Which models are these 2 Nikons?

The picture is not clear but can anyone tell me which Nikons are these?

Both cameras have articulated LCDs on the back, and those don’t look like D5x00 series cameras.

 

The one on her left side has a rectangular viewfinder eyepiece. That is a D750.

 

The one on her right side has a round eyepiece. That is either a D500 or D850. If this image was captured between January 2016 and September 2017, that pretty much has to be a D500.

 

The flash seems to be an SB-700. :)

Edited April 14, 2018 by ShunCheung

Here is an image of the back side of the D850 and D500. There is a size difference, but otherwise they look awfully similar. It is difficult to tell the difference without a clear view.

 

Both cameras have articulated LCDs on the back, and those don’t look like D5x00 series cameras.

 

The one on her left side has a rectangular viewfinder eyepiece. That is a D750.

 

The one on her right side has a round eyepiece. That is either a D500 or D850. If this image was captured between January 2016 and September 2017, that pretty much has to be a D500.

 

The flash seems to be an SB-700. :)

 

The image was captured on 04/07/2018

Just noticed that only the D850 has two Philips screws above the viewfinder eyepiece. She has a D850.

 

A D750 + a D850. That is the kind of photographers I like. ;)

 

And please don't ask which lenses she had on those camera bodies.

 

Thank you Shun!

That is a D750.

Could have been a D7500 also - but the strap attachment points give it away as a D750 (the ones on the D7500 are square).

 

A D750 + a D850. That is the kind of photographers I like. ;)

 

 

But she shot the entire wedding with the flash in that same position and yes the flash did came on. I wonder what the purpose of the flash.

Interesting that Dieter mentioned the D7500. The articulated LCD on both cameras immediately narrows it down to just a few possibilities, and the D5x00 models have LCDs that swing out to the left (or swing down in the case of D5000).

 

Both the D750 and D7500 have Nikon's consumer-style dials on the left side with U1, U2, scene mode ... selections, but the D750 has three rubber flaps that cover the external electronic connections on the left side, and the sizes of the rubber covers are not even. The top one is much shorter. Another obvious difference is that the D7500 has the new style of ISO button right behind the shutter release button (similar to the D5, D500, and D850), but that part is not visible in the OP's image.

 

And she was the official photographer at a wedding last Saturday? Her cameras are very good with excellent high-ISO capability. I am a bit surprised that she uses a relatively weak flash. I would expect an SB-800, SB-900, or SB-5000 with an external battery pack for faster recycle time or perhaps something even stronger. However, what really matter is that she gets excellent results, and I have no visibility to the results.

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by ShunCheung

 

And she was the official photographer at a wedding last Saturday? Her cameras are very good with excellent high-ISO capability. I am a bit surprised that she uses a relatively weak flash. I would expect an SB-800, SB-900, or SB-5000 with an external battery pack for faster recycle time or perhaps something even stronger. However, what really matter is that she gets excellent results, and I have no visibility to the results.

 

Yes Shun, she was the official photographer at the wedding. The lighting in the chapel is about EV6 to EV7 @ ISO 100. The reception hall was from EV4 to EV6 @ ISO100. The D850 should be able to do it without flash as I believe she used large aperture. However, the lighting in the chapel was nice but the lighting in the reception all was only by the chandeliers and would not look good in my opinion. I myself still waiting to see her pictures.

 

This is how the hall look like and there was no way to do any bounce flash either

 

How come you did not ask her what cameras she used?

How come you did not ask her what cameras she used?

Maybe BeBu did. And since that photographer was the official wedding photographer for the entire day, I would imagine that BeBu had many opportunities to capture better, clearer images of her cameras, perhaps showing the model numbers in front. It wasn't like he had that one brief moment to capture that one image of the photographer. However, I think he was using that one obscure image to test our knowledge about Nikon camera trivia. ;)

 

Wedding photography frequently involve challenging lighting. I don't mean to divert this thread into that discussion, but I am a bit surprised that she didn't use a stronger flash with a more powerful power supply. You can always bounce off a white card from a flash bracket. However, she was using a shoulder strap that suspends one camera on each side. Any large set up is going to be very cumbersome when you are carrying two cameras simultaneously.

Edited April 15, 2018 by ShunCheung

No I didn't ask and I didn't take many pictures of her either. While I love to take pictures of the photographer many feel offended by it so I only took a few and with her far away so no I don't have any clearer image of her nor I knew which cameras she had that's why I asked. I have no intention to test your knowledge of Nikon DSLR Shun because I knew you would know.

I also don't feel comfortable asking her why she was pointing the flash in the wrong direction.

The flash is turned to the camera's right by 90 deg with the little reflector thingy pulled out.... to bounce off the side walls?

 

I'd recon the D750's lens is a Sigma without hood. Looks a bit like my 24-35 f2, but isn't quite long enough.

 

EDIT...35mm or 50mm 1.4 ART maybe?

Edited April 16, 2018 by mike_halliwell

I'd say to bounce off a wall (maybe earlier and not recently) and to avoid hitting her leg. Although wandering around with the diffuser sticking out is likely to cause it to break quite soon. A big flash is certainly heavier, but in a venue that size I suspect you're going to struggle doing more than putting a catchlight in people's eyes anyway, if you don't want the subjects standing in front of a black background. That said, I'd rather have the option of adding some lighting than rely on high ISO. Many of the wedding images I've just been editing were at ISO 4k-12k on a D810, and even good raw conversion still struggles.

 

I'm in no way a professional wedding photographer (having, this weekend, finally finished editing the photos from the friends' wedding I shot three years ago) but, on equipment alone, I wouldn't assume this one didn't know what she was doing. I've attended several weddings with camera kit, and my philosophy is:

• Never shoot when and where the official photographer is shooting (because that's a guaranteed way to make some people look at the wrong camera - I always point the lens down until it's clear others are done)
  
• If the official photographer looks like they know what they're doing, capture lots of candids, because the pro can't be everywhere and people are doing things when the pro is capturing official shots; also get some shots of the pro setting things up, because if they're offering a good experience, they're part of the wedding event
  
• If the official photographer doesn't look like they know what they're doing (which has happened - I've seen official photographers with a single elderly DSLR, no backup, no obvious to-do list, and setting up people in harsh lighting): surreptitiously get backups of the main groups, ideally talking to each other before and after the main photographer is ready and from a distance; I take long lenses to weddings (I've taken a 150-500!), and am prepared to lurk
  
• The official photographer usually clears off early, so be prepared to get shots of things like cake cutting and dances
  

Watch out for a disaster that you can recover, but always reserve judgement, and do no harm! (The photographer at my wedding, who had already shot a relative's wedding successfully, freaked me out by having a lot of sun shining on the front element of a lens she was using for one of my shots. It seemed to work out, even though I might look a little unsure in the photo.)

 

I usually say hi to the professional (if only so they don't wonder why someone has turned up with a huge camera kit and think there's competition), and reassure them that I'll try to stay out of the way, and that they can yell at me if I'm accidentally obstructing. The conversation usually gives me some clue about whether I should be worried, but I certainly wouldn't express concerns to the photographer. The one way to make a dodgy wedding photographer worse is to make them nervous. Especially having been the dodgy wedding photographer myself!

 

And yes, I think the lens on the D750 looks like a 35mm Art. I think the 50mm is longer. But I won't stake my limited reputation on it!

Reading the EXIF data from pictures delivered the lenses used were Nikon 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4.

I assume some of those lenses could be third party too. EXIF shows focal length and max aperture, but not lens brand name, only camera brand. I assume I passed the test ;).

 

I understand you cannot share the images, but do you like the quality and the photographer’s skills? As I pointed out earlier, her flash seems weak for wedding, but now we know she uses fast lenses.

Well I can give you opinion because whether other the pictures are good is up to the viewers. She shot most of the pics at f/2.2 to f/2.5. The shot inside the color washout and very little details in the highlight. Low amount of details considering she delivered 24MP images they seem to have less details than my 16MP shots (she shot almost all of the pic using the D850). Composition is good. The flash contribute very little light to the scene and mostly to the top of the pictures.

There are a number of different ways to shoot weddings. Some photographers use a lot of flash, some don’t, and some in between. Certain venues allow flash and some don’t. In the 1980’s I was interested in indoor, available-light photography; hence I bought a 35mm/f1.4 AI-S, but I was limited by film speed in those days, when ISO 400 was high-speed color negative. Today we have a lot more flexibility with cameras such as the D850 and D750.

 

What I learned from those days (1980’s) is that if you don’t use flash indoors, the contrast can be very high. If you need to compensate for the darker areas, the highlights can easily burn out. Fill flash can fill in some dark areas and even things out somewhat.

Overall I think her images are poor technically. In my opinion she seriously underexposed them and bring them up in post. The images seem to have been de noise seriously so that the details are lost. She used ISO 800 the same ISO I used on my camera but they have a lot less details than mine.

Obviously I cannot comment on the official images since I haven't seen them and probably will never see them, but as usual, we know that having good equipment is, at best, the secondary factor that leads to great results.

 

I haven't captured a wedding in like 10 years. If I were to do another one, I would certainly use a 24-70mm/f2.8 and a 70-200mm/f2.8. You can probably replace the 24-70 with 35, 50, and 85mm lenses, but I think something close to 200mm is necessary. The two bodies this photographer used are good.

I'm hoping there may have been a 70-200 in a bag and not currently on the cameras? Maybe they happened not to be under the shots shared.

 

The last (and I might mean that in both senses) wedding I photographed saw a lot of use from the 70-200; I even switched to the 200 f/2 for some of the dancing, largely because the lighting was so poor. That was for candids while everyone was dancing, though - the 70-200 was fine for the official first dance. I took some photos at another friend's wedding a few years back where their official photographer left before the dancing (and food) and tried the small and cheap solution. A 135mm f/2.8 AI is fine for outdoors, not so much indoors with a moving subject, and I said a lot of rude words when the venue turned the lights down during the first dance; I frantically switched in a 50mm Sigma f/1.4 HSM that I'd borrowed (and mostly tried not to use because its FX corners look like the mk1 70-200's at 200mm), but it wasn't really a substitute. I've used a 200 f/2 at a family wedding in Bali, too - it justified the pain when they had the place candlelit for the speeches, and the only thing illuminating the face of the father of the bride was the phone screen holding his speech. ISO 12800 and be there... But then my wife decided that we'd get married in an aquarium, in front of big glass windows, which were very pretty to look through but, from the point of view of something safe to point a flash at, I was whimpering on our photographer's behalf. I'm definitely not ever doing weddings commercially.

 

ISO800 is a little odd. Thom Hogan indicated that the two-stage amplifier on the D850 made ISO400 better than the next fraction down, but 800 is definitely past the cusp. I've always assumed weddings were critical on dynamic range and tried to stick at minimum ISO (I still had a D700 when my wife's niece got married on a beach, with the groomsmen in white and pale gold in direct sunlight and the bridesmaids in dark purple trying to stay cool under the shade of a tree; on a D810 or D850 I'd have been at ISO64 and praying that post would recover it). Some of the wedding dance photos I delivered recently were on the grainy side, but then they were often at ISO5000 to try to freeze the action and have enough DoF to get the subject. I'd be disappointed if a D850 couldn't do a decent job at 800, especially with modern noise reduction software - I use DxO's PRIME on anything over ISO 1000 (or where I've pushed the exposure a lot) with a D810, but below that is generally smooth even with trivial noise reduction.

 

Still, we won't really know without seeing the photos, so at this point we can only really sympathise. So long as the couple themselves were happy, I guess. It does sound from the images as though they were sub-par, but since you can't really have a do-over (unless the marriage goes poorly) there's not much to be done about that. On that note, I did thank the couple whose wedding I shot three years back for not getting divorced before I gave them the last of their images (a couple of weeks ago)...

I don't know but I don't think this picture do justice to the D850. I must rather have my version in the second picture. Her picture some how become an attachment number dsc7008

 

Hi Bebu, if you still have that GMail account you used a couple of years ago, please see my e-mail. I don't want to turn this thread into a public critique of someone else's images, especially that photographer never invited us to do so.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Shun - I don't feel right offering a critique. I'll say a couple of technical things, though.

 

For what it's worth, I do prefer your choice of white balance, but having run through a long sequence of images in varying unflattering light recently I can say it's at least easy to get a bit colour blind - several times I went back through and shifted everything, and I'm still not sure whether I made everyone a bit pink or a bit green. And some film would have had the same effect, so it might have been a choice. Compositionally, the official photographer had the advantage of the staged (if less natural) shot, of course.

 

Something a little odd and painterly seems to have happened at pixel level, which may be iffy noise reduction or a deliberate "look". I agree it's not what I'd expect straight out of the camera, so from a purely "does this look right to you?" perspective, something does seem to be going on.

 

In your position (which I assume was a guest), I'd share your images with the bridge and groom without comment. If they're happy with the official photos, nothing good will come from trying to make them unhappy with them. (I've been a bit unimpressed with the official photos at the wedding of one of my friends, but that was just my opinion, and I certainly didn't share it.) If they like your images more, you've done your bit; if not, you've complemented the official shots.

 

If the couple are unhappy with their official photos, they're not practically going to get better ones by complaining at the photographer (without staging a fake reshoot) - having yours and those of other guests is their backup.

 

If they come to you and ask if they have a right to complain and whether the shots could be seen as sub-par (bearing in mind that has to be in comparison with what they were expecting: if they're consistent with samples shown to them, it's hard to argue), then by all means state your opinion. I'd want to judge the whole set, though. If only offer to re-adjust any if they're at the stage of "this photo is ruined", not pre-emptively. And I'd be very cagey about any "what did you think of the photos?" question - they might just be searching for a "they were lovely".

 

TL;DR: If your friends are unhappy with their photos then support them and assert your expertise. But don't make them unhappy by doing so. Nothing is ever perfect, in a wedding as in life. If you're happy, you don't notice the imperfections.