Entry level camera/lens

Attached is 100% crop from an image by the 18-55mm kit lens on Nixon D3300 - 23mm f4.5 at 1/80 - is it good enough?

I'm wondering in what ways I might got better results if used a more expensive Nixon gear?

 

Any camera is good enough if you think it's good enough. You do not need other's opinion.

On the Internet at least, you would be hard pressed to see any difference in results between a Leica and your camera. Yes, your camera is capable of producing professional results.

Clever Spam?!

Clever Spam?!

 

Possibly not - he joined Friday, and has viewed other forums.

Troll? I hate to say that, so maybe it's a language thing.

23mm f4.5 at 1/80

From a tripod? Or at least with VR on? Otherwise I'd question and blame my handholding skills first.

My next point to question would always be focusing.

After that I'd dive into DxOmark's database and read up what I am supposed to get. - I believe your camera is 24MP and they rate the common kit zoom at about a third of that resolution?

I'd expect something "better" to render the borders of the sign's letters a tad sharper. Ask yourself how essential such is for your photography. - I did not rush to get hold of a Sima 18-35mm, after reading others' complaints about it's focus accuracy. You'll also lose VR with that lens and be forced to shoot at safe shutter speeds. - DX as a sensor size is limited. - So yes, maybe you want a D850.

I'm not into Nikon. I'm usually content when my final image looks acceptable on a 4K screen. - Do you really have lots of walls to hang bigger posters from and will you stand close enough to them to spot tiny differences in image quality from higher resolving lenses?

It's not bad. If you're a beginner, you don't need to upgrade for a while. Actually you can have fun with cheap manual focus lenses. There are lots of those around, and they are very good.

 

Some photographers use only vintage lenses. Not just because they are cheap, but because there is no point in buying new ones. And older lenses have a slightly different character.

 

This image looks like it has been over-sharpened. So image quality is not ideal. But, if you are not enlarging this too much, it should be okay.

Looks OK. Enjoy.

In your mind.

If you think your current gear is sub-standard, then you will forever be questioning it.

And you won't be satisfied until you get the more expensive gear.

Gary, thats most of us.

The most important feature of any camera past, present, or future.......

 

 

The human eye.

Clever Spam?!

No it is not a spam - I'm new to Nikon and was really looking for honest answers! I normally use Sony cam for stills like the one attached

 

No it is not a spam

Sorry, but you have to agree that a rather prosaic but clear photo of the sign for a business featuring the web address by a brand new member might raise some questions and I did use a question mark. Welcome aboard.

Sorry, but you have to agree that a rather prosaic but clear photo of the sign for a business featuring the web address by a brand new member might raise some questions and I did use a question mark. Welcome aboard.

It is okay - situation clarified!

Considering what Sanford has said about the images on the Internet, I wonder what difference would it make to use, say, Nikon 16-8mm f2.8-4 while I'm getting results like (attached)

 

Though I use FX Nikon as my primary digital system, because I started with film Nikon, I believe any quality camera system can produce excellent results. A simple matter of preference, whatever the basis.for that. My secondary system is Ricoh GXR, now obsolete, but still excellent - I'd guess nearly 20% of my posts are from that. Simply stated what you use must satisfy your needs - when it doesn't, then move. Good Luck! Edited January 16, 2018 by Sandy Vongries

Gary, thats most of us.

 

Well there are 2 legs in the fork.

 

#1 - The illusion that better gear will get you better photos. When you get beat in a photo contest by someone with a simple/cheap box camera, that is a slap in the head, that more expensive gear does NOT make a better photo. It is the stuff between the ears that is where the magic is, not the gear.

 

#2 - Gear Aquisition Syndrome. Of this I am badly infected.

Why do I have all the film cameras that I have, and still want more, yet I don't shoot them ???

Why do I have 5 enlargers; 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 ???? I need to reduce down to 2, but it is so hard to sell/give away what I hunted for.

HA,

 

Try renting the gear (lens and/or camera).

Then shoot the current gear side by side with the new gear and evaluate, see if there is a difference that you can see.

 

But there are potential distortions in this test:

- All settings must be identical. Shooting with one lens at f/2.8 and the other at f/8 could make a difference. If the shutter speed is not identical, the slower shutter speed could show camera shake. etc.

- One tends to be more careful and pay attention with new gear, so just the care and attention may be what is making the difference.

- Even when there is little to no difference, your mind may be tricking you into seeing a difference, to justify the expensive gear.

Husain, more expensive gear doesn't make you a better photographer. Practise, courses, workshops, reading, reviewing photos and critiques (getting and giving) can make you a better photographer. You only need new or other gear once you understand the limits of what you have, and those limits get in the way of what you're trying to achieve.

 

So, instead of spending money on another lens or anything, spend it on good books on photography, a course or a mentor who can help you get better. Money better spent.

Your camera is quite capable of producing good images in most situations but that has been true for several years now. I'd suggest upgrading to better glass than the kit lens and that is going to cost more but it's a good long term investment. Beyond that as has been said, find a couple of courses, a book or two and shoot a lot. A good camera won't make you good though a crappy one can cause problems. Yours is a good one.

 

Rick H.

Many thanks all! I appreciate the performance of the gear can't be detached from the photographic skills but my initial question was about the quality of the performance of the equipment. Honestly speaking, I'm very impressed by the performance of this entry level Nikon gear, compared with others in the same range or even in a higher range. For example, the sample below under available lighting - kit lens at ISO 100, 18mm at f3.5

 

No it is not a spam - I'm new to Nikon and was really looking for honest answers! I normally use Sony cam for stills like the one attached

 

[ATTACH=full]1228308[/ATTACH]

 

You have a long lens and I have a shorter lens so here it goes and my McDonald looks different.

Edited January 17, 2018 by BeBu Lamar

No one prints or normally views 100% crops, so since the posted image is sharp, the image as a whole is certainly fine. In fact, it is likely sharper and more detailed than any 35 mm or even medium format crop of that magnification. Besides, the most common factors in lack of sharpness or detail is usually not the quality of modern lenses but rather camera shake, incorrect F-stop for desired depth of field, or a simple focusing error. I'll bet if you matched even a cheap 18-55 lens at F5.6 against a very expensive prime you'd be hard pressed to see the difference at normal viewing or print sizes.