Need help w the Next Step Up: What Say You?

[hm1]

After years of casual work with a Minolta X700 (mainly documenting my artwork

by taking slides), I got a brand new Coolpix 990 & its accessories as payment

for a painting and I fell in love with digital photography, head over heels.

 

I then taught myself photography by purchasing a Nikon N80.

 

And finally I got a D70 with a couple of Sigma lenses

 

A - Focal point 28-90 (w macro capability) and

B - " " 70-300

 

I'm thinking about upgrading to another Nikon camera body and possibly a Nikon

Lens.

 

I just got a SB-800 and a Manfrotto Pro tripod, so price tag is going to be a

factor.

 

What are the options and what would you recommend?

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Is there something about the D70 that's not meeting your needs?

 

I'm thinking your next purchase is better lenses. It depends on what your interests are. Some that come to mind are the Tokina 12-24mm (a really 'startling' wide angle capability that might get your creative juices flowing), a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8 for shooting indoors without flash, or maybe a dedicated macro lens if you might be into closeups.

[Matt Laur]

Just a thought, as someone who's spent a little time photographing other paper/2D art (since you come from painting): a second strobe is pretty useful to properly light flat works, if you're doing more of that. Of course, if you've put down your paint for now, then it's off to the Better Lens Store. You've probably still got plenty of headroom with that D70 while you're learning, and before you know it, all of today's Nikon bodies will already have been replaced by better/faster/cheaper... but those better lenses will still be your friends.

[arnabdas]

Two things that will help your photography immensely and immidiately at a very little cost -- 1. DK17M magnifying eyepiece (it is reported to fit the D70 just fine) 2. Nikon 50/1.8 AFD.

 

The thing with Sigma (or any non-OEM) lenses is that you lose a lot of money if you try to sell them. Otherwise the 18-70 AFS lens would be highly recommended. 28-90 is bit of an odd FL range for Nikon DSLRs.

[arnabdas]

Or if you do not want to go through the trouble of fitting DK17M, there's always the ready-fit DK-21M. I've had some prior experience with X700 and the D70 VF plain sucks in comparison.

[erik_loza]

Maybe it's me, but I am not at all clear on what your needs are. Wouldn't that be the best place to start?

[mawz]

I'd recommend getting some better glass. The 70-300's OK, especially if it's the APO version but Sigma's 28-90 isn't much of a lens.

 

I'd look at the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (For a direct replacement which will work on your N80) or the 17-50 f2.8 (for a wider digital-only lens). Either will be relatively inexpensive and far, far better than the Sigma's.

 

Other good options are the Nikon 18-70DX (Excellent optics but not as fast as the Tamrons) and the 50mm f1.8 AF-D (fast, sharp, really cheap but no zoom. Great low-light and portrait lens for less than $100).

 

I wouldn't look at a new camera until you get some better glass, the obvious upgrades (D80 or D200) will be even more limited by your current lenses(Especially the 28-90) than the D70 is.

[hm1]

Todd:

 

You're absolutely right, I do need a Wide(er) Angle Lens, something wider than 28.

 

Why I need another camera. Good Question.

 

In a nutshell better picture quality which requires more pixels (both in quantity & quality.)

 

The sensor image area on D70 is much larger than some other digital cameras but I could still use more pixels.

 

From what I understand D80 has 10.2-Megapixel , but if it has the same size sensor as a D70, then it basically produces the same quality images: more pixels crammed in the same size sensor should not make much difference.

 

I care about quality of images a lot. I love my D70, but I'd like to make it my second camera.

 

Besides, a recent mini-disaster reminded me that I should start thinking about another digital camera.

[hm1]

Matt:

 

My photography has really improved since the 90's and from the response I've received from the viewers and pros, it seems that I'm producing some good work.

 

Thanks for the suggestion on taking photos of artworks, these days I'm not photographing artworks anymore, but it's always good to know a variety of techniques.

 

Susan McCartney, the well-known photog who has many books in her name has some good advice for photographing art in her book "Photographic Lighting Simplified", that I've successfully used (with some modifications to fit my needs.)

 

But like I said that's not my focus anymore. I photograph people, models, landscapes, do some still life & photojournalism too.

 

I've done fashion, glamour, nude, portrait, cosplay, and various other works and my photography has become a body of work in its own right, side by side my old artworks. And as you know there's always room for learning & expanding.

[hm1]

Arnab:

 

I have so much respect for that old X700 that I can not even put it in words. That camera traveled with me to farthest places and even though I was a novice back then, it never let me down. I was always amazed at the quality of slides that it produced, not to mention the prints.

 

But, in all fairness comparing Minolta X700 with Nikon D70 would be comparing apples w oranges, because one is film & the other a digi camera. I share your reverance for X700 though. It was a breakthrough when it first came to market. D70 is also a unique camera in many respects. But it's time to go higher for me.

[anthony_bez]

"From what I understand D80 has 10.2-Megapixel , but if it has the same size sensor as a D70, then it basically produces the same quality images: more pixels crammed in the same size sensor should not make much difference."

 

Nikon have the same size sensor in all there camera's. You need to swap systems and purchase a Canon, if you want a bigger sensor.

[nolefan32]

H&M Studio said, "From what I understand D80 has 10.2-Megapixel , but if it has the same size sensor as a D70, then it basically produces the same quality images: more pixels crammed in the same size sensor should not make much difference."

 

All of the Nikon bodies have the same size, 1.6 crop sensor, which is pretty much standard among DSLRs. Canon does have some 1.3 crop and some full-frame sensors on their higher-end cameras, and theirs are probably the only deviation from the 1.6 rule, except for some entry level units that employ an entirely digital-only setup that has nothing to do with 35mm equivalency.

 

I'm not sure what you think a bigger sensor is going to give you in terms of image quality, though. The bigger sensors do allow you to take more of the landscape in one gulp, but it's the megapixels that determine how much your sensor, large or small, is capable of recording in the details. The more you're able to record in the details, potentially the sharper your images will be -- but even that really only affects you when you look to do huge enlargements or serious cropping. At 8x10 for example, there's really not going to be that much difference between an image shot with your D70 and an image shot with a D2Xs or even Canon's 16.7 MP EOS 1Ds Mk II.

 

Also note that in many cases, people have found that the images they get with the bigger sensor cameras are actually less sharp around the edges than what they're used to getting with the 1.6 crop cameras. Reason being, the 1.6 crop cameras don't use all of the available lens but focus within the sweet spot of the lens, dead center, and so any imperfections around the edges (which happens to be where imperfections are most apt to appear) frequently fall outside the image area.

 

What really tells the tale regarding sharpness is the quality of your lenses. If you don't think you're getting optimum sharpness from your D70, I'd venture it isn't your camera. The sensor can only record the data reflected on it, and if that data isn't sharp, the sensor isn't going to record sharp, regardless of its size or the number of pixels. Thus I think if you want more sharpness, you need to be looking at better quality lenses than you're shooting right now.

[hm1]

Your point is well taken that lens is a very important part of the overall camera and that it has a big impact on the quality of the image. But the size and quality of the pixels are also very important.

 

That was one of the things that surfaced during the so called "pixel wars" when every major and minor manufacturer was advertising that their cameras offered "more pixels" without revealing the fact that often their 9 mega pixel camera had a sensor that was sometimes 1/6 of the sensor in some of their 4 mega pixel cameras!

 

Some sensors are only twice the size of a tic tac and they have millions of pixels on them, when the manufacturers advertise or publish the size of the sensors they usually only indicate the overall size of the sensor and not the image area and people are led to believe that the image area is bigger than what it really is. I have tried to get the image size of some models by calling the manufacturers and the support people knowingly and unknowingly tell me the overall size and insist that it is the image size. Anybody who has some knowledge of the digital cameras knows that there is a huge difference between the two. If this piece of information was not so important, they would not have to resort to either hiding the actual size or making consumers believe that they are larger than what they are.

 

During the past year and half, the industry people and researchers have become more aware of these factors and the rest of us are also realizing the importance of different components in a digital camera, factors such as the quality and quantity of pixels.

 

Your point that the more the number of the pixels, the sharper the image is quite true. But if the sensor image area is not big enough that means the pixels are going to be very small and that can affect the quality. We are talking about millions of very minuscule "wells" on an area about 23.6mm x 15.8mm (DX-size), where each well is supposed to collect light information and pass it to the memory. Both the quantity and quality of pixels matter and the bigger the sensor size, the better your chances of cropping a photo to a smaller size and still getting the desirable quality.

 

Type of sensors are important too, so just ?switching to a Canon system? (that someone else brought up) would be a bit too hasty.

 

Even though Canon uses larger sensors in some of their models. There are major differences between Canon & Nikon sensors, Nikon uses CCD sensors and Canon uses CMOS, each have their advantages but traditionally CCD's, that are produced in specialized plants, have superior quality. True, CMOS chips nowadays are much better than the old CMOS and less expensive to produce, but I would still bet on a CCD when it comes to quality.

 

There are several factors that come to make a quality photo, the lens and the total image processing that is done inside the camera are important factors. But the sensor is the heart of the digital camera and it plays a huge role.

 

I like to see Nikon moving toward a larger sensor size, I think once they start offering sensors are the size of the traditional negative, I'll be a happy camper.

 

I know, we don't even have to mimic the design and shape of a traditional film camera when it comes to digital cameras. We're doing it basically because we're familiar with that form/design and it has the added advantage of using your lenses on both the film and digital cameras as well. Now that we're doing this, we might as well make the sensor size bigger (as big as the traditional negative) so we don't have to deal with the factor 1.5 or 1.6 and such.

 

Let's make it a round number, shall we? I hope Nikon people are listening !

 

It?s not a question of technological feasibility, it?s rather a question of economics. CCD sensors are more expensive and Nikon has to keep the sensor size smaller than the comparable ones in Canon cameras, because it costs more to ?super-size? the sensors.

 

OK, it's late and I'm punching keys on the keyboard without much proofreading. Hopefully, tomorrow morning I won't have to do major revisions in what I wrote tonight!

[elliot1]

There are three ways to improve your pictures.

 

1. Get a better camera.

2. Get a better lens.

3. Improve your techniques.

 

As a former d70 owner, and a current owner of a d200, I can tell you that upgrading to a better camera will help.

 

As a former user of 3rd party lenses, I can tell you that Nikon lenses perform better overall. Yes there are some third party lenses that are better than some Nikon lenses, but overall, Nikon lenses work better on Nikon cameras. You cannot beat the picture quality of Nikon's pro-series lenses. The diffence in picture quality from a really good lens to a really great lens is small, but there is a difference. Picture quality on a very good lens can often be made to look really great by using it properly - every lens has a sweet spot. Find the aperture which your lenses produce the best results (typically f8) and you will see an immediate improvement without spending a dime!

 

The d200 has many advantages over the d70. Aside from the much larger viewfinder which just makes it so much easier to take pictures, exposures and focussing is so much more accurate and skin tones are so much better, as is noise, or lack of - that it makes it worth upgrading to this camera for these features alone.

 

If money is not an issue - upgrade.

 

But, for about $150, the best investment you can make is to buy a software program called DXO. Their software has too many features to list here, but in a nutshell, it will make your pictures look like they were taken with a better equipment without the high cost. Visit www.dxo.com for a free 30 day trial. Best investment I ever made in digital photography.

[erik_loza]

I'm in sales and periodically will run into a prospective customer who asks me for information about my company's machinery, then spends 15 or 20 minutes during our phone conversation telling me how much they know about this or that aspect of my industry. When there is space for me to interrupt, I will politely ask them, "What is it that you need from me, then?"

 

One of two things will occurr. Either they got over being nervous and we're back to talking about how my machinery and advice can move them forward, or there's dead silence for a few seconds as they wonder to themselves why they really did pick up the phone, because THEY really have no idea what it is that they need.

 

Much good advice has been offered during this thread, HM Studio, but this thread is dragging on and your posts are the longest. Which of the two categories I mentioned are you falling into?

[robert_hooper1]

You sound like a self-starter. Go ahead and take the plunge into professional

photography with equipment necessary to survive. I suggest the following to get going:

 

Nikon D200.

Nikon 12-24mm f4,

Nikon 17-55mm f2.8,

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8.

 

Paul Buff offers strobe equipment at a great price with fabuluos support. Check out his

starter packages.

 

http://www.white-lightning.com/packages.html

 

Don't bother saying you can't afford it. Figure out a way and go for it.

[pnance]

Yes, there are three ways to improve your pictures.

 

1. Improve your photography skills. 2. Further improve your photography skills. 3. Polish your photography skills. (Changing gear offers the least improvement.)

[nolefan32]

I'm with Erik -- it doesn't appear to me that H&M Studio really wants our input. He just wants us to make him feel better about the choice he's already made, and I think we're ticking him off because we're not saying the words he wanted to hear.

[johnw63]

This is my retort to the premise that more pixels on the same sensor will not improve quality...

 

Do you consider your hard drive to be of good quality ? How about the monitor you are staring at ? Both are probably BETTER then you had 10 years ago, assuming you HAD a computer 10 years ago. But guess what ? They are BOTH examples of packing MORE data into the same space, and often, as is the case of hard driver ( and memory ! ) LESS space. Your stance seems to have forgotten an important thing. Technology IMPROVES. Now that you're in digital, you're really in the computer industry, so my examples are very relevant. The digital camera industry is improving very rapidly. Much as the copmuter industry did for a couple decades.

 

Think about this...given digital sensors have been around, for a while at roughly the same size, your theory would indicate that a 1 mega pixel camera would be no worse quality than a 4 or 5 or 10 Mp camera. Has that been the case ? Are we taking no better quality pictures ? Of course not ! Why ? Because the sensors have not been maxed out yet.

 

I once told a customer as he bought a newer faster hard drive that he would NEVER need anything bigger. He was upgrading from a 20 Megabyte to a 40 megabyte drive. Think about that in terms of the maturity of the digital sensor industry.

[hm1]

A lot of great advice and ideas here ... Thanks to everyone who has so far contributed to this thread.

 

I'm making a list of all the items and suggestions so far, especially lenses .... most of you seem to suggest that I should start with some glass first and it makes sense.

[jim mucklin]

Without beating a horse to death, great glass makes great photos, period. A short story to make a point, when I went to a John Deere dealer to purchase a mower, he was the first to ask me "What are you going to do with it" to which I thought cut grass you simpleton, but I replied "cut my grass" then he found out my needs, how much grass and how much time. He showed me 4 models to do the job, one which was overkill and one which could do it and two in the middle. Like your camera bodies, do you need a D2x or is a D70 enough. Then I had to pick a deck, did I want to just knock it down or need it to look like a green at pebble beach. This is the your lens. Don't I repeat, don't scrimp here, get the best glass you can afford for the type of shooting you are going to be doing, and there is no such thing as one perfect lens for everything. My neighbor took the other route and let price be his factor and has gone thru a fleet of different generic lawn mowers and I still have the one I bought back in 1993. Same it true for any optics be it binoculars or hunting scopes. My recomendation: Learn the 70, (I love mine and get great prints even with just 6mp) buy a piece of good glass, take some photos with both the Nikon and Sigma lens and compare them buy printing them, not in camera or on a screen but printed by a good lab and you'll see what I mean.Then by all means buy at least one back up body. Hope this helps you.

[hm1]

"My recomendation: ... buy a piece of good glass, take some photos with both the Nikon and Sigma lens and compare them buy printing them, not in camera or on a screen but printed by a good lab and you'll see what I mean. Then by all means buy at least one back up body.

Hope this helps you."

 

It helps a lot.I agree that Sigma 28-90 that I got is not the best lens for my needs.

 

I care about quality, I need to come up with the funds to buy a couple of Nikkor lenses,

 

1. a WIDE ANGLE Nikkor

 

2. another for PORTRAIT , since I'm doing a lot of figurative work indoors.

 

Next step after that would be D200, I need two main digi cameras anyways. The D70 can serve as a backup once I get that one.

 

Has anyone else used Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 that Todd recommended for shooting portraits?