How to get good pictures from a DSLR with kit lens

Dokinator

Dokinator

Dokinator

Associate
Joined
14 Apr 2011
Posts
996
Location
Essex United Kingdom
I am just wondering if there is anyway of getting good/unique pictures from a DSLR with kit lens, maybe with the use of items such as filters ect. (Budget Low)

Currently in possession of a Sony A350 with 18-70mm Kit lens
 
Every shot is unique so just play around with the framing and point of focus.

Pick a random object and see what you can do by changing the angles.
 
Orange Peel said:
Every shot is unique so just play around with the framing and point of focus.

Pick a random object and see what you can do by changing the angles.
Click to expand...
Kind of do that anyway, but I will carry on playing. I like to take shots of anything really. I did have blog for my snaps, but found it had no traffic, so really it was a waste of my time.
 
There is NOTHING wrong with the kit lens.

They get bad press compaired to more expensive glass, sure the focus might be slow and the IQ isn't as good, but the kit lens isn't to be sniffed at.
With enough practice you can definitely get good shots using it.

Just try and take a "unique" angle on things.
 
Dokinator said:
Techniques........
Click to expand...

If you look on the Talk Photography forums you'll see a significant amount of average photography made with high-end kit. My point is that you're question half-assumes good photos can't be taken with low-end kit which is wrong. Practice is the answer (that, and ripping off other people's work! ...I found this a good read).
 
Main difference with the L glass, or the reason I have them, is not because of the sharpness (if that's what you think), it's because of the speed. In a environment where light is readily available, you can get just as good photo.

A good photo is about storytelling.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Main difference with the L glass, or the reason I have them, is not because of the sharpness (if that's what you think), it's because of the speed. In a environment where light is readily available, you can get just as good photo.

A good photo is about storytelling.
Click to expand...

As Raymond said, it's literally just down to the light. Check out the video below for proof... Obviously what they do is a bit overkill, but it gets the point across! :D

 
Raymond Lin said:
Main difference with the L glass, or the reason I have them, is not because of the sharpness (if that's what you think), it's because of the speed. In a environment where light is readily available, you can get just as good photo.

A good photo is about storytelling.
Click to expand...

Gosh who'da thunk Raymond liked fast glass! ;)

On a full frame camera the sharpness doesn't matter too much, on a crop they're much more unforgiving and even at web sizes you can spot a cheap crop lens.

There are situations where the kit lens is adequate, but you need to get most everything else right; composition, lighting (not necessarily flashes, just positioning or reflectors), subject matter etc.
 
Ksanti said:
Gosh who'da thunk Raymond liked fast glass! ;)

On a full frame camera the sharpness doesn't matter too much, on a crop they're much more unforgiving and even at web sizes you can spot a cheap crop lens.

There are situations where the kit lens is adequate, but you need to get most everything else right; composition, lighting (not necessarily flashes, just positioning or reflectors), subject matter etc.
Click to expand...

Not really true. Whether a camera is more forgiving of a lens or not is solely dependent on the pixel density. Full-frame camera like a D3X pack much the same pixel density as a 12MP camera like a D90. Furthermore, even if the sensor is out resolving the lens, this doesn't reduce the overall resolution of the image compared with using a lower pixel density sensor. Merely when viewed at 100% the image will be softer, but that is a meaningless comparison. When printed to the same size, it wont matter that the sensor out-resolved the lens.

What you claim with a web-sized image is just absolutely wrong. You are trying to say that a cheap kit lens cannot sufficiently resolve a 0.8-1.0MP photo sized for the web, thus there is no benefit in photographing more than the 1.0MP since the image resolution is the same. Clearly this is false because looking at a 12.0MP image form a crop sensor definitely showers higher captured resolution, and when printed to large sizes will show the higher resolution.


Secondly, you are clearly under estimating the quality of kit lenses. Compare the standard Nikon 18-105 VR kit lens to the super expensive Pro Nikon 24-70 2.8 that costs literally 10X the price and is regarded as the best wide-normal fast pro zoom made by any manufacturer:
18-105 it lens
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1221/cat/13
Expensive Pro zoom
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1121/cat/13

When both lenses are shot wide open there is no observable sharpness difference. Even with both lenses stopped down to 5.6 throughout the zoom range there is barely a difference, nothign you can see unless you are using profesionnal measuring equipment.

And with respect to your previous thread, look how soft your favorite Canon 85 1.2L is on full frame at wide apertures:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/10

Even when stopped down it is not out-resolving the 18-105 kit lens significantly.


Clearly, sharpness is not the reason for owning different lenses.


And with regards to having to have everything right, I quote form you
"composition, lighting (not necessarily flashes, just positioning or reflectors), subject matter etc" well, sorry to burst your bubble but you will need all of those things right on full frame with even the best prime lenses ever made.
A fancy Canon 1DMK3 and L glass doesn't make good photographs appear by magic. The most important aspects are skills, techniques, creativity, imagination, ability, experience, knowledge, etc.
 
Last edited:
Dokinator said:
Kind of do that anyway, but I will carry on playing. I like to take shots of anything really. I did have blog for my snaps, but found it had no traffic, so really it was a waste of my time.
Click to expand...
Just practice dude.

Go out, take some photos. Then when you get home don't just think "ugh.. crap shots", analyse them and think about how you can improve them and what you could do differently next time. Then keep it in mind for next time.

I never got any hits on my website when I started. But now I get about a thousand hits per month. About 70% of visitors come from the link in my sig. So maybe add a link in your sig.

Have a look at my stuff, pretty much all of it was shot with the 18-55 kit lens.
 
Last edited:
Ejizz said:
Also (just as important imo) it allows you to make decent photo's almost anywhere because you can isolate the subject from a busy background.
Click to expand...
True. It's definitely easier to do that in more situations with fast glass, but it's not impossible with a kit lens either.



Or you can just fake it and hope no one notices.


shifty.gif
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
Not really true. Whether a camera is more forgiving of a lens or not is solely dependent on the pixel density. Full-frame camera like a D3X pack much the same pixel density as a 12MP camera like a D90. Furthermore, even if the sensor is out resolving the lens, this doesn't reduce the overall resolution of the image compared with using a lower pixel density sensor. Merely when viewed at 100% the image will be softer, but that is a meaningless comparison. When printed to the same size, it wont matter that the sensor out-resolved the lens.

What you claim with a web-sized image is just absolutely wrong. You are trying to say that a cheap kit lens cannot sufficiently resolve a 0.8-1.0MP photo sized for the web, thus there is no benefit in photographing more than the 1.0MP since the image resolution is the same. Clearly this is false because looking at a 12.0MP image form a crop sensor definitely showers higher captured resolution, and when printed to large sizes will show the higher resolution.


Secondly, you are clearly under estimating the quality of kit lenses. Compare the standard Nikon 18-105 VR kit lens to the super expensive Pro Nikon 24-70 2.8 that costs literally 10X the price and is regarded as the best wide-normal fast pro zoom made by any manufacturer:
18-105 it lens
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1221/cat/13
Expensive Pro zoom
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1121/cat/13

When both lenses are shot wide open there is no observable sharpness difference. Even with both lenses stopped down to 5.6 throughout the zoom range there is barely a difference, nothign you can see unless you are using profesionnal measuring equipment.

And with respect to your previous thread, look how soft your favorite Canon 85 1.2L is on full frame at wide apertures:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/354/cat/10

Even when stopped down it is not out-resolving the 18-105 kit lens significantly.


Clearly, sharpness is not the reason for owning different lenses.


And with regards to having to have everything right, I quote form you
"composition, lighting (not necessarily flashes, just positioning or reflectors), subject matter etc" well, sorry to burst your bubble but you will need all of those things right on full frame with even the best prime lenses ever made.
A fancy Canon 1DMK3 and L glass doesn't make good photographs appear by magic. The most important aspects are skills, techniques, creativity, imagination, ability, experience, knowledge, etc.
Click to expand...

So... Tempting... Mustn't... Say... TL... DR....

Sharpness is a part of it, not the be all and end all.

My comment regarding web images is nothing to do with the resolution, it's just that the difference between the shots IS visible. You can get mad at me as much as you like, but look through either the most interesting or most recent photostreams of various kit lenses vs primes and you'll find a much larger proportion of images in the better lenses' groups that look siginificantly better, and that's not just because of the photographers.

I'm not saying you don't need to get everything right, but it's more crucial with cheap lenses - great lighting can distract from a soft shot, amazing composition can excuse motion blur from a slow lens. You can't lean on having DOF to play with or stunning IQ when you're using poor lenses on a crop, it's just a fact of the system. I'm not saying just having DOF to play with makes a good photo, but it makes it more pleasant to look at in many cases, and less 'snapshot'.

And regarding pixel density: Yes, the d3x is still more forgiving. You have loads of room to crop on the d3x which you don't have on the d90, and displaying images straight out of the camera, the shot will still be generally 1.5x sharper, displayed at the same size (not magnification).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom