Camera D100 Working with the DOF a little, trying to come up with some good settings. Also I need to work on my lighting some, It's been a while. I want more depth. Maybe pull the left light back some to give deeper shadows on the left side of the vase, this should also help with the over exposed blade highlights. Knife made by the knife maker next door. Your thoughts please.

...dunno why, but I'm just sucker for knifes, must get one beautiful knife time to time. Must be that male thing. Or maybe my medication needs to be upgraded... Oh, well, to the pic. Lights are good, but somehow, composition doesn't work. Dunno why, but it just doesn't please my eye like it should. Is it the background color? Or is it just me? .n

What a beautiful knife! [Does he sell such things?] DOF [Depth of Field] looks good for this kind of product shot. Everything is razor sharp! [Well, maybe it could be a little sharper. Try stopping the lens WAY down. You are using a tripod?] The impression of depth, as in modeling 3D surfaces and gifing a feeling of space, could maybe use some work. Maybe a cast shadow on the background?

I agree, the composition is a little dull, once I get the hang of my lens, I will work on the composition and lighting more. I still have yet to try out a different lens. Yes, this guy does sell his knifes. Anyone want to guess what the handle is made of?

Bone? Cool knife.......

Ok team, I think I know what lens I am going to keep. Did some testing with a Tamron 28-108 f2.8 and it's way sharper than the Nikon 28-85 f2.8 - 4 WAY!! sharper. Did a test with same lighting same subject same settings, everything. If I upload the two, too much info would be lost in the jpg, but It's a hands down from what I can see. Here was the test subject. BTW, the handle is a Hippo tooth A very old one from what I am told, about 300+ years or so If I remember

Cool looking knife. Hope the hippo didn't miss the tooth to much :) Hard to believe that a Tamron lens would be sharper than a Nikon. I always thought that Nikon was the holy grail of 35mm lens.

Bet the knife costs more than the lens... Lens "sharpness" with a digital camera is a strange subject. [At risk of causing a flame war] I'd doubt you'd see any real difference over a wide range of lenses. In a lot of 35mm format lenses, the real expense comes in at maintaining a good resolution over the whole 35X24mm frame. When coupled with the present technology digitals, you are only really using the center of the frame anyway. The resolution in a digi is limited by the CCD sensor. In fact, there is a antialiasing (blurring) filter needed between the lens and the CCD to LIMIT the lens resolution to what the sensor can deal with. That being said, a better piece of glass shouldn't hurt. I'm surprised that the Tamaron checked out better than the Nikon. Other factors are important, like chromatic aberation and flare (contrast). But personally I'd not be surprised that a considerably cheaper lens worked practically just as good as a very expensive lens in a digital. I wouldn't spend the money for resolution not needed. I am somewhat surprised however about the claim that the Tamaron performed better. I'd guess just as good.

I agree with Misha883 the other points regarding these shots are more to do with the differences ie you would need to compare like for like by keeping everything exactly the same. There is a difference also in the focal length of the lenses, the Tamron could therfore focus closer giving a better impression of sharpness. They are very good value for money, and most of us could not detect any difference anyway. The background would also make a difference the first being bland, almost as if filled in by the paint fill tool in PS, and the lighting is effected by the upward angle of the first image. One final point about digitals they are often smaller in size, and as a result are thus cheaper to make, and can often be higher quality as there are liable to less problems during manfacture.

The Tamron lens cost $200 more than the Nikon lens. All the settings were the same. Lighting f Stops Focal length The Nikon lens was the 24-85 2.8 - 4 D. The Tamron Len was the 28-105 2.8. I know that Nikon lens are better in most cases, but I think Tamron got it right on this lens. The contrast was clearly higher with the Tamron lens. I had the choise to pick the one I thought was better and after my testing, I went with the Tamron. Did you know that Tamron makes lens for Nikon? My intent was just to let you all know what way I went and my findings.

Well thats great you did make the choice that was right for you, sounds as if you got a great dealer there to! Yeah I did know that Tamron make lenses for other companys. As do Nikon and Canon etc. I think you may have missed my point about focal length, it is much more difficult for a lense to be crisp from 24-85 I suspect as 24mm is quite more extreme wide angle than 28mm It does not make a differnce if you set both lenses at the same settings. Also it would have been good to see the same shots from both camera's for a better A B comparison. Both camera's gave very good results anyway. Best of luck with it.

I still have both images, But they are very big and if I size them down they will loose a lot of info. Each image is around 4 megs. BTW, I shot both images with the same camera, just different lens. I will post jpg versions of then both when I get time using the same settings in Photoshop.

Thanks Spike I would be very interested my friend. May have to raid my piggy bank for one myself. lol