Why DSLRs Can Not Focus?

[Adel99]

Hello, may you answer this question, please? Thank you.

Although I'm beginner at DSLRs and digital photography in general, I want to buy a professional DSLR camera within a $2500 budget. I think I will buy a Nikon D700.

But after viewing many portraits taken with DSLRs from various manufacturers, I notice the following:

• In many photos where the face occupies one third or half of the area of the photo, some parts of the face (e.g. the right eye) are in focus and sharp, whereas other parts (e.g. the left eye or the nose) are out of focus and blurry. Also the hair is sharp at some points and blurry at other points
• One hand may be in focus and the other is not, although the man is facing the camera while reading a newspaper.

Please take a look: one eye in focus, the other is not, also the hair

This applies to almost all portraits i have seen, the camera doesn't focus in all the face or head... etc. So why? Is this due to the photographer? or the DSLR? I really do not like such images. I want a sharp human object and a blurry background (for printing).

Yours,
Adel

[gturner]

Your issue is understanding DEPTH OF FIELD

Play with this to see how aperture and distance for subject changes the DOF
Online Depth of Field Calculator

Understanding Depth of Field in Photography

[theosus]

Wow - talk about jumping in with both feet. I don't know if youre just well off, or if American Express just approved your new card...
If you're well off and have no problems spending all that money, kudos to you and thanks for stimulating the economy. If not... Well that's a personal choice beyond the scope of this forum.

Some of the others will probably chastise and disagree with me but here goes -
A: as someone new, what advantages do you see laying out the cash for such an extravagant piece of kit? The equipment doesn't necessarily make the picture (although it helps in some situations. Photographers are quick to say that - but you don't see any wedding photographers showing up to the church and holding up an iPhone; "say cheese!")

B: are you hoping to buy a camera, learn a few things and then advertise yourself as a photographer, thinking the big expensive camera will help you make good pictures? It won't, and please don't.

If it was me - I would strongly consider something less expensive. For a third of that you can probably get a crop frame Dslr with a couple of lenses in the range of 18-55mm and 55-200mm or so. If you find that you want to upgrade later on - it's always possible. You could sell the kit, or keep it for a backup or daily use camera - take it places you wouldn't want the big kit damaged.

Just a little advice. The pros here can offer more experienced advice. Im just here for fun and to improve myself.

[Adel99]

Thank you very much, gturner. I'll read them and write back to you.

[troutwhisperer]

Adell99,

Spend less money on a body (or body + kit lens) and by some faster lenses and maybe an inexpensive prime lens (35mm or 50mm). I'm just a hack myself but I wish I could invest in better (faster) glass.

[daft_biker]

Aye, it's the photographer. As mentioned above it's a question of controlling the depth of field.

Good luck with the new camera

[Adel99]

theosus, Thank you for your note.

don't know if youre just well off, or if American Express just approved your new card...

I have been saving money for a year and half, and I will tell you why.

as someone new, what advantages do you see laying out the cash for such an extravagant piece of kit?

I just prefer to spend a $2000 to buy a camera I won't regret for a long time, over spending $1000 and regreting one year ahead or so. My friend bought a sony H5 in 2007 and was happy with it. One year later he started complaining and stopped using it and lastly sold it. This is why I'm saving. If this is not a correct way of thinking, please tell me.

thinking the big expensive camera will help you make good pictures? It won't, and please don't.

Yes, to tell the truth, this is exaclty what I thought, and how I think!

If it was me - I would strongly consider something less expensive.

I think you are right, and I thank you again for your advice. I'm also hesitant about buying such an expensive camera. But I'm afraid I would not have high quality prints with a less expensive one.

Thank you very much, theosus.

Adel

[BigFuzzy]

As others have said, it's a very basic issue of Depth of Field. So it was a choice.

My question to you is this. What is your budget for lenses?

I think, with your level of knowledge, you'd be much better served by buying a more basic body and investing some of that money in nicer lens which almost always will be more useful to you in 5 years than a nice body now.

I say this especially since you're so very new to photography.
But then again, it's up to you, it's just my .02 advice!

[Adel99]

Originally Posted by troutwhisperer

Adell99,

Spend less money on a body (or body + kit lens) and by some faster lenses and maybe an inexpensive prime lens (35mm or 50mm). I'm just a hack myself but I wish I could invest in better (faster) glass.

Thank you so much, troutwhisperer. I really need to read about the subject, because I know nothing about the types of lenses... etc.

Also thank you to daft_biker. I really appreciate these replies from you all.

[Adel99]

What is your budget for lenses?

$400 to $500. I have no knowldge about lenses. I just was going to ask the saleman for a good one. My budget is around $2900 for all thing and I can't pay more than that. Thank you.