of the 5-megapixel technology, or are other cameras
sharper to start with? Is it a matter of continuing to improve my
Photoshop skills? Will I just have to bite the bullet someday and
make the leap into pro-DSLRs?

Thanks...
Greg Evans

External Since: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 120

"Greg Evans" <misterx.RemoveThis@larkbooks.com> wrote in news:2ucb78F28a5jgU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> I'm new to digital photography, having jumped right in and bought this
> 5700 last spring.

Good choice at the time. I own the same camera, and I've has no significant
problems whatsoever.

> How does the Nikon 5700 compare in image quality to other ZLR's in its
> class?

If you look at the review by Phil Askey of DpReview, you will see that he
gave it his highest "grade" of HIGHLY RECOMMENDED..

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700" target="_blank">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5700</a>

At the time, it was one of the best. Now there are a series of 7 & 8
megapixel ZLRs doing very well. The extra megapixels will come in handy if
you like to do BIG enlargement, or significant cropping.

> I've made some darn nice 8x10 prints with it

Me too!

> but when I compare my
> results with, say, the work that people like Ansel Adams and Edward
> Weston did with their view-cameras, my prints are obviously not as
> razor-sharp as theirs.

It is difficult to beat the quality of larger formats and fixed focal-
lenses.

> I know that's an unfair comparison, but is
> this just a limit of the 5-megapixel technology, or are other cameras
> sharper to start with? Is it a matter of continuing to improve my
> Photoshop skills? Will I just have to bite the bullet someday and
> make the leap into pro-DSLRs?

5 megapixel cameras do not give you 8 X 10's with a printing resultion of
300 PPI, which is considered to be a fair measure of "photo quality". You
probably have a critical eye, and your definition of "acceptable" is closer
to that of a pro than to that of the average consumer. I agree that 5 MP is
not really enough for stunning 8 X 10's. My 5 X 7's from the 5700 are
usually tack-sharp. If you're doing lots of 8 X 10's, then maybe you should
look at one of the new 8 MP ZLRs like the 8800 or 8400.

> Will I just have to bite the bullet someday and
> make the leap into pro-DSLRs?

Unless you become a working professional, you probably won't need a
professional dSLR. If you decide to go that route in the future, any of the
consumer dSLR models (such as Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon D70) should do
you nicely, though you can expect to spend a lot of money on lenses to get
the same focal coverage you already get with your 5700.

--
Bill