Will a better camera increase the quality my lenses produces?

goldielock03 · Mar 25, 2011

I am in a debate. I have been a pro photographer for 2 years now and my Nikon D300 has served me well. However, I am now getting into way more demanding work that requires more quality. I am stuck on if this is my camera, or my lenses. The problem I am having with quality is pixelation, which I believe to be a combination of only 12 megapixels and the fact that the D300 loses quality so fast when increasing the ISO. I find this most in peoples faces (which becomes extremely imporatant). My lenses are a mix of Nikon (3.5-5.6F 18-55mm) and Sigma (2.8F 50-150mm, 1.4F 35mm, and 3.5-5.6 150-500mm). My question is, will a new higher quality camera body bring out the best quality from my lenses, or should I be upgrading all my lenses? I am leaning towards thinking it's the camera, but would like other's opinions. I hate having pixelated faces, and I have heard both sides so I am stuck. Thanks for you help!

Bitter Jeweler · Mar 25, 2011

Sounds like you need a camera with better high ISO capabilities.

reedshots · Mar 25, 2011

WOW a pro photographer for two years should know the answer to this question - but sounds like you need a better camera (full frame, high ISO) and better lenses - Sigma - makes some pretty good lenses but if you have a Nikon I would have Nikon lenses.

Derrel · Mar 25, 2011

"Pixellation" with a 12 MP camera? Perhaps this is a case of you not knowing the proper terminology to use in your case, but there ought to be absolutely NO "pixellation" from 12 MP d-slr files until you're making very,very,very large enlargements or doing extreme cropping. What mode are you capturing in? Is it possible that you're capturing your images at something less than the full 12 megapixel size? Or perhaps you mean digital noise and blotchiness from using the D300 at elevated ISO levels under poor lighting conditions? Are you capturing your images in .NEF mode, or JPEG?

A sample photo or two would be very helpful to clear up what, exactly, it is that you're having issues with.

480sparky · Mar 25, 2011

If you've got DX lenses, they won't work very well on an FX Nikon.

Propsguy · Mar 25, 2011

Yes... a better body, in the right conditions, will increase the quality of your output. However, it goes both ways... better lenses will take advantage of your excellent sensor...

But it sounds like better lighting condition will solve all your problems.... What part of your work is becoming more demanding?... Why are you pushing the iso capabilities of your camera?... If it's possible to solve this with lighting, I'd explore that route before possibly investing in replacing gear that gives you a very incremental increase in performance at a very high cost...

goldielock03 · Mar 25, 2011

Sorry I guess I should have made it a bit more clear. I am trying to attach some images for examples, but it won't let me as they do not have URL's. I am new to this, so is there a way to just put images from my hard drive on here?

480sparky · Mar 25, 2011

Click here.

goldielock03 · Mar 25, 2011

Propsguy said:
Yes... a better body, in the right conditions, will increase the quality of your output. However, it goes both ways... better lenses will take advantage of your excellent sensor...

But it sounds like better lighting condition will solve all your problems.... What part of your work is becoming more demanding?... Why are you pushing the iso capabilities of your camera?... If it's possible to solve this with lighting, I'd explore that route before possibly investing in replacing gear that gives you a very incremental increase in performance at a very high cost...

Mostly indoor sports/activities where lighting cannot be improved. I use a 2.8 aperture lens with a Nikon D300 camera body. In good conditions, I try to shoot with an ISO of 640, because as soon as I go higher the noise becomes a huge problem. This becomes an issue as I blow up lots of these images as collages in frames, and when the faces are noisy, the quality drops dramatically. That mixed with pictures where I must crop makes it worse. Same thing for weddings. Which brings me back to my question-is this a camera body issue, or my lenses?

Bitter Jeweler · Mar 25, 2011

You need a camera with better high ISO performance.

goldielock03 · Mar 25, 2011

Thanks! Here's a few examples of what I mean. The first is a hockey tournament I did. The player in the red was taken with my affiliates camera with the settings 1/500, 2.8F, ISO 800, and the player in the white is taken with the identical settings with my camera. I actually shot at a higher quality than he did (he shot in normal, I shot in fine), but his camers has 18 Megapixels, while mine is only 12. Not sure if you can see the difference, but when you blow the images up, it becomes very obvious to me. Also is a picture of a boy I took at ISO 1000 with my Nikon lens, and the girl was taken at ISO 200 (same location, she was just in the spotlight). Again, a MASSIVE quality difference. The first to me signifies the megapixels, while the second set the ISO. Again, any input is appreciated.

Propsguy · Mar 25, 2011

Bitter said it right the first time.... Higher ISO performance is what you need...

D700 or a D3 will solve all your problems...

Unless you have a serious budget to throw at a body, forget about resolution... 12 Megs is fine...

P.

Bitter Jeweler · Mar 25, 2011

If you shoot raw, you'll have more leeway with post processing before you get pixelation.
Did the other photographer do any post work? Or even in camera sharpening, or other image quality settings, like "vibrant"?

goldielock03 · Mar 25, 2011

Thanks for the input. That image from the other photographer's camera had no post process, but insists that we shoot in JPEG for the hockey (long story, but there is no gain in arguing with him). The shots of the kids were in RAW as I only shoot in RAW for my work. Thanks for that idea though

I agree it's mostly an ISO issue as noise is my biggest problem. I as of now have the budget to go with the new D3X and know it will last quite awhile. Do any of you have this camera, and if so, was there a big improvement in quality?

Drake · Mar 26, 2011

I am sorry, but I think that neither a better camera nor the lens will help you. My Rebel XS with my cheap lens is capable of producing much sharper images than the ones you posted. And the D300 you have is a much better camera.

Are these photos cropped? I think your hockey photo has problems with focus/motion blur. The one with the kid - again, it's pretty clear that your lens was focused on the background, leaving the kid blurred. And as for the girl, it's also not what the camera can do. I assume this one was shot with the 18-55mm lens. No idea which one, as there are a couple versions, but still, I think any of them could be sharper than that. Have you really focused on the face of the girl?