# My pictures doesn't look right



## hamlet

These shots were taken with the 18-55vr















The problem i have with my pictures is that they look very weird when i zoom in. It doesn't look sharp at all. Every picture i taken, no matter what shutter speeds i use, they all turn out like this. I don't understand how to improve on this, have i reached the limits of my kit lens?


----------



## runnah

Got VR turned on?


----------



## Braineack

I believe that's an issue with your kit lens and your 32mp sensor.  One solution is not to zoom in that far, the web sized version looks fine.

What were the camera settings of that shot?  looks like a higher ISO coupled with a slightly slower shutter; that doesn't help.


----------



## Juga

When you crop that heavy you will start to lose detail


----------



## hamlet

runnah said:


> Got VR turned on?



On this picture? Yes. But other pictures look exactly like this even with vr turned off.


----------



## hamlet

Braineack said:


> I believe that's an issue with your kit lens and your 32mp sensor.  One solution is not to zoom in that far, the web sized version looks fine.
> 
> What were the camera settings of that shot?  looks like a higher ISO coupled with a slightly slower shutter; that doesn't help.



Here you go.


----------



## hamlet

Juga said:


> When you crop that heavy you will start to lose detail



You have a camera that has about the same megapixel count as i do. How does a similar centre crop look on your image when you shoot with the 24-105?


----------



## amolitor

Yeah, don't pixel-peep. That way leads to buying more gear. Your camera's sensor has more resolution than can be easily obtained by average lenses in average uses.

Your lens can do better than what you're seeing, probably, but you need to use a tripod, the optimum apertures, quite high shutter speeds, and either a remote or the self timer to minimize vibrations. There's a whole basket of techniques you can use to improve sharpness, and every little bit helps.

But, generally, your sensor has a lot of resolution.

Furthermore, it is a feature of Bayer array sensors that the actual useful resolution is, in typical usage, about half of the pixel count because of the techniques used to gather color information. This means that, _always_, when you zoom in to the point that you can see individual sensor pixels, you'll be disappointed. The picture just, somehow, won't seem to have as much resolution as there are pixels. That's just the Bayer array demosaicing math, there's nothing to be done about it.

So, stop pixel peeping, stop worrying about dust, stop worrying about your gear. Your gear is fine and can take superb pictures.

Start thinking about how to arrange things in the frame to make a pleasing picture.


----------



## Overread

When I shifted from my 400D at 10.1MP to my 7D at 18 MP I found that what looked sharp at 100% view on the 400D looked softer at 100% view on the 7D. Instead I tend to find that around a view size of 60% or so renders things about where I can judge sharpness. 

For a 36MP sensor chances are 50% or maybe less would be ideal to judge sharpness. 

Remember the higher the MP count the bigger the image is when viewed at 100% size. What really matters is what it looks like at print/webdisplay/output size.


----------



## Robin_Usagani

1/80 sec, hand held and pixel peep dont mix.  That is basically like shooting a macro handheld at 1/80


----------



## Braineack

hamlet said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that's an issue with your kit lens and your 32mp sensor.  One solution is not to zoom in that far, the web sized version looks fine.
> 
> What were the camera settings of that shot?  looks like a higher ISO coupled with a slightly slower shutter; that doesn't help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go.
Click to expand...



and your answer:



> looks like a higher ISO coupled with a slightly slower shutter; that doesn't help.


----------



## hamlet

amolitor said:


> Yeah, don't pixel-peep. That way leads to buying more gear. Your camera's sensor has more resolution than can be easily obtained by average lenses in average uses.
> 
> Your lens can do better than what you're seeing, probably, but you need to use a tripod, the optimum apertures, quite high shutter speeds, and either a remote or the self timer to minimize vibrations. There's a whole basket of techniques you can use to improve sharpness, and every little bit helps.
> 
> But, generally, your sensor has a lot of resolution.
> 
> Furthermore, it is a feature of Bayer array sensors that the actual useful resolution is, in typical usage, about half of the pixel count because of the techniques used to gather color information. This means that, _always_, when you zoom in to the point that you can see individual sensor pixels, you'll be disappointed. The picture just, somehow, won't seem to have as much resolution as there are pixels. That's just the Bayer array demosaicing math, there's nothing to be done about it.
> 
> So, stop pixel peeping, stop worrying about dust, stop worrying about your gear. Your gear is fine and can take superb pictures.
> 
> Start thinking about how to arrange things in the frame to make a pleasing picture.



I agree completely. But the reason this bothers me is because i want to make posters. I have tried doing these shots with a tripod, vr, no vr, high shutter speeds, low shutter speeds. Pretty much everything in the book and i cant get my pictures sharper than this.

And also on the point of focusing on making more pleasing pictures: I have a very hard time to get started. I cant take amazing pictures that draw my audience in, i have a writers block.


----------



## hamlet

Overread said:


> When I shifted from my 400D at 10.1MP to my 7D at 18 MP I found that what looked sharp at 100% view on the 400D looked softer at 100% view on the 7D. Instead I tend to find that around a view size of 60% or so renders things about where I can judge sharpness.
> 
> For a 36MP sensor chances are 50% or maybe less would be ideal to judge sharpness.
> 
> Remember the higher the MP count the bigger the image is when viewed at 100% size. What really matters is what it looks like at print/webdisplay/output size.



Posters is what i'm concerned about.


----------



## hamlet

Robin_Usagani said:


> 1/80 sec, hand held and pixel peep dont mix.  That is basically like shooting a macro handheld at 1/80



I probably shot this one wrong, but all my images turn out like this. Even the ones with much higher shutter speeds.


----------



## runnah

My only thought is that there is some sort of camera processing going on. Either noise reduction, or some sort of smoothing. Check to make sure all those little "helpers" are turned off.


----------



## hamlet

runnah said:


> My only thought is that there is some sort of camera processing going on. Either noise reduction, or some sort of smoothing. Check to make sure all those little "helpers" are turned off.



Noise reduction is on. Could that be it? Its turned off now.


----------



## runnah

hamlet said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only thought is that there is some sort of camera processing going on. Either noise reduction, or some sort of smoothing. Check to make sure all those little "helpers" are turned off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noise reduction is on. Could that be it? Its turned off now.
Click to expand...


Could help.


----------



## hamlet

Thank you Runnah.


----------



## PixelRabbit

Hey Hamlet, I've been reading a lot of your threads for a while now and you really seem to be beating your head against the wall here trying to find technical and gear shortcomings as the sole reasons for the shortcomings in your images.  

Your gear is fine, it is time to use it to figure out the rest of the puzzle.  

The image you posted here is a little grainy and mushy zoomed in for many reasons, as Braineack said higher ISO and lower shutter speed contribute, gear may contribute a little bit but the biggest culprit is the light you shot this in (which dictated your ISO and SS).  

Honestly given the flat lighting conditions (flat even lighting, I'm guessing a heavy overcast kind of day perhaps even around noon) this is about the best you can expect, a flat image that becomes mushy when you zoom right in on it, take this shot in a early or late day light or use flash to create highlights and shadows and your sharpness will increase, you can up your shutter speed and there will be light and shadow to enhance details.

Give your gear some love and start to focus your efforts on learning light and composition, learning those two things will improve your photography 1000x's more than nitpicking your gear's shortcomings.


----------



## hamlet

PixelRabbit said:


> Hey Hamlet, I've been reading a lot of your threads for a while now and you really seem to be beating your head against the wall here trying to find technical and gear shortcomings as the sole reasons for the shortcomings in your images.
> 
> Your gear is fine, it is time to use it to figure out the rest of the puzzle.
> 
> The image you posted here is a little grainy and mushy zoomed in for many reasons, as Braineack said higher ISO and lower shutter speed contribute, gear may contribute a little bit but the biggest culprit is the light you shot this in (which dictated your ISO and SS).
> 
> Honestly given the flat lighting conditions (flat even lighting, I'm guessing a heavy overcast kind of day perhaps even around noon) this is about the best you can expect, a flat image that becomes mushy when you zoom right in on it, take this shot in a early or late day light or use flash to create highlights and shadows and your sharpness will increase, you can up your shutter speed and there will be light and shadow to enhance details.
> 
> Give your gear some love and start to focus your efforts on learning light and composition, learning those two things will improve your photography 1000x's more than nitpicking your gear's shortcomings.



Yes, thank you. I've done portrait shots inside with proper lighting and bounce flash, but i get this same image quality. I've throw everything at this problem. Maybe the noise reduction was causing this? I don't know.


----------



## amolitor

hamlet, you haven't GOT a problem. That's why throwing things at it isn't fixing it.


----------



## hamlet

amolitor said:


> hamlet, you haven't GOT a problem. That's why throwing things at it isn't fixing it.



Yes, sorry. Maybe i'm being too stubborn.


----------



## Braineack

humbling.


----------



## kundalini

I agree with Ms Rabbit that lighting, or rather lack of, is a culprit on the shot you posted.  In all of your iterations, did you try using the built-in flash?  

The histogram shows that much of the data is in the shadow side of the scale.  You will find that slightly overexposing (look up Expose To The Right or ETTR) will capture much more data.  You can then bring the exposure down in post processing.


EDIT:
I see that you have external flash.  Make use of them.


----------



## The_Traveler

hamlet said:


> And also on the point of focusing on making more pleasing pictures: I have a very hard time to get started. I cant take amazing pictures that draw my audience in, i have a writers block.



No, what you have come up against is that fact that there is great experience and surprising skill involved in making 'amazing pictures.'

You might get one good image by chance but you want to buy some magic gear or learn some magic trick to make great pictures.
You are acting like a teenager or adolescent who believes that they can do anything by learning a trick.

Not going to happen.


----------



## astroNikon

The_Traveler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> And also on the point of focusing on making more pleasing pictures: I have a very hard time to get started. I cant take amazing pictures that draw my audience in, i have a writers block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you have come up against is that fact that there is great experience and surprising skill involved in making 'amazing pictures.'
> 
> You might get one good image by chance but you want to buy some magic gear or learn some magic trick to make great pictures.
> You are acting like a teenager or adolescent who believes that they can do anything by learning a trick.
> 
> Not going to happen.
Click to expand...


Amen

I'd say "practice", but I think I've said that before.

take some more practice pictures and repost.  use your flash this time.


----------



## coastalconn

Do you have a filter on your lens?


----------



## Derrel

Looking at that extreme plant crop, I see a few things. 1)shallow depth of field, but then, that's obvious 2) a very slight doubling of the "lines" on the small parts of the plant. The "lines" are not distinct, but very subtle, like those caused by movement of either the plant, or the camera. Using VR when on a tripod can cause a feedback loop in the VR system, and can cause a similar type of movement. However, photographing plants outdoors at slowish speeds like 1/80 second, also sets you up for failure on things like what is called *subject motion blur*. One of the bigger issues with high-resolution images, and 24 megapixels on APS-C is definitely high-resolution, is that slower speeds WILL SHOW the slightest movement of the subject, or the camera, or the combined movement of the camera and the subject. The old idea that 1/focal length is a "safe" hand-holding speed is not true at high-resolution image levels, and it also totally neglects to factor in any kind of movement of the subject.

If "all of your pictures" are shot at slow speeds, it's likely that there will be subject movement visible when you zoom way in. I shot some photos of people who were just,literally, standing around outdoors, talking. I used a 70-300 VR lens at 1/320 second on a 24 MP camera...and guess what...when I zoomed in all the way, I could literally SEE MOVEMENT on 1/320 second shots. Hair blowing in the wind. Faint jagged edges on the arms and legs and ears--from the subjects' own movement!

Start thinking about using higher ISO levels, in order to get to 3x the focal length if you really want to start shooting for poster-sized images. You cannot sharply capture a lot of things at slowish speeds like 1/80 second, reliably. In fact, at speeds like that, it's often best to take 10 to 12 frames, and when you start looking through them, you will begin to see the very slight effects of less-than-perfect technique and less-than-perfect focusing, camera work, and so on.


----------



## hamlet

The_Traveler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> And also on the point of focusing on making more pleasing pictures: I have a very hard time to get started. I cant take amazing pictures that draw my audience in, i have a writers block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you have come up against is that fact that there is great experience and surprising skill involved in making 'amazing pictures.'
> 
> You might get one good image by chance but you want to buy some magic gear or learn some magic trick to make great pictures.
> You are acting like a teenager or adolescent who believes that they can do anything by learning a trick.
> 
> Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Things have moved on since last we talked Lew. I know now that in my pursuit to look for pro gear, i got that mixed up with being able to take interesting shots. I acknowledge that now. But this thread was never made with the intent of learning how to be creative. That is a whole other can of worms i have to figure out for myself.


----------



## hamlet

coastalconn said:


> Do you have a filter on your lens?



No, i had no filters on my lens. I'm sorry, i should have outlined everything in my OP.


----------



## hamlet

Derrel said:


> Looking at that extreme plant crop, I see a few things. 1)shallow depth of field, but then, that's obvious 2) a very slight doubling of the "lines" on the small parts of the plant. The "lines" are not distinct, but very subtle, like those caused by movement of either the plant, or the camera. Using VR when on a tripod can cause a feedback loop in the VR system, and can cause a similar type of movement. However, photographing plants outdoors at slowish speeds like 1/80 second, also sets you up for failure on things like what is called *subject motion blur*. One of the bigger issues with high-resolution images, and 24 megapixels on APS-C is definitely high-resolution, is that slower speeds WILL SHOW the slightest movement of the subject, or the camera, or the combined movement of the camera and the subject. The old idea that 1/focal length is a "safe" hand-holding speed is not true at high-resolution image levels, and it also totally neglects to factor in any kind of movement of the subject.
> 
> If "all of your pictures" are shot at slow speeds, it's likely that there will be subject movement visible when you zoom way in. I shot some photos of people who were just,literally, standing around outdoors, talking. I used a 70-300 VR lens at 1/320 second on a 24 MP camera...and guess what...when I zoomed in all the way, I could literally SEE MOVEMENT on 1/320 second shots. Hair blowing in the wind. Faint jagged edges on the arms and legs and ears--from the subjects' own movement!
> 
> Start thinking about using higher ISO levels, in order to get to 3x the focal length if you really want to start shooting for poster-sized images. You cannot sharply capture a lot of things at slowish speeds like 1/80 second, reliably. In fact, at speeds like that, it's often best to take 10 to 12 frames, and when you start looking through them, you will begin to see the very slight effects of less-than-perfect technique and less-than-perfect focusing, camera work, and so on.



I'll try this first thin in the morning.


----------



## ISO

Robin_Usagani said:


> 1/80 sec, hand held and pixel peep dont mix.  That is basically like shooting a macro handheld at 1/80



I've actually gotten superb results handheld at 1/60 with a canon 100mm F/2.8 L IS USM Macro, with an APS-C sensor, so at a 160mm equivalent.


----------



## Overread

ISO was that with the IS on or off - IS will help your hand holding ability and mean that you can use slower than normal speeds and still get a steady shot. 
Plus in macro if you can crouch down and lean on something or even lean on the surface the subject is upon you can cancel out a lot of shake there and thus get better results than the conventional theory of handholding would suggest


----------



## The_Traveler

hamlet said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> And also on the point of focusing on making more pleasing pictures: I have a very hard time to get started. I cant take amazing pictures that draw my audience in, i have a writers block.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you have come up against is that fact that there is great experience and surprising skill involved in making 'amazing pictures.'
> 
> You might get one good image by chance but you want to buy some magic gear or learn some magic trick to make great pictures.
> You are acting like a teenager or adolescent who believes that they can do anything by learning a trick.
> 
> Not going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things have moved on since last we talked Lew. I know now that in my pursuit to look for pro gear, i got that mixed up with being able to take interesting shots. I acknowledge that now. But this thread was never made with the intent of learning how to be creative. That is a whole other can of worms i have to figure out for myself.
Click to expand...


Things don't look different from the outside.
You are still asking questions that are essentially unanswerable because you don't have the knowledge to even frame the questions.

If you had gone about learning photography in some more structured or disciplined way, you would either have answered your own questions or you would know how to answer them.

As it is you are jumping along, getting small patches to your knowledge that are unrelated - and you aren't picking up the commensurate skills that you need.
So you will end up with fragmented, unorganized knowledge and you will have chewed up a lot of other people's time trying to help you.

This is like trying to diagnose an illness by talking to an 11 year old on the phone.


----------



## hamlet

The_Traveler said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what you have come up against is that fact that there is great experience and surprising skill involved in making 'amazing pictures.'
> 
> You might get one good image by chance but you want to buy some magic gear or learn some magic trick to make great pictures.
> You are acting like a teenager or adolescent who believes that they can do anything by learning a trick.
> 
> Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Things have moved on since last we talked Lew. I know now that in my pursuit to look for pro gear, i got that mixed up with being able to take interesting shots. I acknowledge that now. But this thread was never made with the intent of learning how to be creative. That is a whole other can of worms i have to figure out for myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things don't look different from the outside.
> You are still asking questions that are essentially unanswerable because you don't have the knowledge to even frame the questions.
> 
> If you had gone about learning photography in some more structured or disciplined way, you would either have answered your own questions or you would know how to answer them.
> 
> As it is you are jumping along, getting small patches to your knowledge that are unrelated - and you aren't picking up the commensurate skills that you need.
> So you will end up with fragmented, unorganized knowledge and you will have chewed up a lot of other people's time trying to help you.
> 
> This is like trying to diagnose an illness by talking to an 11 year old on the phone.
Click to expand...


That makes perfect sense. I actually agree with you, though i didn't see this myself.


----------



## pgriz

It's not original with me, but it's a useful reminder:  How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

Lew has it right.  You need to build up a coherent base of knowledge and experience to use as your point of departure for newer and better things.  

There are many "foundational" issues in photography.  Understanding exposure is one.  Knowing how DOF works across apertures and focal lengths, is another.  Understanding techniques to limit camera shake is still another.  Knowing how to focus, where to focus, and which tools to use to help you focus, is another.  Knowing how to light a subject to show the right amount of detail, is still another (this one's a biggie).  And that's just the technical stuff.

If you want to make "amazing" photographs, do some homework.  Go and find over the next month or so the images that to you are "amazing".  Record your subjective impressions - what is it that is so remarkable about each image.  Then, do the technical deconstruction - what were the sources of light, was the "technical" aspect that made that image notable, what aspect of the image drew you in?  I think you'll find Andrew's (Amolitor) comment coming up time and again:  The image was taken at the right place, right time, right moment.  Oh, and after you're done, show the same images to other people and see if they agree with you that they are "amazing".  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Either way, it'll be educational.


----------



## Braineack

pgriz said:


> Oh, and after you're done, show the same images to other people and see if they agree with you that they are "amazing".  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Either way, it'll be educational.



yep.  A lot of pictures I've taken I thought were amazing, then I'd share them here and other's would say: you could of done this, or you shouldn't do that. It hurts at first, but once you really accept it and take it for what it's worth you'll see it as well, and it'll help you become even better when you apply it in the future.


----------



## ISO

Braineack said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and after you're done, show the same images to other people and see if they agree with you that they are "amazing".  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Either way, it'll be educational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep.  A lot of pictures I've taken I thought were amazing, then I'd share them here and other's would say: you could of done this, or you shouldn't do that. It hurts at first, but once you really accept it and take it for what it's worth you'll see it as well, and it'll help you become even better when you apply it in the future.
Click to expand...


Most pictures I post anywhere hardly get any crit, sometimes I wonder if they are simply so bad that no one bothers.


----------



## weags77

This is a thread that honestly should be read by everyone at the OPs stage of development. I wish I had read this then but I greatly benefitted from reading it right now. Very spot on tips and insight. 

I was at that spot having my d3100 for a full year and having dreams of blowing up huge photos maybe make some money selling them, yada yada yada. So I went ahead and got me a brand new d600 and $800 wide angle lens. Took some pics and expected a huge difference. Not so much. Underwhelmed to say the least. I still question that purchase but I do love the camera. I wish I had someone to tell these things you're hearing here.

 Would have saved me a ton of money and I can't help but wish I'd spent that money on some books or lessons and the time spent learning the craft. 

Funny thing is is that I've only garnered a few compliments on the images I've posted here taken with my d600. But the other day I went to the zoo and grabbed my old 3100 a 55-200 and managed to come away with one of the most personally satisfying photo sessions I've ever had. And actually got multiple compliments on the photos as well as the story told. 

I don't wanna sound like I'm bragging but I was genuinely happy about it and it was a very poignant lesson for me. Then reading this thread made me think even more about it. I guess moral of this extremely long story (sorry bout that) but the moral is that you could have given me the best equipment money could buy but if I don't know how take a good photo what good is it. 

Im not saying you don't know how to take a good photo but it sounds like you are at that point where I've been very recently. Just good enough to really start looking at your own work in a critical fashion.  Where I blamed my lack of creativity on my equipment and not my knowledge. 

This forum has been an amazing I eye opener in many ways. My knowledge and skills have been humbled. But it's only driven me to learn more. I can honestly say I learn something, at least one thing, every time I come on this forum. Either by lurking or looking at other photos and critiquing them to the best of my ability. So I'd say soak up all this knowledge. Put it to the test. 

Find out what kind of photographer you want to be. What you're good at and what interests you. Practice communicating that to yourself and others. If at that point in time you're equipment is limiting you from achieving what you know you can do, then you will know exactly what you need to buy. 

Hope this helps and sorry for the book. This thread just kinda hit home for me. Thanks to all who contributed.


----------



## hamlet

This does reframe my view on how to go about learning. I just didn't  realize how fragmented my knowledge was, but now i have a starting point  to fill in all the gaps in my knowledge.


----------



## matthewo

Send it to me i will test it out and see how it works    Jk


----------



## hamlet

I did a little investigating into zoom lenses. Pro grade lenses actually only perform a little better than this kit lens when comparing crops into the image, in quality prime lenses the differences are much more noticeable.


----------



## gsgary

hamlet said:


> I did a little investigating into zoom lenses. Pro grade lenses actually only perform a little better than this kit lens when comparing crops into the image, in quality prime lenses the differences are much more noticeable.



Pro lenses are far better than your kit lens

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## hamlet

gsgary said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a little investigating into zoom lenses. Pro grade lenses actually only perform a little better than this kit lens when comparing crops into the image, in quality prime lenses the differences are much more noticeable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro lenses are far better than your kit lens
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


The zoom comparisons in kit lens and pro lenses are surprisingly unimpressive when comparing crop sharpness. Fixed lenses are the way to go if you want artisan pastry oven baked crispy goodness.


----------



## enzodm

hamlet said:


> Fixed lenses are the way to go if you want artisan pastry oven baked crispy goodness.



... and this is another example of one-sentence solution to a problem that has multiple components, so it does not work  .

A picture taken with a pro zoom in the same conditions you took the original one will be very similarly unimpressive, because the main issue is not lens quality but photographer quality. A picture taken in the best possible conditions with a kit zoom vs. pro zoom will show some difference. Prime lenses can be better or not, depending on what you mean for better and how much you spend on. However, a prime lens used in suboptimal conditions will give you the same issues.


----------



## hamlet

enzodm said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fixed lenses are the way to go if you want artisan pastry oven baked crispy goodness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and this is another example of one-sentence solution to a problem that has multiple components, so it does not work  .
> 
> A picture taken with a pro zoom in the same conditions you took the original one will be very similarly unimpressive, because the main issue is not lens quality but photographer quality. A picture taken in the best possible conditions with a kit zoom vs. pro zoom will show some difference. Prime lenses can be better or not, depending on what you mean for better and how much you spend on. However, a prime lens used in suboptimal conditions will give you the same issues.
Click to expand...


I didn't think that far ahead, but this is agreeable. I made sure not to use my picture as a starting point and i also covered the quality of the glass.


----------



## gsgary

hamlet said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did a little investigating into zoom lenses. Pro grade lenses actually only perform a little better than this kit lens when comparing crops into the image, in quality prime lenses the differences are much more noticeable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pro lenses are far better than your kit lens
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The zoom comparisons in kit lens and pro lenses are surprisingly unimpressive when comparing crop sharpness. Fixed lenses are the way to go if you want artisan pastry oven baked crispy goodness.
Click to expand...


Thats bull**** pro zooms are miles better but i do prefer primes but not many compare to my Leica primes and Canon 300f2.8L 

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## astroNikon

In general, generalized statements is an issue here.

If you want to compare a specific lens versus another specific lens then a specific comparison can be made.

But saying "all consumer zooms from the beginning of time made by every manufacturer" is equivalent to "all pro zooms made by every manufacturer since the beginning of time" is just plain wrong even assuming no lens issue such as QC, fungus, hazing, et all.

Sigma, Tokina, Korin, Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Zeiss, Rokinon, Samyang, Vivitar and Mattel are some examples

My Nikon 55-200 /4-5.6  versus my 80-200/2.8 ??  the 55-200 is "good" until you crop alot, then it loses detail.  The 80-200 has awesome crop detail even in low light.

my Nikon 85/1.8 prime is just better than my 24-85 / 2.8 - 4 @85 from the few comparison tests I've done.

But those are specific examples.


----------



## hamlet

astroNikon said:


> In general, generalized statements is an issue here.
> 
> If you want to compare a specific lens versus another specific lens then a specific comparison can be made.
> 
> But saying "all consumer zooms from the beginning of time made by every manufacturer" is equivalent to "all pro zooms made by every manufacturer since the beginning of time" is just plain wrong even assuming no lens issue such as QC, fungus, hazing, et all.
> 
> Sigma, Tokina, Korin, Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Zeiss, Rokinon, Samyang, Vivitar and Mattel are some examples
> 
> My Nikon 55-200 /4-5.6  versus my 80-200/2.8 ??  the 55-200 is "good" until you crop alot, then it loses detail.  The 80-200 has awesome crop detail even in low light.
> 
> my Nikon 85/1.8 prime is just better than my 24-85 / 2.8 - 4 @85 from the few comparison tests I've done.
> 
> But those are specific examples.



Yes, sorry. I took my lens (not the pictures i shot) as the base to compare it to pro zoom lenses. In my mind everyone was on-board with this assumption.


----------



## gsgary

hamlet said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> In general, generalized statements is an issue here.
> 
> If you want to compare a specific lens versus another specific lens then a specific comparison can be made.
> 
> But saying "all consumer zooms from the beginning of time made by every manufacturer" is equivalent to "all pro zooms made by every manufacturer since the beginning of time" is just plain wrong even assuming no lens issue such as QC, fungus, hazing, et all.
> 
> Sigma, Tokina, Korin, Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Zeiss, Rokinon, Samyang, Vivitar and Mattel are some examples
> 
> My Nikon 55-200 /4-5.6  versus my 80-200/2.8 ??  the 55-200 is "good" until you crop alot, then it loses detail.  The 80-200 has awesome crop detail even in low light.
> 
> my Nikon 85/1.8 prime is just better than my 24-85 / 2.8 - 4 @85 from the few comparison tests I've done.
> 
> But those are specific examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, sorry. I took my lens (not the pictures i shot) as the base to compare it to pro zoom lenses. In my mind everyone was on-board with this assumption.
Click to expand...


Are you for real ? How can a £100 lens be equal to a £1500 lens

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## hamlet

gsgary said:


> Are you for real ? How can a £100 lens be equal to a £1500 lens
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2



I'm sorry for my poor communications skills. If you thought that i meant they are equal or equal all around, then this is not what i meant. The only thing i compared was the sharpness of the crop taken with each of the lenses. The pro lens was slightly sharper, barely noticeable.


----------



## astroNikon

hamlet said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real ? How can a £100 lens be equal to a £1500 lens
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for my poor communications skills. If you thought that i meant they are equal or equal all around, then this is not what i meant. The only thing i compared was the sharpness of the crop taken with each of the lenses. The pro lens was slightly sharper, barely noticeable.
Click to expand...


Post your comparison shots

When i got my first pro zoom i could not really see much of a difference because. I was unskilled in noticing a difference.
of course my general pgotograohy skills have improved too.

Basically skill level is also very important even when doing comparisons.


----------



## gsgary

hamlet said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real ? How can a £100 lens be equal to a £1500 lens
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for my poor communications skills. If you thought that i meant they are equal or equal all around, then this is not what i meant. The only thing i compared was the sharpness of the crop taken with each of the lenses. The pro lens was slightly sharper, barely noticeable.
Click to expand...


Well i can tell you that my shots with top quality lenses would be a lot sharper

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## astroNikon

I'm curious if he took a "pro" samyung and compared it to a consumer Nikon .. quality in optics and everything else does not make a comparison unless the specifics are known.  Or maybe the "pro" Mattel lens from the Buzz Lightyear camera .... who knows


----------



## gsgary

astroNikon said:


> I'm curious if he took a "pro" samyung and compared it to a consumer Nikon .. quality in optics and everything else does not make a comparison unless the specifics are known.  Or maybe the "pro" Mattel lens from the Buzz Lightyear camera .... who knows



Fisherprice kids camera

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## manaheim

hamlet said:


> I did a little investigating into zoom lenses. Pro grade lenses actually only perform a little better than this kit lens when comparing crops into the image, in quality prime lenses the differences are much more noticeable.



ham! STOP!

You're still looking for gear answers.

One of my very best pictures is hung up on my wall and I took it with a 6MP Nikon D100 a 28-100 crap lens and a $50 tripod from Best Buy.

It looks amazing.

I took the VERY SAME PICTURE using the VERY SAME GEAR about two years earlier and it looked like utter and complete ****.

I know for a fact if I took the same picture now with my D800, 24-70 2.8 and Manfrotto that it would look pretty much the same.

Photography is a VERY steep learning curve because there is a lot of complexity and a lot of push and pull in the choices. The gear really only starts making a significant difference when you know enough to get beyond the amateurish mistakes.

Yes, better gear is better, but if you hand someone a $20,000 rifle and they don't know how to shoot, they're still going to miss the target.


----------



## robbins.photo

astroNikon said:


> I'm curious if he took a "pro" samyung and compared it to a consumer Nikon .. quality in optics and everything else does not make a comparison unless the specifics are known.  Or maybe the "pro" Mattel lens from the Buzz Lightyear camera .... who knows



Hey now, don't knock the Buzz Lightyear pro lens.  It would not only focus to Infinity, but beyond.


----------



## astroNikon

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious if he took a "pro" samyung and compared it to a consumer Nikon .. quality in optics and everything else does not make a comparison unless the specifics are known.  Or maybe the "pro" Mattel lens from the Buzz Lightyear camera .... who knows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey now, don't knock the Buzz Lightyear pro lens.  It would not only focus to Infinity, but beyond.
Click to expand...


:hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail: 
All hail, The Robbins Claw knows all


----------



## matthewo

robbins.photo said:


> Hey now, don't knock the Buzz Lightyear pro lens.  It would not only focus to Infinity, but beyond.



Good one, and perfect for this thread. Lol


----------



## hamlet

I am getting misunderstood left and right. Thank you everyone for you insight, its best i keep these matters about gear to myself in the future.


----------



## weags77

hamlet said:


> I am getting misunderstood left and right. Thank you everyone for you insight, its best i keep these matters about gear to myself in the future.



I don't believe it's you being misunderstood as much as you not understanding. As was mentioned, you don't know enough to ask the proper questions, therefore when people give you proper answers to the questions you've asked,you are unable to understand them. 

And there is a difference in lenses. But again you do not know enough or have a trained eye to notice the difference. I don't either but I can tell you from personal experience that as your knowledge grows you will be able to tell the difference. And it's at that point, and that point only, should you be worried about the gear you are using or going to buy.


----------



## robbins.photo

hamlet said:


> I am getting misunderstood left and right. Thank you everyone for you insight, its best i keep these matters about gear to myself in the future.



Ok, Hamlet - we'll see if maybe this gets through.  The problem here is that you keep wanting to compare apples to oranges and then make statements like "Which orange makes the best apple juice?"  Then when we try to explain it doesn't work that way, you ignore us and keep insisting on trying to make apple juice out of oranges.  

The truth is all of this obsessing over this lens being better than that lens or this minute detail being more important than that minute detail isn't going to do you a bit of good when it comes to becoming a better photographer.  As I've mentioned before and as others have suggested, you need to get out and start using the equipment you have so that you can start figuring out what does work and what doesn't, and when it doesn't work that's when you ask questions to find out why.

This penchant you have for flying off into wild theory land at the drop of a hat doesn't do you a bit of good - as others have pointed out you can't properly phrase the question because you lack the real world experience to do so, and you can't really understand the answers given for the same reason.  I don't present myself as an authority on photography mind you, but I do know enough to know that you will never progress from where you are right now until you do yourself a favor, get off the message bases for a while and get out there and actually take some pictures.


----------



## hamlet

I need the patience of Job. I'm getting my own dogma preached back to me and it doesn't seem to sink in to people that my curiosity for the lenses has nothing to do with getting better pictures on my end. my pictures would still be mediocre snapshots even with the best gear out there. There is a clear language barrier, so lets just please drop this, its frustrating to everyone involved and i'm sorry for this. But we already agree, so lets drop this and i'll never bring up gear again.


----------



## astroNikon

If you have a question just ask it.  Don't start theorizing.

For instance

Q: Why would someone get a f/2.8 lens versus a f/4.5 lens ?
Basically if someone is after subject isolation from the background the f/2.8 is easier at it.
It is also better in low light because the aperture opening is larger and allows in more light at the same shutter speed.

Q: and you may ask why is that important.?
which is basically with subject isolation you blur out the background and it makes a better photo because the viewer isn't distracted by a busy sharp background.
And with more light coming in you can keep taking usable photos as the day light starts dwindling.

Then take that information and try to use it to your photo's advantage.
The theorizing part with all the major restrictions and disqualifications just isn't productive.


Everyone isn't trying to bash you.  They are trying to provide you with the correct answer or help steer you to understand it better.


----------



## hamlet

That's exactly what i'll do. Talking about gear and entertaining ideas are deathtraps on here, its better to find like-minded people who know what i'm talking about and enjoy talking about it simply for the intellectual challenge.


----------



## kundalini

astroNikon said:


> If you have a question just ask it.  Don't start theorizing.
> 
> For instance
> 
> Q: *Why would someone get a f/2.8 lens versus a f/4.5 lens ?*
> *Basically if someone is after subject isolation from the background the f/2.8 is easier at it.*
> It is also better in low light because the aperture opening is larger and allows in more light at the same shutter speed.
> 
> Q: and you may ask why is that important.?
> which is basically with subject isolation you blur out the background and it makes a better photo because the viewer isn't distracted by a busy sharp background.
> And with more light coming in you can keep taking usable photos as the day light starts dwindling.
> 
> Then take that information and try to use it to your photo's advantage.
> The theorizing part with all the major restrictions and disqualifications just isn't productive.
> 
> 
> Everyone isn't trying to bash you.  They are trying to provide you with the correct answer or help steer you to understand it better.


Subject isolation can be achieved at variable aperture settings.  The factors of distance from camera-to-subject and subject-to-background are more relevant.  The reason most people decide to choose an f/2.8 (zoom lens is assumed here) is more for low light capability without the need for a stabilizer (tripod, monopod), higher ISO setting (which introduces digital noise) or without the need for an external flash, among a few reasons.  Having penis envy is another.

When dishing out information, make sure to check your sources more thoroughly.


----------



## robbins.photo

hamlet said:


> That's exactly what i'll do. Talking about gear and entertaining ideas are deathtraps on here, its better to find like-minded people who know what i'm talking about and enjoy talking about it simply for the intellectual challenge.



So what you need is a group of people who want to sit around and talk about the extreme minutia of camera equipment who have zero interest in actually wanting to know how any of what they are discussing actually applies to the final image?

Lol.. ok, well.. good luck with that i guess.  Nothing quite as tasty as apple juice made from fresh squeezed oranges.


----------



## hamlet

robbins.photo said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what i'll do. Talking about gear and entertaining ideas are deathtraps on here, its better to find like-minded people who know what i'm talking about and enjoy talking about it simply for the intellectual challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you need is a group of people who want to sit around and talk about the extreme minutia of camera equipment who have zero interest in actually wanting to know how any of what they are discussing actually applies to the final image?
> 
> Lol.. ok, well.. good luck with that i guess.  Nothing quite as tasty as apple juice made from fresh squeezed oranges.
Click to expand...


I'm don't even know what to say to this? How would you feel if someone misrepresented your intentions?


----------



## manaheim

Ham... I don't think people are misrepresenting your intentions, but they may be misinterpreting them.  There's a pretty significant difference.

Keep in mind that by and large most people here have been trying to help. The end result may have been frustrating for you, but maybe don't last out at them for trying.

Just a thought.


----------



## flying_gadget

From a new person here, google basic photography. Plenty on there I'm sure.

I'm also not sure why this is in the nature and wildlife forum. Like I said I'm new here, but this would be better in one of the question forums ..... IMO.

Danny.


----------



## hamlet

manaheim said:


> Ham... I don't think people are misrepresenting your intentions, but they may be misinterpreting them.  There's a pretty significant difference.
> 
> Keep in mind that by and large most people here have been trying to help. The end result may have been frustrating for you, but maybe don't last out at them for trying.
> 
> Just a thought.



I know manaheim, I'm sorry. Its just that i cant have a discussion about gear without having to deal with backseat drivers. Constantly pointing out obvious things, questioning how i drive. No matter how well intentioned, but that's how i feel. Its taken me ever ounce of composure not to drive the car into a ditch.


----------



## Juga

hamlet said:


> Juga said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you crop that heavy you will start to lose detail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a camera that has about the same megapixel count as i do. How does a similar centre crop look on your image when you shoot with the 24-105?
Click to expand...


Sorry Hammy I completely missed this. I can't right now but I will post some examples of heavy crops with my 24-105.


----------



## hamlet

I have solved my problem thanks to the help of you good folks.

Before:




After:


----------



## robbins.photo

hamlet said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ham... I don't think people are misrepresenting your intentions, but they may be misinterpreting them.  There's a pretty significant difference.
> 
> Keep in mind that by and large most people here have been trying to help. The end result may have been frustrating for you, but maybe don't last out at them for trying.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know manaheim, I'm sorry. Its just that i cant have a discussion about gear without having to deal with backseat drivers. Constantly pointing out obvious things, questioning how i drive. No matter how well intentioned, but that's how i feel. Its taken me ever ounce of composure not to drive the car into a ditch.
Click to expand...


Well if you don't really want help, don't ask for it.  That should solve that problem quite nicely in the future.


----------



## SCraig

hamlet said:


> I have solved my problem thanks to the help of you good folks.


MUCH better!  Somewhat underexposed but at least you got some good sharpness right on the tip of the leaf.  It is certainly a vast improvement over the first try.


----------



## DanielLewis76

It would be good to see the same subject shot at the same settings as the original photo to see the improvement 

Just on the point about feedback, I have found the information and guidance on this site most helpful and have never really had anything negative said about my photos or comments. That may be due to my interpretation of what a negative comment is as anything but a direct insult I see as positive. 

No one gets better by people telling them how good they are.


----------



## hamlet

The leaf was not a centre crop like the OP, i wanted to do the rule of thirds. I used spot metering on the wrong place though, so that's why my exposure isn't right. I'm gonna need some more practice to put into practice everything i've learned on paper.


But this one worked out better.


----------



## DanielLewis76

Not too bad, maybe try putting the burger (and box) on a glass or something to lift it off the table (hidden of course) and then decreasing the f-stop a bit to blur the background some more. Just as an experiment into DOF and distances between background and foreground.


----------



## hamlet

My lens cant go any lower than f3.5. I shot this in Mcdonalds.


----------



## DanielLewis76

Ahh.. oh well.


----------



## hamlet

I got some weird looks whipping out a dslr and photographing my food.


----------



## manaheim

hamlet said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ham... I don't think people are misrepresenting your intentions, but they may be misinterpreting them. There's a pretty significant difference.
> 
> Keep in mind that by and large most people here have been trying to help. The end result may have been frustrating for you, but maybe don't last out at them for trying.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know manaheim, I'm sorry. Its just that i cant have a discussion about gear without having to deal with backseat drivers. Constantly pointing out obvious things, questioning how i drive. No matter how well intentioned, but that's how i feel. Its taken me ever ounce of composure not to drive the car into a ditch.
Click to expand...


It's all in how you set up the discussion.

The default here is to assume that 1> You're asking for guidance of some kind, 2> You're clueless in some way. Given that, if you start a conversation with "My pictures are messed up" people are going to jump to help you. Then if you start talking about gear, they're going to evaluate what they've seen from you and ask if you should even be asking about gear. And it goes from there.

If you want to talk gear and just start the conversation with "Let's talk gear!" or "I'd like to understand better the difference between a kit lens and a pro lens" or something like that, then you'll have a very different discussion.

THIS thread came across very much as a "help me" thread, particularly given some of the threads you have been posting.

Trust me... I've been around here a long time, and I'm no idiot... and even I was like "hey ham, don't worry about the lens- focus on your methods". Right?


----------



## Braineack

hamlet said:


> The leaf was not a centre crop like the OP, i wanted to do the rule of thirds. I used spot metering on the wrong place though, so that's why my exposure isn't right. I'm gonna need some more practice to put into practice everything i've learned on paper.
> 
> 
> But this one worked out better.



looks like good focus and exposure.  using spot in this case was smart because all that white could have underexposure the rest if you were using matrix.  I don't see where you tihnk the exposure isn't right.


----------



## enzodm

hamlet said:


> I have solved my problem thanks to the help of you good folks.



After all these help attempts, it would be kind if you tell also how did you "solve" your problem.


----------



## hamlet

enzodm said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have solved my problem thanks to the help of you good folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all these help attempts, it would be kind if you tell also how did you "solve" your problem.
Click to expand...


runna advised me to turn off the nikon software on the camera. As soon as i did that, my pictures became sharp.


----------



## hamlet

Braineack said:


> looks like good focus and exposure.  using spot in this case was smart because all that white could have underexposure the rest if you were using matrix.  I don't see where you tihnk the exposure isn't right.



I was talking about the leaf being underexposed in the previous page were SCraig pointed it out. This picture is absolutely fine like you said.


----------



## Braineack

oh i missed the leaf.


----------

