suggestions?

[mart2090]

I have been shooting 35mm off and on for a few years and recently bought a D50 from a friend with a Tamron 18-200mm lens. This camera takes great shots, but I don't feel like it has everything that I want. I have been doing plenty of research lately and now I'm considering selling this camera and upgrading. I am also reading so many great things about 50mm f/1.8 lenses and am very interested. The bottom line is, I see magnificent pictures taken with a D40, but just don't seem to shoot the same with this D50. Should I upgrade the body, the lens, both, or neither?

Thank You,
Aron

[nokiN]

IMO, the D50 is a better camera than the D40. Keep it and upgrade your lens.

The quality of the lens is more important than the camera body.

Those "magnificent pictures taken with a D40" could also have been expertly post processed.

[inkista]

The D50 has an autofocus motor; the D40 doesn't. I say stick with the D50.

I think you're making the classic beginner's error of assuming that the only difference between your pictures and everybody else's is the camera and/or lens. Most folks will assume it's the lens, rather than the camera body, but it's pretty much the same thing.



Chances are good, especially if you just bought the camera, that you simply haven't learned how to use it properly, yet. You will eventually want to upgrade lenses--but until you know exactly what lens you want and why, you may want to hold back until you do. But I think the body can certainly hold you for now. And you probably just need to work on your technique and knowledge base of photography, especially if this is your first time with a dSLR, and you "upgraded" from a point-and-shoot digicam. Here are some of the reasons why you may be running into trouble:

1. Nobody ever teaches you how to hold the camera. A dSLR is much heavier than a digicam, and camera shake blur can be a huge issue in making a photo fuzzier. Good handholding technique will let you achieve slower shutter speeds. Without stabilization, you should be able to handhold down to 1/30s-1/60s. But this requires that the majority of the weight of the camera be supported from the bottom of the camera with your left hand at all times. You can work those zoom/focus rings with your left hand from the bottom of the lens. Really.
   
   
2. A point and shoot actually uses tiny focal lengths, so you never had to learn the 1/focal_length rule of thumb for avoiding camera shake blur. Without stabilization, your shutter speed should be 1/focal_length or faster to avoid camera shake blur while handholding. With a 300mm lens, this means 1/300s or faster. The longer the lens, the faster your shutter speed needs to be. And this rule, btw, assumes you already have good handholding technique. You also need to know there's only so much VR can do.
   
   
3. A point and shoot camera has a tiny sensor and a tiny lens, and enormous DoF. This means you don't have focusing issues. With a dSLR, with your much larger sensor and larger focal lengths, you often achieve a narrower DoF, and therefore you can get things out of focus. Master the focus system. Learn how to use the focus points and different modes correctly, and learn to shoot for high-contrast targets (where black meets white, ideally).
   
   
4. A point and shoot cooks your files for you. A dSLR assumes you're advanced enough to do your own post-processing, and that you want to season to taste, depending on the individual image. Therefore, in-camera processing is kept to a minimum. Most folks who have been shooting dSLR for a few years are shooting in RAW and using higher-end editing tools than, say, iPhoto or Picasa. Proper post-processing with something as simple as Curves adjustments can work miracles.
   
   
5. Composition may have more impact on the effectiveness of an image to communicate than any of the equipment used to take the shot.

That said, given that your lens is the Tamron 18-200, go ahead and get the 50/1.8. It's a completely different kind of lens, It's less than $100, and it will teach you all about wider aperture settings and shooting with a prime. Don't expect it to take the place of actually learning photography, though. L glass doesn't cure bad composition or lighting. IS doesn't cure bad handholding technique. USM doesn't cure misunderstanding how the autofocus system works. And f/1.8 still won't let you shoot handheld in the dark all the time.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

excellent inkista, just excellent.

[Footski]

Agreed a superb explanation..

[inkista]

Thanks, guys! The only reason I can pontificate at length about this is because I found out nearly all of those things the hard way (and I have a few more lenses than I ought to as a result). The only pitfall I managed to avoid, thanks to a high-school graphic arts teacher, was not knowing how to hold the camera.

[mart2090]

Thanks for the thorough explanation. I agree my eyes are sometimes bigger than they should be. Like I said I have been shooting with a Canon 35mm SLR for a few years now and I've had this camera for a few months now, so i have the "basics" down, but the root of my question was mostly about the lens. I feel like I cannot shoot in low light whatsoever, and that's why I'm considering the prime. Plus, it's not that expensive.

Thank You-
Aron

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by mart2090

I feel like I cannot shoot in low light whatsoever, and that's why I'm considering the prime. Plus, it's not that expensive.

You can consider using a 'chest pod' to stabilize your camera. It worked well with my SLR using the original Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5 and ASA 400 film in low light.

[DigUpHerBones07]

That is a beautiful photo.