Which to upgrade: lens or body?

[gibson12]

I recently bought a Nikon D3300 and have only used the lens that came with it. I am thinking about investing in upgrading, but was unsure which was more cost effective in terms of picture quality: upgrading the body or getting a better lens.

A family member has a Nikon D7100. He shoots on automatic and really doesn't even know how to use the manual controls. His pictures look, to me, very crisp and have a quality that I'd like my Disney photos to have. Could I get that with a certain lens or only by upgrading the body?

 

[wdwmagic]

I recently bought a Nikon D3300 and have only used the lens that came with it. I am thinking about investing in upgrading, but was unsure which was more cost effective in terms of picture quality: upgrading the body or getting a better lens.

A family member has a Nikon D7100. He shoots on automatic and really doesn't even know how to use the manual controls. His pictures look, to me, very crisp and have a quality that I'd like my Disney photos to have. Could I get that with a certain lens or only by upgrading the body?

It depends where you are looking to improve performance in the system.

What do you see as the biggest issue with your current setup?

 

[gibson12]

Better low light photos. I'm going to try to take dark ride photos no matter what camera I have, so even when I just had a point and click, I still tried to use manual settings when I could. But even my nighttime outdoor photos are not quite what I'd like. Maybe it's a matter of getting more practice, but I thought maybe a body with a bigger sensor or a lens that lets in more light would get me closer to what I was hoping for.

Thank you for the response.

 

[NowInc]

Better low light photos. I'm going to try to take dark ride photos no matter what camera I have, so even when I just had a point and click, I still tried to use manual settings when I could. But even my nighttime outdoor photos are not quite what I'd like. Maybe it's a matter of getting more practice, but I thought maybe a body with a bigger sensor or a lens that lets in more light would get me closer to what I was hoping for.

Thank you for the response.

Good glass will last a lot longer than a good body. HOWEVER, an entry level DSLR will not perform as well in low light, but that doesn't mean to rush into an upgrade. How familiar are you with the camera you currently have? Do you shoot in manual?

 

[wdwmagic]

Better low light photos. I'm going to try to take dark ride photos no matter what camera I have, so even when I just had a point and click, I still tried to use manual settings when I could. But even my nighttime outdoor photos are not quite what I'd like. Maybe it's a matter of getting more practice, but I thought maybe a body with a bigger sensor or a lens that lets in more light would get me closer to what I was hoping for.

Thank you for the response.

The area you are looking to improve on is unfortunately one of those that is achieved by throwing more money at the problem.

A high end body will in most cases have superior high ISO performance, and high end lens choices are typically faster.

Which to do first is one of those things that will always be debated, but I tend to have found the biggest leap to be in a new body, assuming the lens you currently have is reasonable, and the new body is a significant upgrade from the existing.

Having said all that, your existing camera is an entry level model, and adding a high end lens is not going to overcome the sensor limitations.

 

[gibson12]

Having said all that, your existing camera is an entry level model, and adding a high end lens is not going to overcome the sensor limitations

I think this is what I was hoping to hear--that I'm not going to get drastically better low light photos with just upgrading the lens. I do shoot a little manual here and there, but no, I'm not very familiar with the camera yet. I can get somewhat decent shots when I have time to set up, but still not as sharp as what I'd ideally want. Sounds like when I'm ready, it's going to take an investment in both lens and body.

Thanks, guys.

 

[thomas998]

The area you are looking to improve on is unfortunately one of those that is achieved by throwing more money at the problem.

A high end body will in most cases have superior high ISO performance, and high end lens choices are typically faster.

Which to do first is one of those things that will always be debated, but I tend to have found the biggest leap to be in a new body, assuming the lens you currently have is reasonable, and the new body is a significant upgrade from the existing.

Having said all that, your existing camera is an entry level model, and adding a high end lens is not going to overcome the sensor limitations.

Trouble is he is trying to go after the white whale of WDW photos.... the illusive dark ride.

Assuming he doesn't want to spend a several thousand dollars he really isn't going to get it by simply getting a better body, because then his lens will be the problem.... Not saying he will get a great shot with a super fast lens and his current body, but I would expect that if he has to pick between the two that getting a faster lens will get him closer to what he wants to get.... I managed to get some reasonable shots years ago with a Nikon D50 and a 50mm f1.2 lens... I'm pretty sure the D3300 he is using is much better than the old D50 which I think only went up to ISO 1600...

My bigger concern is that he isn't happy with the photos he's getting now in regular light. I would think that a D3300 would be a able to take perfectly good photos in daylight even with a kit lens... If those shots aren't looking right then either the equipment or user isn't right.

TO the OP: What settings are you using right now with the camera, are you taking photos in RAW? What is the ISO set at? What software are you using for post processing? Do you have any example of a shot you don't think looks quite right that you can post?

 

[gibson12]

Update: I finally upgraded to the D7100, but I am now looking for a lens to pair it with. Right now, I am looking to only buy 1 lens that can do as much as possible. I'm reading articles online, but many of them are old and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Any recommendations for the best all in one lens?

 

[thomas998]

Update: I finally upgraded to the D7100, but I am now looking for a lens to pair it with. Right now, I am looking to only buy 1 lens that can do as much as possible. I'm reading articles online, but many of them are old and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Any recommendations for the best all in one lens?

Well your D7100 has a built in focus motor so you can get pretty much any Nikon lens or Nikon mount compatible lens made in the last 40 years with no issues. I'm assuming you still have the kit lens that came with the D3300 you have so you already have that one which is probably wide enough for most of the shots you might want. The question is whether you want to or think you need a lens to get closer or are still looking for low something for lowlights. You also need to decide if you want to spend lot of money on a new lens or lot less by buying a used lens. A 50mm 1.4 could be had for less than 200 used... If you want a wider lens then about the only thing you'll find that is in the reasonable price range would be a 28mm 2.8 which would still be faster than your kit lens but not quite as wide as it is.... Those suggestions are just if you are still looking for dark ride photos.

 

[fractal]

I find the 35mm focal length (24mm in crop) the most versatile. Not sure if Nikon has a 24mm 1.8 APS-C lens, but it's typically wide enough for landscape, but can still be used for portraits and is nice as a "walk around" lens.

 

[thomas998]

I find the 35mm focal length (24mm in crop) the most versatile. Not sure if Nikon has a 24mm 1.8 APS-C lens, but it's typically wide enough for landscape, but can still be used for portraits and is nice as a "walk around" lens.

Nikon makes a 24mm 1.8 but it isn't cheap. They run around 750 new and used are hard to find under 600. Although you can get a sigma 24mm 1.8 Nikon mount that you can find used for around 250 which will auto focus with the D7100, but not with the D3300.

 

[gibson12]

Nikon makes a 24mm 1.8 but it isn't cheap. They run around 750 new and used are hard to find under 600. Although you can get a sigma 24mm 1.8 Nikon mount that you can find used for around 250 which will auto focus with the D7100, but not with the D3300.

Would that 24mm 1.8 be better than the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM? I'm leaning towards that lens because it's shown up a couple times in the articles I've read. What I'm hoping for is a lens that will give me some capability of getting low-light photos, but be able to use the same lens to get reasonably sharp photos for most other pictures, like the architecture in Epcot. I've looked at a few others, but I think I'm going to want something that goes to 1.8 or faster.

 

[thomas998]

Would that 24mm 1.8 be better than the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM? I'm leaning towards that lens because it's shown up a couple times in the articles I've read. What I'm hoping for is a lens that will give me some capability of getting low-light photos, but be able to use the same lens to get reasonably sharp photos for most other pictures, like the architecture in Epcot. I've looked at a few others, but I think I'm going to want something that goes to 1.8 or faster.

Well the two lenses are different because one is a prime the other isn't. The Sigma would clearly give you more options simply because it goes from 18 to 35... but the Nikon is probably as sharp or slightly sharper than the Sigma at the same focal length... though you would probably have to look very hard to see the difference. You biggest difference between the two beyond their focal lengths is that the Nikon will work on a full frame if you ever move to full frame later on, the Sigma is a APS sensor size lens so it will not work properly on a full frame if you ever upgrade in the future.

I honestly wouldn't waste the money on the super fast lenses beyond a 1.8 for dark rides. I've gone down that road before myself and I can tell you from experience that when you start using super fast lenses the depth of field become so shallow wide open that you are very hard pressed to get photos you are happy with. I've used a 50mm 1.2 on several trips trying to get the perfect shot and failed, one trip I was satisfied with what I got but it was when the lens wasn't even wide open so really I could have used a 1.8 lens and gotten the same shot. In general I have been happier with shots from an old 35mm 2.8 summicron that I've used with an adapter... much more forgiving on the focus which is difficult to get on a dark ride as if you use an AF lens it tends to hunt in the dark unless you use a focus assist light which will spoil the ride for people around you.

 

[gibson12]

Well, I took your advice. My Nikon 24mm f 1.8 arrives this week. Not planning any trips to Disney any time soon, so I'll have to test it around the neighborhood. I've got a lot to learn!

 

[gibson12]

Okay, so now I have some questions, and I hope this isn't an obnoxious thing to ask. So, I opened the package, snapped my new 24mm f 1.8 on my D7100, flipped it to automatic, and took one photo out my window. To me, it doesn't look the least bit sharp. Shouldn't this lens be able to give me better images even if I'm not shooting manual? Obviously, there is no post processing here. Even so, I wasn't expecting the pictures to look this soft. Please don't rip me a new one, I genuinely want to learn.

 

[Clamman73]

Okay, so now I have some questions, and I hope this isn't an obnoxious thing to ask. So, I opened the package, snapped my new 24mm f 1.8 on my D7100, flipped it to automatic, and took one photo out my window. To me, it doesn't look the least bit sharp. Shouldn't this lens be able to give me better images even if I'm not shooting manual? Obviously, there is no post processing here. Even so, I wasn't expecting the pictures to look this soft. Please don't rip me a new one, I genuinely want to learn.

View attachment 318076

What are some of the settings from the picture? shutter speed, f-stop and ISO? Looks like you're in a shady spot and the camera is bringing up the exposure because the sky is blown out.

 

[fractal]

Okay, so now I have some questions, and I hope this isn't an obnoxious thing to ask. So, I opened the package, snapped my new 24mm f 1.8 on my D7100, flipped it to automatic, and took one photo out my window. To me, it doesn't look the least bit sharp. Shouldn't this lens be able to give me better images even if I'm not shooting manual? Obviously, there is no post processing here. Even so, I wasn't expecting the pictures to look this soft. Please don't rip me a new one, I genuinely want to learn.

View attachment 318076

As @Clamman73 said, we really need to know the settings before offering any opinion.

Even better - put the camera on a tripod and shoot at a bookshelf or any scene with letters, numbers and other detail and different colors. Shoot at different apertures @ ISO 100 (only adjust the shutter speed) really, I would just like to see it at f/1.8, f/4 and f/8. That should give you enough information for a proper assessment of sharpness.

 

[thomas998]

Okay, so now I have some questions, and I hope this isn't an obnoxious thing to ask. So, I opened the package, snapped my new 24mm f 1.8 on my D7100, flipped it to automatic, and took one photo out my window. To me, it doesn't look the least bit sharp. Shouldn't this lens be able to give me better images even if I'm not shooting manual? Obviously, there is no post processing here. Even so, I wasn't expecting the pictures to look this soft. Please don't rip me a new one, I genuinely want to learn.

View attachment 318076

This is a very small jpg... what size file is the camera set to save? I would suggest if you want to test it out then start by setting it to RAW and then open it using the Nikon software. I'm guessing that you have the camera on P mode, but when you open the photo in the Nikon software you should be able to tell what the settings were that the camera used for the photo. At the very least copy that data down and post it with the photo. It may simply be that you have set the camera to save small jpg images which may be causing the image to look soft... Otherwise it would appear to me that the camera is focused sharpest on the umbrella corner closest to the camera which would tend to make the rest of the image that was further away much softer.

 

[gibson12]

This is ISO-100, f/1.8, 1/25 sec,

ISO-100, f/4, 0.62 sec.

ISO-100, f/8, 2.5 sec

 

[thomas998]

This is ISO-100, f/1.8, 1/25 sec,
View attachment 318816
ISO-100, f/4, 0.62 sec.
View attachment 318817
ISO-100, f/8, 2.5 sec
View attachment 318818

Okay... if I might make one suggestion... don't use ISO 100 unless you are in a seriously bright environment. Your camera will be nice and sharp with low noise at a much higher ISO than 100... You can safely count on ISO 800 and unless you plan on some serious sized photos 1600 will likely be none the worse for most things.

When you do shots at ISO 100 you are increasing the chances of camera shake unless you are on a tripod and are using a timer on the camera. Even if it is on a tripod, you pressing the shutter can cause it to shake a tiny bit.

Also are you going manual? Or did the camera choose these setting on P mode? I can't believe the camera would have picked those setting for the first photo, seems very underexposed.