Really need feedback/expert advice...PLEASE?! : )

[optigirl]

I have owned my Nikon D40 for nearly 3 years now but have just recently started getting interested in what it's capability is when using my 50mm 1.4f lens. I just purchased this new lens. Before, I was just using the kit lens and a cheap zoom lens thinking I was hot stuff. Apparently, there is a lot more to photography than owning a cool Nikon LOL!

My focus right now is on Portrait photography. I have 2 small children and I want to take really crisp, sharp, vibrant photos of them. I want to be able to take a camera to them, and do a shoot and not have to spend hours in photoshop getting them to look professional. I have like a ZERO budget right now and am really not the most patient person in the world...would like that instant gradification.

Since I already invested in the $500 prime 50mm 1.4f lens, I think it's safe to bet that most of you would reccommend that I stay with Nikon. But, lately, I have come across some really nice portraits that my friend has been taking of her little one using her canon rebel xsi. She also shoots w/ a 50mm 1.4 and has recently updated to a 85mm 1.8 lens on top of a brand spanking new Canon 5D Mark II. That is outrageously expensive, but I have seen the results and am wondering if Canon is better than Nikon, or is she just that much better than I am at taking pictures? The difference is remarkable when comparing her Rebel with 50mm 1.4 VS my D40 using the same lens.

Which leads me to wonder, since I'm just starting out, would it be worth it to switch to Canon? It seems as though they have way more options as far as lenses go. Her 85mm 1.8 lens was WAAAY cheaper than the 85mm 1.4 that Nikon carries (I have the D40, so I am stuck with only AFS/G lenses...as far as I understand anyway.)

With all of this said, can anyone here lead me to the right direction? I want to produce high quality/professional photos w/out going bankrupt. Is it ok to keep a starter DSLR and just focus on investing in high quality lenses, or do I fork over the $ and get a professional level camera and go bankrupt on lenses too?

Ah, this is all so confusing! But, I wanna do this! Thanks in advance for all your support/advice!

Kimberly

 

[quiddity]

i would get together with her and have her show you how to duplicate the results with your d40

 

[MissCream]

It's not the camera. Keep your Nikon and ask her how she is taking her pictures. Does she use lighting that you don't have? This was taken with a Pentax and a 50mm using natural light. The main thing to remember is to focus on the eyes. Excuse the poor quality its posted from Facebook.

 

[Stradawhovious]

My guess is that your friend has a better understanding of how to take the photos, not that she has a better camera. Stick around, ask a bunch of questions, post some photos for critique and take a lot o pictures. Your D40 and 50mm 1.4 is capable of amazing things.

Remember, it's the Indian, not the arrow.

 

[tirediron]

It's very little about the equipment and ALL about the knowledge. Spend some time learning about light and how to control it. There are tons of excellent 'sites on-line as well as [probably] lots of library books on the subject. Your D40 and 1.4 are capable of producing prints every bit as good as your friends. In fact, at say, 5x7 in good light, you couldn't tell a print from your camera apart from one taken with D3x if they were shot by someone who knew what they were doing. Read, read, and read some more!

 

[optigirl]

Wow, that was fast! Thank you all for the advice. It's nice to hear that just keeping my D40 and doing some research on lighting ect is all it will take to produce the images I am looking for. However, if that is the case, then why do people upgdrade to begin with? It has to have some significant benefit to it?

I have tried all settings on my D40 (ISO, different apetures ect.) and still not finding the results I would like to see when it comes to duplicating my friends photos. She isn't doing anything I'm not doing that we can see that is. I have even shot with her Canon and gotten better results. Thats why I'm wondering if it would be worth it to make the switch. But, I have zero dollars to make a huge investment right now. I just downloaded Digital Photography for Dummies and Photography Lighting for Dummies. I will also try to read up on my D40's manual.

Any other advice/reading material I should look into?

PS: I work in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3. Do either of those make a difference to the end result or is a really good photo too good to need to be edited in the first place?

 

[tirediron]

First of all: Are you shooting RAW or .jpg? What about her images is better? Can you post some examples of yours and tells us what you feel the issues are with them?

 

[JenKat]

You could always post a few of your photos on here, let us know what you want from them, and maybe someone can give you some tips on how to get the photos you are after.

I'm still a noob, but with my point-and-shoot, I can get some pretty decent photos, even before I run them through LR. I am upgrading to a D80, but mainly so I have an actual dslr to work with, and have more manual ability...

EDIT: Lol. What tirediron said.

 

[BekahAura]

Try this experiment: Next time you meet up with your friend put both of your cameras in manual and set the shutter speed and apertures exactly the same, make sure the ISO and white balance is the same too. Get your tripod out and take a shot of a still life with one, and then without moving the tripod take the same shot with the other camera. I can almost guarantee that there will be no noticeable differences in the photos.

Stick with what you have, read all those books you got, and practice, practice, practice!

 

[ghache]

With that 1.4 lens you will by stuck on manual focus on you d40x, if your not taking sharp and in focus pictures, i suspect that may be your problem. dof is so short at 1.4 its really easy to miss the focus.

your camera is fine.

 

[Derrel]

*Software* is a huge deal. *Processing of the images* is also critical. Color modes and shooting modes are also a big factor. In fact the entire subject of color management can fill a book or two.

 

[o hey tyler]

It's solely the fact that she shoots Canon. That is your solution.

 

[KmH]

It's nice to hear that just keeping my D40 and doing some research on lighting ect is all it will take to produce the images I am looking for[/B]. Any other advice/reading material I should look into?

PS: I work in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3. Do either of those make a difference to the end result or is a really good photo too good to need to be edited in the first place?

Without a good understanding of photography technical fundamentals you will likely continue to be disappointed with your photos.

The editing function in Lightroom is virtually the same edit rendering engine as the Camera Raw ( ACR - Adobe Camera Raw) that is included with CS5. Lightroom was designed for professional photographers that make a high volume of photos on a regular basis.

Getting the photo as right as possible in the camera is the goal to shoot for. However, even then the photo will need to be finished with post processing of one sort or another.

 

[rambler]

A couple of tips I have read recently about taking portraits :Use the rule of thirds and put the eyes in the upper third. This can be done by cropping, if you missed it in your original. For example, with the picture of the cute baby above, one could crop out most of the space above the head and the child would be emphasized even more. (The rule of thirds is a bit confused with the baby at a slant.)
If you place that baby picture near the top of your computer screen, scroll down and "crop out" that red triangle. I do not think you have lost anything out of the picture.
Another thing to notice is lighting contrasts or shadows in portraits. One side of the face can have a lot of shadows. Shadows exaggerate lines or wrinkles. Do some research or do googles on using reflectors. Be careful of taking photos with the sun behind you and your subjects having to squint their eyes. Step into the shade and your subjects won't be rushing to get out of the glare of the sun.
Look carefully at both sides of the face of the baby. One side has a bit more shadow and one side is a bit more washed out. I think the subject is too cute to have the contrast here make much of a difference, but often contrasts are much more evident.
Use different angles. If you are always standing up when you shoot, you will always be looking down at your kids. Get down to their level, get lower and shoot up, or stand close and be looking down. In other words, move yourself, not just the subjects.
As to your question about Nikon or Canon...well do you want a Ford or a Chevy? When I once asked a Chevy dealer what was the difference between his car an the comparable Ford, he answered, "Well, this is a Chevy!"
I have yet to hear anyone say, "Oh, you must have taken this picture with a Nikon." The cameras have differences, but I do not believe the quality of your photos will suffer because you are not using a Canon.

 

[flea77]

People upgrade to increase their capabilities and improve their image quality. Can an expensive camera/lens take a better picture than a cheap camera/lens? You betcha! Anyone who says different is smoking the wacky weed. The problem is that the equipment makes FAR less difference in most situations than the photograper and many people think that means equipment doesn't matter.

For example, two equally talented photographers, one with a D40 and a kit 55-200 lens, the other with a D3 and a 85mm 1.4, The later will have a better looking set of photographs assuming they took portraits of the same people in the same light at the same time, under typical conditions.

Now, turn that around, a really good photographer and a really bad photographer using the D40/kit and D3/85 respectively, the former with the cheap camera will dust the latter. Why? Skill.

Lets sum it up this way.... less than 25 percent of image making is equipment under normal conditions (sports at night, weddings in dark churches, etc notwithstanding), the other 75 percent is the photographer. So does that mean that a crummy photographer can improve 25 percent buy buying extremely expensive equipment? Not really as they do not have the knowledge to actually use the equipment correctly in the first place. Sure, they may see a quick 5% jump in quality, but that's a lot of cash for such a little gain.

Cameras are tools, and it is MUCH more important to know how to correctly use a tool than to pay a lot for a tool. Then again, when I was a mechanic, I never saw anyone as a pro fixing cars with Wal-Mart tools

Allan