Nikon 18-55mm DX VR II lens

>>2898957
Most of the problem is probably you, but you haven't posted any of the pictures that you're having a problem with, just a fucking stock image of the camera like that's of any use to any goddamn body.

Further, I'll also 100% guarantee you that your photography isn't hampered one bit by suboptimal sharpness. It's hampered by you being a shit photographer. Stop worrying over shit that's not the reason your pictures are bad and fix what's making them bad.

>>2898957
>- I've read that D3200 has AA filter which not really good for sharpness - is it true?

Yes, it's true.
But the difference with no AA is quite small.

>- should I use a different lens?
>- is a kit lens that crap?

It's not crap but most other lenses are better.
Superzooms are worse.

Try shooting at f/8 or f/11.
It should be sharpest around these apertures.

Shoot in bright sunlight. (landscapes in the sun look much sharper than landscapes in the shade)

Use a fast shutter speed (1/200 or so) to eliminate any motion blur.
Even on a tripod the shutter slap alone can cause some blur from vibration.

>- where to go from this lens?
35mm DX

>- is my whole camera equip not enough (at least for me)?
No.

>>2898973
thanks.
>35mm DX
will it be wide enough for landscapes?

>>2898964
I said I wasn't a good photographer, and you replied that I was a shit photographer. It seems my pictures, at least, ARE sharper than you.

>>2898986
>missing the point this hard just to make a retarded insult that further shows just how incompetent you are with a camera

You are all of your problems, that is your answer. I could give you a D810 with an Otus on it and your photos would still not achieve critical sharpness. Then even if you did actually bother doing research in how to maximize sharpness and were able to achieve critical sharpness in most any given situation, your photos would still be shit.

>>2898986
He said that because of the questions you asked. May be harsh, but hey, you asked. You still haven't posted one single damn picture for anyone to asses the shit you asked. Plus, this belongs in the gear thread.

>>2898982
no

File: quote-there-is-nothing-worse-than-a-sharp-image-of-a-fuzzy-concept-ansel-adams-807.jpg (63KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 850x400px

>>2898986
You got ansel adams'd

>>2898991
>this belongs in the gear thread.
you don't say.

>>2898990
give me a D810 and an Otus and we'll see... but, just to stay in the ballpark of technicalities, focus and sharpness wise the Sigma 50mm f1.4 (A) kills the Otus. just saying.

>>2899004
I like these kind of quotes - nothing to do with my post, but okay.

>>2899009
Look at this ignorant retard trying to sound all knowledgeable... although I gotta say it took you a really long time to find dxo mark's website and the sort by sharpness.

>>2899010
>nothing to do with my post,
...you're a bog standard beginner who doesn't know how to get sharp images, the importance of sharpness in photography, and you think that quote has nothing to do with your post?

I never say this, but sell your gear and find a different hobby. You'll never be an even mediocre photographer.

>>2899013
oh, yeah, from dxomark. fuck, I'm busted...

File: c2a9-warren-richardson-hope-for-a-new-life.jpg (256KB, 1680x1120px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1680x1120px

>>2898957
Why so obsessed with sharpness? You should be obsessed with what makes a good photo. This is the world press photo of the year. It's neither sharp nor noise free. Go figure.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Warren Richardson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016-02-17T17:06:53-05:00
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.59 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1707
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2898964
Toxic

>>2899019
Nah son, gearfaggotry and pixelpeeping are toxic to photography and have been for longer than 4chan was a thing.

>>2899020
Then leave it at the door, my friend.

>>2899014
you know what, asshole, I'm fucking fed up with the guys like you. my post wasn't about composition, or about lights, or telling stories with a series of photos, or emotions. It was a fucking technical question. what do you think: did Ansel Adams keep a photo which was perfectly composed, exposure perfectly set, but wasn't sharp enough? (you know the answer to that, I'm sure.) I don't want to compare myself to Ansel Adams, I wouldn't dare, no way in a million years. but you can fuck your composition if your photo looks washy at the end. and no, I won't post any of my photos, fuck you. It was a technical question. If I wanted to know hot compose better, hot to set the exposure (eg. where to meter for a sunset), I'd ask that. idiot.

>>2899017
>This is the world press photo of the year
I don't want to judge an award winner photo (it is not my place to do so), but if a nameless guy would've posted it in a thread, here on /p/, almost everybody would've given the guy flaming, raging shit for this photo, I guarantee it.

>>2898957
Lenses don't perform their best at their widest aperture. It could be that, or damage, or a little bit of bounce from the shutter, or just a bad manufacture. How sharp is sharp enough for you?

It would help to see a picture. If you post one, brace for lots of red-faced autistic dick swinging.

>>2899020
oh, you are one of the "purist"? tell me, how you take photos with Daguerre camera mounted on a horse-wagon? tell me, do you still use glass plates? do you mix your own formula from potentially deadly chemicals to develop your photo? you "purist"...

>>2899022
That response makes literally no sense.
>>2899025
And the rest of us are tired of assholes like you. Your technical question shows that you haven't done anything but cursory self-education. What, read a single petapixel article then call it a day?

Further, your ignorant ass still thinks that we want a picture because to talk about any aesthetic values. Retard, if you had done any real research on the subject, you'd know that sharpness is dependent upon a ton of factors that change from photo to photo. Your goddamn issues with sharpness for one picture very likely are caused by entirely different factors than issues in another fucking picture. We can't possibly know what's going on if we can't see, which again, I emphasize because if you had done anything but cursory reading on this topic, you'd fucking know. Show even a modicum of willingness to work on something and this site is pretty generally willing to help. Just pop up asking to be spoonfed without the first bit of effort, and yeah, you'll basically get told to fuck off.

So yeah, fuck off, and sharpness still isn't a problem with a damn one of your photos.

>>2899007
There should be exactly two threads on this board

1. Gear thread.
2. Recent picture thread.

Everything else is triggering.

>>2899032
Correct.

>>2899040

That is, ironically, what nu/p/ wants these days. it's insane.

>>2899035
>oh, you are one of the "purist"? tell me, how you take photos with Daguerre camera mounted on a horse-wagon? tell me, do you still use glass plates? do you mix your own formula from potentially deadly chemicals to develop your photo? you "purist"...
Literally nothing I've posted points even slightly to that, so, cute strawman.

>>2899034
>If you post one, brace for lots of red-faced autistic dick swinging
I really like that you want to help me, but this kind of attitude stops me to post ANY photo of mine here in 4chan. /p/ says I have to be prepared for hard criticism. yeah. 14 year old spoiled guys who push up clarity in LR and call it HDR giving shit for almost all the photos posted here. just saying.

>>2899040
>gear thread
a well-organized, ease to find answers to your questions thread - yeah, next time I post my tech questions there, never to be answered

but, actually, I'm the idiot - I excepted more from /p/

>>2899048
of course you haven't...

>>2899050
And the worst part is, none of that "hard criticism" is constructive. If hdr photos are your thing, go for it, just be cool if somebody didn't take the exact photo you would have.

>>2899036
your head is so deep in your ass, that you even see your own shit forming from your intestines.

are you that retarded? should I've posted 3000 words about "How to get your image sharper." instead? it seems it doesn't matter what I write, what I ask, there's always the fucking jerks, like you, who knows fucking best. if I had written "where to go from my kit lens" you wouldn't've answered/helped me with two or three sentences, your first answer would've been "learn how to use the kit lens first, faggot". you are that kind of guy. so FUCK YOU.

>>2898957
>>2899034
>>2899050
Here's my advice: set up your camera in front of a sunny brick wall. Set to aperture priority, and take several pictures at each stop. Hold down the button (taking a few pictures in a row), so you can be sure you aren't bouncing the camera.

Check the corners of your photos - is one sure sharper than another? That could be a damage or manufacturing issue.

Is there a blue haze anywhere? Does it get better with a smaller aperture? If so, note the point it looks best for you.

Also, if you're using manual focus, make sure your diopter (the little wheel next the viewfinder) is set right. Also, just use live view with manual focus.

If you're using auto focus for this test, set it to a single point right in the middle.

I think that's all I got.

>>2899067
And yet I'm not wrong and you'll continue to not know why your pictures are soft shit.

>>2899067
>>2899070
Wait, I have one more thing. Stop feeding the trolls. The (You) is the validation they never got from dad, and they need it to live.

>>2899073
Sadly, you think I'm just a troll and haven't given you very solid information. Amusingly, you still refuse to do the one thing wherein you could actually get some real help.

File: Barnett-Newmans-Onement-VI1.jpg (58KB, 1200x1045px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1200x1045px

>>2899017
this was sold for $44million. just saying.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2013:05:17 10:45:45

>>2899071
and still, you keep thinking you are not wrong. now I'm laughing.

>>2899081
That might actually carry some weight if you could manage to argue the point, but since you can't, well...

>>2899070
thanks. though I've never tested my lens this way (I'm going to, thanks again), but during a photo shoot (landscapes, of course) I do all these: tripod, manual focus @ live view, setting my aperture between f/7-13, I use a remote (no mirror lock up in D3200 unfortunately). yesterday I shot a sunset, and the farthest point (there was a white church on a hill) @f/11 was not sharp enough, and I could not set it right, even manually. the brick wall test will help me see clearer I guess.

>>2899083
here's my final argument for you: fuck you.
oh, and one more thing
/thread

>>2899087
>the brick wall test will help me see clearer I guess.
Literally won't.

> the farthest point (there was a white church on a hill) @f/11 was not sharp enough
HAHAHA, you haven't even done basic research on the subject, I stand corrected.
>>2899090
This is brilliant. It's not an argument guy.

>>2899094
>HAHAHA, you haven't even done basic research on the subject
oh, I see now, you are retarded... I'm sorry, I should say mentally handicapped... I'm so sorry for your condition. not curable I'm afraid. so go, play with your tiny pink cock till your mother breastfeed you. after she puked because she has to touch you again. or see you. or even to live with the fact that you are born alive.

>>2899109
>I'm retarded
>doesn't realize that the quoted is clear indication that you haven't read into one of the most basic techniques for maximizing sharpness in landscapes
Oh wait, you'd actually have had to read up on landscape techniques for you to know that...

Btw, good job not feeding me. :-3

>>2899090
>>2899109

What did I tell you? I need you to not reply to posts like that. At all. Whether he's right or not, you're encouraging bad behavior by paying attention to it. This is how /p/ fills up with assholes.

>>2898957
OP you are wasting your time on bunch of basement potogs with crippling autism.

>>2899112
Better assholes than weak-kneed, lazy, waterheaded simpletons who don't bother doing the most basic of research.

>>2899112
I very well know you are right...

>>2899112
Why the fuck are you giving OP any fucking help what so ever? Yeah, there are some dicks, but he's had several helpful suggestions and pissed them into the wind. He will not even post one fucking photo. He deserves to be trolled and beaten like athe fuckwad he is with his godamn nikon. Fuck OP and fuck you too.

>>2899111
>maximizing sharpness in landscapes
teach me, master! please. tell me all the secrets. seriously. put the sarcasm aside fro a mo. let me hear your ultimate recipe for sharp landscape photography. come on. here's your chance to really help me out. I'm curious. honestly.

>>2899124
Still haven't posted a picture and still have your entitled attitude, so no, well, no more than saying fucking google it. There's literally thousands of sites out there that talk in great depth about this very subject.

>>2899124
yeah, nothing. exactly what I expected.

>>2899139
yeah, nothing. exactly what I expected.

>>2899140
>I'm entitled to an answer because I asked it. I'm entitled to not have to do even the most basic of searches. I literally can't be assed to search for "landscape sharpness". I also refuse to do the one big thing that would allow people to help me as was stated in the first reply.
>but meanie is bullying me and mean

>>2899144
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA you ARE a total retard, you proved it perfectly. it seems you have a hard on for green text bullshitery too. you are one sad retarded mother fucker.

/thread. (seriously. I don't care any longer.)

>>2899146
>/thread. (seriously. I don't care any longer.)
You never cared in the first place else you would have done basic research.

>>2899146
Holy shit, you proved the dickhead anon right. It would have been a waste of time trying to help you. /p/'s better off without you.

>>2899035
>that butthurt holy shit

Honestly, I used to get really hung up on how sharp my photos were when I was just starting out, too: as if attaining that pixel-edged clarity was the endgame of photography. But that's taken a backseat over time to things like the concept, composition, and the overall feel of the shot I'm trying to get. There's much more to photography than simply getting the sharp shot. That Ansel Adams post is relevant to any photographer, and that includes you.

The best gear in the world won't make a good photographer out of someone with no knowledge of how to use it, and conversely, there are people able to take great shots with a complete toaster because they have learned to use whatever they have available, and to really understand what they want to convey with their photography. That's not something a good camera can buy. That's something that has to come from you, even if it means dealing with a kit lens and a specific camera body's issues. Really taking the time to learn what does and doesn't work with your camera -- and to diagnose if your lens is actually damaged -- is legitimately sound advice that will serve you for years to come, anon.

Thousands of photos and years of blundering along later, and I still very much consider myself a complete novice, with acres of room to grow and improve even as an amateur. Part of being able to improve is being able to recognize your shortcomings as an artist -- not blaming it all on the camera's faults, but recognizing that it's YOUR technical skills limiting you, whether it's in physically getting the photo, or in editing, developing film, or anything else that comes with this territory. It can be rough to swallow at first, but you'll be all the better for being able to objectively self-analyze and take the outside opinion. So what if you're a shit photographer (and you are) right now? Everyone is in the beginning, you'll improve if you work at it.

Don't take it personally.

>>2899163
>being reasonable
You're doing /p/ wrong, feggot. :^)

I bet op's female.

>>2899032
that's because no one in /p/ is a photographer

>>2898990
Otus and sigma are both shit lenses

>>2902132
Damn negro, resurrecting a thread that hasn't had a post in basically a business week to shitpost it. That's some dedication to being cancer.

>>2898973
The AA difference is not small.

>>2898982
no

>>2902141
Its not cancer, its the truth. For $4000.00 the Otus is a shit lens, and the sigma's get hyped up by so many people and I don't understand why because they are a terrible lens.

File: DSC_0009.jpg (2MB, 2992x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2992x2000px

>>2898957
Don't knock the kit lens, it is very sharp. Nikon d3300 messing around snap shot in toy camera mode with bad lighting. Notice the sharpness of the reflection in the knife and the scratches on the blade. You will not be able to tell the difference between the kit lens and other lens that cost a thousand more.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Ver.1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	19114
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:08 11:45:11
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2992
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2902148
>Its not cancer, its the truth. For $4000.00 the Otus is a shit lens,
I'll bite, how exactly is it a shit lens?

And you know that the post you replied to didn't say anything about sigma, right?

File: Canon-EOS-Rebel-T6-vs-Nikon-D3300-size-comparison.jpg (59KB, 720x384px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 720x384px

hey i'm looking for beginner's camera, should i get a Canon T6 or a Nikon D3300?
>>2902275
i made a thread in the wrong place