Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dawg Pics" data-source="post: 761887" data-attributes="member: 26505">In a word, "no." <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />I agree with Fred.  I shot images for an online auction gallery using a D80 and a decent lens. I mostly used my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8.  The biggest challenge was inadequate lighting and reflections from paintings, glass and jewelry.  I shot mostly using an attached Nikon SB-800 Speedlight and sometimes just the built in flash, depending on the situation. Now and then, we had to haul some crappy work lighting that we had and deal with the terrible color wash and shadows from a single light source. YUK!You just need to get some decent lighting. Either stand lights or a decent  flash if you have a way to bounce and diffuse it. I think bright, diffuse stand lighting is probably a better choice for this application.  The D70, although long in the tooth, is plenty good enough for what you are doing.  You don't need more pixels to post internet images.  Here is an example. I shot this reflective vintage print using my D80, bounce flash and the lousiest lens in my possession (old Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED). I sat the print up against a backlit wall with only filtered bluish sunlight coming through the window of the wall it was propped against. The room was dimly light with only the filtered light. This is a jpeg image with no additional processing other than the camera's internal settings. I did crop it.   It pretty well represents what you see in person within reason considering looking at images on a computer screen are never the same as looking at something in person.  This print is pretty muddy in person with regards to color, and I think, the image is only a hair more vivid than what I see looking at it in person. If you notice the angel on the left looks kind of fuzzy, it is because the print looks like that.  If you choose to upgrade, and budget is a concern,  I would upgrade in this order: Lighting, Lens, Camera.  The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is my favorite lens.  I have an expensive Sigma 50-150 f2.8, and I don't like it as well as the Tammy.  Good color and sharp.  I can't recommend a lens though. I don't really do portrait stuff in a studio.  You are going to get as many answers as there are people on the forum. Good luck with whatever you decide.Jpeg Normal, ISO 320, 70mm, f8 at 125th, White Balance set to flash.  The internal camera settings are set this way.  I don't know why I did that. Probably experimenting.   Sharpening: +1, Tone Compensation: A, Color mode: IIIa, Saturation: A, Hue Adjustment: 0. [ATTACH=full]358555[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification