MWGL Photography thread

dmn23 · May 6, 2018

FWIW, the extreme ends of whatever zoom you're using are always going to be kinda soft.

GomezAddams · May 6, 2018

dmn23 said:
FWIW, the extreme ends of whatever zoom you're using are always going to be kinda soft.

I knew that, that's why I used the ends for my testing. I wasn't prepared for the short end to be THAT bad, though.

Tiltsta · May 6, 2018

Interesting. Almost all zooms have issues at the extremes of their focal lengths. The really expensive ones tend to minimize the issues, but I’ve not seen a lens made that doesn’t work better in the ‘middle of the zoom range’ and stopped down a f step or two. I bet the lens you have would be really good in the middle with a little more f. My 28-300 still has some issues with barrel distortion, pincushioning and some chromatic abberation when it is wide open and used at 28 or 300, and it is around 2500 bucks new. I think these kind of issues are why some pros only use prime lenses. I take pictures for fun, so the limitations of zooms don’t really bother me, and my skills are far more the problem than the glass. I’m taking family pics and tourist photos, not making art, so the convenience of a zoom is much more useful for me than the negatives.

GomezAddams · May 6, 2018

Tiltsta said:
Interesting. Almost all zooms have issues at the extremes of their focal lengths. The really expensive ones tend to minimize the issues, but I’ve not seen a lens made that doesn’t work better in the ‘middle of the zoom range’ and stopped down a f step or two. I bet the lens you have would be really good in the middle with a little more f. My 28-300 still has some issues with barrel distortion, pincushioning and some chromatic abberation when it is wide open and used at 28 or 300, and it is around 2500 bucks new. I think these kind of issues are why some pros only use prime lenses. I take pictures for fun, so the limitations of zooms don’t really bother me, and my skills are far more the problem than the glass. I’m taking family pics and tourist photos, not making art, so the convenience of a zoom is much more useful for me than the negatives.

I feel the same way - I figured this Nikon and the cheap lenses would be plenty sufficient to handle my meager skills. But with a raw picture looking like mine, there's no amount of post-processing that's ever going to make that photo look like anything.

Johnny N. · May 7, 2018

GomezAddams said:
I feel the same way - I figured this Nikon and the cheap lenses would be plenty sufficient to handle my meager skills. But with a raw picture looking like mine, there's no amount of post-processing that's ever going to make that photo look like anything.

Good suggestions so far but a couple of other things to consider. If you are using aperture priority and shooting a wide open aperture, it will limit what will be in focus (shallow depth of field). If you are using a small aperture you will theoretically have more of the image in focus (wider depth of field). Sometimes though, especially if you are using a filter, the camera will use a fairly slow shutter speed to get enough light to expose the image properly which means camera shake is more of an issue. I took a bunch of pictures on a cruise recently and noticed several pictures were pretty soft. I realized I was using a circular polarizing filter which of course lets less light in so my camera was slowing the shutter speed and I wasn't paying attention. Just a thought.

This is why "faster" lenses are sought after and expensive. They let you use a larger aperture for a given focal length so you can keep your shutter speed high enough to shoot hand held. But those kit lenses should be sufficient. Image stabilization does help though for those border line speeds. My advice would be to eventually get better lens(s) but I'd shoot the crap out of what you have and get good at it first. It helps to justify the expense but it also helps you determine what focal length will really work best for how you shoot. I just bought a d5300 and it came with an 18-200. Not the best lens in the world but works great for what I do. I also have the 50mm 2.8 prime although I almost wish it was the 35mm. It really depends on what kind of shooting you are going to do most though. And lenses are stupid expensive. I found mine used for $500 for body and 18-200 and I could live with that. But unless there is actually something wrong with your camera, a different dslr isn't really going to help. But it's great to have options like phone, point and shoot etc.

And you are correct, processing wont fix focus issues but I am using the Nikon free software, I think it is View NX2 (check their site). What I found was that it reads the Nikon raw NEF files better than other software so you have use of all of the information in the file. So I use that to edit and convert to jpeg or tiff. I also use photoscape X which I find to be very good too, especially from pictures from my phone or other camera. It also does a couple of extra things the Nikon software doesn't so if I really wanted to use an extra feature I can start in View and finish in Photoscape. If I were paying for something I'd probably take a look at Element. I'm not a heavy enough user to justify a subscription service.

GomezAddams · May 7, 2018

Johnny, I appreciate the well thought out feedback, but bottom line is that the quality from the two lenses at least at the shortest focal lengths is nothing short of awful. Even the rankest amateur (me) isn't going to EVER get anything close to usable results with those lenses.

I understand that the cheaper Nikon glass isn't going to be great, but these lenses are far inferior to my old Canon S3 super zoom (35mm equivalent focal length 36 - 432mm), and the S3 is a three generation older camera than the D3200.

I'd sell the D3200 and go back to my S3 if it weren't having focus motor issues.

I'm going to do some more experimentation:

1. Dig out the S3 and see if I can get it running enough to duplicate the test shots I made with the D3200.
2. See if I can borrow my daughter's Canon T2 and shoot the same test shots with it.

Tiltsta · May 7, 2018

GomezAddams said:
Johnny, I appreciate the well thought out feedback, but bottom line is that the quality from the two lenses at least at the shortest focal lengths is nothing short of awful. Even the rankest amateur (me) isn't going to EVER get anything close to usable results with those lenses.

I understand that the cheaper Nikon glass isn't going to be great, but these lenses are far inferior to my old Canon S3 super zoom (35mm equivalent focal length 36 - 432mm), and the S3 is a three generation older camera than the D3200.

I'd sell the D3200 and go back to my S3 if it weren't having focus motor issues.

I'm going to do some more experimentation:

1. Dig out the S3 and see if I can get it running enough to duplicate the test shots I made with the D3200.
2. See if I can borrow my daughter's Canon T2 and shoot the same test shots with it.

One other option to consider is that many high end camera stores rent lenses, so you could go in and rent a higher end lens to test. These little stores are all about customer service and the more serious photo person than a consumer electronics mega store. They might even be able to give you some free advice and suggestions on your problem. I’d google who your local Nikon independent dealer is and drop by and just ask them about your problem and maybe see about renting something with IS. They can likely even give your camera a quick once over to make sure it is functioning correctly, and warranty repair it or the lens if something is amiss. EVERY photo store I have wandered into has been great on customer service and free advice.

Johnny N. · May 7, 2018

Tiltsta said:
One other option to consider is that many high end camera stores rent lenses, so you could go in and rent a higher end lens to test. These little stores are all about customer service and the more serious photo person than a consumer electronics mega store. They might even be able to give you some free advice and suggestions on your problem. I’d google who your local Nikon independent dealer is and drop by and just ask them about your problem and maybe see about renting something with IS. They can likely even give your camera a quick once over to make sure it is functioning correctly, and warranty repair it or the lens if something is amiss. EVERY photo store I have wandered into has been great on customer service and free advice.

Good suggestions as well. Those lenses are certainly not high end but not so terrible that they wont take a decent picture regardless of what end of the focal length. Unless of course something is wrong with the lens or camera functionally. It would be a great idea to rent a lens or two for comparison and have them look over the camera and/or lenses.

GomezAddams · May 7, 2018

Tiltsta said:
One other option to consider is that many high end camera stores rent lenses, so you could go in and rent a higher end lens to test. These little stores are all about customer service and the more serious photo person than a consumer electronics mega store. They might even be able to give you some free advice and suggestions on your problem. I’d google who your local Nikon independent dealer is and drop by and just ask them about your problem and maybe see about renting something with IS. They can likely even give your camera a quick once over to make sure it is functioning correctly, and warranty repair it or the lens if something is amiss. EVERY photo store I have wandered into has been great on customer service and free advice.

I'd figured most camera stores were out of business, but I was wrong. The closest camera stores to me are Murphy's in Louisville and Clarksville (side note - I bought my Nikon film SLR from Murphy's in 1979).

The one in Clarksville is close to several of my wife's favorite shopping haunts, so talking her into a trip there would be easy. I think I'll take the camera there and try some of their lenses.