Newbie here

>>3145684
Quality and control of light has A LOT more to do with apparent sharpness than the difference between your $500 gear and $3500 gear.

Test it yourself; take some normal still life shots indoors with and without flash and crop in and you'll notice a dramatic difference in detail.

For the pic you posted, an overcast day at 800 ISO wide open won't give you sharp results. You want
>lower ISO
>f/8 or f/11 (usually gives sharpest results)
>better light

Can you post some pictures that have the style you want to emulate

The lower the iso the "better" the image quality, for aperture most lenses are sharpest around f/8 and always use a shutter speed faster than your focal length to avoid camera shake (if focal length = 50mm use speeds 1/50 or faster).

>>3145691
>>3145692

I did read about setting it to f/8 or higher but then what can i do when i take pictures at night? i usually like to take pictures when i'm walking home from work and it's dark already.

A style i'd like to emulate would be something like this probably https://www.instagram.com/notorious_jamil_c/

It's the only i could remember at the moment.

Thanks in advance.

>>3145692

If my camera has an aps-c sensor is it the same? or should i multiply it?

Also, in the case of the 18-55 mm, what would be the right speed?

>>3145703
Gear shouldn't be that issue. Aside from the fact that your gear is certainly acceptable, that guy posted his IG the other day and said he shoots with a phone.
Could have been bullshit but they're all just taken in nice light with good composition. Mostly

>>3145703
There's nothing wrong with using a higher ISO. there will be more noise in the image and lost detail but if you're at 1.8 and 1/50 takingbdark photos, you can either use a flash or use a higher ISO.
Lower ISO is good but when someone posts a night shot at 2000 ISO, I generally don't find that the shot is ruined by the added noise and I don't think I've ever seen someone else mention it here on a night shot.

If you want to avoid it, buy a cheap small tripod. Or sit your camera on a bin or a car or a step or anything around to use a lower shutter speed.

>>3145684
Take some test shots all at different apertures and find the one that is sharpest. That is your sweet spot and try to get close to that aperture from now on

>>3145704
Yes you need to take crop factor into consideration

I think the only issue in your op pic is the f number, I mean I think that's why the guy isn't in focus.
As to the iso discussion, you should be able to get to 2500-3200 and fix it in Lightroom afterwards without too much worry, but that's again subjective. You leave iso to auto, stay in aperture/shutter mode, and the camera will try to adjust iso the best it can, up to the limit you set it to (I left it at 3200 max)

>>3145704
>If my camera has an aps-c sensor is it the same? or should i multiply it?
multiply because it's the angle of view that matters, also that's just a rule of thumb and if you got image stabilization it does not apply

>>3145691
why would f/8 give a sharper image than f/1.8? more light = sharper right? so lower F-stop would be sharper?

>>3146142
>more light = sharper right?
no
>so lower F-stop would be sharper?
no

File: StarLight-768x1158.jpg (288KB, 768x1158px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 768x1158px

>>3145692
Adding on to this, only one razor thin plane is perfectly in focus. Try manually focusing in live view.
Iso has some impact on image quality but not much compared to focus and hand-shake. I accidentally shot pic related at like 5000 iso for reference.

Hey guys, thank you all for your advice, i really learned something new today.

I will try what you all have suggested and of course post some comparisions.