Beginner Controversial upgrade?

[Marc1548]

Being magpie like in nature I like shiny new stuff & have been guilty of the odd impulsive purchase from time to time, but seeing as this may involve digging a bit deeper into the pockets & as a relatively newbie to photography I thought I had better do some research.
Currently I’m using an old 13 megapixel Nikon D 90, 18-105 DX kit, & a similar but half decent 24-120 f3.5 D lens.
Right now for me I’m not getting the sharpness that I would really like compared to what I have seen. Maybe it’s methe lenses body or a combination?
I like the idea of full frame & my budget would extend to a D750& maybe another lens, such as the 70-200, but Iv been told the kit lens won’t work but the other will, is this true? Maybe it’s better to stick with the d90 & invest in some really good glass? Or keep the lenses & go with DX format D7500 for eg.
Is there a real advantage in FX?
I would prefer to stick with Nikon purely because Iv got used to it.
Curious to know what other Nikon users think?

 

[flyingmonkeycorp]

Might be worth checking the focus on your D90 - I used one until recently when I realised that it was focusing somewhere behind where I wanted it to. That can have the effect of making your images look soft.

 

[Sootchucker]

Honestly, going from DX (cropped sensor) to FX (full frame) won't magically improve your photos, if that was the case you wouldn't see so many great photos from smaller sensor cameras (Micro Four Thirds or 1" sensors etc). Yes, there are some good reasons for full frame over crop - dynamic range, High ISO performance and "improved" subject isolation via shallower depth of field (to name but three).

Unless the limitations for your photography are that you regularly shoot at ISO 3200-6400 or above, or need the shallow razor thin DOF of the F1.4 lenses (e.g. if you were a wedding or portrait photographer), then I doubt you would see much of an improvement. You have to be honest with yourself and ask what is wrong with your photos. If it's for example that you are struggling to get acceptably sharp photos, then you need to look at why. Is it that your shutter speed wasn't high enough to prevent blur, are there some non optimal settings selected on the camera, is the lens you are using just not a sharp lens (and to be honest the old Nikon 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR) was a bit of a dog in it's day) or are your focusing techniques off ? If it's simply that a lens isn't wide enough or long enough for your chosen subject, then yes, perhaps a new lens could be justified but not necessarily a new body.

I still have some beautiful shots from my days with a Nikon D100 (6mp), D200 (10mp) and D300/D2x (12mp), which to be honest can stand up to scrutiny just as much as any current crop or FF DSLR.

One thing is for certain (and I'm very guilty of this myself), and that is GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) is a wallet emptier, and doesn't always produce the magic improvements you were seeking. Obviously I'm a hypocrite as that's exactly what I do, but then I'd like to think I do understand photography, and for me new gear is mostly less about "improving" my basic photography, but a solution to a problem or just plain because I love buying new gear - but not blindly buying new gear as a magic wand to make me a better photographer.

My honest advice is as you are a self confessed newbie to Photography, is learn about photography from a good book or Youtube etc. -e.g. the exposure triangle - (aperture, ISO and shutter speed) and how they influence your shot and interact with each other. Understand DOF and Hyperfocal distance focusing, Understand rules of thirds and how to compose a shot. Understand the 1/Focal length rule for getting the right shutter speed - then learn how and when to break all these rules. Having a fundamental understanding of the art and technical aspects of photography will help your photography improve immeasurably and far more than any new camera and lens could. The Nikon D90 was in it's day (like the Nikon D300) pretty much a state of the art DX Crop camera, and just because it's a few years old doesn't mean it suddenly becomes obsolete just because there are bigger and newer models available. If the D90 could take great photos back in 2008, it can certainly still do that today (and was a DP Review Highly Recommended camera in their review).

 

[ancient_mariner]

Not withstanding the comments above about learning photograph, although you don't need to learn composition rules to take a sharp picture (phone cameras are ideal for that type of shot).....

Currently I’m using an old 13 megapixel Nikon D 90, 18-105 DX kit, & a similar but half decent 24-120 f3.5 D lens.

Neither of these lenses are exactly great, and if you have poor copies then they will simply never perform well. If you have taken care of the *obvious* things that cause lack of sharpness (like camera shake, poor focusing, use of sub-optimal aperture) and images are still soft then the lenses are likely the cause. The limitations of the D90 will relate to dynamic range, focussing and speed of electronics, and not to sharpness - to be honest an image taken on an older low MP camera is likely to look sharper at 1:1 magnification than an image taken with a high MP count camera because you will magnify the image less.

I like the idea of full frame & my budget would extend to a D750& maybe another lens, such as the 70-200, but Iv been told the kit lens won’t work but the other will, is this true? Maybe it’s better to stick with the d90 & invest in some really good glass? Or keep the lenses & go with DX format D7500 for eg.

I'd replace the poor lenses, or at least try a decent prime, probably a Nikon 35 DX f1.8 to begin with A 70-200 will be harder to get a sharp photo from than the lenses you already have.

 

[mike weeks]

Right now for me I’m not getting the sharpness that I would really like compared to what I have seen.

what would really help is to see an image that demonstrates what you want to achieve and an image of yours demonstrating where it is going wrong - sharpness means many things to many people

mike

 

[Marc1548]

Honestly, going from DX (cropped sensor) to FX (full frame) won't magically improve your photos, if that was the case you wouldn't see so many great photos from smaller sensor cameras (Micro Four Thirds or 1" sensors etc). Yes, there are some good reasons for full frame over crop - dynamic range, High ISO performance and "improved" subject isolation via shallower depth of field (to name but three).

Unless the limitations for your photography are that you regularly shoot at ISO 3200-6400 or above, or need the shallow razor thin DOF of the F1.4 lenses (e.g. if you were a wedding or portrait photographer), then I doubt you would see much of an improvement. You have to be honest with yourself and ask what is wrong with your photos. If it's for example that you are struggling to get acceptably sharp photos, then you need to look at why. Is it that your shutter speed wasn't high enough to prevent blur, are there some non optimal settings selected on the camera, is the lens you are using just not a sharp lens (and to be honest the old Nikon 24-120 F3.5-5.6 VR) was a bit of a dog in it's day) or are your focusing techniques off ? If it's simply that a lens isn't wide enough or long enough for your chosen subject, then yes, perhaps a new lens could be justified but not necessarily a new body.

I still have some beautiful shots from my days with a Nikon D100 (6mp), D200 (10mp) and D300/D2x (12mp), which to be honest can stand up to scrutiny just as much as any current crop or FF DSLR.

One thing is for certain (and I'm very guilty of this myself), and that is GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) is a wallet emptier, and doesn't always produce the magic improvements you were seeking. Obviously I'm a hypocrite as that's exactly what I do, but then I'd like to think I do understand photography, and for me new gear is mostly less about "improving" my basic photography, but a solution to a problem or just plain because I love buying new gear - but not blindly buying new gear as a magic wand to make me a better photographer.

My honest advice is as you are a self confessed newbie to Photography, is learn about photography from a good book or Youtube etc. -e.g. the exposure triangle - (aperture, ISO and shutter speed) and how they influence your shot and interact with each other. Understand DOF and Hyperfocal distance focusing, Understand rules of thirds and how to compose a shot. Understand the 1/Focal length rule for getting the right shutter speed - then learn how and when to break all these rules. Having a fundamental understanding of the art and technical aspects of photography will help your photography improve immeasurably and far more than any new camera and lens could. The Nikon D90 was in it's day (like the Nikon D300) pretty much a state of the art DX Crop camera, and just because it's a few years old doesn't mean it suddenly becomes obsolete just because there are bigger and newer models available. If the D90 could take great photos back in 2008, it can certainly still do that today (and was a DP Review Highly Recommended camera in their review).

Thank you
This is a great reply to my post, As too are the others, food for thought! I should have guessed the dreaded GAS would get me so soon[emoji44] honestly I don’t thing it’s my methods or camera settings that are to blame, don’t get me wrong, the lack of sharpness isn’t that bad, I just feel should be better in comparison to what Iv seen. HonestlyI think the lenses may be to blame, the kit 18 105 isn’t great from what Iv read, & I should point out that the 24 105 is not a VR & does look sharper.
What I’m getting from this is that maybe I should invest in a couple of decent lenses & stick with the D90 until Iv learnt enough to get excellent shots & not just half decent ones?
Which leads me to further questions..... The dreaded GAS aside how do Sigma lenses compare to Nikon? Are they compatible with all the functionality? Autofocus, D lighting, VR, etc etc.
As I think Iv said the 2 lenses I have are very similar focal length zooms & Iv always felt limited in the telephoto range as I would like to take more sport shots namely cycling which Iv been involved with as a sport for about 40 years now.
So was thinking....16 80 f2.8 & 70 200 f2.8 which would cover most situations for now I think? Again thinking into the future may want to upgrade to full frame so compatibility has to be a consideration.
Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.?

 

[ecoleman]

Full frame cameras are great but buying one isn't going to suddenly improve your photographs.

I would invest in good quality glass before upgrading the camera.

This coming from somebody who has just upgraded from a 6D to a 5Dmk4 for no other reason than an extra 10MP, but I do already have a collection of L lenses.

 

[Snapsh0t]

Nikon DX lenses will all work on FX cameras but force them into DX mode. This means you don't need to immediately change your lenses if you move to a FF body.
Other lenses to consider besides the 16-80mm f2.8-4 are the older 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 (I bought one with my D90 and took many fine shots with it) and the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.
The only real issues with Sigma lenses are that the AF may hunt a bit more than Nikkors do (I didn't find any problem with the 17-70mm) and the zoom ring may turn in the opposite direction.

 

[mike weeks]

Thank you
This is a great reply to my post, As too are the others, food for thought! I should have guessed the dreaded GAS would get me so soon[emoji44] honestly I don’t thing it’s my methods or camera settings that are to blame, don’t get me wrong, the lack of sharpness isn’t that bad, I just feel should be better in comparison to what Iv seen. HonestlyI think the lenses may be to blame, the kit 18 105 isn’t great from what Iv read, & I should point out that the 24 105 is not a VR & does look sharper.
What I’m getting from this is that maybe I should invest in a couple of decent lenses & stick with the D90 until Iv learnt enough to get excellent shots & not just half decent ones?
Which leads me to further questions..... The dreaded GAS aside how do Sigma lenses compare to Nikon? Are they compatible with all the functionality? Autofocus, D lighting, VR, etc etc.
As I think Iv said the 2 lenses I have are very similar focal length zooms & Iv always felt limited in the telephoto range as I would like to take more sport shots namely cycling which Iv been involved with as a sport for about 40 years now.
So was thinking....16 80 f2.8 & 70 200 f2.8 which would cover most situations for now I think? Again thinking into the future may want to upgrade to full frame so compatibility has to be a consideration.
Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.?

I will say this a second and last time, we need to see what you think the difference is, it could be relative sharpness or absolute sharpness and these can be due to poor technique or the equipment, but without the evidence I can provide no further input

Mike

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

What about your PP,also I've never heard gas described as being magpie like ,nice

 

[Tdes]

I had a 100d, upgraded to a 77d (canons). The jump in image quality was noticeable, the 77d was much better.

Bought a 24-70 L ii lens and the pictures have just improved by more than the body change!

My thoughts now are to get the glass I need, and if I need/want later I can change the body and already have suitable glass to work on it. If I upgrade the body and stick average glass on the front it won't be achieving its full potential.

T

 

[Petrochemist]

You're not the only one tempted by shinny new things. I've succumbed this week & now have some spherical mirrors waiting at home.
All three I got cost less than £10, they certainly won't improve all my shots, but stand a chance of making some images I wouldn't manage without.
Going from APSC to FF is unlikely to make the same difference.

 

[Marc1548]

I will say this a second and last time, we need to see what you think the difference is, it could be relative sharpness or absolute sharpness and these can be due to poor technique or the equipment, but without the evidence I can provide no further input

Mike

Ok, here is my image of Pulpit Rock on Portland Bill
18 105 kit lens 1/60 f 16 on a tripod, shutter release cable. Probably could improve a bit using a more optimal (for the lens) f stop. I think the rock isn’t that sharp, I don’t have anything to compare but Iv seen similar images much sharper.



63363970-8CAB-40C2-B1F2-B84DC6E13A40 by Marc Freullet, on Flickr

 

[ancient_mariner]

Ok, here is my image of Pulpit Rock on Portland Bill
18 105 kit lens 1/60 f 16 on a tripod, shutter release cable. Probably could improve a bit using a more optimal (for the lens) f stop. I think the rock isn’t that sharp, I don’t have anything to compare but Iv seen similar images much sharper.



63363970-8CAB-40C2-B1F2-B84DC6E13A40 by Marc Freullet, on Flickr

ƒ/25.0 will not give you a sharp image on crop - use between f8 and f11. And by the look of things, the processing & export has smudged & degraded any fine detail that might have been present.

 

[Jake]

Try again at f/8 - f/11 maximum. That's the sweet spot for the majority of lenses. At f/16 you're going to begin getting diffraction which is going to affect the end result.

Also, is that cropped? Also was it shot at the long end of the lens? If so, what tripod are you using? When shooting with zooms you need a GOOD tripod to keep it from moving even a smidge. Try adding in a 2s delay (or whatever Nikon offers) to allow the camera to settle more before taking the shot.

 

[Marc1548]

Try again at f/8 - f/11 maximum. That's the sweet spot for the majority of lenses. At f/16 you're going to begin getting diffraction which is going to affect the end result.

Also, is that cropped? Also was it shot at the long end of the lens? If so, what tripod are you using? When shooting with zooms you need a GOOD tripod to keep it from moving even a smidge. Try adding in a 2s delay (or whatever Nikon offers) to allow the camera to settle more before taking the shot.

It is cropped, wish I’d done a better job, don’t have the original anymore it died long with others when the hard drive blew up[emoji27]
I plan to go back to this location at some point.
The tripod is a Manfrotto 190XPROB with Ball head, it is quite solid.
I really can’t remember but I may well have used the Nikon Mirror lock up delay mode, I know I use it a lot for landscapes.
I do take your point about the lens sweet-spot, as a complete novice, I was unaware of this phenomenon at the time.
But Iv learnt a lot since then.

 

[Jake]

OK, remember if its cropped then its acting like a digital zoom, so you're losing resolution - ergo, sharpness.
Tripod sounds good, shouldn't be struggling there.
If you had a ~200mm lens you would need to crop less, and could compose it to your liking without sacrificing resolution. I think you'd benefit more from better glass than a body upgrade

 

[Tringa]

The data on your Flikr page says along with an aperture of f25 (which could/will introduce diffraction problems) the shutter speed was 1/6s which, even on a tripod, could contribute to a lack of sharpness.

Dave

 

[scott199]

Ok, here is my image of Pulpit Rock on Portland Bill
18 105 kit lens 1/60 f 16 on a tripod, shutter release cable. Probably could improve a bit using a more optimal (for the lens) f stop. I think the rock isn’t that sharp, I don’t have anything to compare but Iv seen similar images much sharper.



63363970-8CAB-40C2-B1F2-B84DC6E13A40 by Marc Freullet, on Flickr

I know that area quite well, I'm assuming with that amount of sea action you were prob dealing with a reasonable amount of wind ??? 1/6s with wind ect i would expect to be a handful to keep things rock steady

 

[Jake]

Didn't see the flickr info before, my bet is f/25 was used to reduce shutter speed for the water blur effect?

Therefore to get that and an aperture which is crispy sharp you're going to either need to shoot it on a dark day or at dusk/dawn and/or use an ND filter to reduce the light entering your shot by a number of stops.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Exif data reports that as F25 at 1/6 second, not 1/60 as you state.
That might well be contributing to the camera shake. It is also heavily diffracted at F25 though that would only affect finer details, and even your major edges are unsharp, even though there are considerable sharpening halos around the major edges.

The sea and spray shows considerable evidence of gusty wind. even a sturdy tripod might struggle not to vibrate in those circumstance.

For some reason your camera has not reported the ISO that was set. perhaps it was set to Auto?

 

[mike weeks]

Ok, here is my image of Pulpit Rock on Portland Bill
18 105 kit lens 1/60 f 16 on a tripod, shutter release cable. Probably could improve a bit using a more optimal (for the lens) f stop. I think the rock isn’t that sharp, I don’t have anything to compare but Iv seen similar images much sharper.



63363970-8CAB-40C2-B1F2-B84DC6E13A40 by Marc Freullet, on Flickr

As has been said that is at 1/6 second (look at the blur in the spray for evidence) need a good solid tripod to stay steady in that - absolute sharpness affected by movement

Diffraction has been heavily mentioned - absolute sharpness affected by equipment setting

Because of the tiny aperture these is nothing out of focus to make the subject stand out - relative sharpness

Mike

 

[Marc1548]

Thanks for your comments I obviously misread the data,[emoji45]I can see now possibly what’s wrong & thanks to you guys I have a lot of info here in order to improve next time. & review other images where I possibly made similar mistakes. I will revisit this location when the weather allows (can be pretty dodgy there sometimes in bad weather) get some better shots & report back.
Iv learnt a lot from this thread, thank you all. Keep em coming.

 

[Jake]

Photography is a slow burning hobby. Keep practising and practising, visit the same locations, keep trying and try to learn each time you go, you'll be improving before you know it

 

[Marc1548]

Photography is a slow burning hobby. Keep practising and practising, visit the same locations, keep trying and try to learn each time you go, you'll be improving before you know it

Yes & just when you thought you nailed a few things something else looms around the corner just to put a spanner in the works,
but I love the process of leaning, we will get there in the end.
Loving it.

 

[Jelster]

One thing is for certain (and I'm very guilty of this myself), and that is GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) is a wallet emptier, and doesn't always produce the magic improvements you were seeking.

Ah, but new shiney kit does often help drive your "photo mojo", which is always a good thing.

 

[Jake]

Yes & just when you thought you nailed a few things something else looms around the corner just to put a spanner in the works,
but I love the process of leaning, we will get there in the end.
Loving it.

Best way to look at it

 

[mike weeks]

Thanks for your comments I obviously misread the data,[emoji45]I can see now possibly what’s wrong & thanks to you guys I have a lot of info here in order to improve next time. & review other images where I possibly made similar mistakes. I will revisit this location when the weather allows (can be pretty dodgy there sometimes in bad weather) get some better shots & report back.
Iv learnt a lot from this thread, thank you all. Keep em coming.

That is why I insisted on an image and that location is but a few miles from me however I generally do not do landscapes

Mike

 

[Marc1548]

That is why I insisted on an image and that location is but a few miles from me however I generally do not do landscapes

Mike

Yes I can see the point you have made & Iv certainly learnt from it as I have from all comments here, Thank you to everyone who has contributed[emoji1303]
It’s a shame you “generally do not do landscapes”
I live in Bracknell where dare I say it landscapes are ‘relatively’ limited. I have family connections in Dorset, where the opportunities for decent landscape photography are endless.
Take a look at Neil Barnes web site.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I live in Bracknell where dare I say it landscapes are ‘relatively’ limited.

IIRC from a mountain biking trip and other times just driving past, there's some interesting landscape opportunities around there. Certainly the Dorset coast can be lovely, of course.

 

[Petrochemist]

Areas close to home gain a familiarity that can make being inspired by the scenery more difficult.
I live close to the Dedham vale, an area Constables paintings has made renowned for landscapes, yet I find myself much more inspired when I go away to regions that are distinctly different in character.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Areas close to home gain a familiarity that can make being inspired by the scenery more difficult.
I live close to the Dedham vale, an area Constables paintings has made renowned for landscapes, yet I find myself much more inspired when I go away to regions that are distinctly different in character.

On that note, when I visit somewhere new, I always try to take pictures in the first few days, because after that it becomes much harder to see possibilities.

 

[Marc1548]

Areas close to home gain a familiarity that can make being inspired by the scenery more difficult.
I live close to the Dedham vale, an area Constables paintings has made renowned for landscapes, yet I find myself much more inspired when I go away to regions that are distinctly different in character.

I think you have hit the nail right on the head. But I suppose there are certain places of outstanding natural beauty where you just cannot fail, but avoiding the cliche shots can be a challenge