loreneidahl

I own many , many digital and many, many film bodies that use my Nikon lenses. I buy only lenses that will work on both types because I use both digital and film at the events I shoot.

 

( one of my workhorse cameras is a F3/MD4 connected to a remote trigger - I have 4 :) ) My Favorite digital is the D2 and the D2x

 

Digital and film both have strengths.

 

I am still buying film bodies because I use film bodies as much as my digital bodies. Since I added digital to my tool box my usage of film has gone up. :)

 

As a direct result of my competitiors "going" digital, I now use more film than ever. In addition I have added Large Format and for some types of my shots that have always been shot on 35mm, I now have a distinct edge on image quality that digital camera users can only dream about.

I used to use the Sunpak 555 quite a bit with my D2h's for my extreme spors stuff, now I use the 622 Pro.

 

The 555 will work on the D70 either in manual or Auto mode via the pc sync cord connected to the camera.

 

TTL Support:

 

The 555 does support TTL BUT ONLY with the EXT-11 cord and the right camera model specific module. Tocad ( SunPak Distributor) has not made any statements as to which of their Nikon Specific modules will support TTL with Nikon digital cameras to a limited extant.

 

ITTL Support:

 

I do not own a D70 or D70s, but my D200 and D2x support ITTL too and the module does not accurately work in that mode.

after rereading my last post I seem to be contradicting myself. Sorry.

 

To clarify:

 

The viewfinder on the D2h and D2hs is a huge improvement over what is considered a viewfinder on the D200. This assessment is based on how I use the camera and in the conditions I use them. ( Low light, action , fast AF and Fast MF lenses, require 100% view)

 

To repeat:

 

The D200 viewfinder is average and is designed for the holiday shooter and the D2h and D2hs viewfinders are designed for what a professional needs to make money.

 

I think thats clear now ! :)

Is the D200 viewfinder better than than D2h?

 

In a word YES!.

 

The D200 viewfinder cannot compare to theD2h.

 

The viewfinder of the D2h is clearer , sharper and 100% of view. Very much like the F3 ( I own 3 ). If you have followed some of my posts you'll see that viewfinder quality too me is one of the key factors that determine whether a camera finds a permanent usage with me.

 

The only problem that the D2h viewfinder has in my eyes is thats it not removable. I require 100% view on my viewfinders becasue I compose in the viewfinder and I dont like to crop. The D2h gives me a bright images for manual focusing of very fast lenses , like my 50 1.2 , in dim light where DOF is measured in inches. The D200 can only dream of this power. Like I said earlier I have a d200 because I am a camera geek, not because I love or are enamored with the D200 cameras functions.

 

Best advice I can give you is to hold a D2h in your hand - but have your credit card handy. You'll want to but a nice bag for the camera. :)

Noise of D2h compared to D2hS

 

The noise of the D2h at high ISO 1600 and up is ever sooo slightly better than the D2h. However it is not a issue that makes me choose one over the other. Its a really an non issue to me.

 

The noise of the D2h and the D2hs at the high ISO ( 1600+) is predicatable and can be dealt with. The D2h and the D2hs operate very much like a fine slide film -- deliberate thought to exposure, but when you nail the exposure the image IS!

 

The amount of digital noise at ISO 1600 is equal what a traditional film at 800 ISO would produce in grain. Like I mentioned in an earlier post , I use the WI-FI attachment and combined with some special software to send the cataloged images directly to my server for publication to the editors.

 

During the set changes the images that I just took minutes prior are show on the overhead jumbo-tron monitors - minor cropping and watermarking are the only post processing done on them.

 

Any offensive noise would at that point be quite noticable and everybody would see. However I do not hesitate to do this at all with the D2h or the D2hs.

Dynamic Range:

 

Okay interesting question. First let me state for the record that the vast majority of my action shots occur in real ugly nasty lighting situations. Sometimes I actually can use available Sun to light my photos, but it is rare. I use flash for my exteme sports shots ( skateboarding, Snow boarding, BMX ) to stop action and for drama. My concert shots very rarely will see a flash used. (it ruins the effect)

 

For those shots that occur in harsh light ( camera settings as equal as can be) - the usable dynamic range of the D200 stinks when compared to the D2h/s. This is in part due to the pixel increase and the D200's inability to process low light images in the same fashion as the D2h/s (sensor type issues)

 

The increase in pixel count on the D200 means that each pixel has more potential noise problems in low light / high ISO settings as compared to the D2h/s. (based on real world side by side shooting).

 

The D200 realized dynamic range when compared to the D2h/s when shooting in Sunny 16 conditions is quite a bit different but not necessarily better. The skin tone rendition of the D2h/s are near perfect. The D200 is not there yet, but is makes up for it in the fact that there are more data collection units (pixels) giving you much more lattitude to tweak a NEF file during post-production.

 

The vast majority of the images that come off of my D2h and D2hs - I send directly to my editors electronically without the need for any post work on my end. (granted I set my camera up to help this). The D2x is similar in this area and I really like it and its better than the D2h/s in some lighting conditions. Cant say that about the D200 though.

 

The D200 does not have this type of gracefullness. However, that being said the D200 works real well in non-artifical light without alot of correction so long as the predominate colors complement its sensor strength. Which is why I use it for crowd shots and non-people specific shots under harsh light.

 

In the D2h and D2hs the sensor has been tweaked specifically to address the issue of properly capturing the full range of tones present in skin. Darker tones render equally as well as lighter tones (exposure adjusted of course) in the D2h and D2hs or the D2x.

 

The D200 give a much broader range when used with flash - however you really have to make sure that you are using the latest Nikon flash with the D200 to get the full range of capabilities with the D200 sensor.

 

The D200 would probably be a better wedding camera than the D2h/s because the predominant tones are not skin type but rather black and white and your light is controlled. In concert shots and sports shots the concentration is on the performer and not the environment or the clothing like in a wedding. Also in a wedding most of your shots would be flash based so you have more control over the light and how it works with a camera. Concert dont give you that flexibility and some sports don either.

 

Ergonomics:

 

Ergomomically the D2h and D2hs fit the hand better than the D200 and the extra powerpack with a large lens. The ergonomics of the D2h and D2hs have to be experienced to be appreciated.

 

My traditional D2h/s setup is D2h/wi-fi adapter/28-70 2.8 lens. This combo while large fits well for me. Some of my Gals who have smaller hands fore-go the wi-fi adapter, but they still like the feel and control provided. I usually am carrying one D2h/s with the 28-70 2.8 and one D2h/s with the 80-200 2.8. Both with wi-fi and have no problems with control.

I use the D2h, D2hS, D200 and D2x in my concert/extreme sports photo buisness.

 

For action shots like I need to get, in the environments that I work in, the D200 is nowhere close to being adequate. It is used primarilly for crowd shots. ( non-money shots) I bought it because I am a camera geek - what can I say :)

 

Mega pixels for me mean squat, zilch, nada, zip. What really means something to me is the cameras abilty to perform in extreme situations, stop action in the environments that I use it, work with as little light as possible AND get me saleable images. The D2h and D2hs do this without a hitch all the time without question. Never fails - Kind of like my PowerBook - they just work!

 

Once you know how to use the camera properly the noise becomes a non issue.

 

Regarding the D2h service advisory: I have sent problem D2h in to Nikon to get repaired - they repaired them no problem - FREE! - total down time of the camera was less than 10 calendar days. ( of course my backups have backups so it wasnt an issue)

 

Spend money on glass!(it does not depreciate very fast) Get fast glass! - my primary lens is the 28-70 2.8 followed closely by the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. The 80-200 2.8 lives permanatly on one of my cameras.

 

If you have the money the 200 2.0 is one real nice lens and it is perfect for shots from the press line. Team it up with the D2h and you got a real quality tool for getting sports shots.

 

The D200 has been a disapointment in many areas for me, thankfully I didnt buy too many of them. ( it a great camera - just not for what I shoot and what I need) The D2H family is fully qualified to give my editors enough MP to print out two page spreads and life size posters.

 

The D2X - I am really only using because there are a few editors who require large MP images. But the D2x in only a backup camera. ( FWIW - I also use large format cameras for some of my shots - a 5x7 negative scanned has alot of mp ;))

 

Every person who works for me has D2h or D2hs as their primary camera. (16mp of fuzzy dont sell as good as 4mp of razor sharp)

Number one tip - Dont bring a digital. :)

 

When I go backpacking, or canoeing I leave my digital stuff at home and break out the Nikon F2's with standard finder. ( bracket your shots = chimping)

 

One has been to the bottom of a lake as a result of a loading experience into the bush plane. Dried it out and continued working for the rest of the two weeks I was in the wilderness. ( Canada)

 

Couldn't go back to the store and get it fixed right away - several hours or hiking , 3 portages and a bush plane ride away from civilization.

 

A wet digital is a dead digital = no pictures - bottom line.

 

A wet manual film camera after its dried out will still work = pictures .

 

You may have to bracket a little more to account for a potentially slow shutter , but you'll still have pictures

On the artistic side of concert photography:

 

Generally for concert shooting you want to accompolish the following:

 

Capture the emotion in the artistic expression as it relates to the artist(s) and the music.

 

Since you cant hear the music on the film you images have to either by way of facial expression , body language or processing communitate that emotion in the smae manner that the music would if you were at the concert.

 

Take a look at Jeff's picture. The picture is a prefect example of that. ( lots of emotion, I can almost hear the music as I look at the picture)

 

Use whatever tools you have to capture and communicate the emotion you feel and your client wants the viewer to feel when the image is viewed.

 

On the equipment/technical side of things the following rules apply:

 

1)Fast lenses rule.

 

2)Get as close to your subject as possible.

 

3) Fast lenses rule.

 

4) Use high ISO to allow you the shutter speeds necessary to stop action.

 

5) Anticipate the action of the artits based on flow of song.

 

For shooting intimate indoor venues you should be able to get close enough to have the artist fill the frame.

 

Get shots during sound checks.

 

Shoot the drummer ( this guy usually gets forgotten) Check my online photos of a drummer shot

 

Shoot the keyboardist. ( again a band member that can provide a good shot)

 

When Flash is allowed - The best option is to usually use it when you have too. The use of indescrimate flash can ruin a perfectly dark concert shot. Jeff's example is perfect for this - would flash have made this image more striking? Sure you can see more but concert photography isnot about seeing its about the emotion that you capture.

 

 

The kit lens without a flash will only cause you grief.

 

Use the 50 1.8, the 18-200 will be too slow without a flash.

 

Although when I shoot concerts I very rarely ever use a flash I always carry one or two. I use a SunPak 622 with various flash heads.

 

Personally I used to use the Sb800 however that was way too limiting in distance and in flash options for what I need in a concert flash.

 

Get onstage shots - tight cropped of singer and lead guitarist.

 

A small amount of the right equipment choosen specifically for the type of shooting that you do will benefit you more than having alot of general equipment that you think will do the job.

Frankly Mr. Littman I read about two lines out of your entire diatribe and did not read the rest of it. My brain was getting dirty.

 

I got an employee that when confronted with an negative issue that they were involved in, begins to "explain" things to me. Now the only reason that this employee is still employed is because their value to me far, far outweighs their bull. When they start up with their "explanation" I tune them out.

 

Mr Littman reminds me of this employee, the only problem is that his vebosity of speech far out weighs any perceived value he hopes to impart upon the photographic community at large.

 

"Me thinks thou dost protest too much"

I got Both. The F2 is not darker than the F3.

 

I tend to echo Todd's comments. Each has their particular Cache.

 

I just purchased another F2 for my remote trips into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. An F3 that takes a bath dies qucikly. A f2 that takes a bath can be dried out and will continue to work untill professioanly cleaned.

 

Beatie makes some really bright viewscreens. I use them for my Astrophotography work on both models with equal enjoyment.

 

If you have followed any of my threads on this board you will notice that I place a HIGH vlaue on viewfinder quality. The F2 and the F3 qualify for me.

 

A properly serviced F2 is as equally accurate as a properly serviced F3. Both are very accurate. I have a F2 and F3 that I use as reference meters for my large format (5x7) slide work.

For me the 80-200 2.8 is just as critical to concert photography as the 50 1.4 or the 85 1.4.

 

Any VR lens on the market will not stop subject movement ( stops operator movement yes- subject movement no.). A F3.5 lens is just too slow. Especially a lens that zooms more than 2.5 times. Stick with fast lenses. A good math for the 80-200 would be the 28-70 2.8 or the 17-50 2.8.

 

Tripods and flash are never a option in concert photography ( at least the kind I do) , so fast and ultra fast lenses are the only way to go.

I use optech on my gear. They work well and distribute the load. My D2h is usually loaded down with the 80-200 2.8, wireless adapter, and remote flash sync. No problem with weight. The D2x system weighs about the same.

Had a similar problem with my out of warranty D2h. Sent it to Nikon - they sent it back in two weeks working fine. No Charge!

You did not say what your typical lighting condiderations are. This would be a prime consideration.

 

For me the money always goes into glass first, then the body gets upgraded, then the glass again. The glass is what captures the light. The digital body while important only transforms that light into a digital signal. If the original image source data isnt there as its coming through the best digital body cant help you much.

 

The D200 using a slow lens with no flash in lowlight conditions is not going to give you a better image than a D70 using the same setup.

 

All thing being equal --- it depends. moderate light with flash - you dont needa fast lens. low light , action , no flash - Fast lenses are where its at.

 

(I dont do weddings but I do a lot of events.)

 

The viewfinder on the D200 for low light work is adequate. The viewfinder on the D70 is horrid.

 

Budget allows play a factor here. Consider that a D200 is going to require more memory cards as well = additional cost.

 

Also consider that a wedding photog needs second body. Its a absolute requirement.

Dan:

Nice Shot!

 

 

Richard:

 

Fast lenses are your friend. Currently I am trying to make friends with this pretty little Leica M2 and a 50mm Noct. But she keeps telling me - "More Money Honey" :)

 

Fast lenses are your friend. For me personally any lens slower than 2.8 does not go in my bag.

 

My favorite lenses: (in order)

 

Primes: 50 1.2/50 1.4 (tied with 50 1.2 /85 1.4/135 2.0 DC/180 2.8/300 2.8

 

Zooms: 28-70 2.8/80-200 2.8/ 17-50 2.8

 

Learn how to shoot without a flash. Some venues will allow it others wont. Shooting with flash does have its merits, however I prefer not to as shooting without flash allows the natual lighitng to be visible. I do carry a flash but its in my backup bag.

 

Learn how to control photographer movement. Some venues have real bouncy floors when everybody get rocking.

 

Fast lenses will help you get blur free shots because they will give you more stops that you can use for shutter speed.

 

Camera Settings: Auto White Balance and In camera pre-processing systems should be set for the venue you will shoot. I dont have a D70 but on my Nikon digitals I can have several customs areas for these settings. I set up one just for the Venue I shoot most. The others go for more broader settings.

 

Like Jeff said - there is a whole section of shooting concerts online. Also check out Jeff's site as he has some great shots online. My website is client only currently ( soon to change) so I a have few here on photo.net

I still use both. Each is a different tool. They do not compete for my usage at all. When I shoot a typical concert I bring at least 3 digitals and 2 film cameras.

 

Digital cameras: - D2h,D200,D2x ( in order of expense for those who are counting ;) )

 

Film Cameras: Nikon F2 or F3 possibly an N70 ( accepts manual focus lenses)

 

My Film cameras are loaded Tri-X -- Which I like for Concert shots. When I get home I develop the shots in my darkroom and deliver the custom prints to my client.

 

I can shoot anywhere from 3000-4000 images per weekend on digital. I I am not against digital, in fact I am all for it as it makes me money.

 

But, because I also shoot in very low light using very fast Manual Focus lenses ,like the Nikon MF 50 1.2 and the MF 35 1.4, I have to have bodies that can handle these lenses and still give me the precision control I desire ( DOF on the 50 1.2 is in inches) So these lenses are used with the MF cameras and the D2h and D2x. D200 is not as good for these lenses due to smaller viewfinder.

 

Have you ever tried to Auto focus one of these lenses on the D200? Try focusing one on these on a F2 or a F3 and you will have an eye-opening experience.

 

One reason why I carry multiple camera formats:

 

On New Years Eve of this year I was contracted to shoot the entire day at a special Rock'N'Eve event. The event was simlucast and was going to be the basis for several CD covers.

 

Long story -short - I had major equipment failure on my main digital camera. No problem -- I continued shooting using my F3/MD4 combo.

 

I started shooting concerts before AF was even invented. So I have and idea how to do it with an F3 and a 50 1.2. In some lighting situations I can focus a manual focus lens faster than my AF lenses will lock on to what the cameras "thinks" I want to focus on.

 

To me Digital is Digital and Film is film. Neither is a replacment for the other. Lately I have been doing CD setup shots with my 4x5 Crown Graphic using real crappy lenses. ( by design , and now by request :)) No DSLR on the market today can compete with what a 4x5 camera loaded with quality film and lenses can deliver in the way of overall image quality and flexibility in camera control.

 

My decison to shoot film cameras is not based on my lack of ability to affor a "good" camera. It is far more pragmatic.

 

I do not shoot digital becaue it offers more "quality" than film - I shoot digital because I can automate the process of shooting and providing digital proofs to my client(s) so fast that when I am done shooting an event in digital my client has all of the proofs and I have a complete catalog on my web site and I have gotten paid electronically before I leave the building. Thats why I shoot digital!

 

I shoot film because it gives me:

 

a)an huge edge over every other Narrow Minded Digital Pixel Peeping Evanglist who thinks they are a photographer because then can keep shooting until they hit something (like going bird hunting with a AK-47) and who thinks that its the Digital way or the highway.

 

b)gives me more intimate control over every aspect of the cameras interaction with the film, especially when I shoot 4x5, without hte need for batteries. Of course I do have to think about what I am doing.

 

c)provides a different look to the client that they know was not photoshopped. Hand a Tri-X custom print to a client and there is no question that you shot film.

 

d)because I have clients that want to know what was really there rather than what I am showing them.

 

e)because I have a clue on how to shoot it.

 

e)because I have a way to control the final output and I dont have to use photoshop to do it.

 

f)a fail safe method to guard against dead equipment.

 

 

Nows a great time to buy film cameras. Just bought another F2 and am on the lookout for a Leica M2 with 50mm Noctilux. ( prices are still too high on that one though)

 

:)

Like Robert and Alan said. Mine operates like my 105. However I also have a 105 that is very rough. Lubricants do dry and dirt does accumulate.

Dave:

 

Based on your statements you have never shot much Medium Format or Large Format.

 

35mm is a FILM FORMAT not a Digital FORMAT.

 

In Medium Format any given 80 mm lens will look different on a 645 or a 6X6 OR A 6X7 OR A 6X9. ( the "sensor" sizes in these formats are all different)

 

Add a digital back to the Medium format camera and that same 80mm becomes something new again.

 

Heaven forbid that you have a 100-200 zoom lens for Mamyia 645 format and want to mount to on a Mamyia 6x7 format. "What were those idots thinking, my perspective has changed. I'm not buying that lens or body. I bought a 100-200mm and I want a 100-200mm lens."

 

Sounds childish when put in proper context.

 

In Large format a 210mm lens on 4x5 would be considered a short telephoto. On 5x7 format that same 210mm lens becomes a long standard ( about 62mm ) On 8x10 format it is a wide.

 

My 8x10 camera accepts a 5x7 and a 4x5 back. In addition it also accpets all of the Medium format backs and a polaroid back. Should I complain becuase my favorite wide angle lens ofr 8x10 suddenly becomes a monser zoom when I shot 6x6. No -- I'd look pretty foolish.

 

Add a digital scanning back to the 4x5 and the 210mm lens is different again.

 

DLSR cameras are not 35mm SLR cameras. It is Digital. It just so happens to share a body that can mount 35mm lens because it was easy for the manufacturer to use.

 

 

End of story.

 

Digital cameras are different formats.

I just love posts where people want to spend your money for you and dont really ask what your intended purpose or budget is.!

 

 

Actually I use D1 as well as the Kodak DCS760 at my company for our recon robotics projects, they work quite well. Terrific in fact. I also use a bank of them (4) for my Astro-photo work.

 

(Anybody familiar with CCD imaging for astro-photo will know that the D1 image is better that what comes out of a s-big camera.)

 

Now somebody tell me why I cant use them?

 

 

Has anybody here even asked what he was going to use the D1 for? How do you know that it is a loser for what he intends?

 

For my remote robotics the D1 is a great performer. Images are terrific and I can do Infrared without a problem. Me and my techs have modified the 760 to be quite the image colletion animal.

 

At $300 a pop we can afford to blow up a few duirng the R&D process, before we move our designs to the more expensive cameras.

 

 

 

Great camera!

 

:)

 

Now if you are looking to use the D1 to take photos the more tradional way handheld way , perhaps a used D100 would be better as it is not too far from the price point of a used D1.

How did we ever get along without a histogram Shun?!

 

Man , I have been taking too many pictures the wrong way for over 25 years.

 

I shoot film and I dont chimp on my digital cameras. I dont even use the histogram and yet - I still get pictures published :)

 

Come-on Shun stay on topic, He did not request any info regarding a digital camera.

 

 

Just messing with ya.

I always replace the cover --- except when I dont.

 

Like Lee said a proper system bag is required, but when I am shooting heavily lenscaps are fiddly things that cost me time and shots.

 

 

 

 

 

ILKKA:

Its not the shots you miss that you get paid for. Its the shots you GET!

 

For the record I work for myself and I buy my own gear. My choosen line of photography is very close to PJ style as I have to capture the moment ( rock concerts). Which I why I carry at least two cameras - each with a different lens mounted.

 

Shooting Rock and Rollers requires that you be constantly moving and anticpating as ANYTHING can and usaually does happen. I get paid to get the shot of that "Anything"

I'd rather have fewer clean pixels than more noisy ones.

Like Todd I shot low light.

 

However I also tend to print bigger than 8x10.

 

A 4mp image in low,low light 8x10 image that is clean and has in focus content is oh so much more saleable than a 16mp image 16x20 that has out of focus blurry and noisy but real sharp content.

N90s.

 

Used to use N90s and loved them. ( sold them to buy newer toys) One time one got kicked off of the stage into the crowd and it still worked. A little scuffed up but the camera and the 50 1.2 worked fine the rest of the concert.( dont try that at home :) )

 

I also own the F4 and the N90s beats it in spades. I can go into more details but I am trying to answer the question you asked.

Forgot to mention that I use the ATX-PRO series of Tokina's lenses.