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.
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!
DSCF4611_1 by TIKI, on Flickr
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:
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!
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:
temp_example by TIKI, on Flickr
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.
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:
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.
I've only been preaching that for 8 years or so to anyone that would listen, lol
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.
Yeah the RII is pretty much why I'm just sticking with native as much as possible. Luckily I like the Sony stuff, it's just expensive.
Some people have way too much money compared to the amount of talent they have.
Try harder, or send it to me and I'll test drive it for you.
Curious to hear your impressions of the auto focus, as I've heard it's quite poor, although the IQ seems great.okay. i'm all set! NO MORE FOR A WHILE I MEAN IT THIS TIME. now off to take some photos of the whole kit so i can list my stuff on sharegrid/kitsplit, lol
You're In Brazil? Go out to the beach and photograph people playing futsal, this lens is tailor made for that kinda shit.
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.
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.
