# Want more quality, Need some advice



## MulletMaster08 (Jul 21, 2011)

So I am fairly new to photography and have been kind of a sink or swim with this. I have been taking pictures with me Nikon D3200 for about 6 months now. I have been using the 55X200 mm lens that came with the camera. 

Now my question, I have taken very good shots but I would like to get a little more quality out of my pictures. My pictures that I do not crop down to a certain point are great and I am ok with but my close ups are a little fuzzy. So that being said, should I buy another lens, 55x300 mm or something like that or another camera? If I get a bigger lens will i get the quality I am looking for after editing my photos? Are my settings wrong and I am just making some amateur moves?

I will attach some photos so you can see what I am talking about. Please let me know what you think. All input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Dave


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Not up on Nikon gear, but if its like Canon. You will be spending lots of money for quality. I think there is a site called "Nikon Cafe" that could be of some help in deciding what is good and price range.
Maybe look at Fred Miranda and you can get a feel of the type of lens you are seeking

http://www.fredmiranda.com/


----------



## JuiceGoose (Oct 4, 2006)

How much are you cropping your images? it seems like, at least with the ones your posting, that they have been cropped a lot. Also what type of settings are you shooting in?


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Sensors on modern cameras are all very good and you will generally get the biggest bang in image quality for dollar spent on a lens. Nikon makes a very good 70-200mm lens that would help a lot. Also, lately Sigma has been coming out with some very high quality glass at nice price points. That is another good option to look at too. You might want to give lensrental.com a look see and try renting one of your potential lens choices before buying to see if it really makes a difference for your application. They also sell used gear. KH is another good company that buys and re-sells used gear from pro photogs where you can find good deals.


----------



## Bird (May 10, 2005)

I have that same lens. It's pretty good but for what you are looking to do you need to step up to a bigger (longer focal length) and faster (f2.8) lens. Yes it will cost you a lot of money but it will solve a lot of your issues. Also, that camera (and the D5300 which I use) tend to underexpose the shots so you might try adding 1/2 ev in exposure compensation. I also changed my auto focus setting to 9 segment from 39 segment (default setting) when using that lens zoomed in, otherwise the AF tries to focus on too many points and the subject of the picture can lose some sharpness. 

Try using a circular polarizer filter which will eat up some glare and act as a neutral density filter. I think a decent one is about $50 compared with the $2000+ you'll spend on that new zoom lens.


----------



## MulletMaster08 (Jul 21, 2011)

Awesome, Thanks for all the info! I may try the polarized filter first and see how that works out for me.


----------



## chubri777 (Aug 11, 2005)

Your camera is a really good entry level camera, good sensor just not loaded with features, but your lens leaves a lot to be desired. Your pics give me the idea you are interested in nature/wildlife photography, so I'll come out and say it. You're going to need 300mm minimum and the choices in the lower price range aren't going to net you much better returns. 400mm is the minimum I would use for wildlife photography myself. If you were to look into getting new glass, what would your budget be? There are some good affordable zooms out there and it would help if we had an idea of what you were willing to spend.
Worse case scenario if getting decent long glass isn't in the budget your camera and lens will do a decent job on close subjects as long as you don't have to crop too much. Think 50' and in. I also don't think a circular polarizer is going to help but they are nice to have.
As for the pics you posted, the Osprey shot looks to be way over saturated with too much contrast to boot. It should have been closer to what I'm posting of it. Also judging by the noise way too many pixels were cropped out. The fish and otter both look out of focus and the otter looks like a heavy crop as well.


----------



## griz (Jan 9, 2006)

*Costs money*

No substitute for good glass and its expensive. I've tried my stuff on 3 different bodies from the lowly T3 to the 7D and over the lenses that came with the camera they beat them hands down. My favorite lens is an EF400 f5.6L USM. About 1300 bucks. Has the reach for what I do. Its a prime no IS so as light as it can be made. I have a Tamron 70-300 SP that I use most often though. I had the same lens but in the budget range and there is no comparison. There is about 250 difference in price on that pair.

Any time light passes through a lens some of the colors pass through at different rates. To bring them back into a single point they use various methods. One of the best is fluorite glass backing the front crown glass element. Fluorite has almost exactly the reverse properties when it comes to the light as the crown glass so it corrects almost all of the aberration in one shot. Fluorite is very expensive to make into a lens. Now they have various ED (extra dispersion) lenses that mimic the flourite lens to various degrees some are said to be even better. They are also very expensive. A lot of the cost of good glass is here. Also the faster lenses have much bigger front elements and you gotta remember its not just a single element that is that size its several. It all adds up and there is really no way to get around it with software or other gadgets. Lord knows I've tried.

Best suggestion is further up the thread rent it and see if its worth the money. You can read all the reviews in the world and it doesn't even get close to seeing what it does with your own eyes on your own equipment. Looks like you have the mechanics down pretty well. So you are more than halfway there.

Good luck with it once you have the right combination to work with your photos will really improve.

Griz


----------



## elkhunter49 (Jun 7, 2004)

griz said:


> No substitute for good glass and its expensive. I've tried my stuff on 3 different bodies from the lowly T3 to the 7D and over the lenses that came with the camera they beat them hands down. My favorite lens is an EF400 f5.6L USM. About 1300 bucks. Has the reach for what I do. Its a prime no IS so as light as it can be made. I have a Tamron 70-300 SP that I use most often though. I had the same lens but in the budget range and there is no comparison. There is about 250 difference in price on that pair.
> 
> Any time light passes through a lens some of the colors pass through at different rates. To bring them back into a single point they use various methods. One of the best is fluorite glass backing the front crown glass element. Fluorite has almost exactly the reverse properties when it comes to the light as the crown glass so it corrects almost all of the aberration in one shot. Fluorite is very expensive to make into a lens. Now they have various ED (extra dispersion) lenses that mimic the flourite lens to various degrees some are said to be even better. They are also very expensive. A lot of the cost of good glass is here. Also the faster lenses have much bigger front elements and you gotta remember its not just a single element that is that size its several. It all adds up and there is really no way to get around it with software or other gadgets. Lord knows I've tried.
> 
> ...


I've got the same Tamron lens (SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6) as mentioned above and I've been happy with it. I don't have the expertise that many on this site have. I'm a novice and I don't get off work enough lately to get to the field and experiment. I bought Canon EOS Rebel T3 with the lens I mentioned a little over a year ago and hit the field. I'll post a few of my photos that might help you decide on a lens. OBTW the red coming up on top is a cool shot. Baker


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 16, 2010)

Your lens is capable of taking much better pictures. These were taken with a D 40 which is only 6 MP and a 55 X 200 lens.. Your camera is several grades above this. Cropping may be part of the problem. Keep experimenting with the camera. Use a tripod when ever possible.


----------



## Formula4Fish (Apr 24, 2007)

Dave,

Looking at the Osprey, it appears that you cropped it with Irfanview. EXIF info has been stripped off the others. What was the original pixel dimensions of DSC_0227? It might help if you could somehow make the originals available to us.

One thing I noticed... 0227 has been cropped to 842x522 pixels, but the density is only 72 DPI. You might want to keep that closer to 300 DPI.

The focal length was only 160mm, so I suspect that bird was a very small spot in the middle of a much larger image.

Dick


----------



## griz (Jan 9, 2006)

Nice shots. I need to get out and get some wildlife shots. I was hoping the Llano eagles would be around but I hear their nest tree collapsed and they moved on. Thats a shame. I bought that 400 after I went out there last year and the 300 just wouldn't cut it. I was having to crop too much and they were looking pretty sad. Jan will be 3 years since I started shooting. I've spent plenty of money chasing those great images when I just needed to really learn the stuff I had. It was a long time before I started getting decent images. Over a year.

Griz


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Well, no doubt these guys know more....but....I'd buy a mono-pod right away. $30.00 bucks or so and it will help with long distance more than any other simple thing. Easy to carry in the field, lightweight and inexpensive.

Take it out back, shoot as you do regularly, and then shoot the very same shot with the mono-pod. I'll bet you will notice the difference.

And, as has been noted, you seem to be processing aggressively. Less is more, most of the time.


----------



## teckersley (May 25, 2004)

There really is no substitute for good glass and yes, its expensive. A great lens will make a entry level camera look great but the reverse is not true.

That being said, zooming and cropping are a different animal. Even with a great lens, cropping can/will get grainy albeit less. You can help this somewhat by using a tripod to reduce camera shake that magnifies the problem.

The best rule of thumb is shoot tight and crop tighter.

Just my $0.02

Good Luck


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

oh, yea...the one thing that I often forget....is to WALK closer when shooting. 

Amazing how easy it is to see a subject; point; zoom; shoot....and wind up with a less than stellar picture. 

Often, you can take that quick shot, (which you should, since you may not get another one)

......THEN...walk closer slowly ...take another one....walk closer yet...and keep it up until the subject is spooked away. It does work. richg99


----------



## elkhunter49 (Jun 7, 2004)

richg99 said:


> oh, yea...the one thing that I often forget....is to WALK closer when shooting.
> 
> Amazing how easy it is to see a subject; point; zoom; shoot....and wind up with a less than stellar picture.
> 
> ...


This is very good advise. Very True, Thanks for sharing Rich. Baker


----------



## jorgepease (Apr 14, 2011)

Ditto on the above 

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."
Robert Capa


Though I also agree on the lens comments, that is 90% of it when considering your equipment.


----------

