which camera for crystal clear enlargements

[pete_lewis2]

<p>hi,<br>

I do a lot of wildlife and landscape photography and I wish to start my own photography gallery to sell these. Unfortunately my current digital camera equipment (Canon 400d, 10-22 and 100-200 zoom lenses) does not give me the crystal clear focus on I need, no matter how much I practice.<br>

Can anyone suggest the appropriate type or format camera I need to be considering if I want excellent quality to sell my photography? Do I need to move away from digital and go with a medium or large format?<br>

Kind regards<br>

Pete</p>

 

[william l. palminteri]

<p>Pete, it would help if you posted an example and also your edit chain decisions.<br>

The photos that you see these days are manipulated like crazy, so it would help to know what you consider a "finished" shot.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Are you using a good tripod?</p>

<p>Larger format are also very demanding of good technique if you want to wring out the best results. The camera you have should be able to create excellent, sellable results; if you intend on making especially big enlargements then you might consider a larger format, higher resolution.</p>

<p>As William said, digital images generally need some form of practiced post-processing to get that little extra pop.</p>

[tomwatt]

<blockquote>

<p>my current digital camera equipment (Canon 400d, 10-22 and 100-200 zoom lenses) does not give me the crystal clear focus on I need</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is the problem here? Is it a depth of field issue or something else? A crystal clear focus issue suggests to me that you might be handholding the camera, and shooting with a narrow depth of field. Likely a problem solved by stopping down the lens, and using a good, solid tripod. Oh yes, and wait for the wind to die down.<br>

Are you shooting camera raw?</p>

[hal_b]

<p>I would approach wildlife and landscape issues separately. Since landscapes hold still and are vast, you generally can use a manual focus (large format) camera on a tripod and won't get any complaint from the subject. A 4x5" camera will give the best resolution hands-down, and they have a wide variety of excellent wide-angle lenses to choose from.</p>

<p>For wildlife, sharp telephoto is the key. You are probably okay to stick with digital capture, but should invest in a serious 300mm or 400mm lens. If you shoot birds, 600mm might fit your subjects better. Any of these lenses will cost in the $2000+ range, and the quality you receive will reflect the price. This kind of close-up photography is exactly the kind to benefit from a few extra MP, i.e. a 5Dii will give more detailed images than your 400D. Extra MP means you will be able to crop in on your subject without losing perceived sharpness. You can effectively use your 300mm like a 600mm if you have enough extra MP to lose and your subject isn't too complex.</p>

[garydem]

<p>to achieve gallery grade prints, you need to be doing everything right. that is, your technique is letter perfect. if not then any flaws or errors in technique will show up in the final print. are you using the hcorrect handholding technique for your wildlife pic? are you using a triupod(a good one) for your landscape shots? and that means just about every landscape shot. is the fstop and shutter speed correct for the type of shot you are trying to get? gatting 300mm or 400mmor 500mm lens for yoiur wildlife shoits is a good ida. but, are you aware that to get the quality level that those lenses have to offer requires even more letter perfect technique. your dslr is good enough to take the pics you want, but is your technique and glass good enough? by far the biggest improvent in image quality comes from YOU and the technique used for the pic.</p>

<p>and do not think that by goimng to MF you will automatically get a better pic. using a MF, digital or film, requires even more perfect technique than c senspor or FF dslr. please remember that as you increase the mps to get more resolution you also increase the dslr ability to any errors that the user is making. that extra resolution is giving more detail in the pic but it is also showing the imperfections in technique easier too.<br>

i have read too many threads on forums of people who moved from a c sensor dslr to FF dslr and the images got worse. the reason is that they were not prepared to or unable to up their photographic game to properly use the extra mps.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>I'm with the others, post some examples because buying more cameras may not help you</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Pete,</p>

<p>I've seen amazingly sharp prints from the rather old (by now) Canon 30D, so I have no doubt that your 400D will work fine if you set it up properly and use good shooting technique.</p>

<p>I can almost guarantee you that if you buy a different camera or a different lens, you're still going to have the same problems that you're having with the 400D. The reason is that there are a lot of factors involved in capturing a sharp image, and you need to understand how each one can affect your images positively or negatively.</p>

<p>- Are you using autofocus or manual focus?<br>

- If AF, are you focusing on something with a definite edge?<br>

- Consider depth-of-field. Objects in front of and behind your subject will not be as sharp as the subject.<br>

- Consider shutter speed. If you're not shooting from a VERY solid tripod, make certain that your shutter speed is at least 1 / (two times the focal length). If the focal length is 50 mm, try to shoot at 1/125th or faster, especially if you're using an APS-C camera like the 400D.<br>

- Consider the effect of the ISO setting? Are you using auto-ISO in a dark place? If so, it's probably raising the ISO setting to near the camera's maximum value. This degrades image quality severely.<br>

- This might seem obvious, but are the elements of your lenses clean (front and back)?<br>

- Are you using mirror lockup and a cable release when shooting from a tripod?<br>

- Is it windy where you're shooting?<br>

- Are you certain that the lens is focused on your main subject?<br>

- Are you taking into account the diffraction effect of small aperture settings (i.e., high f-numbers such as 16 or 22)?<br>

- Have you tried shooting with flash? Do flash photos seem sharper? If so, camera vibration is probably the culprit.</p>

<p>Lots more to consider... </p>