File :-(, x, )
Is this as sharp as the 50mm 1.8 goes? Anonymous
This picture is a 100% crop, save for Web JPG from Photoshop CS3. No processing at all, the focus was on the lettering of the webcam.

Shot with a Canon 300D, 1/125 at f/2.0 and ISO 800. Natural light from window, no flash.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here. Followup post.

This is a cropped picture at screen resolution.

Would getting a flash help make my pictures sharper? I've seen some samples online, mostly cat or dog pictures where you could make out each individual hair.

I'm really not great at taking pictures so I'd like to know if getting a flash would make my shots sharper.
>> Anonymous
Hmm, the 50/1.8 should be sharper even when wide open.

However, if you want sharpness, stop the lens down by 1-2 stops; also lowering the ISO helps (your pics lack EXIF, but looks like it's at least ISO 400)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here.

Yeah, I read that it's at its sharpest at f/4.0.

Here is a sample I found. Taken at 1/400 at f/5.0 and ISO 400.

Go to this link for full size:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=358957364&size=l

I'd like to achieve that kind of sharpess but I don't know if it's me being a bad photographer or if I'm not using my equipment right.
>> Anonymous
use less iso. itll help.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is crop from Nikkor 50mm 1.8 af-d, D80, iso100 f1.8

I was lazy and printscreened the crop from LR to PS. You can get reasonably sharp photos even with aperture full open.
>> Anonymous
I also haven't noticed much difference between iso 100 or iso 1600. I use what iso it is needed to get the photo properly exposed.

Focus errors or camera movement cause the image to be unsharp.
>> Anonymous
>>89178
you may need to get your eyes checked
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
isn't the nikkor 50mm 1.8 supposed to be shit bear's balls and the canon a pale version?

I remember reading reviews somewhere... not that i care. I still got me a 1.4
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>89178
...

How the hell do you not see a difference between ISO100 and ISO1600 on a Digital Rebel?
>> Anonymous
>>89227

Never touched a digital rebel. It was just a general comment related to stuff I take with D80. Iso doesn't really seem to matter.
>> Anonymous
>>89232
Go read this: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>89232

The D80 has pretty good ISO performance... but to say 100 and 1600 is unnoticeable... well...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>89240

Well.. at least I don't care. It has some fluff there with iso1600, nothing critical. My photos suck anyways iso100 or 1600 isn't going to make or break it.
>> Anonymous
>>89242

You should probably wipe off your calculator every now and then.
>> Anonymous
>>89259
lol. mom, is that u?
>> des
You also have to remember that lenses have focus areas of best sharpness, too. I'm going to wager that cranked all the way to close focusing isn't where your 50 is the sharpest.
>> Anonymous
>>89259

It looks dirty only on photos :-P
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>89242
A challenger appears!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:07 13:41:12Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.270 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed288Camera Actuations-267255568Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
lenses are sharper 2 or 3 stops above thel owest setting. do you even know what "sharp" means though?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>89370

is that cleaner than the D80's 1600??

Canon's High ISO performance nearly caused me to jump ship since the D70s sucks donkey balls. But the D300 has prevented me from doing that since Nikon got their shit together... that and Canon's horrible ergonomics (IMO).
>> Anonymous
>>89469
it is resize though, you have to take that into consideration. the D80's just as good when resized and properly exposed.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>89469
Hm? Oh, actually I was just showing off that my HP50g graphing calculator was more awesome than the PoS calculator he had. The fact that my Rebel was set to ISO1600 was mostly a coincidence.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>89474
Here's the fullsized version, for what it's worth.

>>89469
Not really a good idea. Canon's had better high-ISO performance so far, but not by that much. Early reports suggest that Nikon has the lead with the D3. History suggests that that lead won't last long, neither will Canon's subsequent lead. History suggests that neither will have a big enough lead for long enough to justify investing in a totally new system.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:07 13:41:12Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.270 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed288Camera Actuations-267255568Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
>>89469
yeah i cant wait to get my hands on a D300. even the preproduction sample images have me sold. some people are disappointed by them, but i dont see how.
>> Anonymous
>>89486
I'm leaping right to the D300 myself for three reasons:

1. 100% viewfinder coverage and the resulting precision in composition makes me tingle, whereas pro body cost, shape, and heft does not.
2. I really like most of the focal lengths one gets from applying the 1.5x crop factor to most of the classic prime lengths. (For instance and especially, the 28mm to 42mm.)

3. 14 bit raw files.

Noise doesn't bother me so long as it isn't so egregious as to make the picture illegible.
>> Anonymous
>>89490
i like the crazy new AF system they are putting in it
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>89490

The main reasons why i'm getting a D300 are

The ISO performance... AC you may think there's not much difference but trust me... if you see the D70s at 800 you'll weep... it's barely comparable to your XTi at 1600... honestly.

The Autofocus will be the dog's balls, again the D70s fails miserably on this. As much as i love the camera, it's like a brother with down syndrome.

And also i caught wind of my dad fuckin his secretary, or one of his partner's secretary... or whatever the fuck. So i'm milking that fuckhead for what it's worth. Fucker is lucky i didn't ask for a new car.

But seriously though.

D70s --> D300 --> then i'll get the FX model with ISO 50 (if one ever comes out) since i love landscapes and long exposures.
>> Anonymous
>>89505
and weather sealing, and the beauty of a lcd screen, and 6 fps. also, i hear the new AF tracking is also orgasmic. im going up from a D80.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>89506

oh yeah, sealing. But that's a given. It's not a change from the D200. Sorry, i sort of meant reasons why i'm going for the D300 instead of the D200 which will probably be half the price. in a few weeks.
>> Anonymous
>>89507
Nikon doesn't really drop camera prices, even when a new model comes out, and it's likely going to be a while before the D300 is readily available enough to cause a significant drop in the D200's price.
>> Anonymous
>>89584
well nikon doesnt, but their values drop on the used market and such. D2Xs are already going around $2000, D200 near $1000 and such as people are trying to sell them to help fund their new D3/D300
>> Anonymous
>>89491
I'm sure it'll be good, but I'm a manual focuser big time. I like the control and absolutely guaranteed precision. And besides, the main lens I'm thinking I'm probably going to use with it is a manual focus only 28/2 Nikkor.
>> Anonymous
>>89587
manual focusing sucks with the included focusing screen. theres no guaranteed precision when you cant see shit. unless your lens isnt AF, or its just too dark to AF, or you changed your focusing screen, youre mostly better off autofocusing.
>> Anonymous
>>89588
I meant the autofocus can screw something up. You control it; unless you're an idiot, the lens is never going to pull in when it should go out or vice versa. Plus, it's faster if you prefocus.
>> Anonymous
>>89591
if you only shoot things that can be prefocused, sure. the only times the focus should seek is if the light is too low (like i already addressed) or youre trying to shoot something thats all the same color so it cant tell if its in focus or not.
>> Anonymous
>>89594
Pretty much anything that can be shot below f/5.6 or so can be prefocused, or at minimum, set close enough where on a quick touch-up is needed.

Autofocus takes a little bit, even if it doesn't have to search a lot, and while there are times where it's almost certainly going to search, the system can act funny at any time.
>> Anonymous
>>89595
but again, if your lens is a manual focus. if its autofocus, its probably like a quarter turn for the full focusing range. hard to change it just a hair because if you go too far, youre fucked. its not exactly a fast or precise focus there.