cjk

<p>Sarah: <br>

Is something like this what you are looking for? <br>

About 30 sec in Lightroom. Starting with a NEF raw file would allow for more flexibility. <br>

Cesar</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>@Shun: <br>

Thanks for the comparisons you've been posting. I think they're very helpful for all of us. If I had to buy one <strong>now</strong>, I most certainly would have gone with the f/1.8G, which didn't exist when I bought my f/1.4G.</p>

<p>If you indeed end up selling one of yours, I will be very curious to see which one you would let go of (the f/1.8G or the f/1.4G)!!!</p>

<p>Thanks to all, lots of food for thought. <strong>A few clarifications: </strong></p>

<p>- I do have a nifty fifty (2 actually, the f/1.8D and the f/1.8G) and use it extensively for candid portraits in low-lit events. Love it. </p>

<p>- I do not think the 85 is too long on DX. I actually really like it for portraits (which I still do a lot of, just not in the way I envisioned initially).</p>

<p>@Kent: Yes, I have a home studio setup, with lights, lightboxes, umbrellas, light stands, backdrops, various other light modifiers, etc. But it's exactly in that tightly controlled environment that I feel I do NOT need the 1.4G aperture. In studio I generally tend to shoot at around f/8. I've played a bit with very shallow DOF portraits but, while they can look cool from time to time, it's not something I do a lot of. As for selling portraits, we'll see how that goes. I've been focusing on selling my sports photos (swimming and soccer) with some success (well, enough to pay for the gear!). </p>

<p>@Ariel: >> And last, I definitely agree about buying what you need rather than the fanciest thing available. <<</p>

<p>That's probably the difference between a pro and an enthusiast. The pro buys the tools she/he needs to get the job done. The enthusiast buys what she/he wants to enjoy themselves! Nobody *needs* a Ferrari but you can still want and buy one (if you can afford it) even if you're a crappy driver, right? ;)</p>

<p>@Zack & Louis: thanks for sharing your experience. Very helpful. </p>

<p>@KJ: Absolutely agree! It's all about the pleasure you derive from your hobby. When I got my first D-SLR in 2007 (D80) I hesitated because of the (then perceived) high cost. Since then, I have made some photos of loved ones that I would have never gotten with a P&S and that today I would give a kidney for (just barely exaggerating).</p>

<p>- Regarding $: it's just a rational investment decision (my field of work). If I put $1500 in an asset, I expect either to 1) use it (to produce self-fulfilling pleasure or revenues) or 2) have its value appreciate (stock, land, some real estate, interest on money in the bank). If it's neither, then that money is better used invested elsewhere (inflation loss + opportunity cost). </p>

<p><strong>My takeaways: </strong></p>

<p>- One of the advantages of the f/1.8 would be its smaller size. I realize that the bulkiness of the f/1.4 and its cost have probably refrained me from using it more for candids in low-lit situations. I tend to rely on my 50 f/1.8 and even there I prefer the 1.8D rather than the bulkier 1.8G (I have both). I've avoided taking the 85 f/1.4 with me to events because of its size and because I am always worried about someone bumping into it and damaging it. </p>

<p>- Using the 70-200 in place of the 85 might work for posed portraits but it would be just too bulky and intimidating for candids (and very heavy!). And as Shun mentioned, the extra stop provided by the 85 is definitely a big big plus both for indoor low-light and for background separation.</p>

<p>- @Eric: In Shun's photos, I have to admit that I do like the rendition of the 1.4 more but then again it might be other factors (light) than just the change of lenses. </p>

<p>So it seems to me that the 1.8G wins on flexibility (smaller and lighter so will be used more) while the 1.4G wins on performance and (maybe) rendition. Also, performance seems to differ on FX from DX. If indeed I do move to FX in a few months, it might make more sense to wait until I have tried it on FX before deciding. </p>

<p>I guess the logical next step would be to go with Louis and Joel's advice and try and take the 1.4G "out" more. I'll see then if my concerns about it size are warranted. If not, then I might as well keep it. Otherwise, I will then look at what selling it would fetch me. If the loss is not too great, it might make sense to sell it and get the smaller 1.8G ... </p>

<p>Many thanks to all. That has been very very helpful, </p>

<p>Cheers </p>

<p>Cesar in KSA (for now)</p>

<p>Shun: thanks for your answer. <br>

Your reasoning is along the lines of what I've been thinking to justify keeping the lens. It makes sense to me. </p>

<p>On the other hand, and unless there is a remote chance that its value increases (I doubt that), if there is only a limited chance I might need the f/1.4 aperture (not sure why), wouldn't it make more sense to sell it now that it is still in pristine condition? </p>

<p>After accumulating gear for a couple of years now, I am starting to believe that maybe I should just get what I need now and/or what I am pretty sure of using rather than the fanciest thing available... </p>

<p>Decisions, decisions :)</p>

<p>I would love to have some experienced advice here. </p>

<p>Last year, hoping to do a lot of portrait photography and maybe sell some portrait sessions, and in a moment of very severe NAS, I went crazy and bought a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G.</p>

<p>About a year later now, having learned that equipment does not a photographer make, I realize that I barely used the (very nice) piece of equipment. Lack of time (I have a day job and 2 small kids), lack of drive, etc. </p>

<p>I am still very interested in portrait photography and am doing some, but mostly in a home studio where I think the more affordable f/1.8G would work as well as its big brother. Heck, I wonder if I couldn't just "get by" with my beloved 70-200 f/2.8 (which I use mostly for sports). </p>

<p>I hate the idea of having a very expensive lens sitting in a drawer depreciating, so my questions: </p>

<p>1) Would you sell the lens, take the hit on it (I guess the cost of learning) and replace it with the f/1.8G while freeing up some cash? </p>

<p>2) Would you sell the lens, take the hit on it and just use the 70-200 f/2.8 for portrait photography (i already own that one)?</p>

<p>3) Would you keep the lens since it's already there and paid for, and since good Nikon lenses don't seem to depreciate that much? </p>

<p>Everything I read about the f/1.8G says it's a great lens and I know the 70-200 is already a great lens too (bulky though).<br>

I guess it really boils down to figuring out if I might want or have to use a 1.4G in the future or not... </p>

<p>Cesar<br>

Note: I am currently using a D7000 and plan to move to FX in the next 6 months. </p>

Note: I don't have an immediate need to free up the cash (but I wouldn't mind having it!)

<p>In line with Matt's theme "keeping track of life along the way", here's one of my son's first soccer games, mid-October. Him (left) and his best buddy, after their team scored. I think their team ended up loosing about 1-4 but, nonetheless, I find the expression of joy on their faces priceless. </p>

<p>No more soccer for them this season though, their pitch has been devastated by Sandy (which is way more benign than what happened to countless families who lost their homes in NY & NJ, so I am not really complaining -- we were lucky). </p>

<div></div>

<p>Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island with no lights on. First time I see this in 13 years of living in New York. <br>

Photos was taken around 9pm, in quasi total darkness. A 30 sec exposure is making this look like daylight! <br>

Nikon D7000. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Goldman Sachs building, fully lit with surrounding TriBeCa pitch black. <br>

Masters of the Universe? </p>

<div></div>

<p>F line, partial service from Midtown (34th street) to Queens. </p>

<div></div>

<p>And this morning: people waiting in line to get the new iPad mini (line went around the block)... <br>

5th Avenue Apple Store (@58th street)</p>

<div></div>

<p>People waiting in line for the buses to take them back home to Queens (Lexington Avenue and 42nd street). Line went over 6-7 blocks. </p>

<div></div>

<p>Crane dangling one 57th street, at one of the priciest buildings in the world ($90M penthouse anyone?)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Some photos from Manhattan taken yesterday and today. <br>

iPhone photos mostly so apologies for the limited quality. <br>

I have to say that going from Lower Manhattan (where we live) to Midtown feels like changing planets. <br>

Most of Lower Manhattan has no power, empty and dark streets, no traffic lights, no street lights, no stores or restaurants open, no subway service, etc. <br>

Midtown (and I imagine Uptown) feels totally normal... </p>

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>happy to see you're safe. Your video is really nice and indeed, you seems to have had it easy compared to us New Yorkers. ;)</p>

<p>I took a short stroll in our neighborhood (Battery Park City in Manhattan) on Sunday, before everything shut down, and I came across these cute little people... </p>

<p>I checked on them today and they are still around and still fighting giant feet. </p>

<p>Cheers from flooded New York. </p><div></div>

<p>Stephen: maybe you can give us some more information about what does NOT "come out too great" in the problematic shots? This would help us better help you. Maybe ISO performance is not the issue. Maybe it's really low shutter speeds like Dan suggests. <br>

Examples would be great. </p>

<p>I have both the Nikon 105 AF-S Micro and the Nikon 70-200 VR2. Among other things I shoot swimming competitions, indoors and outdoors as well as portraits. </p>

<p>There's no comparison: the 105 just doesn't autofocus fast enough to be usable in competitions. Don't even consider it. </p>

<p>The 70-200 VR2 kicks ass both in autofocus speed and accuracy and in IQ. I know it's not in your budget so I would recommend you look seriously to see if you can manage to get a used 70-200 VR1. </p>

<p>The 80-200 might be a good option though I am not familiar with it. </p>

<p>Re. backup:</p>

<p>I always wondered if taking a small USB hard drive AND a 64GB USB flash drives to use as a back up for 1 or 2 SD cards wouldn't work?</p>

<p>I never tried it but I imagine you can find easy access to computers (hotels, cybercafés) where you can plug your camera's USB cable as well as one of the USB drives and do your transfers every evening or so. I personally would hate to spend any $ on a netbook (just my personal opinion). </p>

<p>As for the equipment back-up for the Sharapova shoot (!): in a pinch you can also buy SD cards or a good camera in any one of the cities you're visiting! VAT-free, it might end up cheaper than Australia (home?)</p>

<p>+1 Florence<br>

-1 Reims:<br>

No disrespect to the "Rémois" (my wife is one) but you're better off spending more time in Paris, visiting Versailles or getting some extra days to visit Florence. Reims' Cathedral is nice but unless you're a real history buff, you'll get enough Cathedral-seing in Paris already. Unless of course you want to visit some Champagne makers (outside of Reims)</p>

<p>Thanks to all for the very helpful answers. <br>

I have to say I do like the soft light given by the bookend foam core as well as the ease of use but it does make the eyes look "glassy". I need to see if I can do something about that, maybe painting the center of the bookend black. (BTW, to give credit where credit is due: I got the idea of the bookend from a book by Christopher Grey).<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>Devon, Michael & Pete, thanks for the ideas. <br>

@Pete: I did check the exif and the aperture didn't move (f/5.6). I am not sure what happened between the 2 shots anymore (i was still playing with the power of the key light) but I made sure the rest of the shots were all ETTR (exposed to the right) and indeed the rest of shots have perfectly exposed faces<br>

@Michael:<br>

1. Very good advice re. ISO 400. Will keep that in mind, thx<br>

2. Not sure I understand why the sheet shouldn't be lit from behind but I will do a few test this upcoming weekend to get a better grasp of this. But yes, I do realize the subject was way too close to the background. Cramped quarters but it didn't seem like a big deal then.<br>

3. Re using a wall, that was my initial intent but I didn't have enough depth in the room to be able to light the background wall with 1 or 2 umbrellas, hence the idea of using a bed sheet and backlighting with the SB-900 outside in the garden (maybe a good idea but definitely fail on the execution!)</p>

<p>@John & Bob: you're probably right. The outdoor ambient light, the glass door, the subject <strong>and</strong> the bed sheet probably were too much. I assumed all was clear after the first few test shots worked but I didn't realize that it might have been just a lucky break.</p>

<p>I always used CLS indoors and never had any issue, but this was quite different (yes, I should have tested properly beforehand!).</p>

<p>Re setup, I was shooting in someone else's house in a relatively cramped room. Didn't have that much more space to work with unfortunately. </p>

<p>@Ralph: one thing I am sure it's NOT, and that's humidity. I am currently smack in the middle of the Arabian desert (Riyadh) and the humidity is, well, nonexistent (around 10%)!!!!</p>

<p>@Howard:<br>

this could have been the case for some of the shots but not this many. I actually had put fresh batteries and was not shooting too fast. </p>

<p>@Frank: </p>

<p>I don't understand the need for the snarky tone. If you're annoyed by my question, no one is forcing you to answer.</p>

<p>And FYI, the STANDBY function is deactivated when the SB-900 is in Remote mode. </p>