Help! Camera or lens? Sharpest image

[tsphoto1]

<p>I am trying to figure out if the type of camera affects the image quality or is it the lens, or the imaging software? I have a 6 year old Nikon D50. The D50 is only a 6.1 mega pixel, so I don't know if that makes a difference in the image quality. From what I understand it only makes a difference when printing. I have the original kit lens that is a Quantaray 18-50mm lens that I use most of the time. The photos come out ok, but not as clear as I would like. I also use a 2 year old Nikor 50mm 1.8 lens, which takes awesome pictures. I was wanting to figure out if I should pay the money to update to a newer more professional camera or get a new lens, or upgrade to a better editing software program. I currently use photoshop elements 8. Most of the research I have done has told me that the clear sharp images come from the lens not the camera. I was wondering if I gave my Nikon D50 to a professional photographer, if they could create more sharper, clear, magazine looking pictures or if I need a higher megapixel, better sensor, more professional camera. I just don't know where to spend the money, on lens, camera, or editing software? I want to take professional portrait looking photos of my children. I also have a friend who wants me to take some practice pics of her in her wedding dress. Great practice for me, but I don't want to waste her time, if the pics aren't clear looking or professional. I would eventually like to do some photography as a side job, so any investments now, would go toward a side business later. Also, do you have any suggestions of some online courses that could help improve my photography skills? Thank you so much for any suggestions! Please help!</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>From what you say, I think that you would be best advised to purchase better glass. If the 50mm produces excellent images then that sort of shows that the body <strong>can</strong> do so as well......Regards, Robert</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>You can take fantastic images with a D50 and good glass. YOU can, if you use them properly.</p>

<p>My point is that you are the most important part of the equation. Thousands of weddings were done with 6 megapixel cameras until more came along, and the pictures were fantastic. Unless you have a recognized need for more megapixels (bigger files, not just better picture quality) you will be better served by good glass and education than by a new body. </p>

<p>There is no reason you should be thinking you need another camera to get "professional portrait looking photos of my children." Your skills with what you have are almost certainly the critical factor for good photographs. </p>

[Michael R Freeman]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I have the original kit lens that is a Quantaray 18-50mm lens...</em>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Quantaray is not the "original" kit lens, but rather a substitute that your retailer made to offer a Nikon D50 kit with a higher profit margin for the store than they would have made with the "real" kit lens (Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18~55mm).</p>

<p>As Robert has stated, if the 50mm lens gives you "awesome" pictures, then obviously the D50 is capable of sharp, clear, vibrant images. Invest in a better quality zoom lens, and perhaps take a course to improve your photography skills, and you will almost certainly see an improvement with the D50 or any future Nikon DSLR.</p>

<p>If your skills need improvement and/or your glass is sub-par, then a new body and new photo processing software (which you definitely do *<strong>not</strong>* need) will not give you better images. A new body can give you all of the (significant) improvements in DSLR technology that have been realized since the D50, but if you mount a low quality lens on the front of that body, you are not going to see the benefit of those improvements.</p>

[tsphoto1]

<p>Thank you very much! Your advice is very helpful. Anybody have any lens suggestions? Any suggestions on the best way to improve my skills other than just practice? Any online course suggestions or books?</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Often loss of quality comes from how one uses the camera ... hand-held with insufficient fast shutter speed is one cause.<br>

To find out if your lens is capable of doing good work the idea is to test it when the camera is rock steady such as sitting on a firm table or wall. You then use the 10 second delay release* to trigger the camera which gives the camera a chance to settle down after you press the trigger ... and important ... leave the camera untouched during the countdown and exposure. If you get a good result working this way you need to look to yourself ... still not good ... then you need newer glass :-)<br>

*better would be a cable release but since you probably don't have one that means expenditure, though personally I think it is an invaluable accessory to have. But glass is more important and a cable release would not be high on my list for child photography. The cable release permits you to give the camera more time to settle down than the 10 second option.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Tiffany, I've had a D50 and it was (and is) a lot of camera for relatively little money. So, yes, with good lenses the D50 can take awesome photos which can be printed quite large too.<br>

As for a lens advice, it very much depends on your budget. It would help to indicate what you're willing to spend. Assuming you do not want to spend a fortune, I'll stick to the suggestion for a 2nd hand 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, which is a really nice and very affordable lens. The current Nikon 18-105VR also delivers a lot for the money. But, this is assuming your budget and assuming what you need. Realistically, apart from budget, it would help to know which focal length (on the 18-50) you use most, as better options may be available.<br>

I slightly disagree with Michael above, about software. If you shoot RAW images, newer software can improve the rendering of your files (as technology has progressed there). If you shoot JPEG, indeed it does not matter. I'd recommend RAW anyway, since it gives a bit more leeway; all recent software capable of handling RAW will be fine with D50 files. But I do agree newer software is not a must-have, and it's not going to save the day.</p>

<p>Apart from practising, there are good books to learn from. The basics, which possibly you already passed, are well covered in Bryan Peterson's <em>Understanding Exposure</em>. I've learnt most possibly from <em>The Photographer's Eye </em>and <em>Perfect Exposure</em>, both by Michael Freeman... not sure whether it's the same ;-) Also the whole of the internet can be a good learning resource. For example, boring as lenstests may be, they do teach a thing about where the maximum performance of your lenses can be achieved, what their weak and strong points are etc. And the forums here contain plenty discussions from which I learnt a lot of useful tips, tricks, trivia.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Try here:<br /> http://montezucker.com/light-control/lighting-control-2/</p>

<p>There are also pages about brides etc at this site.</p>

[jon_robert]

<p>I have 30 plus years of SLR's under my belt and here is what I have learned as far as answers to your questions.</p>

<p>------------------------<br /> "I have a 6 year old Nikon D50. The D50 is only a 6.1 mega pixel, so I don't know if that makes a difference in the image quality. From what I understand it only makes a difference when printing."</p>

<p>It makes a difference when cropping otherwise don't worry about it. You are unlikely to make huge prints but are likely to crop out tiny sections of a photo. Get an internet chart for crop size -Image Size in pixels/print capability and then you know just how small of a section you can crop and still make great 4x6 prints. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html<br /> I had a D50 and ungraded to a D90 because my technique is to shoot wide and get several crops out of the one original. If you try to get the one perfect framing from the start then the D50 is fine.<br /> -----------------------------------------<br /> "is it the lens, or the imaging <a id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00YeUo">software</a>? I have the original kit lens that is a Quantaray 18-50mm lens that I use most of the time. The photos come out ok, but not as clear as I would like. I also use a 2 year old Nikor 50mm 1.8 lens, which takes awesome pictures. I was wanting to figure out if I should pay the money to update to a newer more professional camera or get a new lens, or upgrade to a better editing software program. I currently use photoshop elements 8."</p>

<p>8 is fine all I use is Elements 5.0 and I have the full version but don't use it.<br /> Get rid of the Quantaray. It was not the kit lens. Get a Nikon glass unless certain the quality is equal.</p>

<p>--------------------------------------------</p>

<p>"I want to take professional portrait looking photos of my children. I also have a friend who wants me to take some practice pics of her in her wedding dress. Great practice for me, but I don't want to waste her time, if the pics aren't clear looking or professional...I was wondering if I gave my Nikon D50 to a professional photographer, if they could create more sharper, clear, magazine looking pictures"</p>

<p>Every DSLR needs sharpening. Point and shoots don't. Pro's feel over sharpening is a sin so the high end cameras do not risk doing so. Point and shoots sharpen a great deal in the camera. Therefore you must post process a DSLR to get the photos to be the best they can be. For the wedding dress make certain it is white with no color cast, the skin color is right and the sharpening is just right. Almost never sharpen a woman's skin unless you want to make her look worse. I photographed a wedding with a D50 and they looked great after post processing.<br /> ------------------------------------</p>

<p>"do you have any suggestions of some online courses that could help improve my photography skills?"</p>

<p>Simply type photography tutorial on the web video tab http://www.google.com/search?q=photography+tutorial&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=photography+tutorial&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=vid:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=efd55752a4aea6a6</p>

<p>----------------------</p>

<p>In summary your cropping activity will answer if you need a higher megapixel camera<br /> You need great glass, not cheap glass<br /> Always post process. Just the handful of basic tasks nothing fancy is required.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I have a cellphone which gives me files of just a few hundred and out of the phone they are drack! But with a little work in editing people are suprised when I tell them I took the photo with a cellphone .... so I second Jon's comments about post processing. You might even find that Quantaray lens isn't all THAT bad :-) I'd suggest a later version of Adobe Elements should be your minimum in that direction. Though I have done a similar task with Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, and Paint Net [ a free download ] and got very similar results .. though I was struggling with PN</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>This may not apply to you at all. Or it might. When I was helping beginner friends improve their photos from a Nikon D40 and D50, I found these problems were often the cause of poor photos. They are easy to correct.</p>

<ol>

<li>Using a high ISO without understanding the penalty.</li>

<li>Not being sure what the autofocus was choosing to focus ON (or simply just pointing and shooting)</li>

<li>Leaving the camera on "AUTO." Not understanding why the camera has a range of apertures (f/3.5, f/5.6....f/11, etc) and when to use which aperture.</li>

<li>Not understanding what dynamic range is actually feasible to capture. (It's less than your eye's D.R.)</li>

<li>Too much "mid-day" harsh sun. See #4.</li>

<li>Not knowing a few basic principles of composition and portraiture. </li>

<li>Not understanding how to control depth of field.</li>

</ol>

<p>Those are the typical mistakes beginners make if they haven't had some instruction. I was able to teach those little fundamentals in a few hour-long sessions, and their pictures improved markedly. As a side note, I asked all three if they had read their manual. They responses were all along the line of, "No, I don't understand what the manual is talking about. It's too complicated, too boring and too long." I wasn't too surprised. The manuals I've read are grotesquely poor. See if you can find someone with experience to give you some lessons.</p>

 

[j_hunt1]

<p>I'm in a similar situation and have found this forum to be extremely helpful. The biggest upgrades I'm making are these:</p>

<ul>

<li>New zoom lens with a wide F-stop. I chose the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-50mm-2-8-Aperture-Nikon/dp/B003A6NU3U">Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8</a> based on strong reviews. I'm counting on it to be a serious replacement to my kit lens. </li>

<li>I'm adding a 1.8 50mm, like you already have</li>

<li>I'm buying a real flash (equivalent to a Nikon SB-600) and a diffuser. Insufficient and poor lighting have been problems of mine for a long time, and I'm finally ready to do something more than point, shoot, and hope.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm also upgrading the camera, but only because I want faster/better AF, more pixels to crop, and superior video - but I'm under no delusion that the camera itself will make my pictures better.<br>

Good luck!</p>

[tsphoto1]

<p><img src="../photos/tsphoto" alt="" />These are 2 of my photos at a wedding. Does anybody have suggestions on making them sharper or more clearer? Its it no post processing, lens, or camera? I just don't know which to work on more, or spend money on. My budget is $1200.00. Should I by a new lens, take online courses on how to take better pics, or buy a new camera (d300) and lens, or is it just lack of editing skills?</p>

[tsphoto1]

<p>Only 1 picture uploaded. You can click on <a href="../photos/tsphoto">photo.net/photos/tsphoto</a> to see 2 other photos. Thank you for any help! I am getting stressed out on what to spend my time and money on to improve my photography.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Tiffany, my first impression is that you'd gain more immediate benefit more from tutorials in technique than from new or different equipment.</p>

<p>You have a good eye. I'd bet that most clients would be happy with your eye for timing in candid moments (such as the b&w conversion photo) and interaction with subjects for posed photos.</p>

<p>The b&w conversion resembles a typical Tri-X 35mm photo to me. The original could be tweaked to make it sharper, massage the contrast, etc., but it seems fine to me as-is. "Sharper" isn't always better.</p>

<p>The main problems I see with the two color photos linked in your portfolio are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Flare from backlighting. Not necessarily a bad thing. It's a popular technique with "lifestyle" photographers now. But it needs to be used carefully.</li>

<li>Not enough fill light to brighten the faces and, especially, eyes. For that you'll need fill flash or a reflector.</li>

</ul>

<p>A new camera or lens won't help with those issues. If you're concerned about an overall mushy appearance, that's handled with editing. I'd suggest starting with some tutorials to help maximize the results you're getting from the equipment you already have.</p>

<p>If you visit the homepage for this forum, at the top of the page you'll find a stickied thread with links to lots of free online illustrated and video tutorials for photography techniques, lighting techniques and post processing.</p>

<p>After mastering a few techniques, then you'll be in a better position to make good use of newer equipment.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Help! <strong><em>Camera</em></strong> or <strong><em>lens? Sharpest image</em></strong> . . . I currently use Photoshop elements 8. Most of the research I have done has told me that the clear sharp images come from the lens not the camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I concur with Lex.<br />From the 3 sample images, the overwhelming reason for the softness and lack of mid-tone contrast is:</p>

<ul>

<li>the back lighting </li>

<li>the resultant Flare </li>

<li>the lack of Font Fill light to correctly expose the skin tones (on the face especially) and to contour the face(s).</li>

</ul>

<p>(Your two colour iMages appear UNDERexposed - I think the B&W is also and I believe you have compensated for this by attempting to correct it is Post Production - I state this because it is a common mistake I see in Students when first shooting Available Light and Backlit Portraiture Scenes).</p>

<p>These lighting and exposure elements contribute to the "sharpness" of the final image.</p>

<p>You will NOT get these sharpness elements in your photos, by buying a new lens or by buying a new camera, for these back lighting situations.<br />You will get these (for back-lit shooting) by buying Flash and or a Reflector and using either or both correctly.<br />OR you will get sharpness by exposing correctly for the Shadow Skin Tones and as a result sometimes the background will blow to white. <br />Also you need to better protect your lens from the Flare, from the backlit scene and this is done in many ways the best is using a lens hood and also removing any filters and also protecting the direct light entering the lens by using the Subjects as a shield.<br />Below is NOT Photoshop "fix" for your images - but it is just a <strong>rough</strong> simulation how Flash or Reflector Fill if used would change the image.</p>

<p>WW</p><div></div>