Help to justify me getting work NOT to buy a D200

[seedyrom]

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).

[Kyle]

Grainy is noise, which is due to bumping up the iso. Sadly the nikon's don't like it too much.

I see no issue in using the d70 for your reuqirements, it's still very capable. I still use mine and always have it with me and the d200...



Nice to see you post here also

[bwhinnen]

Umm that is only a medium sized jpeg image, not a large. It is not even at 6MP resolution. Shoot in RAW or Large Fine and you will see an improvement for print. But what dpi are the photos being submitted to the printer as? What ISO was used etc...

I do know that for magazine printing even at full A4 page a 6MP image will be suitable and even if not you can use techniques to increase it within PS and other tools. I have some images printed in a magazine as a centre-spread from the D70 and they are perfect.

Just my thoughts.

[seedyrom]

I'm not too sure of the details regarding ISO used. I'm assuming dpi is 600.


The photos taken will range from action shots at sporting events to portrait style.

I was thinking that rather than spend the money on anything too flash, that paying for a service/clean and maybe investing in a good lens - even "just" a Sigma 70-200, and the addition of a SB-600 might be better than blowing a heap of money on hardware (bodies) that wont be used or needed.

[Glen]

Seedy, you are dead right. First thing what is wrong with that photo is composition, as Matt K says "no brick walls". That image would look a mile better taken against an oval or field with a shallow DOF (Itwas taken at f5 which is good). Second, it must have been taken inside as it has been taken at f5 for 1/15sec at 55mm. The minimum should be 1/55sec to avoid camera shake, that is why the image is soft.

Based on the above factors I would suggest a flash and sharper glass if required as one cant tell from this example. Good luck

[Oz_Beachside]

A D1, or D100 2.7 MP would probably do ok too, so no, a D200 wont change some of the basics. More MP doesnt give you better exposure, nor better lighting etc.

Invest the money in learning, and possibly accesories.

If a $2000 budget is there, how about $1000 on a short course, and $700 on a flash, with a stoffen, and a flash camera bracket to get the flash off the "over the lens" hotshoe?

[sirhc55]

I'm not too sure of the details regarding ISO used. I'm assuming dpi is 600.


The photos taken will range from action shots at sporting events to portrait style.

I was thinking that rather than spend the money on anything too flash, that paying for a service/clean and maybe investing in a good lens - even "just" a Sigma 70-200, and the addition of a SB-600 might be better than blowing a heap of money on hardware (bodies) that wont be used or needed.

dpi for print purposes (litho, not home printer) is 300 - 600dpi is normally used for vector graphics

[Matt. K]

That photograph was taken by an amateur...not a professional. And I'm not looking at the technical details.