Travel Photography - Upgrade my D50?

I'm a huge fan of my Nikon D50. It was my first dSLR, and I absolutely love it. However, when I blow up some of my pictures to poster size, I can't help but notice that they're fuzzy, even when shot at (what I think is) the maximum resolution.

So I'm thinking, given the economy (and the decrease in prices that comes with it), should I upgrade? I'd want to do it as cheaply as possible (and obviously in a way that allows me to keep my 2 Nikon lenses, the kit from the D50 purchase and a cheap Kodak 70-200 that I bought afterward). I certainly don't need video (D90), what would the right answer be? D40x? D60? D80?

Love to get other people's opinions. . . .

Thanks!

I used to have a D50 (it was stolen) and now I have a D80. I liked the D50 when I had it.

One thing to watch for with a newer camera is the auto focus system. Your D50 can autofocus with AFS lenses (lenses with internal focus motors) and with older lenses without motors via the "screwdriver" connection with the focus motor in the camera. Your Kodak lens does not have a motor in it so it needs the camera's motor to focus. The Nikon D40, D40X, D60 and the new D5000 do not have internal focus motors and will not autofocus a lens like your Kodak. The lens will still work, but you will have to focus it manually.

Do I notice any increased resolution with my D80 over the D50? Yes, a little.

The least expensive way of improving your picture quality is most likely to ditch the Kodak lens and get a better long zoom.

If you do a lot of large prints, you may benefit from a camera with a higher-resolution sensor.

An interesting option could be the D200 (10 MP) that Best Buy (I am assuming you are US-based) has on sale for $599, which quite frankly is a steal. It is a bit older, but a great camera.

The next logical step up is the D90 (about $900), which has a 12 MP sensor, a great LCD and fantastic autofocusing and exposure system. The D5000 is a bit cheaper but IMHO more gimmicky and much less of a camera than the D90.

In any case (whether you upgrade or not), get a better zoom lens. That will help you a great deal.

Cheers,
T.

I did the same recently...upgraded from my d50 which I had been using for a few years and really liked.

I got a d80 and loved it...for two months...until my neck strap snapped on a whale watching trip and it bounced off the deck into the Pacific. I was really bummed...but that's off topic. I looked for a replacement d80 but wasn't finding many good prices. I ended up getting the d200 deal at bestbuy.com...$600 in recent ads and much better price than d80s were going for. nice upgrade and nice consolation...it's a bit larger, a bit heavier, and has a lot more technology/features. but it's pushing me to get more into some of the features...and I'm finding I really like the options and the quality.

I agree with other posts about lens quality...it will make a big difference...and may actually be a better investment than the camera body if your watching your $ these days.

good luck...

when I blow up some of my pictures to poster size, I can't help but notice that they're fuzzy, even when shot at (what I think is) the maximum resolution.

What are your settings?

With my D50 I shoot with my settings at Image Quality Fine and Image Size Large and haven't had any issues with fuzzy images.

Have you tried shooting in RAW?

kenrockwell.com (http://kenrockwell.com)

A great resource to answer all your photography questions (especially regarding Nikon). You will be surprised to learn which Nikon camera he recommends.

I'm a huge fan of my Nikon D50. It was my first dSLR, and I absolutely love it. However, when I blow up some of my pictures to poster size, I can't help but notice that they're fuzzy, even when shot at (what I think is) the maximum resolution.

So I'm thinking, given the economy (and the decrease in prices that comes with it), should I upgrade? I'd want to do it as cheaply as possible (and obviously in a way that allows me to keep my 2 Nikon lenses, the kit from the D50 purchase and a cheap Kodak 70-200 that I bought afterward). I certainly don't need video (D90), what would the right answer be? D40x? D60? D80?

Love to get other people's opinions. . . .

Thanks!

It would be very helpful to know more details...which lens(es) were you using? What kinds of pictures (bright landscapes? people? flash?) Quality settings on the camera? If you do not remember the settings you can look back at the EXIF information.

My first instinct would be to blame the cheap Kodak lens, your camera really is only as good as the glass (lens) you are using. You could have a D700, but if you put a cheap $100 lens on it, you aren't likely going to like your results.

Wow - D200 for $600 USD?! Man, my D200 is worth $0 then. :(

Anyhow, if you can get a D200 for only $600 then go for it. It's a great camera! But to the OP, if your issue is fuzziness, then I agree with the others. Get a good lens. It will cost you a lot (substantially more than $600!!) but it will clear your pics up immediately. I use the Nikon 18 - 200 on my D200 and I get good images, but for great images I know I need a better lens.

What are your settings?

With my D50 I shoot with my settings at Image Quality Fine and Image Size Large and haven't had any issues with fuzzy images.

Have you tried shooting in RAW?

I'm shooting at the same settings (IQ Fine and IS Large), though truth be told I've never tried shooting in RAW. As an advanced beginner, I'm a bit afraid of it. I know everyone says it's better, but I don't think I have the software to do it, and I'm not even sure that I would know what to do with a RAW photo once I had it. . .are there good intro resources out there (either online or paper books, I'm willing to buy/check out to learn)? Do you think it'll make a huge difference?

Wow - D200 for $600 USD?! Man, my D200 is worth $0 then. :(

Anyhow, if you can get a D200 for only $600 then go for it. It's a great camera! But to the OP, if your issue is fuzziness, then I agree with the others. Get a good lens. It will cost you a lot (substantially more than $600!!) but it will clear your pics up immediately. I use the Nikon 18 - 200 on my D200 and I get good images, but for great images I know I need a better lens.

Now that I think about it, the blurry photos were taken with the telephoto--KodakGear 80-210, 1:4.5-5.6, focal distance infinity-1.5m. Did I really cheap out too much? I don't really use the lens nearly as much as I thought I would, and part of me was thinking that if I u'graded the body to a bigger sensor that I could dispense with it entirely and do my zoming electronically post-production.

I'm shooting at the same settings (IQ Fine and IS Large), though truth be told I've never tried shooting in RAW. As an advanced beginner, I'm a bit afraid of it. I know everyone says it's better, but I don't think I have the software to do it, and I'm not even sure that I would know what to do with a RAW photo once I had it. . .are there good intro resources out there (either online or paper books, I'm willing to buy/check out to learn)? Do you think it'll make a huge difference?
RAW won't change the "fuzziness" of the image. Don't worry about that aspect of things.

If the 50mm lens is not fuzzy and the 70-200 is then the problem is either with the lens or the shutter speed you are shooting at. A decent rule of thumb is that you need to shoot at 1/focal length. So if you are shooting at the 200mm end of that lens you need to be at 1/300th of a second (sensor crop factor) or faster. If you are shooting at 1/125 that would likely explain some of the fuzzy.

If you are comfortable doing so post some of the photos and the associated data here and folks can try to help you out. But just capturing more fuzzy megapixels won't make the end-result image any better.

I'm shooting at the same settings (IQ Fine and IS Large), though truth be told I've never tried shooting in RAW. As an advanced beginner, I'm a bit afraid of it. I know everyone says it's better, but I don't think I have the software to do it, and I'm not even sure that I would know what to do with a RAW photo once I had it. . .are there good intro resources out there (either online or paper books, I'm willing to buy/check out to learn)? Do you think it'll make a huge difference?

I use a freeware called XnView. It has a filter for Nikon Raw.

If you have a good but 'basic' camera, such as Nikon D50, coupled with a very good lens, then you are likely to end up with some superb photos, on the other had, if you buy an expensive camera and used cheap lens (such as the Kodak you got on the 'cheap) then your photos are likely to be of poorer quality. As some one suggested, if you can get a D200 at that sort of price, then it is worth considering, but (as someone else suggested) ditch the cheap lens in any event (sell it on the eBay!)

It may also worth considering keep your D50, but to buy a really good Nikon lens, such as the 17-55mm f2.8 DX AF-S, or/and (as a cheaper option) 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G VR AF-S (or more expensive option) 70-200mm F2.8 VR AF-S. The last two lens can also be used with FX (full frame chip) Nikon such as D700 and D3, D3X. If you are thinking of buying a new lens, you might like to keep that in mind, just in case you change from DX to FX.

Why not try a new lens on your D50, you may find there is still plenty life left in it; I still use my old D100 as a back-up.

On the question of taking photos in RAW, all Nikon cameras which are capable taking RAW files, comes with the software to convert it to either JPEG or TIFF files.

If you are a Mac user, Apple have this wonderful software called Aperture 2, it can do some wonderful things to Nikon RAW files.

kenrockwell.com (http://kenrockwell.com)

A great resource to answer all your photography questions (especially regarding Nikon). You will be surprised to learn which Nikon camera he recommends.
Wow... never heard of this guy's website.

Practically everything he says is totally dead-on right! It's like I'm reading a web page that I wrote (except I'm not a pro).

I shoot with a D90 but agree with him about the D50. And I've owned nearly every PowerShot SDXXX (or IXOS in EU) over the past five years (and he's spot on about the vivid setting and the ability to control all settings one-handed and blindfolded).

Thanks for the link!

kenrockwell.com (http://kenrockwell.com)

A great resource to answer all your photography questions (especially regarding Nikon). You will be surprised to learn which Nikon camera he recommends.

While Ken Rockwell is entertaining and makes some valid points, he is very opinionated and quite often his ego gets in the way of facts.

Do read him, but take his advise with a large pinch of salt.

For instance, his recommendation for the *best* Nikon camera is really dodgy.

Cheers,
T.

OP- when you say 'fuzzy' are you meaning you're not noticing the pixels and the details aren't sharp? Or is the 'fuzziness' the pixels you're seeing?

I'd do an experiment by putting the camera on a tripod in good light and a middle aperture and looking closely at the results. It's hard to really get a good read on things under difficult conditions, ie open wide, low light, slow shutter speed. You might find that it's a particular lens that's bad. Or even the back element of a lens that's dirty.

While Ken Rockwell is entertaining and makes some valid points, he is very opinionated and quite often his ego gets in the way of facts.

Do read him, but take his advise with a large pinch of salt...Agree totally. The Nikon discussion forums (fora?) on dpreview.com are full of posts laughing at some of the absurdities he posts - and documenting, quite well and with good understanding of what's going on, why they're absurd.

While Ken Rockwell is entertaining and makes some valid points, he is very opinionated and quite often his ego gets in the way of facts.
...

I think that is the style differentiator he wants to convey. Otherwise it is very hard to compete head on with large operations such as dpreview.

RAW won't change the "fuzziness" of the image. Don't worry about that aspect of things.

If the 50mm lens is not fuzzy and the 70-200 is then the problem is either with the lens or the shutter speed you are shooting at. A decent rule of thumb is that you need to shoot at 1/focal length. So if you are shooting at the 200mm end of that lens you need to be at 1/300th of a second (sensor crop factor) or faster. If you are shooting at 1/125 that would likely explain some of the fuzzy.

If you are comfortable doing so post some of the photos and the associated data here and folks can try to help you out. But just capturing more fuzzy megapixels won't make the end-result image any better.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8726102@N06/3530218880/

(let me know if the link doesn't work, first time posting a flickr link)

I just had a chance to put this up on flickr. When blown up, the "Customs" building in the corner just gets fuzzy around the edges, among other places. Opinions?

Thanks a ton for the help--I guess I'm learning toward keeping the D50. The only thing that I was thinking was a camera with a higher MP rating would allow me to use the standard kit lens (or a $150) and then using post-production crop/zoom instead of a zoom lens. Am I crazy here?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8726102@N06/3530218880/

(let me know if the link doesn't work, first time posting a flickr link)

I just had a chance to put this up on flickr. When blown up, the "Customs" building in the corner just gets fuzzy around the edges, among other places. Opinions?

Thanks a ton for the help--I guess I'm learning toward keeping the D50. The only thing that I was thinking was a camera with a higher MP rating would allow me to use the standard kit lens (or a $150) and then using post-production crop/zoom instead of a zoom lens. Am I crazy here?

The shot is actually quite nice; you clearly have an eye for composition. Quality-wise it is pretty much impossible to comment as only a 681x1024 version is available.

As for using cropping instead of zooming; yes, it is possible but the changes are probably smaller than you think.

Let's assume you go for a 12 MP camera (like the D5000). You get twice the resolution and can blow things up twice the size, right. Wrong, actually. A doubling of pixel count only gives about 42 % increase in linear resolution (3000x2000 vs. 4200 x 2800 or so). That is equivalent to going from a 50 mm to a 70 mm lens.

If you use a 200 mm lens on a 6 MP camera, you get far more zooming power than with a 100 mm lens on a 12 MP camera even with the cropping.

I had a D70 (which has the same pixel count as your D50) for nearly five years before I upgraded to my current camera (a D300 with a 12 MP sensor). My primary reason for the upgrade was not the pixel count, rather the better AF system, better exposure system, higher frame rate, and bigger screen.

Cheers,
T.

The shot is actually quite nice; you clearly have an eye for composition. Quality-wise it is pretty much impossible to comment as only a 681x1024 version is available.

As for using cropping instead of zooming; yes, it is possible but the changes are probably smaller than you think.

Let's assume you go for a 12 MP camera (like the D5000). You get twice the resolution and can blow things up twice the size, right. Wrong, actually. A doubling of pixel count only gives about 42 % increase in linear resolution (3000x2000 vs. 4200 x 2800 or so). That is equivalent to going from a 50 mm to a 70 mm lens.

If you use a 200 mm lens on a 6 MP camera, you get far more zooming power than with a 100 mm lens on a 12 MP camera even with the cropping.

I had a D70 (which has the same pixel count as your D50) for nearly five years before I upgraded to my current camera (a D300 with a 12 MP sensor). My primary reason for the upgrade was not the pixel count, rather the better AF system, better exposure system, higher frame rate, and bigger screen.

Cheers,
T.

Thanks for the compliment and for setting me straight--makes perfect sense. It seems like this is another case of you get what you pay for in life--there's a good reason why people buy expensive glass. . .

Anyway, if I sent you the file (PM me your e-mail), could you have an in-depth look at it?

Thanks.

If you actually need an upgrade in IQ over the D50, the right answer is either a D90 or D5000. I personally own a D90 and a D50 that is my backup camera. I used to own a D80, but I actually preferred the image quality of the D50 to it. When I upgraded to a D90, I decided to keep my D50 as my backup, rather than my D80.

Yes, the video is a gimmick, but the substantially better image quality of the D90, both in terms of resolution and low noise high ISO performance, is no gimmick at all. Also, IMHO, you will be better off with a camera like the D90 that has it's own focus motor, to ones like the D60 and D5000 that do not. When you are looking at the available lens choices, you will be glad your camera has a focus motor. Especially if you seek bargains among used lenses.

But I would point out that, if your shooting technique is proper, the D50 is still capable of superb images, not "fuzzy" ones.

If you are considering between D40, D60 and D80, go for D80, cause the other 2 cameras don't have motor, you will need to buy expensive lenses in the future for auto focus.

No, keep your D50, get some kick azz lenses that will work with another Nikon SLR if you chose to upgrade and just play around with it.

I have no patience what so ever to shoot in raw and I never blow anything up past 8x10, so fuzziness has not been an issue for me.

I also thought about upgrading to either a d90 or a d200 (yup, bodies are cheap these days). I only need a body, but honestly, the best thing to do is just keep shooting, shooting and shooting until you figure out what works and what doesn't.

lala

I still shoot a D70, which has roughly the same sensor as the D50 (slightly older though). I have printed several of my photos at 16x20 with great results. Obviously, if you're looking from 3 inches away they'll be fuzzy. There's no way around that. But from a few feet away they should look good.

Remember that the (technical) quality of an image depends on:

the lens - I shoot with Nikon 18-70 and 75-300 lenses, both of which are considered quite shartp
focus - up to you to ensure this is properly set
the camera - the D50/D70/D40 are all perfectly fine, even up to 20x30 if you don't crop
image manipulations - don't keep resaving as a JPEG for example. This is one of my arguments for always shooting in RAW and using something like Lightroom
print - I use Mpix.com because they have excellent quality. Even Costco, which is supposed to be very good for a non-online location just isn't good enough for large prints


In your case, I'd fix the lens first. Lenses are investments, bodies you can throw away. Then ensure your technique is correct and print at a good printer.

As for KenRockwell, he recommends having either a D40+D3 (casual shots with the D40 due to its light weight and flexibility, planned with the D3) or a D90 as a good compromise between the two (or a D700 if you have the money). Sounds about right to me.

I personally use a D90 with the 18-200VR Lens. In my opinion, this is one of the great all around set ups available today. The D90 is an amazing piece of kit, not as heavy as the D3 and more accessible than the D300 but the real star is the lens. The 18-200 lets me shoot everything I might encounter on holiday from a cityscape to close ups indoors and everything in between.

If you're interested in taking a lot of night shots a tripod is a must. Unless you're going to be taking pictures in very windy areas you don't need to invest too much in a tripod. I have a Velbon for travelling and it weighs less than a kilo.

The main benefit of my set up is the amount of equipment I need to carry. In a form fitting case I can carry everything I need, no extra lenses required. Just be sure to get yourself an NC filter for your lens, replacing the 18-200 is not easy on the wallet. And in case anybody is interested, I just got my hands on the 10-24 Nikon lens and I find I'm using it quite a lot more than expected. It is not quite as solid as the 12-24 but for the amount of building shots I take the extra 2mm makes a lot of difference. Between these 2 Nikon lenses, you are covered

I still shoot a D70, which has roughly the same sensor as the D50 (slightly older though). I have printed several of my photos at 16x20 with great results. Obviously, if you're looking from 3 inches away they'll be fuzzy. There's no way around that. But from a few feet away they should look good.

Remember that the (technical) quality of an image depends on:

the lens - I shoot with Nikon 18-70 and 75-300 lenses, both of which are considered quite shartp
focus - up to you to ensure this is properly set
the camera - the D50/D70/D40 are all perfectly fine, even up to 20x30 if you don't crop
image manipulations - don't keep resaving as a JPEG for example. This is one of my arguments for always shooting in RAW and using something like Lightroom
print - I use Mpix.com because they have excellent quality. Even Costco, which is supposed to be very good for a non-online location just isn't good enough for large prints


In your case, I'd fix the lens first. Lenses are investments, bodies you can throw away. Then ensure your technique is correct and print at a good printer.

As for KenRockwell, he recommends having either a D40+D3 (casual shots with the D40 due to its light weight and flexibility, planned with the D3) or a D90 as a good compromise between the two (or a D700 if you have the money). Sounds about right to me.

It seems that I've more than what I need in set up, I just have to get better at using it. I've started shooting raw, though I lack software to handle it (I'll buy Aperture when I buy my new mac in a few months)--let's see what that does. Is there a good website/book on how to take one's first steps into RAW?