Choosing problems.

[haka1a]

Hello,

I'v been searched through internet for info but seems most likely that these so called professionals over the chat rooms says from their own point of views.

Firstly is it true that budjet class less than 1000€ cameras from nikon has superior STILL image quality to canon?

And then to choosing.
Wich one would be more for someone like me that photograph alot mostly landscapes and nature, would it be d90 or for more costly one d7000? I have Canon 1000d but im looking for more sharper images.

It isen't necessary for me to have 16mpx cause i print mostly a4 prints. (If i need more it would be panorama.)

And please consider that i like alot of manual mode cause i can take full controll and i don't have hurry, if it matters.

[tokyotom]

I don't know anything about Canon, but if you are shooting with manual lenses, the D7000 should be easier to focus with.

[Sloseph]

as a 1000D owner im more than happy with the image quality and the only time iv really felt limited with it when doing concert photography and even then its quite good

take a look here for some examples, all were taken with my cannon Flickr: sloseph's Photostream

[haka1a]

Well thats true that 1000d works fine in most photos but as i sayed i take alot of pictures from nature such as land- or waterscapes then it just wont focus nicely for such large area there is allways blurred trees.

Btw im not dump i do use f11-22 depends on lightning and i focus something in middle or something that i want to bring forth.

And yes i have tripod and some weights holding it still and i use self timer.
Sorry but i don't have references to show cause i dont keep the blurred or not so good photos around.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

It's possible you're experiencing diffraction in the f/11-f/22 range on the lens you're using and that's causing the softness, not the camera.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by haka1a

Well thats true that 1000d works fine in most photos but as i sayed i take alot of pictures from nature such as land- or waterscapes then it just wont focus nicely for such large area there is allways blurred trees.

Are the trees moving in the wind? Because if you're using tiny apertures and low iso like most landscape shooters do, you're probably using long shutter speeds and getting motion blur. You shouldn't be having too many focus issues at those apertures.

Btw im not dump i do use f11-22 depends on lightning and i focus something in middle or something that i want to bring forth.

Focusing on something when you have a really deep DoF isn't necessarily going to mean everything's in focus. Using the hyperfocal distance or the old "focus 1/3 of the way into the shot" might actually work better on maximizing the DoF you have with the scene in front of you than focusing on the horizon or on a close-by subject.

You may also have unrealistic expectations of how near objects can be and still be in focus with the horizon, particularly if you're shooting with a longer lens, but even with a wider one. Here's a shot I took with an 8mm circular fisheye lens, focusing on my subject:


Canon XT/350D. Sigma 8mm f/3.5 EX DG circular fisheye. iso 100, f/8, 1/250s. handheld.

Notice how I still have out of focus blur on the background? This is at f/8 with an 8mm lens. That's a combination with an unusually huge DoF. But the flower is about 1cm away from the front element. Focusing on something that close is narrowing my DoF considerably. In normal circumstances with a subject two to three feet in front of me, everything to the horizon would be in focus.

And are you judging sharpness of your image overall at the delivery size? Or are you pixel peeping at 100% magnification? Because the latter is kinda unrealistic.

[haka1a]

Haka1a on deviantART

There's one simple waterscape that have been succesfull but i use it as example.
Alot of my taken photos are similiar to that and i focus somewhere middle like in this specific photo it was the trees at the rocks left side.

I have been using mostly CANON EF 50/1.8 II on tripod and self timer.