photom

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2224058">Len Kocurek</a> , Jul 17, 2010; 11:15 p.m.<br /> I think a hole in the head is very useful.<br /> Enjoy your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yea, I always need a place to put the lens cap. But seriously ...</p>

<p>I went with FF on the Nikon side because I wanted to pay more for the lenses. OK, what I really mean is I wanted to have access to the true pro-grade lenses and use them as they were designed. The lenses to me are a long term investment with the bodies coming and going. Neither Nikon or Canon offer a true, full line of pro-grade lenses that are designed for APS-C. It is that simple. If they would have had an extensive, pro-grade APS-C lens line, I probably would have gone that direction because I really like the smaller size and weight of the these bodies.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>This is an old discussion but still relevant to many who own newer Nikon DSLRs and SB800. I just bought an D700 and am now possibly going to purchase a SB800.</p>

<p>It is apparent to me that the D700 body pc sync port is disabled when the D700 body flash is raised. This is easy for me to verify and I did.</p>

<p>The above discussion is a little confusing to me because of the terms used. The term CLS refers to an overall Nikon flash/exposure measuring system and probably should not be used because it is so general in its scope. iTTL is the Nikon version of through the lens metering with a Nikon flash so I will use this term to contrast with manual flash mode, or traditional auto flash mode.</p>

<p>Frank earlier says that if an SB800 is attached to the D700 directly via hot shoe, or via Nikon sync cable, and set to iTTL mode, then both the D700 body pc sync port and the SB800 pc sync port are both enabled and able trigger manual flashes via hard wire or radio triggers. If this is correct, this is very good news for me for my needs. Captain Jack, above seems to have had some problems with the body pc sync port despite keeping the body flash down.</p>

<p>CAN ANYONE ELSE CONFIRM THAT BOTH THE d700 BODY PC PORT AND SB800 PC PORT ARE ENABLED AS LONG AS THE D700 FLASH IS KEPT DOWN? Otherwise, no need for me to buy an expensive SB800.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<h2><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4108081">David Moore</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 08, 2010; 10:52 p.m.</h2>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not gonna lie to you, Tom--on first reading, your post looked like troll bait to me. But after looking at your extensive and knowledgable posting history I realized you have a good understanding of the craft, and your intentions appeared to be sincere. In a later post in this thread, you said,<br>

"I think I have to take a real good look at myself and ask why I'm so, well, kinda peeved when I see a, IMO, nasty wedding photo used as an example and then "told" it can be turned into a wonderful piece of art that can be sold to your client."<br>

That's a good question, and I regret I don't have an answer for you. But I can provide a comparative viewpoint... my own, of course.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that the answer to the question is that what you think does not really matter. What does matter is the person that is willing to spend money on photographs (the client). It is their judgement, relative to all the other photos from other photographers that they have viewed in their lives that matters. If they have seen very few photos, then their judgement may be bad. If they think the photo looks good, from their experience and perspective (with a $ value judgement thrown in as well), that is all that matters. What does not matter to them is how it was produced or what your opinion of the photo is. So, you need to change this idea in your head Tom. However, you still need to have sense of what they will and will not like.</p>

<p>In some regard you are evaluating the profession and how it as changed. Of course, a lot of people do this. The biggest changes are: 1) You can make mistakes and instant feedback will allow you to correct the mistakes if you look at the LCD and know how to change the settings on the camera. With film, people were scared to death to screw it up because you could never go back and fix it; so only very confident and knowledgable people took up this work. 2) A $1,000 DSLR, with a decent eTTL flash, can come within a hair of the output quality of a $15,000 medium format film wedding kit from the old days. So, the previous barriers of entry - basic camera skill and cost are now much, much lower.</p>

<p>What has not changed is the traditional skills required of lighting (and related equip. investment), posing, perspective, creativity, etc. But, some clients barely notice the difference when these attributes are delivered correctly into the photo. Others clients do notice it a lot.</p>

<p>AND, new skills are required to get consistent, quality output. Lots of computer skills (and investment in good PC equipment), software skills, PS editing skills, digital color management, understanding of digital print workflow, etc. Fewer labs exist to just drop off the digital files and have someone fix everything for you and print it out. (Though these do exist for a price). </p>

<p>I concur with the below advice. But, an even more likely occurrence than a request for a 16x20 print is the shot that needs to be cropped by 50% because of clutter to <em>make it</em> the perfect shot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Rob Domaschuk , Jul 01, 2010; 02:11 p.m.<br>

<br />First, it's not overkill - what if you get that one great shot and the couple wants a 16×20 print and you shot at a low resolution and can't give it to them? Storage space is cheap so go ahead and shoot at the highest resolution you can!<br />That being said, you should be fine with 50 GB of storage.<br />As tough as it is, I am forcing myself to only answer the question that you posted.<br />Good luck!</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977463">Frank Skomial</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 23, 2010; 10:30 a.m.</p>

<p >C.P.M.<br />The statement that long lenses distort like "wider nostrills", is you own perception.</p>

<p >Any Photography scholar would tell you that perspective des not depent on the lens focal length, but only on the distance proportions between the lens, subject and a background. From "Photography 101" basics.</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p >This is true, but the OP said they specifically wanted a close-up so this limits which lenses will work at the ideal working distance. Cropping is never really a solution that you plan for up front. You start out with the proper lens and crop later if you need to. You can crop to solve anything if you want to give up data.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As an example, if you like the relative perspective of 12 ft. from the subject, and you have a 105mm lens on an Nikon APS-C camera, your vertical image dimension will be about 2' 8.9" for portrait orientation. This should be in the ballpark for a closeup. DOF with the same lens and camera using f2.8 will be 5.2" (.020 COC) which should be OK for you, or you may wish for more DOF.</p>

<p>Not sure if this would help but:</p>

<p>Say you are shooting a bug from 3.7 ft. away with the 100 macro at f11. The calculated DOF is about 1.9 in. and the frame diagonal of the image is 1 ft. 0in.</p>

<p>If you want the same shot (diagonal frame size) on FF, you will need to move in to 2.32 ft. and the new DOF will be - IF you used the same aperture of f11 - would 1.1 in.</p>

<p>The above is the simple answer because it compares the same aperture. DOF is quite a bit different. But, if you increase the aperture on the FF to f16, the DOF increases to 1.6 in.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5585318">Kevin Delson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 14, 2010; 08:38 a.m.</p>

<p >While sites like smugmug & zenfolio offer a complete fulfillment process; I suggest caution in one area in particular which could damage your reputation.</p>

<p ><strong >Aspect ratio</strong>: If you are shooting with a DX sensor camera, print sizes like 8x10 will not print properly. While these services DO offer a cropping guide for visitors, it is an added nuisance for your customers. It's a bigger problem if you offer other products like T shirts, coffee mugs etc. Possible solution: I have set my account up so that (I) approve all orders before fulfillment. This allows me to flag any potential problems such as aspect size problems. You could pre-crop all your images, but that really isn't a good solution and VERY labor intensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Well I have a different view point. I personally would be embarrassed to deliver most (but not all) of my images in 3:2 because I do not like this format. A properly cropped image is part of taking the picture. Most images are enhanced immensely. With digital it is easy. You have to go through and edit out the bad shots anyway don't you? If time is really any issue, then cut out the quantity and increase the quality. The buyer is not going to have a clue about proper cropping and will only be frustrated.</p>

<p>3 RZ lenses were tested here along with a comparison of many other med. format lenses:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The high hourly rate of actual photo work time done is because of the LARGE number of hours you do not spend taking photos and the number of hours required to prepare for a job and complete a job. Very few weddings happen at 9:00 am on Tuesday. AND, to pay for your equipment depreciation, insurance, medical, computer and related, vehicle, etc. etc. etc.</p>

<p>Plumbers, by the way do not have any preparation time or time spent later after the job. When they leave, the job is complete. AND they can get good jobs on Tuesday mornng. AND, their equipment has very low depreciation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4142331">Arnold Pangilinan</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 13, 2010; 03:57 a.m.</p>

<p >@Bruce<br />Out of curiosity, don't you miss the AF system of D700? Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D (classic) but I wish the outer AF points have been crossed type.</p>

<p > </p>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p >FYI Only a center box of AF points on the Nikon D700 are cross points. The outer are single dimension also. They just seem to work a little better than 5D. Maybe the angle of light they allow. Not sure.</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ben Goren said:</p>

<p>ETTR completely ignores that, and sacrifices those most-important high bits for a bit of unneeded resolution in the low ones.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But, if you do ETTR correctly there is no high bit information that is sacrificed. This does not make sense.</p>

<p>If it does not clip, you must acquit.</p>

<p>Dave, my comment regarding 2.8 zoom is not the reach/crop difference. If you like using a very good 2.8 zoom for most of your shots, there is a DOF difference between systems. Unfortunately, there is no 2.0 APS-C zoom made. If there were, that would be great. I like being able to get a little narrower DOF without switching to a prime.</p>

<p>I was not making any comment as to resale value of lenses between systems - just how to estimate annual incremental cost for lenses if you are spending more for FF. Lenses of a good quality depreciate more slowly than camera bodies, so this should be part of the calculation as I did mention.</p>

<p>All the single differences between systems are not great. It is the cumulative differences and so a personal choice. The cost difference is really not great either on an annual basis which was my main point. The annual (not upfront) actual cost vs. annual revenue difference should be what a pro buyer looks at. The upfront cost is less relevant if you have the resources; rather the long term net income difference should be the focus. If someone plans on being in business for just one year, then that is a different situation and my discussion does not apply.</p>

<p>Your point seems to be there is no cost savings or revenue gain from FF now that we have a Canon 7d. If this is the case, a lot of people are indeed wasting their money with FF.</p>

<p>

<p >

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3834163">Peter Barnes</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 09, 2010; 09:09 p.m.<br>

Thanks Yuri - i have been impatiently waiting this. What is this about initially only being available in Japan - why would Pentax do this? The specs in the dpreview article say "Usable lenses: Pentax 645AF2, 645AF, and 645A mount lenses" - are there any other sorts of Pentax 645 lenses? I have some manual focus lenses marked Pentax-A 645 - am I correctly assuming these are 645A mount lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it is really the same Kodak sensor as in the Mamiya, it is possible that Mamiya negotiated an exclusive territory for use of the sensor in North America, or something similar. It would not surprise me. </p>

</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3916602">Garrett Dauphars</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 04, 2010; 01:01 p.m.<br>

Depends...is this a business or hobby?<br />If it is a business, you have to ask yourself, 'What/How will this help me make more money'.<br />I can tell you I have considered going full frame, I shoot w/D300, and make stunning 20x30 canvas prints, can count the blades of grass on the golf courses and see individual sequins in the brides dress. <br />So, going to a FF camera will do nothing for me, the difference in albums, prints and such will be nil.<br />If this is a hobby.....then get the FF, as money and making money is not the issue.<br />To summarize: How will a FF camera make a better image, will you really 'see' the difference beyond your ego.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a good post. If you do it for a business, you need to look at the carrying cost difference compared to revenue FF can add (or expense saved).</p>

<p>NOTE THE FOLLOWING IS FOR PICKY PHOTOGRAPHERS: If you want to do very many iso 1600 or iso 3200 shots during the wedding (better background light fill; lets flash work much more efficiently; or faster shutter for natural light), then the post processing time saved cleaning up noise and making the file look nice will pay for FF very quickly. Remember your time is money including time wasted in front of a computer brushing and masking. Let's say you save 4 hours a week in front of the computer X $60 per hour just to throw out some numbers. That is $240 per week saved. Low detail shots (or moving, blurred, shots) clean up easily and of course you can always go to B&W. Again, it depends on your style and what you like to deliver.</p>

<p>Remember also, the lenses are an asset that have value. Although more expensive for FF, you can sell them easily (if bought used especially) if something causes you to change your mind. The real cost difference compared to APS-C is the interest carry on the investment difference. Weigh this against perceived revenue advantages. If a FF lens cost $1,000 more than the the APS-C lens (only a few do), the annual carrying cost on this difference may be $100 plus insurance, and a small amount of depreciation. Now you have to multiply this by say five lenses so maybe $500 per year plus the other minor stuff. Obviously, the required cash needs to be available as well, I am focusing on real net income difference. The same principal applies for the camera, but the depreciation expense needs to be based on a three year period which is about $333 per year if $1,000 difference in body cost. So, camera body costs about $450 per year more to go FF plus insurance on $1,000. In summary, the increased annual EXPENSE to go FF for one camera and five lenses is probably under $1,500.</p>

<p>Other advantages of FF such as better reduced DOF when using your f2.8 zoom, is just a bonus. FF can also have some marketing advantages if explained properly to potential clients.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For heavens sake, Google the cons of converting to dng. Less people are starting to do it, and more people are stopping. Converting to dng is burning bridges. For example, Aaron, if you convert to dng you can't use your NX2 or other Nikon products. There is plenty from the lay-person around google. The last three posts here for example,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you think you like dng files because you may have more than one brand of camera over the years, and the various other reasons, but are still nervous, just click the option within the Adobe dng conversion program to retain the original raw file in the dng file. Yes, a little bigger file, but maybe worth it.</p>

<p>From this type of dng file click again and presto the original raw file, (nef, or whatever), pops back out.</p>

<p>This is a daylight film. So natural sun light or flash having about 5500 K is what this film is designed for. It will not do very well with other types of artificial light that do not have about 5500 K characteristic.</p>

<p>With a 85 mm normal lens on the Hassy I would recommend at least 1/125th second shutter speed or faster for this film/lens combination. Use Sunny 16 rule to get close estimate of exposure, and open up aperture to keep shutter at this level or faster as light decreases using your metere. It is fairly simple.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4774668">Alan Marcus</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Feb 09, 2010; 10:49 a.m.</p>

<p>You need to take readings using several methods.<br /> First, use your meter in its incident mode. In this method, a white plastic dome covers the entry to the sensor. The meter is held at the subject plane pointed back at the camera. Incident, old French for light that is about to fall on the subject. The white dome integrates all light rays. The reading that results is a highly accurate average. This method has the least pitfalls.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would focus on this part of the advice and save the rest of what he said for other types of shots because you asked about portraits. Just take an incident reading. But, you need to decide how much contrast you want on the face and may wish to bounce some light back into the face (or use flash for fill) or filter the natural light source to reduce the contrast. A window light source usually works best if you have a lot of white or light colored areas around the subject to bounce light back and fill in some shadows. Experiment with the angle of the subject relative to the light source. Good luck.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2070600">Bruce Cahn</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 18, 2010; 12:54 p.m.<br>

About the anti-shake, they call it something else (probably image stabilization-the nomenclature from the manufacturers is unmemorable), and it seems to work with some lenses and not others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bruce, are you really serious or just attracting some attention during these long cold gray winter days? Did you really bother to learn how the cameras work? Yes, I also heard that the image stabilization did not work very well in the lenses that did not have image stabilization. If you are really attracted to image stabilization try a Sony or Pentax where it works for every lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 17, 2010; 04:46 p.m.</p>

<p>I can't say that one camera is easier to use than another. The D700 has more menu items, but then again it has more features (the Canon is more complex in the video department). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess it would have more a more complex video "department" since the Nikon D700 has no video.</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2396115">Angel Bocanegra</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 09, 2010; 02:12 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But Canon came with the 7D which is also a much lighter camera with more MP than the D300s and still manage lower noise at high ISO is impressive. best nikon APS-C is the D300s, and the best APS-C of all brands is the 7D. PERIOD.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is, until Sony releases their next generation CMOS sensor that will replace the one in the D300s and Nikon puts their fingerprint designs on it. The cheap Sony sensor in the Pentax K-X is already passing high ISO quality of D300s.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dont waste your money on a new camera - it wont make you a better photographer, nor your images significantly better. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was so true in the film days. Today, it is still partially true. The new and improved cameras will not make you much of a better photographer, but it <strong><em>will</em></strong> help you make better photos. Unlike in the film days, the quality of the imaging media (sensor) is now dependent on the camera body.</p>