Ol' Geezer thread continued with images for comment

[MorseCode]

First off, many thanks to the kind folks who responded to the weekend discussion I started asking for opinions on potential new gear for this ol' phart who can't really "get" the technology of a D-200. I received many very useful answers and some of my problems were addressed and solved. I'm still mulling the thought of an Olympus for much of my regular non-special shooting or a high-end PHS (Push Here, Stupid) but until I can get the bux for a full-frame camera I'm probably going to stick with the existing body and maybe do some horse-trading to get some new glass.

Now, to the still-unresolved problem of sharpness. Here are a bunch of images I shot and uploaded to the previous thread, but I think they were buried too deep in the thread that they were never seen by those who'd previously commented. Please forgive my posting them a second time but I'm eager to find out if th un-sharpness evident in some is "normal" for a D200 or if I can improve the detail somewhat without breaking the bank.

These images best represent my style of photography and my interests. Some I think are pretty decent but many are flawed. What I'm calling attention to here is a lack of crispness, especially on sign text (25 MPH speed sign and Coal Bank Pass Summit sign). Fur details of the two cats in the first picture and rabbit a few later on aren't razor sharp; bands on the cigars in the tray are blurred; on the closeup of the Montecristo cigars, I was trying to get the two bands in the center perfect and a creamy blend to out-of focus everywhere else.

The ice-fountain, I wanted the top of the bubbling water razor sharp; The Christmas tree ornament looks OK but I think could still be sharper. The squirrel picture is just awful though to be fair, this was taken through a glass door.

The locomotive engineer's face could be sharper but also wasn't properly lit. The bagpipe player in black/yellow should have been perfectly sharp but everything else should have been smoothly blurred. The signs on the western hotel, again, aren't as sharp as I think they could be.

The grey cat's highlights were blown out because I used a flash. There wasn't enough light to shoot in otherwise. The night sky around the eclipsed moon is quite noisy; this is the best shot of about 75 taken that night--most are terrible.

So that's it. 10,500 images in Lightroom, 29 samples here. What's truly sad, my wife's $89 Casio shirt-pocket camera often takes much sharper pictures!

 

[Skipper494]

Things lok pretty sharp to me. I have a Fuji S2 Pro and a D700, both of which are great, as is my P7000, but I find M-4/3 (G2) suffers from the same problems as the superzooms, both using contrast focus, therefore poor in low light and at the long end. I consider the P7000 to be superior.

I still remember my Morse, as 71 years ago, I was a mobile signaller in the Home Guard. The Ariel 350 was a swine to start!

 

[palincss]

First off, many thanks to the kind folks who responded to the weekend discussion I started asking for opinions on potential new gear for this ol' phart who can't really "get" the technology of a D-200. I received many very useful answers and some of my problems were addressed and solved. I'm still mulling the thought of an Olympus for much of my regular non-special shooting or a high-end PHS (Push Here, Stupid) but until I can get the bux for a full-frame camera I'm probably going to stick with the existing body and maybe do some horse-trading to get some new glass.

Now, to the still-unresolved problem of sharpness. Here are a bunch of images I shot and uploaded to the previous thread, but I think they were buried too deep in the thread that they were never seen by those who'd previously commented. Please forgive my posting them a second time but I'm eager to find out if th un-sharpness evident in some is "normal" for a D200 or if I can improve the detail somewhat without breaking the bank.

These images best represent my style of photography and my interests. Some I think are pretty decent but many are flawed. What I'm calling attention to here is a lack of crispness, especially on sign text (25 MPH speed sign and Coal Bank Pass Summit sign). Fur details of the two cats in the first picture and rabbit a few later on aren't razor sharp; bands on the cigars in the tray are blurred; on the closeup of the Montecristo cigars, I was trying to get the two bands in the center perfect and a creamy blend to out-of focus everywhere else.

The ice-fountain, I wanted the top of the bubbling water razor sharp; The Christmas tree ornament looks OK but I think could still be sharper. The squirrel picture is just awful though to be fair, this was taken through a glass door.

The locomotive engineer's face could be sharper but also wasn't properly lit. The bagpipe player in black/yellow should have been perfectly sharp but everything else should have been smoothly blurred. The signs on the western hotel, again, aren't as sharp as I think they could be.

The grey cat's highlights were blown out because I used a flash. There wasn't enough light to shoot in otherwise. The night sky around the eclipsed moon is quite noisy; this is the best shot of about 75 taken that night--most are terrible.

So that's it. 10,500 images in Lightroom, 29 samples here. What's truly sad, my wife's $89 Casio shirt-pocket camera often takes much sharper pictures!

I think you should try to identify the common themes in your complaints, and then try to identify why those issues keep happening. Maybe some experiments might be in order, to get a better feel for what the thing is going to do.

There are two that stand out for me:

• depth of field isn't what you expected, being either too narrow or too broad
• point of focus was not where you wanted it to be

Unrealistic expectations? Not previewing? I'm not sure. Certainly your expectations re: that bagpiper in black and yellow are unrealistic, since the woman to his right looks to me to be almost exactly the same distance from the camera. If you want everything to be in focus and equally sharp, it's no surprise a P&S will do better than a dSLR, and buying a good one would likely satisfy; but if you want selective focus you're pretty much out of luck there. I think you've been given specific recommendations re: autofocus in the previous thread, and they certainly should be examined and experimented with.

 

[MorseCode]

I think you should try to identify the common themes in your complaints, and then try to identify why those issues keep happening. Maybe some experiments might be in order, to get a better feel for what the thing is going to do.

I'm game to try anything at this point.

There are two that stand out for me:

• depth of field isn't what you expected, being either too narrow or too broad
• point of focus was not where you wanted it to be

I would say these are exactly the two biggest factors that have bedeviled me since the switch from film, with a third being exposure in low-light. The second point (focus not where I expected it to be) is by far the worst problem.

With regard to exposure, specifically (and I will post another group of pictures that typify this) when I shoot pictures of our indoor cats, I can either get blurred images shooting natural light or washed-out/blown-out whites when I use the camera-mounted flash. Getting the SB600 out, mounting it, powering it up, twisting the head into bounce mode, etc, all take time that will lead to the kitties getting bored and stop doing what I wanted to photograph them doing.

Unrealistic expectations? Not previewing? I'm not sure. Certainly your expectations re: that bagpiper in black and yellow are unrealistic, since the woman to his right looks to me to be almost exactly the same distance from the camera.

In this instance I'm more interested in blurring those behind the main subject. My DoF was too big despite shooting wide-open. To get any semblance of selective focus I had to shoot in AP wide open but it wasn't enough in this case. On the flip side, though, the drummer in the green top and those behind her are blurry but not smoothly-blurry (does that term even make sense??) I've seen many pictures of parades or groups where one main subject is razor sharp and those in the background just blur away gently as their distance from the main subject increases. Can I accomplish this with what I have, or without spending over $1000 on new lenses?

 

[MorseCode]

Here are a few more that are far more problematic. Almost all have bad focus issues and there was some extreme colour weirdness I just don't understand, but that's not really my worry here since that's never happened since. These were taken with the 18-200 VR lens that ostensibly focuses extremely close-in.

The three problems I need to try and overcome here are

1. Focus not being accomplished in the part of the picture I wanted sharp
2. No part being razor-sharp
3. Either blown-out by flash or blurry in existing light or noisy if ISO increases beyond 400.

 

[AnandaSim]

MorseCode wrote:
Here is chuxter's comments from previous long thread

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=37508017

You are right, that thread had got too deep and too many points were being made.

Now that you have posted photos, there is some focus for relevance rather than words that chase themselves without meaning.

I am on a small netbook, not very good screen, on hols so don't have my usual licence to pore over your shots properly. I just missed out on joining a younger, healthier, more energetic photographer today and again I am amazed at this work.

http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/01/thaipusam-at-batu-caves.html

He shoots the Olympus E-5.

Now, on to your photos.

I don't have the drive to check each one closely but nothing I have seen is bad - yes, they are not perfect but I am wondering what your standards are. The Beginners here might dearly love to even have one of your imperfect ones.

t I'm eager to find out if th un-sharpness evident in some is "normal" for a D200 or if I can improve the detail somewhat without breaking the bank.

There is no obvious evidence of unsharpness in your examples. Remember they are web sized and from the look of them, they are fine.

What I'm calling attention to here is a lack of crispness, especially on sign text (25 MPH speed sign and Coal Bank Pass Summit sign).

There is what I would expect from a shot like that. You are not having the sun behind your back. So the colours are muddy and the textural details that trick the eye and brain to thinking there is not enough sharpness due to lack of texture is caused by shooting against the sky with no sun behind you.

Fur details of the two cats in the first picture and rabbit a few later on aren't razor sharp;

I am looking at the faces of the cats. They are sharp. The bodies of the cats are out of sufficient depth of field. You shot the cats at 1600 ISO on an old digital body. And it is quite good, my entry level Olympus of 3 years ago can't gen go 1600 with that quality. 1600 ISO on film NEVER was this good. And your lighting quality appears diffuse and even, not forcing texture emphasis. You need to use ISO 200 max, deeper depth of field if you are going for studio quality, manipulated pin sharpness.

The other cat photo is just poorly shot.

bands on the cigars in the tray are blurred on the closeup of the Montecristo cigars, I was trying to get the two bands in the center perfect and a creamy blend to out-of focus everywhere else.

The writing on the cigars is sharp. The rest of the cigars are out of depth of field. The photo lacks contrast - either improve the lighting at the source of the problem or work post processing on the PC (which you don't like and I prefer the source of to be better). This shot is at ISO 800 which I again find astoundingly good for ISO 800.

The second photo - I have trouble bringing up the photo embedded here because I am on a small screen, the second photo the focus is off, it is pointing to the top of the drawer

If you want a "class act" you need to seriously improve your lighting and shooting technique. This applies to film or digital, young or old photographer.

For close up shots, automatic AF is unpredictable. Yet, some people do it well with the dint of persistence, repeat and hard work. Maybe they perch their camera on the tripod, shot, look at the LCD screen, magnified, shoot again, look etc... Others use tripod and liveview with 10x magnification - if the LCD screen pivots out so that you don't have to hunch (for ol geezers the back ache issue is real), so much the better.

Macros are sheer patience, persistence, repeat and rinse. And manipulation of lighting, posing articles

The squirrel picture is just awful though to be fair, this was taken through a glass door.

If you have any experience, you would not even submit pictures taken through a glass door for discussion. I regularly shoot through car windscreen (just did today, I am on holiday, not driving which I do when I am not on holiday). I know that pics shot through other pieces of glass are just nonsense fun for nostalgia and memories. There is no "class" of result to expect.

. The bagpipe player in black/yellow should have been perfectly sharp but everything else should have been smoothly blurred.

Can I believe my eyes? 1/80th of a second in a human not posed scene subject to human motion and/or breeze? 200mm lens equivalent to 300mm in film terms? And f/8 which is deep depth of field - not deep enough to get everything but deep enough so that you don't have creamy bokeh - we call this the "neither here nor there DOF"

I ernvy my young friend Robin (above url) a lot. I think if he gave me his camera and lens, that I could do the stuff that he has just done. Nope. Be realistic. He has the skill, he has the local feel and vibe, he's being jostled by heaps of spectators and other amateur photogs, it's hot and humid here in Malaysia - nope I can produce some shots but unlikely to produce his dramatic quality. I've got to have a revolution in the way I handle things to get get near his quality.

Bottom line: It's not the gear. It's not post processing. It's recognising the actual gift or sheer hard work and persistence to create the "class" of photo that you are expecting.

By the way, here is my bagpiper, shot with a manual focus CAT 250mm f/5.6 in an E-330 body that's old and now sick. Manual focussed in a dim tuinnel of a viewfinder - I get 7 out of 10 just blur due to failure to focus

 

[AnandaSim]

zz

 

[MorseCode]

Here is chuxter's comments from previous long thread

I just missed out on joining a younger, healthier, more energetic photographer today and again I am amazed at this work.
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/01/thaipusam-at-batu-caves.html

Robin's work is astoundingly good. Gorgeous ultra-saturated colours, etc. It also helps to be where he is, shooting what he's shooting and have his eye for human details. What stands out for me is his ability to achieve the selective focus that's been eluding me. That and his blurred backgrounds appear far smoother and more eye-catching than my own.

I don't have the drive to check each one closely but nothing I have seen is bad - yes, they are not perfect but I am wondering what your standards are. The Beginners here might dearly love to even have one of your imperfect ones.

What you've seen here are some of my best (remember, I'm mostly shooting snapshots; I rarely lug around the Gitzo tripod, and I prefer natural light to flash, and when I do use flash it's almost always the on-camera version.

There is no obvious evidence of unsharpness in your examples. Remember they are web sized and from the look of them, they are fine.

Take a quick look at the cat pics. These poorly-focused shots, unfortunately, are far more common than the better examples submitted earlier. Perhaps a little too extreme but still I get this result from time to time.

I am looking at the faces of the cats. They are sharp. The bodies of the cats are out of sufficient depth of field.

Sharp to a degree but not what my friend calls NatGeo sharp, if you know what I mean. The kind of thing you see in glossy magazines. I've never been able to achieve that, and I don't see how that's achievable in post-processing. To my way of thinking, that kind of sharpness can't be added.

The other cat photo is just poorly shot.

That's far more typical of my results, though. I just don't know how to improve this. That was using the on-camera flash and it blew out the white in Yakko's fur. (Yes, I named my three tabbies after the Animaniacs!) I wasn't going for composition, I was trying to see if the Nikon depot had done anything to improve the focus when I sent both the camera and lense in for repairs.

What can I do about lighting when shooting casually and candidly around the house? I don't have or want a studio. I just like to take candid snaps of the kitties and have them exposed and focused well.

For close up shots, automatic AF is unpredictable...Others use tripod and liveview with 10x magnification - if the LCD screen pivots out so that you don't have to hunch (for ol geezers the back ache issue is real), so much the better.

What is Liveview? Is it something available for the D200? Hardly sounds like it's something one would walk around with (is it some kind of video monitor hooked up to the USB port or something?) Again, I call attention to the fact I'm trying to get fast setup candid pics of acts happening quickly. When the wife says "go get your camera, quick!" I hardly think I have the time to fetch a whole kit! I just need to grab-and-go. Like the time I saw 14 deer sauntering through my back yard last April. By the time I got the D200, powered it up, pulled off the lens cap and walked outside they'd buggered off.

. The bagpipe player in black/yellow should have been perfectly sharp but everything else should have been smoothly blurred.

And f/8 which is deep depth of field - not deep enough to get everything but deep enough so that you don't have creamy bokeh - we call this the "neither here nor there DOF"

"Creamy Bokeh?" Whaddat? Sounds like something I'd use to describe the taste of a particularly luscious cigar! The black/yellow piper picture was actually a different one (the guy with the Canadian flag was actually one of my better ones that day).

I ernvy my young friend Robin

You mentioned his Olympus camera but what kinds of glass? I notice a lot of those pics are f/2 or wider. I don't have any zooms that go below f/4. Would I really notice a huge difference if I mortgaged body parts and bought an f/2.8 W/A lense? Then there's the weight consideration; is there such a thing as a good, fast lightweight lense?

Bottom line: It's not the gear. It's not post processing. It's recognising the actual gift or sheer hard work and persistence to create the "class" of photo that you are expecting.

I think it very well may be all that, but the gear probably does play a big part. Do you think Robin would have been able to shoot some of those pictures with that confounded 18-200 f/4 - 5.6 monstrosity? I should probably post another handful of my less-than-good but somewhat common pictures. Tomorrow, perhaps. I'm downsizing everything to 1024 pixels.

 

[AnandaSim]

Robin's work is astoundingly good. Gorgeous ultra-saturated colours, etc.

Those are unbelievably well presented. He started with some post processing maybe a year or so ago, then he picked up his game like crazy. Those shots are very impactful - Thaipusam is an event and culture that is very saturated and strongly coloured. There seems to be a lot of coloured artificial light and the body paint is also strongly coloured.

[[[

From his blog:

1) All photographs were shot in JPEG, at Large Super Fine, Noise Filter: Low and White Balance: Auto

4) I used 50mm F2 macro and 11-22mm F2.8-3.5 lens, and show at wide open aperture at all times.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

What you've seen here are some of my best (remember, I'm mostly shooting snapshots; I rarely lug around the Gitzo tripod, and I prefer natural light to flash, and when I do use flash it's almost always the on-camera version.

You don't have to use a tripod for most of your shots. But the shots of the cigars, you MUST if you want "class results".

That is the ONE POINT I want you to consider.

Whether film or digital, the "class result" requires work. A grab shot or even a patiently made 5 minute shot once in a while rarely gives that quality of result that you need a mindset alteration to achieve

Take a quick look at the cat pics. These poorly-focused shots, unfortunately, are far more common than the better examples submitted earlier. Perhaps a little too extreme but still I get this result from time to time.

Yes. Mindset alteration required.

Sharp to a degree but not what my friend calls NatGeo sharp, if you know what I mean. The kind of thing you see in glossy magazines. I've never been able to achieve that, and I don't see how that's achievable in post-processing. To my way of thinking, that kind of sharpness can't be added.

No. It can't be added. But you can't shoot that NatGeo shot at ISO 800. I have seen my other friend's D700 full frame ISO 1600 and he was so happy to prove that this ISO 1600 was years ahead of my ISO 1600. Agreed. But what he also proved without intending is that although the ISO 1600 was superb, the lighting he was using was not "marvellous" and at the end of the day, it is the RESULT of the action rather than the technical excellence of the gear.

The other cat photo is just poorly shot.

That's far more typical of my results, though. I just don't know how to improve this.

Mindset alteration You can't use on camera flash. You can't just point and shoot. You need to scheme, plan and manage the scene, the lighting (external flash or normal light) whether you upgrade your gear or not.

What can I do about lighting when shooting casually and candidly around the house? I don't have or want a studio. I just like to take candid snaps of the kitties and have them exposed and focused well.

Sorry, Mindset Alteration. You can shoot nice attractive cats with that mindset but you WON'T get NatGeo impactful shots without work. You don't need a studio, but you need to agree that lighting is key.

What is Liveview? Is it something available for the D200? Hardly sounds like it's something one would walk around with (is it some kind of video monitor hooked up to the USB port or something?)

Ah. For macro shots of cigars, Liveview in DSLRs was initially started by Olympus I think and now it is on many cameras, Nikon, Canon and other brands. It uses the LCD screen and shows the scene in live action. There is no need for external monitor or any other external contraption.

Again, I call attention to the fact I'm trying to get fast setup candid pics of acts happening quickly. When the wife says "go get your camera, quick!" I hardly think I have the time to fetch a whole kit! I just need to grab-and-go.

Mindset alteration - you can grab a shot quickly with any number of cameras, cheap to expensive. But they won't be NatGeo quality.

You mentioned his Olympus camera but what kinds of glass? I notice a lot of those pics are f/2 or wider.

For that session, he only used one fixed focal length legendary 50mm f/2 macro that focusses with the speed of molasses dripping down the side of a jar. And his fav 11-22 wide angle lens. He used f/2 because he said, there was poor light and uneven light - this was 5am morning outside.

I don't have any zooms that go below f/4. Would I really notice a huge difference if I mortgaged body parts and bought an f/2.8 W/A lense? Then there's the weight consideration; is there such a thing as a good, fast lightweight lense?

f/4 is the consumer level price - it is also not too big, not too bulky. Because it is consumer level price, the sharpness is ok but not something to brag about unless you try very hard. f/2.8 is premium priced zoom lens. f/2 zoom lens is pro quality zoom lens - these are all at typical focal lengths.

I have an excellent 7-14mm which costs heaps - it is the most expensive lens I will ever be able to buy under normal expectations of my financial health. An ultra wide it is. For 7mm equivalent to 14mm film, the width of coverage is so huge that f/4 is not deep enough - you get ugly looking distorted blurs. I need f/8 to tame the depth of field.

I think it very well may be all that, but the gear probably does play a big part. Do you think Robin would have been able to shoot some of those pictures with that confounded 18-200 f/4 - 5.6 monstrosity?

In this specific scene, he was already at ISO 1600. f/4 to f/5.6 which is my kit lenses they are much smaller than your monstrosity, are like that. I would not be able to get that "look"

However, this is a very tough case. In this article, he used the kit lens

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/3052/pc263988.jpg

Bottom line: It sure helps to have the gear as the foundation to get the NatGeo look BUT with that gear, in you currrent mindset, you will NOT get the NatGeo look consistently if at all

 

[Tom_N]

What stands out for me is his ability to achieve the selective focus that's been eluding me.

Large apertures and long focal lengths (which tend to be mutually exclusive) can help in producing shallow depth of field. But you also need some separation between your subject and background.

I rarely lug around the Gitzo tripod, and I prefer natural light to flash, and when I do use flash it's almost always the on-camera version.

Slow lenses and no tripod and no bounce flash is not a good combination for indoor work.

I would recommend getting a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lens for those indoor cat photos. You could also get a SB-400 "travel" flash - while it's not as flexible as the SB-600, it's small enough to leave on the camera all the time (the better to catch the kitties before they detect a picture-taking session and move).

What is Liveview?

Taking pictures using a LCD screen or viewfinder, instead of an optical viewfinder. Generally the LCDs and EVFs have low enough resolution that they make it harder to judge focus/sharpness.

Is it something available for the D200?

No. It has to be designed in.

You mentioned his Olympus camera but what kinds of glass? I notice a lot of those pics are f/2 or wider. I don't have any zooms that go below f/4. Would I really notice a huge difference if I mortgaged body parts and bought an f/2.8 W/A lense? Then there's the weight consideration; is there such a thing as a good, fast lightweight lense?

Primes. A 35mm f/1.8 is about $200; a 50mm f/1.8 is a bit over $100. These are not super-wide or super-telephoto (the 35mm is close to "normal" on a D200), but they are affordable and fast. Even 85mm f/1.8 primes are not too expensive.

Now if you want an 80-200mm VR zoom lens, THAT will cost you an arm and a leg ($1700, the last time I looked; believe me, I was only window shopping).

 

[palincss]

Along the lines of "mindset alteration" -- if you (i.e., MorseCode) were to approach those identical subjects with the old film Nikon, what would you do, and what would you think?

To take just one example, how would you have lit those kittens, and what would you have done about focus in order to achieve the look you wanted? If for each photo you identified how you would have solved the problem with the old setup, I'll bet it would be fairly easy to figure out how to accomplish the same thing with the new.

 

[AnandaSim]

What is Liveview?

Taking pictures using a LCD screen or viewfinder, instead of an optical viewfinder. Generally the LCDs and EVFs have low enough resolution that they make it harder to judge focus/sharpness.

Clarification: LCDs even in my several year old Oly E-510 are not great (but I also have my Kodak P-880 which is even 2 years older than that and that sucks in LCD) BUT the modern Liveview cams (dunno about the lower Sonys) allow you to magnify 10x. You view full scene, adjust the focus and f/no to roughly the DOF that you want, press on button and it zooms to 10x mag, you adjust the focus ring, press again and you are back to full scene. If I have a tilt LCD on the back of the camera it's quite ok, if I don't have a tilt, it's not so much a pleasure but it sure beats peering through a dim optical view. It would be an experience to have a bright optical viewfinder from a premium camera but I am not sure if you stopped down to f/8, whether you would still "see" the visual depth of field comfortably. I sure don't have the money for the body, for the lens nor the desire to heft that size of gear.

You mentioned his Olympus camera but what kinds of glass? I notice a lot of those pics are f/2 or wider. I don't have any zooms that go below f/4. Would I really notice a huge difference if I mortgaged body parts and bought an f/2.8 W/A lense? Then there's the weight consideration; is there such a thing as a good, fast lightweight lense?

Primes. A 35mm f/1.8 is about $200; a 50mm f/1.8 is a bit over $100. These are not super-wide or super-telephoto (the 35mm is close to "normal" on a D200), but they are affordable and fast. Even 85mm f/1.8 primes are not too expensive.

For Nikon, they are like this. Oly does not have a cheap 50 and the 50 on the Oly is equivalent to 100 on film. Oly's 50 is a macro lens with really, really sharp optics.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com
https://sites.google.com/site/asphotokb

'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'

 

[MorseCode]

I rarely lug around the Gitzo tripod, and I prefer natural light to flash, and when I do use flash it's almost always the on-camera version.

Slow lenses and no tripod and no bounce flash is not a good combination for indoor work.

I guess that's gotta change. I'm trying to find a way to do some horsetrading and grab a used 17-55 f/2.8 zoom. I find most of my images are shot at the low-end of that range although I also need something for the 135 to 200 range.

I would recommend getting a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lens for those indoor cat photos.

I have both a 50/1.8 and an 85/1.8 but for what I usually shoot those are both two long. I got them both fully-refurbed for $160 (for the pair, not each). The cat pics are usually "Oh, come look at this, quick" kind of deals, so I think a wide-to-normal fast zoom would be the better choice - but for planned kittyshots, maybe the 50/1.8 could do well.

Primes.

Yes, but at the cost of flexibility. Now, a 20mm fast prime....

Now if you want an 80-200mm VR zoom lens, THAT will cost you an arm and a leg ($1700, the last time I looked; believe me, I was only window shopping).

Yeah, even used, the original 70-200 f/2.8 still commands beaucoup dollars. Plus it's very heavy. I bought one initially with the insurance settlement that set this whole thing up but after a brief while, I realized it was far too heavy to lug around for the ultra-casual style of shooting that I like, so I sent it back and got the 18-200 and 12-24 that I have now. HUGE mistake, IMHO, but hindsight is 20-20.

 

[MorseCode]

MorseCode wrote:

Here is chuxter's comments from previous long thread
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=37508017

I just read the comments from the other thread and I'll post a reply over there later on. This is precisely the kind of feedback I was hoping for.

The more I'm thinking about this, the more I'm convinced I should own two cameras. One relatively-compact all-in-one of some kind for taking snapshots on holiday so I don't stick out like a sore thumb and then the D200 with high-end glass for the SeriousStuff™.

I've got a trip to Europe (German, Swiss and French Alps) coming up in June, and as one who adores mountainscapes, I'm debating what will give me best bang for the buck here, as well as something I can shlep around in my carry-on without lugging the whole kit.

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

As I mentioned in the other thread, and due to the fact that you said that you prefer NOT to do any post processing . . .

STOP SHOOTING RAW!

RAW files require you to do all kinds of post processing, including sharpening or unsharpening.

Set your camera to JPEG and play around with the sharpness settings until you get the desired effect you want.

As for the rest, well, a digital SLR is really not that much different from a film SLR, so your photo techniques are basically the same.

One other thought as well . . .

I've found that shooting digital is more like shooting slide film than negative film.

If you've never shot slide film, sometimes it can be hard to get your head around the exposure differences.

• JPEG straight from camera (Pentax K10D w/Tamron 70-300 Di LD), f/10, 1/400 sec with lens at full zoom (450mm equiv.), ISO 200, handheld, no post processing

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[MorseCode]

As I mentioned in the other thread, and due to the fact that you said that you prefer NOT to do any post processing . . .

STOP SHOOTING RAW!

RAW files require you to do all kinds of post processing, including sharpening or unsharpening.

I shoot RAW+Jpeg in the camera for maximum flexibility. I do perform some post-processing but it's almost exclusively in Lightroom, not Photoshop. I mess with exposure, WB and a little colour manipulation. I'd prefer to not have to do anything and have it all done for me in the camera. I shot strictly JPEG for a while and the end result was if the WB wasn't calculated correctly, the shot was buggered from the get-go and recovery was far less of a possibility. Why are you so against RAW format? It seems to me, the more versatile the image format the better, no?

As for the rest, well, a digital SLR is really not that much different from a film SLR, so your photo techniques are basically the same. One other thought as well . . .I've found that shooting digital is more like shooting slide film than negative film. If you've never shot slide film, sometimes it can be hard to get your head around the exposure differences.

I shot slides back in the day (loved K25 when I was a kid - what awesome stock that was!). I agree with your statement in part; namely margin for error is far closer to chrome film than print. However, the big difference is in dynamic range. I don't see dSLR's abilities (at least those of my D200) are anywhere near close to what I could accomplish on film. Maybe the newer bodies and sensors are changing that? Maybe it's just my perception? All I know is that photographing a black and white cat on digital is far more difficult than on either slide or print film.

Re your Dunes picture, how were you able to obtain that degree of sharpness on the dunes? That's down US25, no? The purple haze of the mountains in the background is far more typical of my Colorado experience from 2008.





It took about 2 hours of PP in Lightroom to get this even close to presentable. If I'd shot this solely as a JPEG I can't see it ever coming out. This is the original:





Just because I can do some image manipulation doesn't mean I want to do it; especially if I've shot 800 pics of something or another. If they were focused correctly, I'd like to have them come out of the camera and ready to print with little to no mucking about.

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

To answer all of the questions you asked in your response to me . . . mostly all I have for you is another directly out of camera JPEG from the same trip, but from a different camera:

• from Olympus E-510 with Zuiko 14-42 kit lens, f/7.1, 1/125 sec, ISO 100, handheld

.

I was an old school die hard film user and swore to the higher powers that be that I would never switch to digital as film was better than digital and always would be (sound familiar?).

Look in my profile to see my photographic background.

But, six years ago I did make the switch and I haven't shot a roll of film since.

And I've figured it out!

And without the need to shoot RAW on a regular basis!

In otherwords, I don't really have to work very hard to get the images I want from my digital cameras (and I own 13 of them), as you can see from the directly out of camera JPEGs I have provided.

It really isn't as hard as you make it out to be!

From the sounds of things you really don't want to figure this camera (Nikon D200) out as every time we give you answers, you come up with more excuses.

I really suggest that perhaps you should sell your D200 and maybe either get a Nikon D3100 or other entry level DSLR and a couple of kit lenses, or maybe even a decent point and shoot digital camera as that may give you better digital images than what you are getting from your current semi-pro model, which usually requires more work than using an entry level DSLR or point and shoot.

Or, and I can't believe I'm hearing (typing) myself say this, but maybe you should dust off your old film cameras as you seem to have had much better luck with them!

And for some reason you just can't seem to grasp the digital concept . . .

Maybe digital is just not for you.

.

• More directly out of camera JPEGs from Colorado last August:

Last two from a hike to the bottom of the Royal Gorge.

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[chuxter]

MorseCode wrote:
Peter, you didn't finish replying to my HUGE post about all your pix...

I think you should try to identify the common themes in your complaints, and then try to identify why those issues keep happening. Maybe some experiments might be in order, to get a better feel for what the thing is going to do.

I'm game to try anything at this point.

There are two that stand out for me:

• depth of field isn't what you expected, being either too narrow or too broad
• point of focus was not where you wanted it to be

I would say these are exactly the two biggest factors that have bedeviled me since the switch from film, with a third being exposure in low-light. The second point (focus not where I expected it to be) is by far the worst problem.

With regard to exposure, specifically (and I will post another group of pictures that typify this) when I shoot pictures of our indoor cats, I can either get blurred images shooting natural light or washed-out/blown-out whites when I use the camera-mounted flash. Getting the SB600 out, mounting it, powering it up, twisting the head into bounce mode, etc, all take time that will lead to the kitties getting bored and stop doing what I wanted to photograph them doing.

All wildlife photographers have to learn to be patient. ;-)

Unrealistic expectations? Not previewing? I'm not sure. Certainly your expectations re: that bagpiper in black and yellow are unrealistic, since the woman to his right looks to me to be almost exactly the same distance from the camera.

In this instance I'm more interested in blurring those behind the main subject. My DoF was too big despite shooting wide-open. To get any semblance of selective focus I had to shoot in AP wide open but it wasn't enough in this case. On the flip side, though, the drummer in the green top and those behind her are blurry but not smoothly-blurry (does that term even make sense??) I've seen many pictures of parades or groups where one main subject is razor sharp and those in the background just blur away gently as their distance from the main subject increases. Can I accomplish this with what I have, or without spending over $1000 on new lenses?

No!

Now that I have your attention, let's talk lenses. That 18-200mm lens is rather dim...it has only small apertures and they vary with the FL. Usually, longer FLs produce a thinner DoF, but not so much with this lens...when you zoom it out to 200mm, not only is the image a bit blurry, but it's harder to hold steady (and you have a tendency to use inappropriate exposure times, so there is some movement blur too). But the DoF issue is not improved...f/5.6 is just too small to allow the background to be OoF...and you had it set on f/8 (bagpipe pic) which makes the DoF greater!

You need a different lens. It may cost over $1000, but it doesn't have to. All lenses and bodies are compromises...cost, brightness, IQ, speed, size, weight, zoom range, etc. There is no one perfect lens, but there are many lenses that will allow you to get better background isolation. One of the most popular of these is undoubtedly the 70-200mm f/2.8. There are several manufacturers...Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Pentax (theirs is a 70-210 f/4), etc. There is a reason why these are so popular...they are great lenses for what you are trying to do (which is what lots of other people try to do also). And there are many variations: Some have VR/IS; Some have AF motors, Some of the motors are fast, silent ultrasonic-ring types; Some have to be focused manually; Some you push-pull to zoom and others you twist; Some have slightly different FLs, like 80-200mm; Some are white and some are black; Some are cheap and some are expensive; Some are old and some are new. You should get one of these lenses! It won't be perfect, but it's close! I use mine more than any of my other lenses...probably 5X more than the next one.

If you can't afford the $2000+ Nikkor version, there is the 80-200mm f/2.8 non-VR Nikkor version for $1100. Going lower, you might get what I have (I could not afford the Nikkors either!), the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. It isn't quite as sharp as the Nikkors, but at half the price, it's good enough. Read the reviews...it's good! And you can get a new one for $800 or a used one for $600.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams that stuff is made of..."

 

[chuxter]

Here are a few more that are far more problematic. Almost all have bad focus issues and there was some extreme colour weirdness I just don't understand, but that's not really my worry here since that's never happened since. These were taken with the 18-200 VR lens that ostensibly focuses extremely close-in.

The three problems I need to try and overcome here are

1. Focus not being accomplished in the part of the picture I wanted sharp
2. No part being razor-sharp
3. Either blown-out by flash or blurry in existing light or noisy if ISO increases beyond 400.

All of them had an exposure time of 1/60 second. Some of them had FLs in excess of 60mm, which means you were likely to introduce some motion blur from the camera. But think about this: Those kittens were moving...kittens are like that! 1/60 second was not fast enough to stop the action . I saw several where you had obviously focused on a kitten and then it moved toward you. One "fix" for this is to switch to Continuous AF, so that the camera will continue focusing as you frame and snap. Try 1/250 second?

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"Quantum Mechanics: The dreams that stuff is made of..."

 

[MorseCode]

MorseCode wrote:

Peter, you didn't finish replying to my HUGE post about all your pix...

Have just gotten the time this evening and will reply within the next couple of hours. Wife's been under the weather and computer time not as plentiful.

In this instance I'm more interested in blurring those behind the main subject. My DoF was too big despite shooting wide-open....Can I accomplish this with what I have, or without spending over $1000 on new lenses?

No!

Now that I have your attention, let's talk lenses. That 18-200mm lens is rather dim...it has only small apertures and they vary with the FL.

That's what I figured but I wanted to rule out operator error before making any changes. I posted a request for suggestions on another forum and got some good answers, although my questions were more for the bottom-end of the 18-200's range not the top.

Usually, longer FLs produce a thinner DoF, but not so much with this lens...when you zoom it out to 200mm, not only is the image a bit blurry, but it's harder to hold steady (and you have a tendency to use inappropriate exposure times, so there is some movement blur too). But the DoF issue is not improved...f/5.6 is just too small to allow the background to be OoF...and you had it set on f/8 (bagpipe pic) which makes the DoF greater!

RE exposure times. Let's say I want to make the best shallow DoF situation I can with what I have. I'll use Aperture Priority set to f/5.6. The meter will then select the correct shutter speed. Unless I'm shooting at the beach or in overhead sunlight, ISO 100 to 200 (needed for low noise, as the D200 isn't great otherwise) the shutter speed will invariably fall below 1/125th, which is the minimum I'd expect to get blur-free shots with given the VR circuitry, and ideally 1/250th. How can I have my shallow DoF cake and eat it noise-free (to mix metaphors terribly)? Shallow DoF, no movement blur and acceptable noise?

You need a different lens. It may cost over $1000, but it doesn't have to. All lenses and bodies are compromises...cost, brightness, IQ, speed, size, weight, zoom range, etc. There is no one perfect lens, but there are many lenses that will allow you to get better background isolation. One of the most popular of these is undoubtedly the 70-200mm f/2.8. There are several manufacturers...Nikon

True and agonizingly-painful story. When Allstate's cheque arrived I bought the D200, the 12-24 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I took exactly 3 pictures with it. The weight was really off-putting. I drove back into the city, returned it and walked out with the 18-200 that Ken Rockwell was baying at the moon over and that was on perpetual back-order at the time. It was only after a few months that I realized just how terrible a mistake I'd made. I didn't think I'd miss the 2 stops all that much, and the lighter-weight and VR would make up for it. The DoF problem didn't occur to me.

If you can't afford the $2000+ Nikkor version, there is the 80-200mm f/2.8 non-VR Nikkor version for $1100. Going lower, you might get what I have (I could not afford the Nikkors either!), the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. It isn't quite as sharp as the Nikkors, but at half the price, it's good enough. Read the reviews...it's good! And you can get a new one for $800 or a used one for $600.

I think for the moment I'll suffer in (relative) silence with the long end of that lens and maybe do something about the bottom end, since the vast majority of my shots are below 50-70mm. I can only afford one lens this year (and barely at that) and if I pull that trigger I want to get something that will last for life and I won't get buyer's remorse afterwards. I'll work on the tele end in a couple of years (or more) and just live with shooting wide-open in broad daylight.

Essentially I'm planning to spend $500-800 or so before my trip. I'd originally thought just getting a simple-to-use digital camera with all the image processing built in would be the best way, but I'm getting a lot of feedback suggesting I stick it out with the D200 and try to make a go of it. I have an inkling that will end up being the case.

Anyway, on to the long post in a little while.