michaelbrochstein

<p>I am interested in photographing the Milky Way but as a resident of NYC realize that light pollution is a non-trivial issue locally. Can anyone suggest locations within driving distance (no more than 1.5 - 2 hours) from NYC that would be good for this? Thanks!</p>

<p>I've just published an online article which looks at the various options. It is called "Photographing the New York City Skyline" and can be seen here: http://www.michaelbrochstein.com/misc/NYCskylineadvice.htm</p>

<p>Not just coated, multi-coated. Like on any other filter, multi-coating beats single-coating. </p>

<p>Forget getting written contracts. You can get all the signed contracts you want and still lose in your family's court of opinion. I agree with the poster who said to take this as a lesson learned. If I were in your shoes I would shoot the wedding, do the best job you can, edit the images and then let the couple see them. Up through this point your only investment is your time (and I do not mean to undervalue it). I would try to extricate yourself from any further business dealings with this couple as they are not to be trusted financially.</p>

<p>There are a number of options here. If (as I hope) you value your family's court of opinion then you can give them a disk with the edited images and a list of where they could go to get prints or albums made. I would also give them back their deposit and call it a wedding present. This way they can't complain that they paid you for something you didn't deliver. You also gave them your labor for free but gave them nothing that cost you hard dollars. </p>

<p>I agree with the poster that recommended not doing business with family and recommending other photographers to them (if you have any to recommend). You will be related to your family for the rest of your life and their value as customers is, in the long run, limited. There is a well known relevant phrase that applies here "Win, win or no deal". No deal or a donation of your services are probably the only safe routes here with no deal probably being the best. Good luck with whatever you decide to do!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with the previous posters. I've owned a 17-55/2.8 for my DX cameras and thought it was great. It was my "walk-around" lens and it never let me down. When I bought a D700 I also bought a 24-70/2.8 and it also has never let me down.</p>

<p>Having said that, one advantage of the 17-55 is that it has a slightly wider zoom ratio (3.24 vs. 2.92) and is both lighter and smaller. OTOH, it does not have as much reach (70 vs.55) which may or may not be critical for you and ditto on the wide end, it has a wider perspective which might be critical for you. If you intend to one day move to and/or also use a FX body then the 24-70 will be a switch hitter while the 17-55 could not be. After owning both DX and FX bodies and 17-55 and 24-70 lenses for a while I found that I used the 24-70 on the D700 for most things that were not telephoto in nature such that now the 24-70 is on my D700 97% of the time or more (a 16-35 or 85 for most of the rest of the time) and a 70-200 is typically the lens I use most frequently with my D300. After a year or so of using the 24-70 on my D700 I decided to sell my 17-55 as it seemed to never ever be used anymore.</p>

<p>As per your specific sports-related query; I've used the 24-70 to photograph bicycle riders at close range the its focus speed was never an issue.</p>

<p>If the focal length range of the 24-70 is good for you and you don't need VR then I can't imagine the 24-70 letting you down. It also has the advantage of being a great walkaround lens if you ever get a FX body.</p>

<p>Gitzo's carbon-fiber based Mountaineer line are among the the smallest/lightest and highest quality line of tripods you may find. The smallest is barely knee-high when extended. Also, use of a quick release "L" bracket on the 5D plus a small ballhead will make set-up faster. I use and recommend the Really Right Stuff BH-25 ballhead (and thie "L" bracket) as it is small and light. You didn't say what lenses you bought but I am assuming in this post that neither is very large or heavy given your intended use.</p>

Another question: What are your goals for whether you would, in retrospect, thought this program was the correct choice for you? Only by knowing those can one measure success or whether a particular choice helped achieve those goals.

<p>One more suggestion; replace your metal Gitzo with a carbon fiber Gitzo.</p>

<p>I've used a Nikon D60 with a Nikon 16-85 where size and weight are major factors. The D60 is quite a bit lighter and smaller than the D300 and the same holds true for the 16-85 vs. a 17-55 (BTW, I own the 17-55 and a D300 so I've done this comparison myself). The D60 produces images similar to the D200. The new Nikon D5000 would probably produce an image similar to your D300 and be closer to the D60 in size and weight. FWIW, the 16-85 is well rated. For a one-camera, one-lens solution I think this might be a good combo.<br>

If macro work is important and minimal weight/size is an issue then Kenko extension tubes would allow most lenses (the 16-85???) to do macro work.<br>

If you want a DX wide-angle zoom then I recommend the Sigma 10-20 (haven't tried the Nikon 10-24 yet but I did sell my Nikon 12-24 when I bought the Sigma).<br>

If you need telephoto then consider the Nikon 70-300 (but not the inexpensive G version). The recently discontinued ED but non-G and non VR version is a good value and well rated. The current VR version is also well rated but slightly heavier than the non-VR version.</p>

 

<p>I've used a Nikon D60 with a Nikon 16-85 where size and weight are major factors. The D60 is quite a bit lighter and smaller than the D300 and the same holds true for the 16-85 vs. a 17-55 (BTW, I own the 17-55 and a D300 so I've done this comparison myself). The D60 produces images similar to the D200. The new Nikon D5000 would probably produce an image similar to your D300 and be closer to the D60 in size and weight. FWIW, the 16-85 is well rated. For a one-camera, one-lens solution I think this might be a good combo.<br>

If macro work is important and minimal weight/size is an issue then Kenko extension tubes would allow most lenses (the 16-85???) to do macro work.<br>

If you want a DX wide-angle zoom then I recommend the Sigma 10-20 (haven't tried the Nikon 10-24 yet but I did sell my Nikon 12-24 when I bought the Sigma).<br>

If you need telephoto then consider the Nikon 70-300 (but not the inexpensive G version). The recently discontinued ED but non-G and non VR version is a good value and well rated. The current VR version is also well rated but slightly heavier than the non-VR version.</p>

 

<p>Are you currently located in New York City? I ask as one advantage of this program would be that you would get to spend the year in NYC which by itself may offer many possibilities not available where you might currently be.</p>

<p>Thanks for doing this, it nicely illustrates the differences (and those differences seem less than I expected).</p>

<p>I would concur regarding trading in the 80-200 and would go further.  The focus speed of the 70-200 is much faster than that of the 70-300 you have.  I would recommend selling both your 80-200 and 70-300 and buying the 70-200 and a 1.4 or 1.7 TC.  The 70-200 with or without the TC is going to be much faster in operation and on the D300 (I concur with Matt Laur re: the D300) will perform very very well.</p>

<p>I own both (as well as a D300 which I like very much!) and I like them both. Unless low-light issues are constant in your work (which I gather they are not) then my advice since you are budget-conscious is to buy the 16-85 and no other lens initially. By doing this you will truly see how much you need any other lenses and have a better idea what other lenses these might really be - based upon actual experience. I own a 50/1.4 and truth be told, it is the least used lens in my collection. I only recall using it once in the last 5 years. With the improved high-ISO performance of the D300 I have less and less need for it. The prime only has two unique advantages, small size and low weight and the ability to isolate a subject with its limited depth-of-field when used wide open. FWIW, I love my 17-55 and it is my most-used lens on the D300. Having said that, it is not the only lens I use as it is neither short or as long as other lenses. Based upon real use you may find that a 10-20 (for landscape?) or a 80-200 or 70-300 (for sports/wildlife) or a 85/1.4 (for portraits) is really what you need for a second lens. Lastly, try borrowing or renting any expensive lens before buying it to see if you really like it. I did that twice with a 70-200 before buying it. Also, buying a used lens might be a worthwhile endeavor budget-wise.</p>

<p>Here's my suggestion: Nikon D60 and Nikon 16-85mm lens. small, light (although not as light or small as P&S cameras), APS sized sensor (much better than P&S!), great image quality, versatile, not too expensive. There is the expectation of a replacement for the D60 sometime this year but it is only a rumor at this time.</p>

<p>How about "bySteve", "photosBySteve", JohnsonPhoto", "SDJphoto", "PhotoJohnson", "SDJphotography", or a totally different name that as Mikael uses!?</p>

<p>I would suggest looking at the Nikon D90 and D300. My personal opinion is that you'd be more pleased with the D300 but I included the D90 in case budget issues make that camera too expensive.</p>

Your welcome! Coincidentally, in dpreview's forum's last night there was further discussion of this lens with another post by Thom Hogan;<br><br>

 

"There is a reason why all the pros end up with a 400, 500, or 600 exotic. You simply can't get there from here when your budget is under US$1000, you don't have mirror lockup, AF Fine Tune, and enough light. The Sigma 150-500mm is usable out to about 400mm on a D300/D700 caliber body, but only if you have enough light to stop down a stop. This causes a different problem: you can't isolate backgrounds enough.<br>

 

Generally when someone tells me that they want a long lens on a budget, my response is to send them to all the old MF stuff that was abandoned when AF came along. The 400mm f/5.6 is small and quite sharp. You can usually pick up a good 500mm f/4P for US$2200 or so. Lenses like that will give you better results than the Sigma."

<p>I read in an internet forum (dpreview) from a very very respected poster (Thom Hogan);</p><br>

<p>"In my testing, the lens is good up to about 380mm or so, at which point it starts to show increased softness. By 500mm, you need to stop down a stop to get maximum sharpness out of it."</p>

<p>I've used several Sandisk Extreme III 12GB cards for a while without any problems.</p>

<p>While there is no one right answer,... IMHO; Even if the Quantums are more powerful than the SB-800's (which they are and have bigger batteries etc) they are more or less the same in practical capability such that you may not gain much if you go the Quantum route. Your photos will probably look (more or less) the same in the end. On the other hand a 70-200/2.8 is wholly different from what you currently have and should (may?) offer many more different possiblities than a bit more powerful flash might.</p><p>If after buying the 70-200 (one of my favorite all-time lenses) you still think you'd like to "improve" your SB-800 setup then consider a SD-8A battery pack, some Lumiquest or Honl assesories or another flash bracket. </p></p>

<p>One thing to consider is whether you will have someone else available to hold the reflector, a stand of some type to hold it or whether will you have to hold it yourself while also operating your camera. If the later then I suggest you look at Lastolite TriGrips. For lighting up larger areas of space (i.e. full size versus headshot) then the larger your reflector the better. The color and shap of a reflector are personal preferences IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>While everyone has their own opinion and there is probably not any one perfect answer, here is what I have found out through trial and error. I started out using the Manfrotto 484RC2 QR system and found that while inexpensive, it did have its limitations. After realizing that I needed/wanted an Arca Swiss style plate system I needed to first decide on a ballhead. Why is that? You see, I prefer "lever release" style clamps as opposed to the ones that use a screw. I prefer them because they are faster to use in the field (IMHO). Screw type clamps are more variable while lever-release type clamps have little tolerance for different plate sizes.</p>

<p>After much research I decided on the RRS ballhead. It turns out that RRS and Wimberley plates are similar enough that either would work in a RRS ballhead lever-release clamps but that other manufacturers won't. I then needed to buy plates etc.</p>

<p>I tried both "L" and straight plates and the ease of flipping a camera from horizontal to vertical with a "L" plate was extremely useful to me so I have only bought "L" plates after my initial experiment. I've use generic camera plates but they do not match up to a camera body's shape anywhere near as well as a camera specific plate. If you want perfect fit and no rotation then go for a camera body specific plate.</p>

<p>Over the last three years I have bought all three RRS ballheads (each is used in a different scenario) and RRS plates for all my camera bodies and long lenses. I also use their "Wedding Pro Flash bracket" and love it.</p>

<p>One useful article I would highly recommend is http://www.bythom.com/support.htm</p>

<p>Very clever, thanks for sharing, I'll be curious to see this line of products as they develop. These are increasingly Speedlight / Strobist friendly times. Another interesting new /similar product is Lastolight's TriFlash bracket - http://www.lastolite.com/triflash.php</p>

<p>There are a few 305T's where I work but they are not used for photo editing and have never been calibrated / profiled.  For regular use we are very happy with them and they are a great value.</p>