Buying a new Nikon DSLR and need some help

[katie_tanner]

<p>G'day guys<br>

I have had my Nikon D80 for about 4 years now and am wanting to upgrade. My lens is the one that came with it, a Nikon DX ED IF 18-135 0.45m/1.47ft.<br>

My main photo subjects are pets, landscape, nature and sports. I also use my camera for work (im a graphic designer) and havn't been able to get the photos I want, like the professionals. My main need is clarity, i want super super crisp photos, it turns me on, lol, i love it. We had a photographer do some photos for my work before i started, they costed a fortune, each photo is about 150MB on the computer, whereas mine is only like 3MB and my camera can get nowhere near what the quality is of these photos. When I zoom in the photos are still sooooo soooo clear its amazing! ...So i wondered if it was my camera or that i needed to maybe shoot RAW photos? Anyway I have decided that i want a new camera, if anyone can give me reasons as to why my old D80 may not be able to perform that would be great!! I have done alot of research on the net and have found some good info and some really confusing info. I'm looking at the D7000 however if anyone can give a suggestion as to what would suit me that would be great!</p>

<p>Thank you!<br>

Katie</p>

[Bill J Boyd]

<p>Katie, I have been using my D80 since 2006 and just last week upgraded to a D7000. It is still a bit of a learning curve for me, but I am getting a lot better images since I upgraded. My next step is to get better glass, and that is something you should consider also.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Katie: If your files are only 3MB, that's because they are somewhat compressed JPG files. Hard to say if that's because you're shooting straight to JPGs, or because you're using a RAW converter that dishes out more aggressively compressed files.<br /><br />It will help if you mention what sort of photography is in question here (table-top product shots? full-length models showing clothing details? architectural interiors?), and how the images are going to be used (mostly online? print collateral material? large full-page glossy ads?). <br /><br />Regardless: good technique, lighting, and the right lens for the job will have a lot to do with your results - and depending on your subject matter, far more to do with your results than the camera body you happen to be using. So, give us a better sense of the lens(es) you're using, the circumstances in which you're shooting, and how you're lighting things ... and if you can, post an example of an image that you find lacking. You will get back some pointers that might dramatically improve what's happening. The professional you mentioned was probably using a larger format camera, but he was certainly using years of experience and having real control over the light.</p>

[katie_tanner]

<p>thanks Bill. Yes I have relised I need to get better lenses but have no idea how to tell the good from the bad?.... I have done some research but im not good with numbers and when i start seeing 4:5 1.1 3.7 / 6/8 blah it goes right over my head.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>it goes right over my head</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the place to start. If you want serious results, you need to invest a little time in getting your head around the fundamentals of photography. It doesn't have to be a giant commitment, but you'll feel a lot better when you understand:<br /><br />1) Aperture<br />2) Shutter Speed<br />3) ISO Sensitivity<br />4) Focal Length<br />5) Depth of Field<br /><br />and how they all interact to render certain results. Consider the book "Understanding Exposure" as a good start. Consider the more book "Light: Science and Magic" if you find yourself facing the need to do some product-ish shots.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>From your post I understand you need to read and practice with a good photography book, or maybe better, to assist to a photo seminar.</p>

<p>It`s not always the camera... that also counts, of course. It`s about apertures, DoF, illumination, speeds, metering, post processing, etc. etc.</p>

<p>I have seen sharp pics taken with a D80, even with way cheaper cameras. Obviously the higher D7000 resolution together with a good lens lend to have much better pictures... or more or less the same, depending on the knowledge and skills of the photographer.</p>

<p>Shooting RAW is essential to get the most of your camera. I suspect your lens could not be the sharper one, maybe it could be interesting to upgrade.</p>

<p>Do you used a tripod? Fill flash? What`s your slowest hand held shooting speed? Have you modified your camera settings? How do you select the optimal aperture? All this parameters (amongst many others), may be taken into account when you look for the optimal results.</p>

<p>The more you look into photography, the more you`ll love it. Buy a good book.<br /> ---<br /> <small>Edit: Four posts while I was writing mine! I have to agree with all above.</small><br>

<small></small></p>

[katie_tanner]

<p>Thanks Matt! Yes I think the reason for the images being so small is I had been shooting in JPG rather than RAW, I have never used RAW before but am experimenting this week with it. My RAW convertor will be Photoshop CS5, is this an issue? <br>

The images being shot are of people in uniforms, and are being printed at the size of 3 metres high. The photos are great small or as a glossy advert but blowing them up big is when you start to see noise and alot of it. I also dont think it helped that the day that it was shot was very overcast, it rained even and I have had issues with my flash not working, so light was a huge issue. I also think I needed to use a tripod and one of the big light dish things that reflect light back onto the subject, and I will be experimenting with this in the coming weeks.<br>

Going off my receipt my lens is a AF-S 18-135mm. This is the only lens I have. I have been abit too scared of getting another, in fear I will get the wrong thing, so I have ignored the issue, not a good idea I know.<br>

I will post some images tomorrow.<br>

Thank you!!</p>

[katie_tanner]

<p>no worries Matt, I will get those books and starting reading up and trying to understand aperture, shutter speed, ISO, focal length & depth of field.<br>

Jose generally I shoot in Auto settings, unless im shooting at night or trying to get something different. When it comes to photos of pets or even people I dont understand how photographers can shoot manually when you need to change your camera and then maually focus, i would have thought the best photo opportunity would have been missed unless im not understanding something?</p>

<p>Here are a couple of pet photos I have taken that I have been very happy with.<br>

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff96/collielver/Cyndi.jpg<br>

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff96/collielver/garden_2.jpg<br>

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff96/collielver/portia.jpg<br>

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff96/collielver/jo.jpg</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p> Camera recommendation (in the Nikon family): D7000 or D3X. Canon recommendation: EOS 5D Mark II; Phase One recommendation: P45+ or IQ140. really good lenses help too .<br>

But yes to shooting raw, yes to learning how to optimize image quality in your raw processing program ,and yes to learning how to use light and stage a photo. Why people think still think it is all about the camera is a mystery to me. A good to great camera is just the starting point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I have done some research but im not good with numbers and when i start seeing 4:5 1.1 3.7 / 6/8 blah it goes right over my head.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Matt rightly points out you have identified an area of weakness on your part , you need to work on building strength in that area.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>We had a photographer do some photos for my work before i started, they costed a fortune</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe he or she cost that much because they knew what they was doing and had probably spent a lot of time learning his or her craft. When you look at the bottom line the photography they produced may have also been cheap if it added real value and income to your company's or your client's slakes and marketing efforts.</p>

<p>On the other hand the photographer probably is a lousy graphic designer compared to you. Creating good photography is no more an automatic process than doing good graphic design is. It isn't about the hardware and it isn't about the software; it is all about <em>your</em> wetware and how you've trained it. </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Katie: if those images going to be 3 feet tall, then you do need to do everything possible to make the most of the camera's "sweet spot" when it comes to exposure. That means shooting at ISO 100, and <em>not underexposing the image</em>. At that lower ISO (which will have the least noise), the camera is less sensitive to light. That means:<br /><br />1) Using a lower shutter speed to allow more light into the camera<br />2) Using a wider aperture (a lower f-number) to allow more light into the camera<br />3) Working in more light (this is the best idea!)<br />4) Some combination of all three.<br /><br />Everything involves compromises. If you lower the shutter speed, you run the risk of losing sharpness because you're jiggling the camera in a way that will blur/soften the results during the time the shutter is open. You can solve this by using a tripod. But you also have the risk that the subject will move during the exposure (which you can address by having them try to be still - which is a lot easier for an experienced model than it is for, say, a child that's posing). Just how low a shutter speed you can use depends on several factors, then. Obviously, the faster the better. But you probably don't want under 1/125th if you're in available light (no flash).<br /><br />If you open up that lens to a wider aperture (say, f/4 instead of f/8) you get in a lot more light ... but you also get away from the lens's projected image looking its best, and you get less depth of field. Shallow depth of field means you might get something the person is holding in front of them in focus, but not get their face in focus. Useful DoF is impacted by a lot of variables, including focal length, print size, and more. But suffice it to say, you don't want that lens open too far or you could be struggling with focus. So, shooting at something like f/8 will help ... but that requires more light if you're also keeping the shutter speed reasonably short.<br /><br />Which brings us back to light. More is better. But you don't want hard light (like bright, direct sun) because you'll probably get hard shadows you don't want. You can buy (or make, from a sheet of white foamcore) a reflector to help bounce some sunlight into those shadows, but you very likely DO want that slightly cloudy day. That's very nice light, as long as it isn't outright gloomy. You'll also want to shoot a white balance target as you get set up in light like that, so that in post production, you have a reference point to get your colors right.<br /><br />You likely do <em>not</em> want to use direct flash from your camera for such shots. But you might consider adding something like a Nikon SB-700 speedlight to your plans. Your D80 can use its pop-up flash as a remote commander, allowing you to use the SB-700 off-camera as a slave, positioning it in an umbrella or off of a reflector to add some nice fill light that will help with shadows, as well as to freeze the subject - which will really help with that crispness you're after.<br /><br />And lastly ... think about framing. If you're going to print large, you want to avoid cropping if at all possible. Preserve those pixels. Get the subject as filled into the frame as your ultimate design requirements allow, compositionally, aspect-ratio-wise, etc. Every pixel counts!<br /><br />Sure, a D7000 will help (more pixels, better image quality from years-newer technology). But I'll bet that technique and light are going to do more for you than any single other factor.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks Matt! Yes I think the reason for the images being so small is I had been shooting in JPG rather than RAW, I have never used RAW before but am experimenting this week with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suggest that that is not all there is. You can get very sharp photos shooting jpeg (although there are other issues, and shooting RAW is a good thing), but I am guessing that some of the AF and aperture/depth-of-field issues are where you need to focus (pun intended). The D7000 will, however, doubtless give you better results.</p>

<p>How big do you print? How do you use your photos? That is a very important consideration, too.</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>Katie - those 150 MB files - by any chance were they TIFF files? There are uncompressed files and normally large.</p>

<p>In PS CS5, when you open a file, you should see it is much bigger than the 3MB when working with it and if you saved it as a TIFF file it would be pretty big too. I think my D90 JPG files are around 6 to 7MB and open to around 60MB (I'll have to check when I get home, I could be wrong but I know it is pretty big).</p>

<p>But as others have suggested - the D7000 with a better lens and good technique should give you the quality you are after (I had a D80 and the 18-135mm lens but upgraded to a D90 and some pro lens 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and I am very happy with the sharpness and clarity I get. Don't get me wrong though - the D80 can take amazing photos if used properly.)</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Jose generally I shoot in Auto settings, unless im shooting at night or trying to get something different. When it comes to photos of pets or even people I dont understand how photographers can shoot manually when you need to change your camera and then maually focus, i would have thought the best photo opportunity would have been missed unless im not understanding something?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was refering to the in-camera image settings. If you`re not satisfied with your camera output there is a chance to modify sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc. , specially interesting if you`re working with JPEG images. You can also choose the color space to have a more or less wider set of colors.</p>

<p>Another topic is about exposure modes (program, auto, manual... ) or focus modes (auto, manual). You`re right, any automatic exposure mode + autofocus will let you to concentrate on the subject, instead on other... "distracting?" issues like to nail focus manually or to decide the correct exposure.</p>

<p>Many photographers use a "middle point"; they manually select the aperture (the shutter speed is selected by the camera) and use an exposure compensation system to fine adjust the image to their liking (e.g. to avoid that burned highlights shown in your pics). There is also a manual focus override ability when using autofocus mode with current AF lenses (e.g. useful in conditions where the AF doesn`t work).</p>

[rob_mulligan1]

<p>You might consider shooting a high quality prime lens instead of a zoom. A Nikon 50mm f1.8 is about $100 street and razor sharp. Stop it down to around F5.6 or F8 and the sharpness will (assuming you hit focus and are shooting off a tripod) be world class. Shooting wide open gives shallow depth of field and nice bokeh, but stopping down a stop or two makes for the sharpest pics.<br>

Uh... something else I don't think anyone mentioned: Turn off the VR on your zoom unless you absolutely NEED it. (read Thom Hogan's take on this) That is, at very low shutter speeds. With your zoom, racked out, that would maybe be less than 1/100th of a second hand held. Some people are steadier than others. (If you're shooting static subjects for mega enlargement, you should NOT be shooting hand held.) If you're using a GOOD tripod you shouldn't need VR at all. I use a Tiltall from the 1950's. It's rock solid and can be found used on Ebay for $50-$100. Even the beaters work fine. Some people don't like the head, but there are kits to change the center column to accept any other head.<br>

On the other hand... a D7000 WILL give you a lot more pixels to peep. I have one now. I like it. I'm NOT a "pixel peeper".<br>

Good luck.</p>

[bnelson]

<p>3 meters tall? That is over 9 ft tall. Definitely needs a good tripod, low iso and lens stopped down a little. The more pixels the better and shoot raw.</p>

[DawsonPointers]

<p>Hi Katie:<br>

The D80 is an excellent camera and you should be getting good results from it. I have one and a D90 and use both cameras almost the same amount. Camera bodies seem to come along quite quickly with some incremental improvements. Good lenses last a long time and improved my photographs a lot.<br>

Like the others who posted before me, I would recommend that you take a photography course/get a book (there are some very good and entertaining books out there), shoot in RAW, and learn about <em><strong>sharpening</strong></em>. You then should consider some new lenses.<br>

Start with the inexpensive Nikkon 35mm f/1.8. This lens is considered a normal lens on your D80. What you see is what you get, in other words, with no zooming or wide-angles. I would then consider an 85mm f/1.8 or, if you can afford it, 85mmf/1.4. These prime lenses (no zoom) work well in lower light situations which is important for the D80. The key is that they have low f numbers (f1.4 or 1.8) indicating that they let in more light. They have an added bonus in that if you used them at their most open appetures, they have shallow depth of field giving you those blurred backgrounds that really draw attention to your subject matter.<br>

A good flash with a flash diffuser is also important (I have 2 SB600s, but that is a discontinued model). Your D80 can control some Nikon flashes even when the flash isn't in the hot shoe of the camera! This works great for things like product shots. An inexpensive tripod or monopod would also be an asset to keep your camera still and images sharp.If you are finding the display on the back of your D80 too small to see if your image is good, consider a Hoodman Loupe. You put it over the display and it gives a much better view of what you shot.<br>

Once you outgrow the capabilities of that equipment, then consider a new body. All of the other equipment I listed above will work with a new DX body like the D7000. The D7000 will be heavier than the D80, so that might be a consideration fo you.<br>

There are countless examples of fantastic images here on photo.net that were taken with D40's, D50's, D70's and D80's. You can search for them and look at the photo details to see how the camera was set to take the image. I reitterate that the D80 is still an excellent camera and you should be getting good results from it.<br>

Hope that helps.<br>

Regards, John</p>

[mark_mitchell5]

<p>Hi Katie,<br>

I agree with many points here (and Matt L. definitely made a good point), but putting that aside - you want to take better pictures. Study your technique. Yep, a new camera (say a D7000 for example) will fire up the motivation, but if you already know what you lack and where your photographic skills are at, possibly new glass. A 35 1.8, a new quality zoom (70-300 VR as an example) may help you more than a new body. The D80 is a fine camera, no question. Exploit the capabilities of not only your camera, but your lenses, AND your talents, then ask yourself where the shortcomings are. You'll find the answer. Good luck & let us all know.</p>

[nathansanborn]

<p>I shoot with a 6 mega pixel d50, and I'm confident that the camera can make better pictures than I can take. If you are enlarging to 3 meters, realize that a photo that large is not meant to be viewed closely, so a lack of detail up close shouldn't be too much of a problem.<br>

Consider taking a basic photography class. It will give you a better idea of how to get the most out of your current camera, but more importantly, it will be FUN!<br>

P.S. I lust after the d7000, so even if I think you don't need one to take amazing photos, I understand that sometimes just wanting something is enough reason.</p>

[marc_henry1]

<p>Katie,</p>

<p> As a few others have suggested a little reading is probably whats needed first. Can I recommend the late John Hedgecoes 'New Manual of Photography' . Here is a link to it on amazon : <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Manual-Photography-John-Hedgecoe/dp/1405334762/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305844514&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Manual-Photography-John-Hedgecoe/dp/1405334762/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305844514&sr=8-1</a> This is a well put together guide to the principals and reading it will help you decide what you want to achieve and how you actually achieve that. At the moment you are a salesmans dream - you want to spend some money and you want someone to tell you what to buy. Arm yorself with a little knowledge first.<br>

Enjoy,</p>

<p>Marc </p>

[graham_martin2]

<p>In addition to shooting in RAW (Nikon's file extension is .nef) also be sure that any Jpegs are shot as "fine". Fine jpegs have the most amount of detail as opposed to Normal or Basic. Instead of changing cameras try upgrading your lenses as some have already mentioned. It's the glass that really counts when you are looking to get sharp images. One of the all time great Nikon lenses is the 80-200 f/2.8. This lens has been around in various versions for many years. The least expensive auto-focus version is what they call the push-pull lens. You can get these for under $600 from paces like KEH. Notice that the lens is f/2.8 as opposed to, say, f/4.5 - 6.3. What this means is that you can shoot wide open at f/2.8 all the way from 80mm to 200mm. The variable aperture lenses have a much smaller aperture (less light) as they get closer to their maximum zoom. Generally speaking faster (smaller f stop) zoom lenses with a fixed max aperture are better quality than the consumer grade slower lenses.</p>

 

[nigel fraustbyte]

<p>Get a D7000 and never look back.</p>

[katie_tanner]

<p>OK so I have decided I should start looking at new lenses first, one for normal shooting, maybe up to 70mm or 80mm etc but with a low f/stop...no more than 2.8. and then i need to invest in a bigger zoom camera with an f stop as low as possible too. It seems the canon brand has alot more of a range when it comes to lenes. Nikon hasn't got a big variety.<br>

Ok so i shot RAW today and what a joke, the resolution on the image is 240 whereas it is usually 300 when i shoot in JPG. Why do my RAW photos look aweful?? there is soo much noise! YUK! I will attached a pic!</p>

[graham_martin2]

<p>I looked at your image, and I don't see any noise. Your ISO is 800 which, on the newer Nikons, isn't an issue so far as noise is concerned. I don't own a D80, but I wouldn't think that ISO800 would be a challenge for that camera. Your histogram shows some blown highlights which are caused by the backlighting from the window. Other than that I think the camera has done a pretty good job of getting a correct exposure. Maybe you should look at your image on someone else's monitor, and see if you still see the noise.<br>

So far as the variety of Nikon zoom lenses versus Canon, I have always felt that Nikon had a pretty good number of zooms with overlapping focal lengths. Where Nikon was a little late to the party was with their VR lenses. Canon had more lenses with IS than Nikon at one time.</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>Katie: I suggest that you either treat photography as a hobby, just like before, or really get into it.<br /> You are a graphic designer, not a photographer, so you will most likely never -regardless of the camera and lens you buy- get the results that those expensive photographers did. Similarly, if one of those photographers would go into graphic design, they would never get the same results as you do, not as beginners anyway, so they still have to pay for an expensive graphic designer.<br /> It sounds to me that you are printing really large, and that you have received 150 Mb files. This suggests one thing: Medium Format. 150 Mb is a common file size among medium format, and it would explain why you keep zooming in and still see sharp detail: megapixels and razor sharp MF glass. This also means very expensive cameras and lenses. It is also arguably the only way you can get a 3 meter print to look good when is being looked at from a relatively small distance away.<br /> <br /> I used to own a D80 and have gotten very sharp, high quality pictures with it. The "secret" was good expensive glass and good technique while shooting, lighting and postprocessing. The most imediate improvement to your photography will be something like a 24-70 2.8 nikkor. An amazingly good and amazingly expensive lens. With that lens on your D80, at 100% magnification on screen and base ISO, you will get sharper and more detailed pictures than with a D7000 and your current kit lens. I can bet on that. Good glass is a starting point, a good camera body is a fleeting commodity, they just keep on coming every 6 months.<br /> <br /> Now I own a D700, full frame, and is similarly sharp but with slightly better color and better low light results.<br /> If you need to print really big with great results, no D7000 is going to help you. Just do a simple DPI calculation and you will see that for a 1 meter print, the DPI difference from your old D80 is insignificant.<br /> Also, I strongly disagree on your claim that nikon has a smaller selection of lenses compared to canon.</p>

<p>This being said, if I would have to make a purchase recommendation, I suggest you sell your current setup and go get the D7000 with the 24-70 2.8, along with a nikon speedlight of your choice. After that, the amount of work you put into learning and experimenting will be visible in your results.</p>

<p>Best of luck.</p>

[katie_tanner]

<p>you dont see it? ...compare it with the quality of this photo. May take awhite to download</p>