Any photography experts out there?

[marcus]

Wondering if any can help me with a photography-realted dilemma.

I have a reasonable digital SLR (Nikon D80) which I use for taking pictures of furniture/joinery and not much else. For the last five years I have been using the 'kit' lens it came with which is a Nikon 18-70mm. I'm wondering if replacing this with a prime lens (35mm i.e. digital equivalent of 50mm) would give me a worthwhile increase in picture quality? Most of the pictures I take are round about this zoom level anyway.

I get reasonable results with the kit lens, but played with a friends much more expensive camera recently, which highlighted the limitations of my own. It would be good to improve things without having to buy a whole new camera....

 

[nathandavies]

are you using tripod, lights, cable release etc?

if you are then a better lense may well be your next step.

If you are not then invest in those things first for longer, steadier exposures etc

Have you read much on photography? That could also be a cheaper upgrade.

I have had some great photos in the past with a kit lense,(luck rather than judgement) but like any hobby there is always something bigger and better to get.

I'm not a photography expert by a long long way, but dabble, so I expect my reply might be questioned, but from my limited knowledge the above has improved my shots.

nathan

 

[SurreyHills]

You are haven't said what you are not happy about with the images that your current set-up produces. Is it the quality of the image, lighting, aspect ratio? Are you doing any post processing of the images?

A better lens will improve the overall quality but a bigger influence is likely to be the lighting of the furniture. Most furniture photos are produced under studio lighting with multiple light sources. Relying on daylight or an on camera flash doesn't offer much in the way of controlling the exposure. You need to think about off camera lighting or using reflectors. You could also use additional flash units triggered by the main flash without having to invest in studio style lighting.

The camera you have isn't up to the specification of modern digital SLRs. This may not be a big issue but it won't help if you want to have high quality images. Whilst more pixels doesn't always mean better quality it does give you more ability to tweak the images by cropping or using Photoshop to improve the overall effect.

Try googling your camera model to see what images other photographers are able to produce with it. This should give you an idea of what's possible and also what other equipment - lens, lighting etc. they are using.

 

[Racers]

Hi Marcus

I used to have a D80 its a good camera, I upgraded to a D300 it has more flexibility and can meter with old cheap Nikon lenses.
Plus its a DX sensor so i can use my existing lenses.
One drawback is its 450 page manual!

You are photographing the light reflected back from your subject so lighting is the most important thing.

D80 with a Sigma 50mm micro lens.


Evil Weevil by maddpete, on Flickr

Any photography courses near you?

Pete

 

[bugbear]

You are haven't said what you are not happy about with the images that your current set-up produces. Is it the quality of the image, lighting, aspect ratio? Are you doing any post processing of the images?

A better lens will improve the overall quality but a bigger influence is likely to be the lighting of the furniture. Most furniture photos are produced under studio lighting with multiple light sources. Relying on daylight or an on camera flash doesn't offer much in the way of controlling the exposure. You need to think about off camera lighting or using reflectors. You could also use additional flash units triggered by the main flash without having to invest in studio style lighting.

The camera you have isn't up to the specification of modern digital SLRs. This may not be a big issue but it won't help if you want to have high quality images. Whilst more pixels doesn't always mean better quality it does give you more ability to tweak the images by cropping or using Photoshop to improve the overall effect.

Try googling your camera model to see what images other photographers are able to produce with it. This should give you an idea of what's possible and also what other equipment - lens, lighting etc. they are using.

Here's a flickr search

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=still+l ... ikon%2Fd80

Quality looks fine - let's face it, 10.2 Megapixels is more than enough for most purposes. Glossy magazines print at 300 pixels per inch, so a 10.2 Megapixel shot (3,872 x 2,592) would do it.

BugBear

 

[mind_the_goat]

Hi
Don't buy a new camera, unless yours is broken or you are sure there is a new feature you can't live without. Higher resolution is not a good reason on it's own unless you do a lot of high quality or large format printing. A prime lens is something you can keep forever, and continue to use if do ever need to upgrade the camera. However I'm not sure what you would gain especially as your current lens already covers the focal length you want. you will certainly get sharper, less distorted pictures and be able to work in lower light levels but there are other ways to achieve this. A lot depends on what sort of photos you like taking and you didn't say what shortcoming you thought your current camera had.

A monopod could be a good investment if you want to travel light,
Some basic photo editing software would be good if you don't use this already,
If you like landscapes then a tripod and some filters would be a good investment,
It could even be worth buying a few mags for technique tips.

Having said that I would be a little bit envious if you got the new lens

Give us more details of what it is you like to photograph.

 

[marcus]

Wow, that was a fast response! Thanks everyone.

A little more info. Yes, I have a tripod and remote, which I use when I need to. I have a reasonable understanding of the basics of photography I think. I also have a 'lighting setup' which is a bit of a lash up — a couple of Nikon speed light flashes taped to some stands with umbrella reflectors. It's all a bit heath robinson but I can't justify spending much more on it. I use Aperture for post-processing.

Here are a couple of pictures I have done with this setup:

They're OK, but I see other pictures which somehow seem to have more detail and depth than mine do, and am not sure how much of this is down to technique and how much down to equipment. I feel I got the lighting, composition and exposure etc about right on the two above, and not sure what I else I could have done that would have made them look more like some of the better pictures I have seen. I have heard that kit lenses supplied with this sort of pro-sumer SLR can be a weak point, so was wondering if this may be part of my problem.....

 

[Rhossydd]

I'm wondering if replacing this with a prime lens (35mm i.e. digital equivalent of 50mm) would give me a worthwhile increase in picture quality?

You're likely to see some improvements in sharpness and colour rendition, but whether that is 'worthwhile' enough will depend on your expectations and skill in utilising the camera to start with.

..... played with a friends much more expensive camera recently, which highlighted the limitations of my own.....

What particular 'limitations' were highlighted ?
If you can tell us more, we may be able to help advise on how to improve your results.

Given you mainly shoot furniture/joinery a lot of the 'improvements' in more contemporary cameras won't be very relevant to you, if the resolution of the D80 is sufficient.

 

[SurreyHills]

I think your photos are OK, could do with being sharper and this either due to the kit lens letting you down or you need a smaller aperture. But I could being harsh as I don't know what you had to do to scale down the images to upload them. For example, I would expect to be able to read the book titles. What aperture are you shooting at?

 

[bugbear]

Looking around the blog...

http://www.beautifulwood.co.uk/blog/an- ... inlay.html

I see at least two issues.

That looks not quite sharp/focused. This may be focus, it may be the lens quality, or it could be camera shake.

The lighting is very uniform, without any modelling going on, which leads to low contrast in the final image (which can be partialy changed with post-processing)

BugBear

 

[marcus]

Andy, they have lost a little detail in the transition to jpegs, but even on the original the book titles are not completely clear. I have just had a look and the aperture was quite wide for that shot — f4.6. I find that even with two flash guns (reflected in umbrellas) I struggle to get enough light unless I am photographing something really quite small like a box — I always end up either opening the aperture or increasing the ISO, neither of which is ideal. Maybe my main problem is just not enough light?!

BB, they are not quite sharp, which has been a frustration ever since I got the camera. I rely on the autofocus, but they are never quite as clear as I would like. The masters are sharper than the jpegs that end up on the web, but are still noticeably not quite there. I wonder if this is the lens, or maybe even a problem with the auto focus....

 

[RogerS]

I played around a little with iPhoto. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination.

I dunno....Maybe the original is better!

 

[Rhossydd]

I played around a little with iPhoto......Maybe the original is better!

Yes, the original is better.

 

[RogerS]

I played around a little with iPhoto......Maybe the original is better!

Yes, the original is better.

Told you I wasn't an expert

 

[Rhossydd]

I have just had a look and the aperture was quite wide for that shot — f4.6.

The lens won't be performing at it's best at that aperture, plus you'll be loosing some depth of field too. I'd suggest aiming to use f8 as a minimum for this type of work.

I find that even with two flash guns (reflected in umbrellas) I struggle to get enough light unless I am photographing something really quite small like a box — I always end up either opening the aperture or increasing the ISO, neither of which is ideal. Maybe my main problem is just not enough light?!

The lighting is pretty good, but as you say, maybe just not enough of it. Maybe more powerful flashguns would help.

they are not quite sharp, which has been a frustration ever since I got the camera. I rely on the autofocus, but they are never quite as clear as I would like.

You can test the autofocus accuracy by shooting a ruler set at an angle

The masters are sharper than the jpegs that end up on the web, but are still noticeably not quite there.

Are you shooting JPGs or RAW ?
Certainly they look like they could be improved by better sharpening for their output size. What software are you using ?

 

[xy mosian]

No expert here, just an occasionally enthusiastic amateur. One piece I read suggested turning off the anti-shake function when using a tripod. That certainly helped my poor efforts.
xy

 

[marcus]

Rhossydd, thanks that was helpful.

I have done some experiments. First the ruler trick — great idea, it seems the autofocus is working perfectly.

I put the camera on the tripod and took some identical photos at different apertures to compare. The ones with a tighter aperture are a very small amount better than the ones with the aperture wide open, but still noticeably not sharp. This makes me think that in all probability the lens is just not very good. Also that if I get a prime lens I will need improved lighting to get the best from it.

I have also been comparing identical shots with different ISO settings, and found that at anything more than ISO 200 the image quality becomes very poor. I have read that this was a problem with early digital cameras (which mine is I guess), so I can't work around the lighting issue by using higher ISO settings.

I don't think the software is the problem — I am shooting RAWs and editing with Aperture which is advertised as a professional package.

So my conclusion is that I am suffering from a combination of problems: a not brilliant lens, inadequate lighting for larger subjects, and a camera that can't compensate for the low lighting with higher ISO settings. So I guess the ideal solution would be a new camera, some proper studio flash, and a better lens! I guess the lens might be a place to start, as it would be the cheapest thing on the list...

PS XY, don't think my camera has anti-shake on it!

 

[Paul Chapman]

I have also been comparing identical shots with different ISO settings, and found that at anything more than ISO 200 the image quality becomes very poor. I have read that this was a problem with early digital cameras (which mine is I guess), so I can't work around the lighting issue by using higher ISO settings.

Can you set the specific speeds on your camera? If you can, it would be better to use slower shutter speeds than to increase the ISO settings. Use the optimum ISO setting, a small aperture and then set the shutter speed accordingly in order to achieve the correct exposure.

As regards your lens, I think you'll find that the main economies manufacturers make in producing the zoom lenses they sell as part of a camera kit these days is in the lens mount rather than the optics. With the less expensive lenses, extensive use is made of plastic in the mechanical parts of the lens. If you look at the rear of the lens you'll probably find that the surface of the lens mount that mates with the lens mount on the camera body, is plastic. Just one example of where they try to save money. Doesn't effect the optical quality of the lens (at least when it's new) but results in the mechanical parts of the lens wearing more over time.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Rhossydd]

it would be better to use slower shutter speeds than to increase the ISO settings.

That strategy won't work with electronic flash.

 

[Paul Chapman]

it would be better to use slower shutter speeds than to increase the ISO settings.

That strategy won't work with electronic flash.

You are correct, of course - I omitted to make the point that different lighting would have to be used.

Cheers :wink:

Paul