# Camera purchase advice...



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

I am currently using a Nikon D50 (which in general suits me fine). When shooting snowboarding events I typically use my Nikon 70-210 4-5.6 lens. The problem I am running into is when trying to print large banners. The primary portion of the image is okay but the backgrounds have a tendency to pixelate.

I know that the D50 has a limited sensor at 5M. I know that the lens is a bit slow.

I am considering moving to the D7000 and a Sigma 80-200 2.8 lens but would really prefer to keep the cost down and maybe only get one of these items this year.

Should I go with the new lens on the D50 or even move to a longer lens (more $$$)? Or should I move up to the D7000 and continue with the same lens?

Any thoughts would be helpful.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Macified said:


> The problem I am running into is when trying to print large banners. The primary portion of the image is okay but the backgrounds have a tendency to pixelate.


That is puzzling, because the foreground and the background are both at the exact same resolution.

I suspect the effect you are seeing is not pixelation but bokeh
Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bokeh
Bokeh and Background Blur - Bob Atkins Photography

The characteristics of the pattern that is produced in out of focus areas (bokeh) are totally down to the lens design. Some produce pleasing (soft) bokeh and some produce really noticeable hard edged or donut shaped bokeh. 

You probably want to read opinions on the qualities of different lenses in pro photography forums before shortlisting new lenses.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

CanadaRAM said:


> That is puzzling, because the foreground and the background are both at the exact same resolution.
> 
> I suspect the effect you are seeing is not pixelation but bokeh
> Bokeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


No, it's pixelation primarily from having to enlarge the image image so much. The main subject is in focus and has enough sharpness to handle the enlargement but the background is soft and when enlarged just pixelates. So I guess it's a combination of bokeh and pixelation.

Just wondering if having a better lens will make enough of a difference or if I have to move to the larger sensor. I should probably look at a longer lens so that I don't have to enlarge quite so much for large banner work (the banners are 2' wide by 8' tall with an image area of 5 1/2' to 6' high.

If I could only purchase one item, which is better. Will purchasing both fix the issue (I would assume so).

Thanks for the info on bokeh, I'm familiar with the concept but didn't have any good links to read up more.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

A newer sensor should give you more pixels to work with and should be cleaner then the older sensor in your current body...but all things being equal great glass trumps new bodies with regard to bang for the buck. Can you rent camera gear near you? Most large camera stores allow for rentals and might be a good opportunity for you to try different combo's to see what works for you.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2011)

I'd say printing at that size you need more megapixels. Glass is always helpful but at the size you're printing stuff at you're going to get better bang for your buck this time around with more megapixels for sure this time around.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

mguertin said:


> I'd say printing at that size you need more megapixels. Glass is always helpful but at the size you're printing stuff at you're going to get better bang for your buck this time around with more megapixels for sure this time around.


Was thinking the same thing but didn't want to skew the responses. Perhaps in the interim a less expensive but longer lens along with the camera body will do. 

Moving from a 70-210 to a 80-300 with the same aperture specs should give a bit more reach and the added megapixels will help fill in some of the details on enlargement. 

If, in the end, I didn't end up shooting with an aperture as large as 2.8, would the faster lens provide much advantage any way? Am I loosing that much by going with a 80-300 4-5.6 vs. the 70-200 2.8 or does the added 100mm (150mm on the crop sensor make up for it)?


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2011)

It really depends on what you're trying to capture. If your current lens doesn't have enough reach and you're having to do a lot of cropping then a longer lens might help I suppose. Also given the subject that you're shooting it doesn't seem like you need a faster lens -- snowboarding is usually accompanied by a good amount of light ... as long as you can get a fast enough shutter speed to get what you want you should be fine. Also don't forget that using the higher F stop on the faster lens will give you _more]/i] bokeh and if you're not wanting that ... It would also mean that it's a more shallow depth of field which means tougher to focus, etc. Also to get a bit more reach you could add an extender (1.4x for example) but also note that you will lose a full F stop when using it so if you're close to the limit now you might not want to go there.

I'd just start with more megapixels and see how it goes from there. For prints that size 5 megapixels is really just not enough and I think that you'll be much happier with the results with more megapixels right off the top._


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Even a $10,000 25Mpx camera is going to have issues when you print the image as a 80' billboard.

...but those billboards are meant to be viewed from a great distance and at that distance look perfect to our eyes. So viewing distance matters.

Of coarse with more pixels, you'll be able to achieve better result. If the banners are your thing, then you should consult with the printer of the banners. They'll be able to tell you which would be the ideal file size for the size you're printing.

Seriously consider biting the bullet on a full frame Canon or Nikon. Not only for the sensor size, but also for better sport shooting capability --such as faster frame rates, faster focusing, external battery grips, etc. Yeah, we're talking serious cash here, but if you intend to do this on a regular basis it's the better way to go.

As far as the glass is concerned, the 70-200mm II VR f2.8 would be a great choice, but again, very pricy. The cheaper consumer grade 70-300, 80-300, etc. would be ok provided they can focus fast enough to follow the subject.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Thanks KPS. This isn't a professional gig, just a parent who is helping out a team without the funds to hire professional. Would be great to move all the way up to full crop camera but I'm already looking at dishing out cash just to help them out. And, since this will be my primary camera, a full crop camera might be too big for travel, etc. Still something to consider though. Which body would you recommend? I'd like to stick with Nikon to make use of my existing lenses and the features I'd want would be wide bracketing settings for HDR and HD-Video in addition to those already mentioned.

My current lens does a decent enough job at focusing but the reach could be better. Improved speed might give me more photo options (taking photos of riders rounding gates) as my current set-up gives me only one shot per gate.

Thanks for all the feedback, ehMac.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2011)

Just to chime in on full-frame vs. crop-frame for sports stuff ... if you're looking for reach (telephoto reach that is) you're going to lose some going to full-frame cameras. Also you can do battery grips and the like for almost any full-sized DSLR these days, at least from Nikon and Canon, regardless of the sensor size. Full-frame is nice for wide shots but not necessarily your friend if you are going long telephoto stuff.

I don't have any suggestions for Nikon for you Macifieid as I'm a Canon guy (too much invested in glass to change at this point!)

kps is right that consulting with the printing folks will give you a better idea of the needs for optimal printing, but I'm still confident that more megapixels is the first step to take without a doubt. Higher quality lenses will give you overall better image quality, but if you're having to up-res the photos you're sill losing out on any advantage the better quality lens is going to give you.

Bang-for-the-buck wise I'd go with a newer body with more megapixels and a cheap extender and take things from there.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macified said:


> Thanks KPS. This isn't a professional gig, just a parent who is helping out a team without the funds to hire professional. Would be great to move all the way up to full crop camera but I'm already looking at dishing out cash just to help them out. And, since this will be my primary camera, a full crop camera might be too big for travel, etc. Still something to consider though. Which body would you recommend? I'd like to stick with Nikon to make use of my existing lenses and the features I'd want would be wide bracketing settings for HDR and HD-Video in addition to those already mentioned.
> 
> My current lens does a decent enough job at focusing but the reach could be better. Improved speed might give me more photo options (taking photos of riders rounding gates) as my current set-up gives me only one shot per gate.
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback, ehMac.


I think your choice of the D7000 is most excellent. 

I have the D700 for the sole reason that I'm hung up on the whole full frame 35mm film look. LOL (I kid)

You just can't go wrong with the D7000 for $1200 compared to paying twice as much for a full frame if you really do not need it. You can also save a bundle in lenses. It is feature rich and I believe you can use the same battery grip as on the D300/D700 to get those frame numbers up. Plus it can do HD video for those rare occasions which may demand it.

I think in your case the priority is a new body, the lenses can wait for now. If you're not getting the reach with your current 210mm, you're not going to get it with a new Sigma 200mm and considering the prices of telephoto primes, my recommendation would be to get a DX zoom which is compatible with a Nikon tele-converter. Nikon makes a x1.2, x1.4 and a x1.7 converter ---also not cheap. So a 300mm lens with a x1.7 converter would equal a 510mm lens. Compatibility is important if you want to retain full functionality of the chip lenses. ie auto focus, etc.

The new body should resolve any high-shutter, smaller f-stop, higher-ISO issues which may arise using consumer grade lenses and the tele-converter

EDIT: Ah, mguertin beat me to it. LOL


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Thanks all. Looks like a D7000 is in my near future. Might pick up a less expensive longer lens and see how that goes. Can always upgrade to a better lens later.


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2011)

Macified said:


> Thanks all. Looks like a D7000 is in my near future. Might pick up a less expensive longer lens and see how that goes. Can always upgrade to a better lens later.


One word of advice ... cheap lenses just aren't worth it. Having more megapixels and a better sensor is only going to highlight how bad the cheaper lenses look  I'd start with a body and save up your pennies for a better telephoto lens further down the line.

Also a lot of the cheaper long lenses are pretty suspect, at least in my eyes. Getting closer is not going to help you much if the image is soft or has other technical issues.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

mguertin said:


> One word of advice ... cheap lenses just aren't worth it. Having more megapixels and a better sensor is only going to highlight how bad the cheaper lenses look  I'd start with a body and save up your pennies for a better telephoto lens further down the line.
> 
> Also a lot of the cheaper long lenses are pretty suspect, at least in my eyes. Getting closer is not going to help you much if the image is soft or has other technical issues.


Agree 100%. If you buy a good lens it will most likely carry you through several camera bodies. I'm only finally looking at replacing some of my oldest lenses with newer stabilized ones after 20+ years of hard use. 

Because it is a problem with resolution the more MP you have the better, er well at least in this instance since we are talking about DSLR sensors which are a decent size. Though I think we are reaching a plateau where manufactures are realizing that lots of MP does not always equal better resolution and the opposite can come into play. Granted the cameras firmware can have a big impact on this as well.

In terms of aperture, f2.8 is handy when you must use faster shutters speeds to freeze action but may give you a decrease in depth of field. This might depend though on how far away you are from your subjects so if you aren't close then once you are out at infinity this may not be an issue. If it's close in shots then the shallow depth of field could become a problem.

One other factor may be high ISO noise, in other words how high can you bump the ISO setting of your camera and when it is that high do you run into digital noise issues. High ISO can be very handy when shooting action and you need to have the high shutter speeds in order to freeze that action. 

And finally, I would also see what kind of AF performance the camera has since you are shooting fast moving subjects if the AF isn't up to the job then that can also be a problem. 

Sites like robgalbraith.com and dpreview.com have some pretty extensive forums with lots of feedback from end users granted take some of it with a grain of salt as there seem to be folks who will shoot down a piece of gear and they have never even used it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2011)

Niteshooter said:


> Because it is a problem with resolution the more MP you have the better, er well at least in this instance since we are talking about DSLR sensors which are a decent size. Though I think we are reaching a plateau where manufactures are realizing that lots of MP does not always equal better resolution and the opposite can come into play. Granted the cameras firmware can have a big impact on this as well.


Here's a really interesting observation regarding sensors vs. lenses as well, and why it's only worth going so far in terms of the sensors and the raw amounts of megapixels ... light diffraction.

Why Moore's Law does not apply to Digital Photography


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Few questions...

1) What software are you using to resample (upsize) the image? Photoshop? Custom resampling software, ie. PhotoZoom? Something else?

2) What post processing is being done, specifically, sharpening?

3) What is the typical viewing distance of the posters? If it's 10 feet, rather than 2, you will be able to print at a lower DPI and not have to resample at such a high density. Have a colleague who created an ad image that ended up 30' high. However, it was going to be viewed from a couple hundred feet (side of a water tower) and final resolution was 12 dpi.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Thanks for the added feedback. 

I use photoshop to do the primary resizing but don't know what they are using on the printers end for final. Will have to look into the details to be sure I am optimizing the image.


----------



## boukman2 (Apr 6, 2009)

you might look at the new nikon 5100. seems to be quite nice, lots of pixels for enlarging and only about $750 with a lens...


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

The only problems I see with 5100 are the support for legacy lenses and the control system. The 7100 will use my older lenses while maintaining autofocus control and provides non-menu driven control over camera functions.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*D7000 best value!*



Macified said:


> The only problems I see with 5100 are the support for legacy lenses and the control system. The 7100 will use my older lenses while maintaining autofocus control and provides non-menu driven control over camera functions.


I have an entry level camera like yours, the D60 body on a budget a while back. Bought the older 18-70mm nikkor (which I heard is really good on the D7000) which I knew was better than the kit lens. The lack of Vr was not an issue. Just added the newly released 1.8 50mm Nikon lens which will work on my D60. As soon as I can I will get the D7000, heard and seen such great things about it.
If you have such a collection of usable lens why buy a lens now? There is the older but extremely sharp F1.4 or F1.8 Nikon lens perfect for your D7000 to be.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

JCCanuck said:


> I have an entry level camera like yours, the D60 body on a budget a while back. Bought the older 18-70mm nikkor (which I heard is really good on the D7000) which I knew was better than the kit lens. The lack of Vr was not an issue. Just added the newly released 1.8 50mm Nikon lens which will work on my D60. As soon as I can I will get the D7000, heard and seen such great things about it.
> If you have such a collection of usable lens why buy a lens now? There is the older but extremely sharp F1.4 or F1.8 Nikon lens perfect for your D7000 to be.


I have several lenses which were originally intended for use on the older film camera but which work just fine on my D50 (since it has the focusing motor built-in). Moving to a camera without a focusing motor means that only lenses with motor will auto-focus. The only reasons I would be looking for new lenses would be to improve on what I already have (ie. faster, longer).


----------

