Help to justify me getting work NOT to buy a D200
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:04 pm
I've just heard that we are to buy a new camera for our "photographer" at work. He currently has a Nikon d70s with a fairly decent lens (its AF-S VR ... think its the 18-200mm). At any rate, its a good combo.
As I run a d70 myself (albeit with the kit lens), I know that the major limitation for me, is my own abilities. The camera does far more than I know how to extract from it, and quite frankly I feel that this might be the case with our "photographer".
A new publications person has started (we have finally put on a professional, the first time the department hasn't had someone inherit or fall in to the roll), and they must have complained about the quality of photograph being submitted for print and online publishing.
An example of the quality is below.
Please click the link for a full resolution version
http://www.oz8.org/gallery/albums/Seedyrom/DSC_1718.jpg
I have removed the boy's face obviously.
The publications department manager has told me to buy a new camera - a "better" one than the current one, as its a couple of years old now. As that obviously is where the fault lies.
Better than a d70s ? Initially I thought "i'm not going to get him a d200 - thats rediculous.
But I think its the old attitude of "6 megapixels is small in this day and age".
I then remembered the d80, which may fill the gap. But I don't feel this is the problem.
Can anyone look at the EXIF data of the picture, and tell me if I am off track with my thinking?
I think:
1. A flash should have been used
2. The photographer, even with a lens with VR, had shaky hands (he's in his 70's - not being agist, just realistic)
3. The exposure time was too long
4. A better camera, would not have made a difference
Also some photos taken appear grainy.
Would shooting in RAW then waiting till post processing to convert to JPG help with that?
I'm not on a witch hunt after the guy, but we floored when they said to get a better camera than the one he has (even though its better than mine).
As I run a d70 myself (albeit with the kit lens), I know that the major limitation for me, is my own abilities. The camera does far more than I know how to extract from it, and quite frankly I feel that this might be the case with our "photographer".
A new publications person has started (we have finally put on a professional, the first time the department hasn't had someone inherit or fall in to the roll), and they must have complained about the quality of photograph being submitted for print and online publishing.
An example of the quality is below.
Please click the link for a full resolution version
http://www.oz8.org/gallery/albums/Seedyrom/DSC_1718.jpg
I have removed the boy's face obviously.
The publications department manager has told me to buy a new camera - a "better" one than the current one, as its a couple of years old now. As that obviously is where the fault lies.
Better than a d70s ? Initially I thought "i'm not going to get him a d200 - thats rediculous.
But I think its the old attitude of "6 megapixels is small in this day and age".
I then remembered the d80, which may fill the gap. But I don't feel this is the problem.
Can anyone look at the EXIF data of the picture, and tell me if I am off track with my thinking?
I think:
1. A flash should have been used
2. The photographer, even with a lens with VR, had shaky hands (he's in his 70's - not being agist, just realistic)
3. The exposure time was too long
4. A better camera, would not have made a difference
Also some photos taken appear grainy.
Would shooting in RAW then waiting till post processing to convert to JPG help with that?
I'm not on a witch hunt after the guy, but we floored when they said to get a better camera than the one he has (even though its better than mine).