sun_p

<p>Shun - the moment you mentioned moisture, I got the hair dryer out. After a couple of attempts, its working absolutely fine!!<br> Thanks for the suggestion!</p>

<p>It behaves the same way for for other functions also! So if I keep rotating the dial, it will suddenly change the value, but then I cannot change it back, need to keep rotating the dial and it might change once in a while.</p>

<p>Thanks Shun! I was able to change the command dial dial buttons and now the shutter speed works with the front dial, but the aperture does not change with the main dial (It changes randomly when i keep rotating the main dial) same when I switch back the dials. Would this mean that the main dial has gone bad? Wondering if it would cost a bomb to change it considering the camera is over two years and is out of warranty now. This was working absolutely fine last time I used it with flash. Not sure, if fungus or something is causing this issue since I was out for 2 months and it was raining in between.</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,</p> <p> Sometime back I had changed the settings on my Nikon D600 to self timer mode when I was trying something after which I was out for about 2 months. I just got back and was trying the camera out, My mode is M and lower dial is Set to "S". The aperture is changing but the shutter speed does not change. When I try to rotate the dial it randomly changes, Wondering if there is any problem with the dial or if I have by mistake changed something in the menu/hit some button etc. Unfortunately, the manual is also not with me at the moment. Would anyone know what I need to do to make sure its not a setup issue. I hope its not a hardware button problem!</p> <p>thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks a lot everyone! I think I am now very clear on what lens to go for. Thanks Rodeo Joe for the information on - how much of the baby's face would fit in the frame approximately part. I think even a 135 mm would be quite a change from a 85mm at least in terms of the compression etc. I am also thinking of trying out my 105 2.8VR again to see if I can use it a little more creatively. Its been lying in the bag for about 8 months. I have a shoot this weekend, I am thinking of using that for the closeups and then once I am ready with my finances go for the 70-200 2.8 vd II</p> <p>Thanks again!<br /> Sun</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Like l said, the 85/50 would continue to be used for the session as my primary lens. But I think I have got my answer in terms of what lens to get. It might also be interesting to use a zoom after shooting only prime for the last two years after migrating from my very first D40/d90/18-55 kit lens. </p> <p>I had one more question on this - Considering the fact that the focus breathing happens only at minimum focus distance(I hope I got that right), for those who have the lens, would a baby's face (around 8-12 months age group) require us to be at MFD to fill the frame? The reason I ask is because we would be going closer to the subject to fill the frame approaching the MFD only if the size of the subject is really small. What about a baby's face (8-12 months age group)?</p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi Matt - Great to hear from you. You were instrumental a couple of years back in my getting the right camera and lenses especially the sigma 50 1.4 and the Nikon D600. I think you got it absolutely right. I also happen to shoot pets and a faster AFS is something that you need in both cases, kids and pets :) . Its almost non-negotiable. For adults even a manual focus lens would do. I had one question regarding the focus breathing. If I zoom out till 200mm and try to focus at minimum focus distance, as mentioned it will actually be around 135mm. What about the compression and perspective? Does that also change to that of a 135 mm lens? Also, then when would this lens show the true 200mm length? Would it be if I pull back further? Say for example, a kid is about two feet in height sitting down. Approx, what distance would I have to step back to get the full 200mm focal length and based on your experience, how much of the subject would it cover? Just thinking if I would need to crop in post with the zoom also.</p> <p>Kent - Couldn't agree with you more! Kids are too busy doing their own thing and if anything react mostly to the parents. Infact, If I am close and try to get their attention, they get all startled spoiling the photographs sometimes. This is the reason why I was thinking of getting a longer focal length lens. Of course, love the compression also! Just doing what ever it takes to make my customers happier this year.</p> <p>Rodeo Joe - Sigma and Tamron as such don't have a proper office at my place. So its mostly dealers who get it from different places outside the country. so its a little risky. Nikon and Cannon have proper offices and we get warranty etc. So considering the cost, I was planning my finances in a way to get this zoom if required. However, since I don't have access to test or rent these lenses, thought of putting my questions over here. Nothing like experience from other photographers! At least, I have always got great advice here.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses.</p> <p>Paul, the 200 becomes a 135 at MFD!! wow. I did read about focus breathing, but those articles were mentioning it would be more like 165 or so. However, AFS is critical for me. The kids move really fast, so manual focus and slow focus is a total no - no. I actually, have the nikon 105 VR micro which I had got 2-3 years back when I used to shoot a bit of food and products. I did try it out on portraits, but it was too slow. I was missing a lot of shots. Also, I guess, at the head shot and shoulder shots, considering the angle of view, there might not be much of background anyway. My main intention was the compression and a slightly different perspective which would add some value to my customers. Right now, like I said, with the 50 and 85, head shots are a bit of a struggle for me, but when I do get them, they generally end up being the customers favourite. I also shoot a lot into the light, and a couple of years back had the 135 in mind but read that it was too slow and the CA was bad. I guess, it would be great to shoot adults with it, but not so sure about kids.</p> <p>Wouter, generally, with kids, that I shoot in the 8-11 month age, most of them are busy doing their own thing, I generally get the parents to interact with them sitting behind or by the side outside the frame. In many cases I have noticed, If I actually interact with them, then they get a bit startled, eyes widen, pupils dilate etc when they see me so close. Also, I don't plan to make the 70-200 my primary and only lens, I continue shooting with 50/85 and then for head shots and maybe a few other shoulder/eye shots switch to the 70-200 and shoot only at 2.8 (hence not considering the F4 version). I will take a look at the 180 2.8 online to read about it.</p> <p>Les - I have the 105 VR. But don't use it. Its too slow for kids. And also a bit too sharp for my liking. I prefer a slightly softer look.</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,</p> <p> Here is wishing a very Happy New Year to everyone reading this!</p> <p>I was planning on buying the 70-200 f2.8 VrII lens this year and wanted some advice from the experts here. Unfortunately at my place I don't have the option to rent the lens so am posting over here like I have done before. All the gear I currently have is thanks to the recommendation from experts here and I am more than happy with what I have.</p> <p>To give you a background, I primarily shoot kids, couples and families and have been doing so for the last two years. I shoot both indoors in a studio setting and outdoors in the open. Outside I shoot natural light without flash. I have a Nikon D600 and the sigma 50 1.4 and nikon 85 1.4 D both of which I use and have managed to get great photographs. Although with little kids, I noticed I tend to use the 50 more since the 85 sometimes takes a little while to focus. </p> <p>One issue that I see with the 50 and the 85 is that the working distance between the subject and myself is quite less and for head shots when I get closer to kids, they generally have that startled look with open eyes. The other option is that I step back and take photographs and then crop later which results in a little loss of resolution. I also give prints of all the photographs I take. So I thought the 70-200 f2.8 might benefit in the following ways<br> 1. I will be away from the kids and can zoom in at about 200 and get a lot more natural looking head shots and some eye shots.<br> 2. With the perspective and compression at 200, it will add to a slightly different yet flattering look especially for head shots, which would help with the sales <br> 3. I see the AF is very fast on the lens, which is very important with kids. Not to mention the VR will help by almost 2 stops so even if I shoot at 200mm, I can have a slower shutter speed outside by almost two stops.<br> 4. I am a sucker for bokeh and the 85 and 50 at 1.4 excel. However, I understand at 200mm, the angle of view is that much lesser so even if the bokeh of the lens is not the best, at least it makes the subject pop out if the distance from background is good due to the different angle of view at 200mm </p> <p>So plan is to continue using the 50 or 85 mm at 1.4 like I currently do and then use the 70-200 for head/shoulder shots and also the added benefit of slightly different background rendering due to the smaller angle of view. AF speed of the lens also being an important factor.</p> <p>Wondering if any of the experts here feel that it might not be a good idea or have any other suggestions? I shoot mostly kids in the age group of 2 - 12 months.</p> <p>thanks!<br> Sun</p>