daviddbfotoart

What I don't like about mine is that it can't replicate and become 2.

I have the nikon for portraits, but would never use it for sport, then I'd never use the Sigma for portraits, so i'd suggest something else. Surely you'd only really need the fastest glass for low light sport.

I had an SP 28-105 on my f80 when it was stolen. Dont care that I lost the camera, but sad that I lost the lens

 

Obviously wont give the same performence on a dSLR, but was a great lens.

Markus.

 

I question your need for a dx 1.4 50mm. The current afd version is fine for digital, and I'm using an ais version that is the sharpest lens I have....my other 2 are the 17-55 2.8 dx and a new 80-200 2.8 if ed, and the 50 1.4 still outshines them both.

I got this sort of thing a lot when using a dodgy ebay cf card. Bet if you tried opening it in Photoshop, it told you it was "truncated".

2.8. depth of field, low light abilities, if using a metz, sinc up to 8000th with very little power output, amazingly sharp images, sturdy construction, professional look.

 

This and my 80-200 2.8, with the occasional use of a 50 1.4 lens make astounding images. Noticably better than my 18-70 kit lens that came with my d70, which is a 100% improvement on the 18-55 dog of a lens. (only used one once, and hated every moment of it)

On a couple of small weddings, ie: B&G only, I have sufficed with my trusty 80-200 2.8. If you have plenty of room to move, and a light overcast day, it's a perfect lens

I have to ask. What on earth would you be shooting, with a fish eye lens, at more than 5 frames per second anyway?

still not sure why you dont get a simple $10 hotshoe adapter, and plug the flash in via a cable. simple, cheap, and works all the way to 1/8000th

I dont know about your sunpacks, but my Metz 60ct-4 happily sits next to my D70, attached by a simple hot shoe adapter, and shoot 1/4000 2.8, with flash powered down to almost nothing, I get beautiful deep background colours, and perfectly exposed harshly backlit subjects.

 

My D200 doesn't, but it's connected to the flash.

I'd agree, and would love to have a 70-200 2.8, but I am extremely happy with the 80-200 2.8, and so would you be. The quality is outstanding, equal to the 70-200 2.8, and under $800 second hand

Couldn't recommend a Tamron sp 28-105 2.8. I had that on my f80 as an only child. It did everything I wanted til it all got stolen.

Alison,

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it. None so blind as those who will not see.

 

You are a very good nature, structure and form photographer. Awesome use of colour

Robbie.

 

It is in a world reknowned tropical island holiday destination on 4 islands and mainland venues.

 

Quite serious.

 

Could be a million dollar business.

 

I hate weddings.

Thank you all, this has been amazingly explained, and I appreciate everyones assistance. Thanks especially go to William W and Alec Myers.

I am not planning on using this information, and am hoping the mess will go away and everyone loves each other again. :-)

 

It is, however, very handy to know if the need arises.

Apart from the fact that John is perfectly correct in what he says, who in their right mind really wants to be a wedding photographer. Anyone who wants to be a wedding photographer is 1. doing it for the money, and 2. from my experience, and I repeat MY EXPERIENCE, are simply not good enough to make it in any other field of photography! From what I have seen of wedding photographers work, they have the technical and artistic qualities of a house plant. In fact, and remember I am a full time wedding photographer shooting 300+ weddings a year, I am going to start calling it "House Plant" photography.

1. full time

 

2. tripped over and smashed my face in it. I hate the bloody industry, but its good money.

 

3. none, but i'll end up shooting between 250 and 300 this year.

 

4. $1500

 

P.S. If anyone here wants to move to tropical north queensland to shoot weddings in the whitsunday islands including Daydream, Long, Lindeman and Hamilton island, and get paid extremely well for it, email me, you can have my contracts.

William W

 

Thank you for your inciteful comment. The only way I can be more specific is to say that no contract, written or verbal, is in place. The equipment is all owned by the photographer, and payment was made on a commission basis.

 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

David,

 

It isn't a written contract, just a general concept. I have a copyright issue at the moment where the owner of the business is claiming copyright over the photographer.

I am an Australian photographer, so not sure if it is different with laws around

the world.

If I shoot a wedding as a contractor for a company that has the rights to shoot

all commercial photography at a particular venue, whom owns the copyright on the

images; me or the company I contract too?

Sorry to here about the death in the family. I have had my D70 for nearly 2 years, and have constantly changed lenses without turning it off. It still works fine!

My 50mm 1.4 ais is my favourite on my d200. Prefer using it over my 17-55 2.8 for before ceremony shots.

Really cannot do without my 80-200 2.8 ed. The images are sharp and beautifully rendered. I have shot an entire wedding with it alone! (overcast day, with only the couple, no guests)

 

I also use my 17-55 2.8 as it is an amazing lens.

 

I have seen some amazing things done with the 28-70 2.8, but find its wide end not wide enough.

I thought it had something to do with the Low Pass Filter.

What camera body is capable of a 1/100,000,000 sec exposure time?