Camera Advice

[lee G.]

Nick my wifes phone is a 8mp, and those little lens are are easy to make (cheap) opposed to big camera lens.

So they take really good pics.

[Al Agnew]

As I said before and has also been pointed out by others, more megapixels is good if you are taking wildlife photos. People often have an inflated idea of how much a given telephoto lens brings stuff in close. A 200 mm lens in itself is almost worthless for wildlife photography. You need at least 400 mm, and then you're getting into really big bucks. But if you have enough megapixels, AND are willing to use a tripod at every opportunity, AND have a tack sharp lens, you can get by with 200 mm because you can enlarge and crop and still retain detail.

If all you want to do is post photos on the computer, which most casual shooters do, then you don't need the megapixels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the highest resolution you can get on the internet is 72 ppi (pixels per inch). So unless you really want to do a lot of wildlife photography, I'd go with a good range of lenses and a lesser megapixel camera, too.

Keep in mind, though, that you don't have to shoot a high megapixel camera at the highest resolution. Most give you the choice of shooting with the highest megapixel setting or a couple of lower megapixel settings. So when you have the high megapixel camera, you can set it to the highest resolution when you're shooting a subject that needs it, and at the lower resolution setting when you want smaller files and more pics per memory card.

[lee G.]

I been thinking about that 3100 Nick, and i wouldnt mind upgradeing from my d-40 at all!

[lee G.]

Al made the point I left out on lens, a big lens is less important than how close you can get to the bird or animal in the wild. Even a 400 wont work unless you are really close to a bird!

And I am talking 20 ft or so. But then there is cropping too, lol, round and round we go!

[ness]

As I said before and has also been pointed out by others, more megapixels is good if you are taking wildlife photos. People often have an inflated idea of how much a given telephoto lens brings stuff in close. A 200 mm lens in itself is almost worthless for wildlife photography. You need at least 400 mm, and then you're getting into really big bucks. But if you have enough megapixels, AND are willing to use a tripod at every opportunity, AND have a tack sharp lens, you can get by with 200 mm because you can enlarge and crop and still retain detail.

If all you want to do is post photos on the computer, which most casual shooters do, then you don't need the megapixels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the highest resolution you can get on the internet is 72 ppi (pixels per inch). So unless you really want to do a lot of wildlife photography, I'd go with a good range of lenses and a lesser megapixel camera, too.

Keep in mind, though, that you don't have to shoot a high megapixel camera at the highest resolution. Most give you the choice of shooting with the highest megapixel setting or a couple of lower megapixel settings. So when you have the high megapixel camera, you can set it to the highest resolution when you're shooting a subject that needs it, and at the lower resolution setting when you want smaller files and more pics per memory card.

200 almost worthless for wildlife? Naw -- scoot up. Tripod -- always; 400 isn't really in the cards for the vast majority of folks.

Most serious photographers aren't adjusting resolution in-camera, they're shooting RAW. Much more info in a RAW file than a compressed jpeg. You've got a stop or more latitude in exposure, more dynamic range, and room for other adjustments too. I only use jpg for output -- whether it's computer, web or print.

[ness]

Alright -- here's two pictures taken with the same camera, same settings, on a tripod, only changing the lens and then refocusing. One picture was with the Nikkor AF-S 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 G ED; the other with Nikkor AF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 G.

The main differences spec-wise between the two lenses are: the 18-55 has a larger minimum aperture (the 5.6) compared to the 18-70. The bigger difference is indicated by the "ED" on the 18-70. It stands for "Extra-low Dispersion", which is Nikon's higher quality glass formula.

Settings were 200 ISO, aperture priority, f/8. Zoomed to 50 mm. There's a slight difference in the angle, as I probably moved the camera slightly when changing lenses. Also, the 18-55 shot was at 1/40; the other at 1/30. Camera decided that, possibly because of the camera movement picking a slightly different exposure.

I focused on the center of the yellow flower in the middle of the frame. See any differences between the two?

[lee G.]

Yeah the bottom is sharper, and I like the exposure better.

But my eyes arent very good in my old age, so I may be totally wrong on both counts.

[Nick Williams]

I agree, the second photo appears to be sharper/clearer, as well as but also closer. Not sure if that is a trick my mind is playing on me though. What difference should we be seeing? What's the lesson?

[ness]

What I see on my computer here at work is always different from what I see on my computer at home. My monitor at home is just brighter than this one. Here at work I like the exposure on the second one better -- the first is a little dim and loses stuff in the darker areas. At home, the second one is a little blown out -- the details in the brightest part of the yellow get lost.The first one looks better.

It's an imperfect experiment, and there would probably be better ways to demonstrate 'sharpness', which was my intent. The differences in sharpness I notice most are outside the center of the picture. Look at the dead flower and frog to the left. And the detail in the table. It's pretty subtle, but you should see the first picture is crisper than the second in those areas.

All that said, I guess I haven't made a real good argument for buying better lenses, have I. But you should do it anyway

[lee G.]

No, Ness you got it right , better glass is good, but the puter isnt the best way to compare them, lol