digital picture quality - is it the camera or lens?

[mishmatta]

Hi everyone - I just shot a wedding, and other than the sun being extremely bright and the lack of shade, it went well. However.....

My question is this - when you zoom in on the pictures of the bridal party - I can't help but notice the lack of crispness. I'm not saying the pictures are blurry - they are in focus - just the clarity or definition is soft. This is noticible on distance shots. I'd say I was a good 40 feet from the bridal party.

When I compare pictures done with film cameras (ie, my wedding photos), the crispness of the entire wedding party is clear. Even from a distance, you can see small details.

So my question I guess - I'm wondering - does the quality of the pictures come from the camera itself or the lens

I'd be happy to post a picture here, but I doubt screen resolution would show what I'm talking about.

For the record, I use a Pentax k200 and the 18-55 pentax lens that came with the camera as well as a quantaray 70-300 zoom (that seems to give me crisper pictures than the pentax).

[wulf]

Are you talking about when you zoom in during post processing and start to get to the level when you can see the pixels (or certainly the effect of the camera having to decide how to set each individual pixel) or the overall view of shots taken zoomed in with the lens? In the latter case, given the high resolution of modern cameras, I think the lens is more likely to be to blame.

Wulf

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by mishmatta

For the record, I use a Pentax k200 and the 18-55 pentax lens that came with the camera as well as a quantaray 70-300 zoom (that seems to give me crisper pictures than the pentax).

I hate to say it, but neither of those lenses are acceptable for shooting a wedding. The kit lens is the weakest lens Pentax makes (while still better than many other kit lenses). And quantaray? A knockoff of a budget consumer tele lens? And the k200, while a great camera in its own right, its not really a wedding camera (I still have one and used to love it, but upgraded to the k20).

The effect you are describing sure sounds like a lens problem. Try out the cheaper (discontinued) 16-45mm f/4 or the pricey but pro 16-50mm f/2.8. If you really have money to spend, the limited primes are the way to go. The 15mm, 21mm, 35mm and 70mm limiteds would make a great kit.

I use the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for events like weddings. I wish it was wider but I love the 75mm focal length. I often switch to my 18-55 kit lens when I need to go wide, but I am usually disappointed with the sharpness and contrast.

[jdepould]

To speak generally, it's both.

You'll probably see a difference between D3/D700 or 5D (1 or 2) images and images from something like a D40, assuming equal glass. The full frame bodies just have a certain presence and texture you don't necessarily get from the lower level body.

If you put a crap lens on a great body, it'll look like you're using a crap lens. If you put a great lens on a middle-of-the-road body, the quality of the lens will be obvious. The better bodies are also less forgiving when it comes to faults with a lens.

Having said that, a D90 images is going to be better than one from a D1 in most any case, even though the D1 cost more new.

(Note: great doesn't always equal mondo expensive)

[mishmatta]

Excellent replies - I thank you guys a lot for the input - very valuable.

I've been tossing around upgrading the camera or the lens soon. But it comes down to $ and priorities right now (doesn't it always?). If I had the unlimited pocket book, I'd upgrade BOTH. I really want a second camera just to have on hand anyway should something happen to the one. However, perhaps I should just think about upgrading my lens collection?

"I Speak in math"....you said you upgraded to the k20. Would you recommend this as a good wedding camera? I was considering a k2000 as an upgrade. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this....

Also, how much of an improvement would I see keeping the k200 body, but getting something like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 you recommended?

[i speak in math]

Originally Posted by mishmatta

Excellent replies - I thank you guys a lot for the input - very valuable.

I've been tossing around upgrading the camera or the lens soon. But it comes down to $ and priorities right now (doesn't it always?). If I had the unlimited pocket book, I'd upgrade BOTH. I really want a second camera just to have on hand anyway should something happen to the one. However, perhaps I should just think about upgrading my lens collection?

"I Speak in math"....you said you upgraded to the k20. Would you recommend this as a good wedding camera? I was considering a k2000 as an upgrade. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this....

Also, how much of an improvement would I see keeping the k200 body, but getting something like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 you recommended?

The k2000 is more of a downgrade from the K200d. Less focus points, loses the weather resistance... The K20d is better because you don't have to menu dive to change things. Thats really what makes a pro camera pro. You don't have time to click through the menus looking for how to change the metering mode to spot meter. The K20 has all the setting on the outside so you don't even need to take your eye off the viewfinder. And the high ISO on the K2000/K200d is really subpar. 1600 is usable, but not pretty. At weddings, you will be using 1600.

The K-7 didn't really improve on the K20d that much. Ergonomics are better and autofocus/autoWB are much improved. The new K-5 coming out in October looks to be an amazing pro body. SNR should rival the canon 5D.

The tamron 28-75mm will bring in a lot more light than the 3.5-5.6 kit lens. And its very sharp. But even at f/2.8 you are still going to be using ISO 1600 a lot.

[inkista]

This is just me being a smartass, but I think maybe your problem is magnification.

You're judging sharpness at 100% crop, aren't you? That's why things that are smaller in the frame (i.e., people who are distant from the camera) are going to look "fuzzier" than subjects that are closer. They're simply made up of fewer pixels. 100% crop is like putting your film prints under a microscope... doubt they'd look much sharper then.

That would be my guess as to what your "problem" is. I don't think you need to be switching camera bodies over this.

[mishmatta]

Originally Posted by i speak in math

The k2000 is more of a downgrade from the K200d. Less focus points, loses the weather resistance... The K20d is better because you don't have to menu dive to change things. Thats really what makes a pro camera pro. You don't have time to click through the menus looking for how to change the metering mode to spot meter. The K20 has all the setting on the outside so you don't even need to take your eye off the viewfinder. And the high ISO on the K2000/K200d is really subpar. 1600 is usable, but not pretty. At weddings, you will be using 1600.

The K-7 didn't really improve on the K20d that much. Ergonomics are better and autofocus/autoWB are much improved. The new K-5 coming out in October looks to be an amazing pro body. SNR should rival the canon 5D.

The tamron 28-75mm will bring in a lot more light than the 3.5-5.6 kit lens. And its very sharp. But even at f/2.8 you are still going to be using ISO 1600 a lot.

Wow.....1600 ISO for weddings. I avoid that setting like the plague. Nothing good comes from it....really - sure you get lighter pictures, but the noise is terrible. Are you saying that on the k20, 1600 ISO is actually do-able? I rarely go above 400 ISO to keep the grain appearance down and avoid the "newspaper picture" look.

[i speak in math]

1600 on the K20 isn't pretty either but definitely better than the K200's 1600. The K-x can hit 3200 nice and clean but its not a good body either. The K-5 looks to be the camera for pentax pros. It should hit a clean 6400, I would think.

here's ISO 2000 with no noise reduction on the K20

[mishmatta]

"here's ISO 2000 with no noise reduction on the K20"

Nice, compared to the 200 its beautiful!

When looking for lenses for the pentax body, what do I need to know as far as what will work and what won't? Or do I go by just the description of ("For Pentax")?

On my craigslist, there is someone selling off his Pentax and Minolta cameras and all equipment (flashes/lenses). He has several Pentax lenses. How do I know if they are better than what I have? (Pentax 50mm f/1.2, Pentax SMC – M 50mm f/1:1.7, Pentax SMC 35-70mm f/1:3.5-4.5, Pentax SMC – M 50mm f/1:1.4). He also has several non-pentax lenses. I don't know if they will work with pentax or not (he hasn't replied)....but can you tell me if these brands are good? (Cosina Cosinon-T 200mmf/1:4, Cosina 2x Auto Telemax, Focal Auto 28mm f/1:2.8, Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/1:3.5 Macro Focusing Zoom, Tamron SP Model 31A 200-500mm f/5.6 with front cap and case, Albinar Auto Super Coated 28mm f/1:2.8, Albinar Super Auto Zoom 80-205mm f/1:4.5)

Thanks again "i speak in math". Your input has been valuable. I know what my next camera will be thanks to you (no, not the k5 - I'm pretty sure that baby will be out of my price range!).