Newbie Question on Lens

HipShot

My two cents:

Pick up a copy of the book "Digital Photography For Dummies", (nothing personal), at a local used-book store. It's a good starting point. It covers most of what's been mentioned, in a very organized fashion.

spraynpray

We are certainly getting detailed.

More like derailed...

METALBLADE

Thank you all for the responses once again. Ive been doing a lot of research since ive started taking photos as a hobby and a lot of what ive found is generic, like when shooting landscapes shoot f-16 or higher where as now i know thats not the case. Ive tried before in my back yard with a tripod going though every f-stop and didnt notice much of a change and now i see why. Theres is still so much for me to learn and ive been out since this convo has started and the pictures are crisp and clear especially the trees.

I think a lot of it is just the landscapes ive been shooting has had a lot of trees close which kinda of just becomes bland. When driving the past few days ive been looking at trees and thinking to myself, my pictures really look a lot at what i see and i think ive been over expecting how my pictures should look? Ive been looking at the last onces ive shot and they are pretty damn clear just as if i was looking at it in person so the lower f-stop helped with the blur. I think also that my expectations as to what i was expecting to take right off the bat has been off as well.

Like i said earlier alot of what got me into photography was seeing awesome pics in 500px.com and being like wow! i want to take similar photos and well, taking the super high end ones come with time. They are professionals that do this for a living or have been doing this for years apon years and have master lightroom or photoshop to get the exact look. Where as i am new and havent mastered these skills like they have which is what made me feel a bit down on the clarity of what i was taking. As i look at my account on 500px.com which you can check out here: http://500px.com/Metalblade (ide love to follow you all!) But as i can see the progression in the past 2 months of my editing and phots ive taken and i feel as though i have been slowly improving and i think the information given to me in the post has really really helped a lot and i want to take you all for that! I think with this information i will be able to take my photos to the next level.

In time i do hope to upgrade my equipment once ive gotten things down and i do think better equipment will help with certain things in my photos, but by then i will also have gotten better at what ive been doing. When i look at 500px all the best shots are done with high end $2 to $5k cameras. Well thats because their professionals and just know more of what their doing with their equipment and what their shooting and their editing.

Sorry for the long drawn out message, All in all i want to say thank you so much for the quick responses whether they were in debth or not they mean a lot to someone new like me to this who just needed someone to talk to in order to be pointed in the right direction.

Thank you all!!

Paperman

@TaoTeJared,

I am unable to comprehend your stubbornness on your interpretation of diffraction - that it varies from lens to lens - even though science and every article you will find on it will say it is NOT lens dependent. This discussion goes back 3 years at least and you simply refuse to believe any other fact other than your opinion.

My/our points are backed by science/numerous articles on the subject ( can provide links if interested ) where as I have not seen you come up with anything other than your opinion based on "observation".

Diffraction is not lens dependent; all that matters is the f-stop and the pixel size ( the latter determines if the deterioration in the image is visible to the eye or not ). That is why diffraction calculators do not ask you which lens you are using. It is more like a theoretical calculation of what the eye can see, not what it can see through a lens.

Some notes on your examples ....

- The Leica/Sigma example ...One can't say diffraction starts at f... in a lens - pixel information has to follow. Otherwise it is like a physics equation in which one tries to determine "velocity" by only knowing the "distance" covered.

- f64, 8x10 film & diffraction ... I wish you read more into that to get the full story.

TaoTeJared

Paperman - false, false and false. You guys have never shown one factual anything based on advance optical design - just the overly simplified cub-scout manual version of basic lens design from over 150 years ago. There are too many suffering from the "that sound plausible and could be true," so you believe it. Kind of like a statement of "bears sometimes have sex facing forward." Just because is sounds plausible and it sounds like it could be true, doesn't mean it is. (Thank you John Oliver.) Every correction for spherical aberrations, coma, parallax corrections, astigmatism, field curvatures, etc. can all effect when diffraction becomes visual and effects an image. Diffraction calculators use approximation calculations since there is no plausible way to enter every lens design, by every company that has ever existed into one. It is unrealistic to reverse engineering or measuring every single lens so a general approximation or an "average lens" or "ideal lens" as it is commonly referred to, is used. Any reputable article will always clarify and note this.
I have had over 60 lenses flow through my collection and each have had a different point when diffraction takes hold and becomes an issue. Just as every lens has a different point where it reaches it's sharpest, it also has a different point where diffraction starts to effect the image. The lens matters.

TaoTeJared

Like i said earlier alot of what got me into photography was seeing awesome pics in 500px.com and being like wow! i want to take similar photos and well, taking the super high end ones come with time.

One thing to always keep in mind is that for every "Wow" photo you see posted from a photographer, there are hundreds of thousands of "blah" ones that came before, and twice that many that will come after. Everyone puts their best foot forward.

When it comes to gear, you can make great photos with anything as long as you know it's limitations and work with in them. It is always much cheaper to take the extra minute to set a camera up correctly or read up on the optimal settings for a camera or lens are, than to buy new gear. Photography is always a game of compromise.

spraynpray

@TaoTeJared: So are we talking about big differences in when diffraction starts or is it like 1 stop over all lenses?

Vipmediastar_JZ

We are certainly getting detailed.

More like derailed...

Thats the reason I have learned so much here vs magazines, "classes" and the such on websites.

Like @METALBLADE said "since ive started taking photos as a hobby and a lot of what ive found is generic - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2984/newbie-question-on-lens#Item_28"

Thats what I like about NRF even if some heated discussion happen eventually somebody will pull out a scientific answer to clear the air.

Paperman

Diffraction related part continued below ...Think it is more appropriate to carry on under a related topic.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2918/diffraction-at-small-apertures-a-limiting-factor-in-sharpness/p1

Pistnbroke

is your camera straight out the box or did you adjust the picture settings..if you did not it will be soft and you need to adjust it not get a new camera.

TaoTeJared

@TaoTeJared: So are we talking about big differences in when diffraction starts or is it like 1 stop over all lenses?

Not big differences. 1-2 stops is what I have found usually somewhere from f/8-16. Macros generally perform better (push degrading diffraction off till later.)