- Oct 27, 2017
90% of image quality lies in the lens, not the body. That said, I wouldn't dump money into lenses for a D5300 in 2019.
I shoot in RAW and process my own photos through Lightroom/Photoshop and other apps.What do you mean by "overall quality of the picture?" In what kind of scenarios are you seeing this? Are you shooting in JPEG or RAW and processing your own photos?
It's got a 24 megapixel APS-C sensor. Assuming good lighting, you're unlikely to see any substantial image quality upgrades just switching over to any another camera.
If these are all done on the 35, which is probably just actual 50mm then that might be the problem. You're shooting too tight. Try looking into getting a used Sigma 18-35 Art. Should give you enough versatility to be honest unless you want to pay for Nikon's older 17-55 2.8 lens for DX.I shoot in RAW and process my own photos through Lightroom/Photoshop and other apps.
I think it depends on what I shoot, and might be a problem of lens, but I'm not exactly well-versed in photography to know exactly where it's failing me.
I enjoy shooting close to middle range subjects because I think that's where my camera shines the most. Whether it's to shoot flowers, or portraits or even some trees in a forest, it does the job well. But it's when I want to shoot larger subjects that it's failing me in the lack of details the camera provides. I remember trying to shoot nature sceneries and feeling disappointed in the overall quality of the shots that merely felt barely slightly better than what I'd get from a smartphone. Not sure how to convey this better, so I'm gonna share some shoots I made that would show it better:
In those two pictures, I feel like quality and definition are severely lacking, and that a smartphone would have achieved a similar result, and that's where I feel limited a lot. It lacks depths, it lacks refinement, it feels pixelated, this is where I feel limited.
I tried to give urban photography a shot lately, and the limitations were felt once again:
This results in me leaning towards shooting objects that are very close or middle-length because that's where I feel I can get the result and quality I want and aim for.
If these are all done on the 35, which is probably just actual 50mm then that might be the problem. You're shooting too tight. Try looking into getting a used Sigma 18-35 Art. Should give you enough versatility to be honest unless you want to pay for Nikon's older 17-55 2.8 lens for DX.
Thank you both for your replies and input, I'm glad it seems to be more a problem of lens than camera, so I'll look more into that whenever I'll be able to. I also need to learn all the technicalities related to photography, because right now I do things with my guts, having pretty basic technical knowledge about it, but that's also very likely why I end up feeling limited.basically the 35mm is 50mm, and it’s possibly a 2.8? So usually the consumer tier primes are best when you’re up close. Overall fidelity of landscape would be fine as long as you’re looking at it holistically but lose detail under close scrutiny. That’s where the pro tier lenses do better, they add that extra pop, sharpness etc. either way, what you can try is to shoot at its ideal peak, possibly at 5.6 to 8 and test if you’re getting better results given ideal ISO. If not then research on what would be a better lens vintage or otherwise.
If you have any full or bigger res examples vs insta, that would help. Most photos look like hot ass once Insta compresses them to hell and back, especially on PC.Thank you both for your replies and input, I'm glad it seems to be more a problem of lens than camera, so I'll look more into that whenever I'll be able to. I also need to learn all the technicalities related to photography, because right now I do with my gut feeling, having pretty basic technical knowledge over it all, but that's also very likely why I feel limited.
Sure thing, here are what I could find (knowing some of them were done a long time ago and I changed PC in the meantime so I'm not sure they're the full original pictures). Also I resize them before loading them to my phone, going through some other apps and then uploading them on IG, so a lot is going on there before the final product. My process is, ugh, a whole thing.If you have any full or bigger res examples vs insta, that would help. Most photos look like hot ass once Insta compresses them to hell and back, especially on PC.
Always a good idea to read this to get a solid understanding of the exposure triangle and what it means for your shooting, although your shots already look pretty decent.
I think there's a bunch of issues at the same time. I tried looking for the exif info for the photos but there are none. So that means they have been processed a bunch, and you have confirmed as such. The less the processing steps, the better IMO.Sure thing, here are what I could find (knowing some of them were done a long time ago and I changed PC in the meantime so I'm not sure they're the full original pictures). Also I resize them before loading them to my phone, going through some other apps and then uploading them on IG, so a lot is going on there before the final product. My process is, ugh, a whole thing.
Hope that helps?
And thanks for the book recommendation, that will very likely help me understand things better, hopefully!
This is why I always recommend the 7xxx cameras. The 7100 and 7200 are good value cameras.
I think there's a bunch of issues at the same time. I tried looking for the exif info for the photos but there are none. So that means they have been processed a bunch, and you have confirmed as such. The less the processing steps, the better IMO.
The RAW files would have helped.
Anyway, let's take the first photo. I assume, what you are not happy with are things like how the foliage are smeared together when you view at 100%? It could be a combined result of the aperture used, processing steps (sharpness settings and jpeg compression) and the lens itself. I'm assuming you're using the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX, which should be a good general purpose lens. But it is a consumer lens. These lenses are typically not super sharp wide open. I don't think you used it wide open in the first shot, but the best settings are possibly around f5.6 - f8. Having said that, take similar photos in similar light with those aperture settings at a LOW ISO, then process the RAW, zoom in 100% while performing the sharpness edits and check, don't utilize noise reduction for daylight photos, and while converting, keep the jpeg settings to 95% or above.
Another issue is foliage against harsh light. It's typically just a no, no for me. Foliage looks gross in harsh light, no matter what. I find having to use negative clarification and soft sharpness settings. Time of the day is VERY important, as is where the light is coming from!
Another issue is where is the focusing point? Since lenses perform the best at center, center it at your point of interest.
Another issue is the lens's physical limits, with this 50mm equivalent consumer prime, you can't expect to zoom in 100% and expect to clearly see the runner in that path on the left of the frame. That's what sharp telephoto primes are for. The lens itself is hitting it's limits. Case in point:
DSCF4611_1 by TIKI, on Flickr
I took a photo of that bumblebee in my mom's backyard to test the XT3's AF abilities with the latest firmware (it's amazing). But the lens can't resolve more than that. The lens has hit it's physical limit there and it would be unfair of me to expect more so from a mid range 35mm equivalent lens. I'd need a sharp tele, or a tele with macro capabilities.
So having said that, different horses for different courses. The 50mm equivalent is best for portraits, close up stuff, street scenes etc. Perfectly fine for landscapes, but you'd have to be extra careful to use it at it's best settings, as well as the camera's best settings, if you want the most details.
So the other option is to basically research the wider angle lenses that can fit that mount. I believe this DX mount can take FX lenses, so you could try the FX version of the same lens or the 1.4 version. Both should be sharper, as they are designed for full frame. Or in the meantime use technique to cover up the lack of sharpness based on what I said.
Having said all that, I think most of your issues are coming from jpeg compression and the lens itself. As for the night shot, that's difficult. Modern cameras with better dynamic ranges do better. Again, that's a matter on base ISO settings, like what's the highest ISO that can be used without introducing too much noise. You positioning yourself where the lighting on your subject is the best. You are against the light there, might have been better directly behind or in front of the statue, it would have been side lit, and you still would have gotten the castle in frame. So it's a lot of technique. Keep taking photos and enjoy!
The picture you worked on already went through a lot of Lightroom editing in the first place though. It's a bummer I don't have the RAW file no more, but trust me when I tell you that the day I took this picture, the sky was super grey and the ocean didn't look blue much. Maybe the weather and lighting conditions didn't help me at all here to be honest (but it's not like I would have had the occasion to shot this place anytime soon again so I had to make do with what I had). Also I like how the colors pop more in your version, but I feel like you also went beyond the limits of what the pictures can do, seeing as there's a lot of chromatic artefacts here and there that make the picture look very LQ and displeasing to me (the green pixels on the white house, or the green pixels on the edges of the stone fishing installation at the bottom right). That might have been the reason why this picture didn't look as "pushed" as it could have been in the first place, because I felt I was hitting a threshold, and that beyond it, it would cease to look professional (to me).I think some of those photos could benefit a lot just from improved processing in Lightroom! Your camera and lens should have more than enough resolution and detail to get the look you want, especially for Instagram where everything gets downsampled to hell. If you're shooting RAW your straight-out-of-camera images are naturally going to have less pop than processed JPGs from a phone and you may want to see what you can pull out of them with more work in Lightroom before falling down a gear rabbit hole.
Here's a quick pass on one of the landscapes to make it more IG-friendly:
Perfect to hear that. I love that lens on my A7RII, great for portraits and other stuff. Also the D800 was never a great focusing camera from what I've heard.
Seeing your editing process, and now knowing your final product on IG is 4 jpeg files deep explains a lot. If you are already using LR and PS, you already have the tools you need, and to wean yourself off of VSCO is going to require you to learn a LOT about LR, but it's more than capable of doing what you need to achieve the same look. Things like local sharpening should be done in LR with a brush, not in a whole other app.
The other thing that would help you tremendously is starting your work in LR, and then when it's time to do your work to add the white space/crop for IG, right click the picture in the LR filmstrip and select "edit in" and pick PS. This creates a temporary TIFF file that doesn't suffer from compression like a jpeg, so you're not losing data when it comes back into LR from PS.
Thank you both so much for your input, I'm amazed at the edit you did on my Raw file, I really still have so much to learn with LR (only started using it a year and a half ago, but I've been mostly using it in a rather intuitive way, and when I was hit by my own limitations in understanding the software, I would switch to Photoshop that I know much more since I've been using it for over 15 years). Now I guess I'll try to dive deeper into LR and mastering it as much as possible in order to cut my processing steps to a minimal. I do not particularly mind if my pictures aren't perfect, because I post them mainly on IG anyway, but I still want to improve as much as I can in the meantime, and I'm glad I have now a lot of ways to do so. Sorry for having disrupted this thread with my rather amateurish antics, I'll go back to making pictures and improve on that, thanks y'alls!For the night shot, what I meant is positioning yourself in general to ensure the best illumination of the subject itself. For your shot, it's possibly the optimal position, where you were at based on the framing you wanted. Ultimately that's the picture you wanna take, so framing is the main thing, and it's a statue so you can't ask it to move. But since the cathedral is illuminated from the ground lights, and you are at an angle behind the statue, you're basically against the light. So I was wondering if there could have been a better angle while keeping the framing the way you wanted. But I don't know, I wasn't there. Even so, I think the exposure is fine:
temp_example by TIKI, on Flickr
I am assuming you focused on the statue, and it's not super sharp if you zoom in. So that's a combination of it being wide open, and the low light + high ISO. One way would be to get as close as possible to the statue while still being satisfied with the background, plus it would be more and more defocused the closer you're to the statue and focusing on it, adding to the perception of depth. Then it's also in the editing. The statue is dark, the cathedral is light....so why not increase the contrast? And yes, certainly if you are using Lightroom....you have everything at your disposal to not use the other apps, you just have to learn to emulate those within LS/PS. And there are a lot of youtube tutorials for that. I'm not an instagram snob, I LOVE those filters, but again, horses for courses. It's quick, pretty stuff for mobile. Those photos will fall apart under scrutiny (not the artistic merit, just the fidelity) because they aren't meant to be scrutinized.
Oh, that's nothing. You didn't cover the entire thing and she was your only focus. I have covered about maybe close to 10 so far if not more. Being a boot on the ground for this stuff is some chaotic shit.
Don't touch the RP. I'd honestly also say don't touch the R either since it's the only new release lacking even an AF joystick, but don't listen to me. If you can rent one and see how you like the interface. I honestly think Canon released the worst cameras. Great lenses mediocre bodies.
Thanks for the advice. Next Gen is probably a little far away, and the rummored current gen pro body will probably be too expensive for me. I'll hold on my camera body and buy some nice glass in the meantime.I actually disagree here.
1) Both the RP and R are just temporary bodies, you'll end up with another R-type body at some point anyways, so get the RP because it has a sensor you're already happy with and is considerably cheaper.
2) The RP has the mode wheel which is MUCH faster to use than the software interface on the R
3) The RP is still coming with a free EF adapter for your existing lenses
4) RP has focus stacking, R doesn't
5) RP has intervalometer, R doesn't
Frankly, I'd just keep the 6D2 until R gen 2. Set the money aside now if you absolutely must.
I actually want this lens. Would have to buy two adapters for it though. I wonder how this would work AF wise on the Fuji X-T3, has to be a bit bad on my A7RII I would imagine.
The 135/MC-11 combo is actually one of the best combos by many reports, but not sure about on the R2.
Some people have way too much money compared to the amount of talent they have.I like looking through the GFX image thread on FM, but when I see something like this and realize that someone spent $10,000 to take a shitty picture of a cat, I want to scream.
i've bought it a couple of months ago and I still didn't have the oportunity to go out and use it extensively. My only model is my cat so far.
Curious to hear your impressions of the auto focus, as I’ve heard it’s quite poor, although the IQ seems great.
You’re In Brazil? Go out to the beach and photograph people playing futsal, this lens is tailor made for that kinda shit.
Why aren't these people taking portraits dammitI like looking through the GFX image thread on FM, but when I see something like this and realize that someone spent $10,000 to take a shitty picture of a cat, I want to scream.
I happen to live 1000 miles or so from the beach, but I'll be getting some weeks off work starting this friday! Hopeffuly there will be plenty of time to go out and see/shoot interesting stuff.
This is why I'm not touching Samyang. I've heard way too many random things to really have any kind of security purchasing one of their AF lenses.
If I can make NYC look interesting then you have no excuses.
I guess these are nice specs. This really is priced at a "why?" to me though. Granted I'm not the demographic for this. The EVF sound great, the resolution sounds great, the body from what I've seen looks great, it's not what I need on a value stand point.GFX 100 specs have leaked 2 days before the announcement. 120mp! All in all, looks like a 120mp X-T2 with IBIS that can take 800 shots for $10,000. I can't wait to see poorly exposed pictures of cats taken with it.
- Equipped with a backside illuminated CMOS sensor with 120 million pixels
- High-speed image processing engine “X-Processor 4”
- Achieves high-speed AF with up to twice the speed of the current model and excellent in moving object tracking
- 3.78 million image plane phase difference pixels are placed on the entire surface of the image sensor (coverage ratio about 100%)
- The accuracy of “face and pupil detection AF” has dramatically improved
- In addition to face detection of objects farther away, it is also possible to achieve high followability even when the face turns sideways or is blocked by an obstacle.
- Equipped with a 5-axis camera shake correction mechanism in the body that has an effect of up to 5.5 steps
- Equipped with 4K / 30P video shooting function
- Recording to an SD card 4K 30p 10bit 4: 2: 0, recording to an external media via HDMI 4K 30p 10bit 4: 2: 2
- The first “GFX Series” to be equipped with “ETERNA” mode
- In addition to rear liquid crystal monitor corresponding to 3.2 type 3 direction tilt, we adopt 2.05 type rear sub monitor newly
- The newly installed 1.80 top screen sub LCD monitor can use “Virtual dial mode” to display dial design
- Newly developed 5.76 million dots organic EL electronic view finder
- View finder magnification 0.86 times, optional EVF tilt adapter “EVF-TL1” can be attached
- It supports “16bit RAW” “16bit TIFF” recording
- Newly developed Smooth Skin Effect, a new function that automatically performs skin retouching
- We realize small size, light weight of thinnest part 48.9mm, approximately 1400 g (including two batteries, memory card, electronic view finder)
- High dust and water proof performance and low temperature resistant structure with 95 places sealing
- First to support “IEEE 802.11ac” as “GFX series”
- Since two “NP-T125” can be mounted, approximately 800 images can be taken when using the rear LCD monitor
- Power supply and charge from USB terminal is possible
No, it's really not. This is a camera built to compete with Hasselblad and Phase One models at 1/3rd the price. Of course it's not an event photographer's camera haha. The fact that it can do 4k/30/eterna is just cake.
I've stated many times that I'd buy a GFX over a Hasselblad and Phase One at least. I just see the whole proposition as "I've got stupid money to burn." I definitely respect what Fuji is doing with the GFX line though and would like to buy into it, it just turns into something I can't buy. I hope they really start eating into the Hasselblad and Phase One market share with this though. I'm assuming this is still being marketed towards high end product photography, portrait and landscape photographers?
I'm super curious to see how it's marketed honestly. So far, that entire market is usually high end fashion, product, and landscape/still subjects, but if they are hyping IBIS and EyeAF, who knows what they have planned. It's not a cam I'd chase a kid with.I've stated many times that I'd buy a GFX over a Hasselblad and Phase One at least. I just see the whole proposition as "I've got stupid money to burn." I definitely respect what Fuji is doing with the GFX line though and would like to buy into it, it just turns into something I can't buy. I hope they really start eating into the Hasselblad and Phase One market share with this though. I'm assuming this is still being marketed towards high end product photography, portrait and landscape photographers?
No it's not and cam for chasing kids. Hopefully it craters the price on the GFX50S or something. I can't wait to see images from it', but it's definitely not something I'd be buying anytime soon.