 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
davidangel13
|
Good Afternoon, First time poster here. I have Googled and read reviews, and visited camera shops and most recently in the last 20 minutes been on the phone with B&H Photo. I have literally been given opposite advice and I guess I do realize it's subjective. Long story short I have a D7100 I bought new 4 years ago having never taken a picture on a DSLR. As my love for photography grew I acquired a 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85 mm 1.4. I find myself shooting portraits 95% of the time. My question is, IS there a camera body upgrade that would show me improvement in detail and sharpness (or any other category at this point). I realize I am not posting a picture(system wouldn't allow me to), but also am asking more in terms on paper and advances in technology. Is there a body that would give me better images instead of investing in glass and lights? I thank you in advance |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Welcome to the forum David. The lens makes the image, the sensor (body) only records it. There is quite a range of options resolution wise, currently 25 M Pixels is considered by many to be pretty well optimal. You can get greater resolution and less resolution from that point. There is also the 'quality' of pixel, small DX sensors tend to experience greater noise and have a greater depth of focus than FX sensors of a similar pixel count, but the resolution can be somewhat worse. All depends how big you intend to print. I think better pixels, rather than more of them (quality rather than quantity) is the best way to go. Higher resolution means you need to be much more careful with your technique to get the best from the additional pixels. You have some nice glass, suggest you upload to Flicker and paste in the URLs of some images in here so we can pass constructive comment. Shooting wide open with the f1.4's demands good technique, AF isn't ideal at that level, you are wasting half of your (slim) DoF in front of your subject.. |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
thank you so much for your reply and that does really make it 'start' to make sense. I was looking at D750, D800, D810 and then the salesman brought up the D500. I was surprised when he brought a Crop sensor since everyone else was pushing 'you have to go full frame if you ever want to be a serious photographer". My next lens is going to be the new 105mm1.4 :) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
The D500 is a superb camera but if your emphasis is on portraits 90% of it's features will be wasted. Bear in mind some of the 'great' portrait lenses aren't critically sharp... Depending on your style, sometimes that 'dreamy' look can be very appealing. Using fast lenses with good bokeh is an art within an art. I have the old MF 105 f2.5 which I love for people shots. It has nice background and is sharp enough. |
|||||||||
Gilbert Sandberg
|
David, Just another two cents re: detail and sharpness Do you really want that, some (female) subjects may not appreciate extra detail, grin. On fx/dx, much has been written on the subject (here and everywhere else in the world) To give an oddball suggestion: you may want to try a (secondhand) D700 or D3/D4 before you decide. Regards, Gilbert |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Welcome David. I echo much of what Robert said. 25mp is widely believed to be the current sweet spot for sensors. The bigger the pixel the better the quality. It therefore follows that a 25mp FX sensor will be better than a DX 25mp sensor. However if you go FX, remember you will lose reach but gain wide angle...you may have to think your glass to match your current range. I wouldn't buy a D500 for portraits....it's forte is wildlife and sports. I've got a D750...it's sensor is sharper than the D3 I had previously. It also is the best Nikon camera I've had in low light. The handgrip is also the best designed of all nikons. Imho I haven't used a D810, but the extra pixels on the sensor mean you need to be more careful with technique to capitalise on its detail. This becomes more relevant when you come out of the studio and use it walking about handheld! So you need to consider WHERE you will be using it. FX sensors have shallower depth of field than DX at same focal length...something to bear in mind when composing your images. The lenses you have are great...but I wouldn't use them wide open for portraits. More importantly, what do you think is wrong with your images? In what way do you need to improve them? You don't mention lighting. Strobes and creative lighting can really make portraits zing. So you may want to consider getting the right equipment around the camera before abandoning the D7100. |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
not sure why I can't post a jpeg here. what is file size limit? All bring up great points and thank you for shedding light on 'sweet spot' of pixel amount and size. In terms of lighting I have set up in garage with 2 strobes. I have umbrellas, softbox etc... I am worried about losing some of the reach hence if I went to D750 I would definitely grab the 105mm |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
2 megabytes sorry just did the math |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
More importantly, what do you think is wrong with your images? In what way do you need to improve them? I guess maybe I am doubting myself because I'm not really sure how much sharper they can get. I've spent so much time online and YouTube tutorials and dialed in my Aper, Shutter and ISO, and light settings, I can see hair in people's noses. Maybe I'm just being brought down by photo snobs who are telling me I couldn't take on work or jobs without a camera upgrade? |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
I think I was able to load onto Flickr....Please keep in mind I know the eyes are too bright and I couldn't believe how sharp they came out right in RAW from camera. I asked my sister if her baby was a doll https://www.flickr.com/photos/87421543@N07/30951232801/ |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Gilbert makes some very good points. My wife banned me from taking close up shots of her with the D3!!!! I would recommend handling a D3 or D4 before considering them. They are noticeably heavier than the D7100 ...which has a bearing when handholding. Make sure you have your lens on the body ...to get the full weight. Interestingly with the heavier lenses, you will find the heavier bodies like the Dseries feel well balanced in the hand despite the extra weight. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
davidangel13 wrote:I think I was able to load onto Flickr....Please keep in mind I know the eyes are too bright and I couldn't believe how sharp they came out right in RAW from camera. I asked my sister if her baby was a doll Frankly...not much wrong with sharpness. I personally would have the lights further back from the subject to calm the lighting level a little....and separate subject from background more. But this is really just fine tuning. |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
Eric thank you very much and I value the constructive criticism. I will move the lights back when I get home! Luckily I have captive models in 2 daughters who are forced to put with "sit down, stand up, tilt head left, smile, don't smile'...all while I move lights around |
|||||||||
jk
|
Welcome to the forum David. I had a look at your posted image and it is very sharp. Like the others say 24MP is a good as anyone needs for portraits IMHO. Any more and you need to soften images as very few people have perfect skin. I would say that if you want to concentrate on your portrait photos then you have all the lenses you need. The 105mm f1.4 AFS is I am sure a very good lens but in terms of depth of field (DOF) it will be similar to the 85 f1.4 on a FX body. I talking practical use not theoretical calculations. The FX v DX debate is one that will rage on like the old 36mm v 120 one used to so I wont go there. In your case I would say you are equally well served for portraiture but there may be some very small advantage in a FX camera but in exchange you have a bigger and usually slightly heavier body. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Hi David, I looked at your image, very good. By clicking on the right pointing arrow the right of the image you can copy the image URL and then past it here...  Test shot Nikon D7100 Interfit EX150 light kit by davidangel13, on FlickrSimple as that. I have the D3 and I am delighted with it having come from DX, but I don't do much people stuff. The D3 is a very special camera, don't be put off by the apparent low pixel count of the D(3-4-5) cameras for some reason they go beyond the pixel count in image quality. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Welcome to the forum David. It's fair to say that the performance difference between similar priced FX and DX bodies is now very small. As they say in motor racing circles..."it's the nut that holds the wheel that's the most important component".  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I see what you mean about pasting from Flickr versus loading through forum software, Robert. That method does retain original quality extremely well. |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
Ha, yes the DX FX 'discussion' seems like a hot topic. You guys have opened my eyes to look at things I didn't know I should be looking at in terms of pixels and technology. Yes and even the picture to Flickr is compressed from original. Perhaps I will stick it out with D7100 a little longer and once D900 comes out next year, the D750 a very discounted price might be the way to go. Until then I will hone my light skills and lens use. This community is awesome, thank you! |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Glad your finding your visit rewarding David. I think your strategy is sound, there is nothing lacking with the image you have posted but what you find is that succeeding camera bodies are a bit better with each release. I went from a D3100 to a D3300 for my family camera and I am very impressed how good it is even in my 12 year old sons hands. I hope you don't mind me posting your image directly here but it does help illustrate both your topic and demonstrate the ease with which one can post an image from Flicker. This image is being posted through the forum software just to see what happens. Attachment: 30951232801_0ec3cbf131_k.jpg (Downloaded 13 times) |
|||||||||
Robert
|
OK I think that clinches it, the forum software has robbed the tonality from that image. Gone are the rosy cheeks and nice contrast. |
|||||||||
davidangel13
|
yes as far as I could tell the forum limited me to just over 2MB. The original file I have is 26MB, so even in Flickr it's lost some detail. I look forward to many more posts on this forum and still can't believe the outreach and support from around the world. thank you. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
davidangel13 wrote:Ha, yes the DX FX 'discussion' seems like a hot topic. You guys have opened my eyes to look at things I didn't know I should be looking at in terms of pixels and technology. Yes and even the picture to Flickr is compressed from original. That sounds like a good plan. A lot of people talk rubbish about needing this or that equipment to be taken seriously....your portfolio says all that's required.  Believe it or not I had a double spread in a national mag from a D70 image some years ago. My main camera battery went flat on a shoot and couldnt find the spare. I used my emergency D70 body, for the last half a dozen shots... and the client picked one of them for the publication!!!  And just an amusing anecdote about a wedding photographer friend. Many people strive for qualifications and justifiably have letters after their name. But it doesn't always make them the best in their field. My friend had the letters ABGP after his name on his stationery. No one questioned him about ABGP for many years...until one day, a curious friend asked him what organisation it was and what it stood for. He explained. " A Bl**dy Good Photographer". He was on the point of retiring by then so didn't mind confessing.  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Glad your finding your visit rewarding David. You don't arf know some stuff, Robert. I may have to get a Flickr account and repost all the last 10 years of my images....to see if you really like them or were just being polite.  |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Eric wrote:You don't arf know some stuff, Robert. :blush: We dont seem to have a 'blush' emoticon... I may have to get a Flickr account and repost all the last 10 years of my images....to see if you really like them or were just being polite. Of course I like them, what's not to like about your pix? Especially those funny/odd black and white ones!  |
|||||||||
jk
|
Gone is the sharpness of the eyelashes and hair. Hmm. I think I need to look at finding a new gallery software for the forum. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |