m_tt_donuts

<p>Practice up on your flash photography, to me how good you're at with flash photography can make or break a wedding shoot. Even if outdoors in sunlight, enable high speed flash synch (so you can get faster apertures in sunlight) and go with it. The images will be a world of difference even outdoors with it having catchlights in the eyes and shadows filled in a touch. So go through the settings and enable high speed flash and use the flash outdoors. </p>

<p>I use a D800 and leave it mostly on auto iso unless using a tripod. As for memory cards, I get the best/fastest I can afford you want to avoid filling the buffer and possibly missing a shot waiting for it to flush. For a wedding your CF and SD cards should be set to duplicate, and shoot RAW. </p>

<p>I think it goes without saying getting a sharp picture trumps any settings... if the church doesn't allow flash, and I'm not a fan of 6400 ISO on my camera (yours is better at least) I'll shoot it at 6400 anyway and possibly more if I must and then do post process fixing. Shooting at 3200 (which I find is a big improvement over 6400) doesn't do any good if the images are slightly blurry there's not much one can do in post. </p>

<p>You're lacking a 70-200 F2.8 which is usually deemed the "money maker" to wedding photographers (I prefer the VR version not VR II). </p>

<p>Be sure to avoid different lighting and you have a filter on your flash to match or your flash is overpowering all other light. There's been times I used my flash with incandescent light and the person is white from my flash and yellow on another side from incandescent. When I forget, those are the ones I make B&W or I go through a big process of brush coloring to try to even out the lighting in post.</p>

<p>Lastly, spend some time watching some Tony Northrup youtube videos. He does a good job, but don't get caught up in the Nikon vs. Canon thing he sometimes throws out there he doesn't know how to use Nikons I find him to be someone with such sway and power doing these comparisons when he doesn't even know how to set the WB on Nikon (hold the WB button down and take a picture of something white) which has been Nikons way for how long? He states Canons 17 step process and multiple menu actions to set it is far superior and easier and he's so popular... He should just avoid comparing the two since he doesn't know anything about Nikons or to learn them. Be like someone throwing a Pentax at me with no manual and having me compare it to my Nikon which I've been using for 12 years. Good luck!</p>

<p>I've had my fair share of tripods over the years, and have gone through what I think are different phases. I first bought a big bulky tripod, it produces the sharpest results but I used it a lot at first but over the years used it less, and less, and now I only use it to hold my laser level when working on my house. It's just too big and bulky to be practical for me now.</p>

<p>Then I read about a photographer who posted a challenge to tripod manufactures with all the specifications of a perfect tripod. I bought it, it was the Velbon Maxi 343e. It's hard to explain how useful it is, it weighs under 2 lbs, shrinks to 17.5", extends to 62" high, has a ball head, the head lets one flip the camera from horizontal to vertical (just need to watch it doesn't hit a leg doing it), and the legs are individual to work with uneven terrain and the legs go out/in blazing fast and lock secure with the system they use (not a twist system), and inexpensive it was around $70.</p>

<p>When hand holding won't cut it this has been my go to tripod going over 10 years, I don't normally use it with the center column extended but it can extend. I eventually found this tripod meets my needs entirely. I recommend starting with it or something with similar specs/price as everyone needs a light and portable tripod. If you find situations you want something more than shop for something beefier but the light & portable tripod will always be useful even with a beefy tripod.</p>

<p>Tripods remind me of laptops and tablets. Nearly everyone has a tablet they take with them everywhere, even if they don't use it no big deal not like it took any effort or planning. The Velbon Maxi is like an iPad that will likely fulfill most of your shooting needs. But you may find yourself in a situation a laptop is a better tool and worth packing up like the beefy tripod but it takes more effort and planning. A medium to beefy tripod is not something you're going to take with you everywhere at all times like the travel tripod. In my case, I found the travel tripod all I need. I know they don't make it anymore, but it can still be found and well worth it or write down the specs of it and look for something similar. Just make sure it has a ball head, not pan/tilt.</p>

<p>Any chance a polarizer was used? I have an B+W one that's MRC and has done weird things to certain colors/sections depending on direction and how much. For polarizers I have a Moose (which is a warming uncoated Hoya) , Tiffen, Hoya coated, Singh-Ray, and B+W with MRC and the B+W with MRC sometimes the images just look like something is off but only here and there and usually in the shadows. When it happens, there's no question I took the image with my B+W MRC polarizer. I only use it with my zoom lenses like my 80-400 VR and 70-200 I can't say if it happens on wide angles as I use a different brand thin polarizer on my wide angle. </p>

<p>One of my top reasons for getting a newer camera than my D200 was because it did not have focus fine tune.</p>

<p>I often shoot wide open with fast lenses, and with the D200 it was frustrating to focus on the eyes with my over $2000 70-200 F2.8 VR lens and then have the persons ears in focus. I got into the habit of focusing on the eyes with that camera then backing up a bit and taking the actual photo (and many photo's if possible) to hopefully get one with the eyes sharp. <br /><br /><br /> Then I learned newer camera's have focus fine tune and I was all over it, having a camera without (and shooting so much wide open) not a feature I can do without. I only did my portrait type lenses (50mm F1.4 and 70-200 F2.8) by finding a paper template online to guide me. I did not do it with my 80-400 VR, 17-35mm F2.8, 18-200, nor 70-300. Those lenses with their rather long DOF and on my newer camera were close I just didn't feel the need.</p>

<p>Ugg... Lightroom is aware pictures may be in more than 1 folder (especially since some Nikon camera's if you turn them on and hold "?" it will create a new folder and put new pictures into it). Just be sure they're not at the end of the filmstrip. There's just a small chance, and I mean small... that you edited pictures 9910 up in an external application and the picture format of them changed to .TIFF and on save Lightroom is supposed to reimport them and they go at the end of the filmstrip but I've had a few occasions Lightroom simply didn't. The pictures became .TIFF files in the directory Lightroom wasn't aware of and they disappeared. To fix, I had to go into Lightooms import wizard, choose the same folder on my C: drive the pictures I was working on already where, and wallah it shaded out the thousands of images it detected were already imported and showed me my 4 .TIFF files I'd edited in an external app to put on the filmstrip. You may be looking for 9910.NEF or 9910.JPG or 9910.CRW or 9910.CR2 when it's now 9910.TIF or 9910.TIFF or maybe accidentally became 9910 without any extension (which Lightroom will ignore). Not likely, but small :) Check the directory they downloaded into. </p>

<p>I don't think it's as bad as you're likely thinking it is I give only 2-3 images of the toast and they're more for memories no one blows them up. The important ones are the church, kiss, group photo's, and dances which I believe you got. Also most people have an understanding no wedding goes perfect, if the worst thing that went wrong with the wedding was the toast images got corrupt (that's what I'd say) hallelujah! At my wedding, the hairdresser didn't show up for my wife and the AC didn't work in the reception hall it was 110F. Also, guests will have taken pictures of those moments with their phone(s) and such so it's not like they'll have nothing of them. I would show them the pictures you took, follow up with a meeting where you explain something goes wrong at every wedding and that something went wrong with the toast and serenade. Say it's never happened but the pictures were corrupt and you spent a lot of money and so much effort but there was nothing that could be done they weren't recoverable and that you will give them a discount. Mention, I don't like to mention this but others at the wedding will have pictures of the missing moments and is there anything you can do. </p>

<p>I hope you the best and, that the small chance the file(s) are there but as .TIFF's or no extensions. Cheers</p>

 

<p>Last week I upgraded to Lightroom 6 (not the CC version). Everything I see says it's faster... to the contrary it's SO MUCH slower for me that now to edit my pictures I start up a movie to keep me entertained while waiting for all the pauses between everything I do.</p>

<p>My computer is a 1 year old alienware, 8 Gigs memory, NVidia 765M GTX, Intel i7 2.4GHz - 3.4GHz w/6GB cache, running Windows 7, I have a 1TB 7200 RPM Hard drive that's 40% free. </p>

<p>Lightroom 5.7 used to take about 3 seconds for a 1:1 preview to display now it's taking about 12-15 seconds. That is I hit the right arrow to see the next picture and 12-15 seconds it shows up. Clicking crop was instant, now when I click crop I wait 6 seconds before I get the crop tool and it seems buggy, screen goes black and shows me the picture settings in the middle, then forms a gray block with a cross pattern where the picture was, then it's replaced with the picture, then some seconds later finally the crop box comes up and I can crop. I find often there is an issue with the thumbnail and the picture I'm working on. That is, if I want to click on the thumbnail in the top left side to magnify the main image so I can lighten teeth that thumbnail is often a completely different picture than the one I'm working on. I have to click on a new picture and click back to the old pic to get the thumbnail and main synchronized.</p>

<p>Lightroom 5.7 was probably 6x faster and responsive and no issues. Lightroom 6 I'm finding so much less responsive, it's crashed at least once every time I use it, and just buggy in general. Anyone else find it buggy and much slower?</p>

<p>For me some part was the release of Windows 8, I don't think anything in history has made me want to put my computer away more and if I take pictures, I need to download them to my computer and use Win8 which is always a frustrating experience. Instead of getting use to Win8 over time I find more and more things that frustrate me endlessly about it.</p>

<p>I don't know how much Win8 affected others, I used to use my computer a lot more beforehand and now I'd rather put a pencil in my eye. Taking pictures means I have to use Win8 and my disdain of using it has affected me having fun and experimenting with my camera, taking it out, and enjoying it since I need to use Win8 and download them. I know what the answer is (a computer with Win7, Apple is out of the question) but I've gotten used to my nights watching a movie instead of editing pictures thanks to Win8.</p>

<p>Exactly :) You're misinterpreting that line "so it becomes like everyone else" I mean like everyone else who doesn't use color management like the bride, groom, your family, friends, you send photos to. If you're not using color management, and they're not using color management, what you send will look close to what they'll see (sure there will be color shifts from differences in monitors etc.) but it won't be nearly as drastic a difference as say you using the ProPhoto color space and send them a picture using it and they're not using management at all. </p>

<p>Lightroom made it all moot, I did that when I used to edit live image in Photoshop and overwrite them. Lightroom doesn't allow that, and has the "convert to sRGB color space" option automatically. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice responses, good to see. I asked this question years ago and felt like I had gotten blasted away. The answers from everyone at that time was it was heresy to change a color managed program like Photoshop to work with everyone else... everyone else needs to install a color managed program to work with my pictures. I just didn't see how that was practical. I spent a lot of time and did find the way to do it but it's been many years (probably 4-5) so can't exactly remember how I did it but... this is a very common question/situation.</p>

<p>Look at <a href="http://viget.com/inspire/the-mysterious-save-for-web-color-shift">this article</a> on how to make Photoshop ignore color profiles so it becomes like everyone else. I think that's what I did and all my color woes between what I was doing, and what I sent and everyone saw, went away afterward. I like the warning on the top of the article that changing photoshop to ignore profiles is hotly contested! I could care less about color profiles personally, what I do care about is that the pictures I'm editing will look like what I send and don't like to choose the "Convert" option each time I just want to click save.</p>

<p>I recommend writing down or taking a snap shot of the current color settings prior to changing just encase. When I got lightroom and started choosing the "Edit in Photoshop" option the image didn't look the same between the two so I had to put them back. Now I only edit my pictures in photoshop by going through lightroom first, and lightroom doesn't allow editing originals like I used to with Photoshop making the issue moot. In lightroom you can choose to export and in there have it convert the images to sRGB and that made my edit and what people got the same using lightroom.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hm... of course there's going to be some "discretion"</p>

<p>*Based on a survey by Canon. Is this like that advertisement that stated that 95% of woman's first impression of a man are determined by the shoes he's wearing (based on a survey done by a shoe making company). Does this mean Nikon can say the same thing based on a survey by Nikon (joking of course I think Canon had some better camera's until recently it's not so easy to say).</p>

<p>Over a 10 year period. Does that mean Nikon is going to release an article they're #1 in digital camera sales and such for 2012 and 2013?</p>

<p>:) All fun</p>

<p>Pretty interesting if that is true it contradicts what I've seen. Everywhere I've seen comparing JPEGs at default settings Canon applies high sharpening and saturation while Nikon applies low. Time and time again you'll see users and reviewers comparing the camera's at "default settings" as if it is some scientific standard that every camera set to default produces an image in the same way when it isn't. It's like comparing one radio's Jazz setting to another as if they should sound the same and being so you can pick up on the nuances. Basing it on that the users and reviewers typically notice Canon produces a sharper and more colorful images when set to default (which makes sense since what I've seen Canons do apply high sharpening & saturation Nikon doesn't) but comparing the RAWs (which is the real truth) that's when one may find the RAW files show different.</p>

<p>If Nikon has changed that in the newer offerings, good for them. I've felt Nikons default of "Low" can not help their sales when people do try both at the store or rent both, take a picture and think Canons are sharper and more colorful and walk home with it. I've seen plenty of reviews also comparing the JPEG files of the camera's at "default settings" and they demonstrate Canons are sharper. Again, because Canon applies high sharpening by default, Nikon low. But they think it's apples-apples. That simply can't help Nikon sales.</p>

<p>This is the first time I've heard someone saying Canon gives the impression(s) of being unedited and natural and Nikon overdoing it but maybe Nikon realized they need to apply high sharpening and saturation as well for those reviewers and testers who do shoot the two side by side in jpegs.</p>

<p>Well, be cool to see a digital polaroid camera :) </p>

<p>There's one that is made by polaroid, 14MP and photo's and prints but doesn't look anything like the real deal. </p>

<p>It's a pain. The easiest way I've found, is to download the shutterfly app to the ipad, then upload the pictures to shutterfly and send her the link. She also needs her own shutterfly account.</p>

<p><br />Have her go to the link, login to her shutterfly account, select all the Photo's and save them to an album on her shutterfly account. Then launch the shutterfly app on the iPad, and it will show the album. She'll be able to save the individual images to the ipad if she wants, that avoids needing to be connected to wifi. Otherwise she can view from her shutterfly app as as long as she's connected to wifi.</p>

<p>The 50mm F1.4G AFS easily. Focuses very close, has wonderful bokeh, rounded diaphram blades, extremely sharp there isn't any fault with it. You won't need a zoom lens, I have the Nikon 17mm - 35mm F2.8 also but the 50mm was better range wise, easy, light, and the fact it focuses as close as it does I found it invaluable for my little one.</p>

<p>If you haven't done it yet, get yourself a hot-shoe flash so you can bounce it off the walls & ceilings that will really improve your pictures, more than any new lens. I don't personally prefer macro lenses for portraits. You'll have to really research the one you want. I find the bokeh on macro lenses is optimized for very close focusing where it's beautiful, used for normal distances the bokeh I often see a distracting circular pattern as if the background is being sucked into a whirlpool. Some more than others.</p>

<p>I would get a normal lens like the 50mm, I didn't use it much until my son was born I ended up taking probably 95% of my pictures of him with it. It's the perfect distance for a baby on a crop factor, and because of the close focusing, and shallow DOF you can get those really cool just the hand shots, feet shots, etc. Congrats!</p>

<p>Strange situation. I agree with everyone else, I wouldn't say or do anything. Chaulk it up as one of the "loser" jobs, lessoned learned, and move on.</p>

<p>If it happens in the future, politely inform the client in your experience 2 photographers don't work well because you've found the people don't know who to look at, or get distracted and want to know what the other photographer is shooting ending up with images of people looking confused, disoriented, and distracted. Typically, it clicks when you explain that. The client thinks... Yes two photographers would be confusing to know which to look at, yes that would make me disoriented, yes that disorientation would likely translate to the photo, and yes that would hurt the quality = Oh... nevermind about the other photographer is typically the reaction. I would rather them choose me or the other photographer and get one set of good images instead of 2 sets where the people look confused or have wandering eyes.</p>

<p>For facebook, I recommend you let it go. The client see's facebook as being a means to share it only with friends and family. I know of 2 different photographers who said something and in both cases yes, the photographer was right but also everyone felt the photographer was being ridiculous and turned into a situation "You're looking for portraits/wedding photographer, don't use xyz I know someone who posted on facebook and the photographer was upset...". That's not something anyone especially potential future brides will want to hear. There really aren't too many brides who don't post their wedding images illegally on facebook I think it just par for the course. But also, if someone asks who was the photographer if you don't say something I think you'll find that's when they'll happily say you and the other photographer. Saying something, it will be "I used you and the other photographer BUT don't use ... did you know they contacted me because I..." not something you want and that hatchet will be unburried and thrown for years everytime that bride looks or shows someone her pictures.</p>

<p>I think it's a fad, but a good one I feel it's helping some make more money from their photography. It's certainly helped the "action" selling business, which I've found many times is just a normal person you're helping by buying actions. </p>

<p>My problem is printing... that look is great on screen because there's a base... you know your screen isn't broken the look was intentional. Printed... is another story it ends up looking like you were running out of ink, that the site screwed something up and overexposed, or you were cheaping out on the ink and using econo-mode. I don't know how others do it, I've spent an awful long time trying to deal with the prints they do look so much like I was trying to save a penny by saving on ink which upsets clients. I've sometimes done 2 sets, one for screen/viewing and one for printing which confuses clients as well. I'm about to be done with it. Use at your own risk I guess.</p>

<p>Just had this happen myself. I imported my nieces birthday pictures into my France catalog. Did all the edits (didn't want to lose them). </p>

<p>You have to select the images you want to move, then choose File, Export as new catalog. That will keep your edits, etc. Then open your Camera Club catalog and choose File, Import from another catalog (or maybe it's just File, Import, From catalog) and pick the one you just created. </p>

<p>After testing it worked properly, delete them from your Tests catalog and make sure you just delete them from the catalog, not from disk. </p>

<p>Definitely do what it takes to shoot RAW and JPEG. I went to Europe 4 years ago and because I wasn't familiar at all with lightroom and/or post editing (I was against it), also the advantages of RAW I only shot jpeg. However, I'm now different. I love Lightroom, I love shooting Raw, I love post editing, I'm far more proficient (it took me a long time) in post, and all my fantastic images of Europe I know could've been so much more had I shot RAW and I can't go back. Because of all the fine detail typical of the very old European structures and the high dynamic range of typical scenes it's one place shooting raw is very effective in being able to produce the image you visioned.</p>

<p>You don't know what the future will bring, RAW is a pain in your situation now but you can't repeat this trip, it's such cheap insurance to get storage to capture RAW + Jpeg I wish today that 4 years ago I wasn't so closed minded with my attitude against RAW and post editing. </p>

<p>Yes you can. This is something different than Canons (if you're more familiar with them). These are things of using a DX lens on an FF body. </p>

<p>The MP is reduced since you don't use the full sensor. </p>

<p>DX lenses are harder to frame the image. When I mount a DX lens on my D800 I get a thin black box that appears in the viewfinder to help me frame my DX lens but I find going back and forth I often forget "Oh know I'm using a DX lens and need to keep it within the inner box of the viewfinder". I personally find in use it's not easy to get accustomed to going back & forth, I wished the unuseable part of the viewfinder just went all black with a DX lens on. </p>

<p>If your FF camera is configured to make videos at 1080p and you put a DX lens on it, it will make the video 720p then upscale to 1080p for a noticeable loss of quality even if the camera has plenty of MP in DX mode to make full 1080p. I know this the case with the D4, D600, and D800, those models are best shooting in 720p with a DX lens. </p>

<p>DX lenses increase the FPS of FF camera's. My camera has 4 fps, with a DX lens or camera operating in DX mode its 5fps and a battery grip + DX mode/lens = 6fps. </p>

<p>I think it's a tough call because there are general rules that contradict each other.</p>

<p>The first, a sharp picture outweighs a blurry one. Take for example a picture of a kid at his birthday party blowing out their candles. Because of VR you'll have a sharp picture, but because the kid is moving to blow out the candle they may be blurry in the shot so you should up the ISO. You can increase the aperture to F1.4 as well but then the DOF would likely be too shallow to have both the kid and cake within the DOF. In this case, a blurry cake or blurry kid is likely not what you want so upping the ISO for a sharper picture (with more DOF) is likely the best route.</p>

<p>The other rule is, if you want to bring attention to your subject blur the distracting parts or the ones that don't apply to the image. Portraits are a good example, one typically wants just the person so would typically choose a tight aperture over increasing ISO.</p>

<p>Applying this to cityscapes, if I were taking a picture of a statue and the background offers nothing to my goal I would pick a faster aperture to blur the background out so the focus is the statue the rest which don't apply will be blurred (the eye is drawn to sharper things). If the statue was a miniature of the Statue of Liberty and in the background was the real Statue of Liberty I'd pick a faster ISO to get both in this case the background works with the subject.</p>

<p>So it depends on what you are trying to tell us with your story. If the subject by itself is the story (such as a portrait) and the background offers nothing to add to it I typically increase the aperture. If the background adds or is part of the story I'm capturing then I'd pick higher ISO.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That does sound like a lens issue to me.</p>

<p>Nikon (as far as I'm aware) doesn't post the maximum aperture their camera's can autofocus but Canon does. Canons can autofocus from F2.8 - F5.6 (some to F8) which means, with Canon if you have a faster lens than F2.8 the autofocus system isn't sensitive enough and will autofocus it as if it were F2.8 which will show up as some looseness particularly shooting at F1.2. I would suspect Nikons autofocus is similar, the autofocus is only good to F2.8 and on the D800E in particular will show up as being a little loose shooting at F1.4.</p>

<p>Knowing the autofocus is only as tight as F2.8 I would do the testing at that aperture. What happens if you aim it at the sign at F2.8 is the background still sharper than the sign itself? If you find the same result at F2.8 I would say it's the lens. If it doesn't occur at F2.8, then it's the autofocus is a bit loose when the lens is set to F1.4 and the effect being exaggerated by the amount of detail the D800E captures.</p>

<p>I hear ya. I wonder if the D800 changed me :) I had a D200, I hated it. The dynamic range was awful, the fact it fired my flashes sporadically and randomly on its own, my 50mm and 70-200 F2.8 VR were pretty pointless because if I focused on the eyes their nose would be in focus in the final shot (and it doesn't have adjustment). </p>

<p>I saved up enough $ to buy the D700 a few years ago, but then I borrowed one. I found it frequently wouldn't take the photo I don't know if others have experienced it it would autofocus and then do nothing sometimes. I found occasions I wanted to take video of my son and all I had was the D700. I decided to wait. </p>

<p>Then came the D800. I did not like that it was 36MP, but I researched very heavily how good its JPEG capability was and the D800 at the time and possibly today takes the best JPegs. I saw it took sharper movies, with more dynamic range, with more "WOW" factor than the 5D Mark III (unless you shoot outdoors at night, in bars at night, or panty-hose at oblique angles). Since I'd saved up for 5 years I had enough to buy it and I did. At first I didn't like 36MP but now I find it hard to live without. I purchased it for its jpeg capability but after seeing the RAW it converted me I won't shoot in any other format. Big surprise, was the feature "Face detection in the viewfinder" that's one I will struggle immensely with one not having it. My little man (3 years old) looks at the camera for a second sporadically and that's it. Because of this feature I've gotten him looking at me more times in a week than I did in a year with my D200 or D700, if he's looking at the camera and I press the shutter it gets him. I really like the ability to put the camera away from my face and interact with kids and people while I take pictures of them. Because of the face detection I don't have to worry, am I focused on him or the table in the back, or their neck, etc. it locks on any face looking my way. I also found if there's a face it detects the exposure in the picture is flawless, and I really enjoy the newer auto-iso and what they've done with it. .</p>

<p>So the D800 changed me. I hated RAW and now I wouldn't shoot any other way. I hated 36MP, now I would struggle any other way. I wanted it for the movies, but I've found taking videos isn't as easy as I thought. I didn't think auto-iso was useful but now i use it for almost every single picture I take (the new auto-iso is awesome). The face detection in the viewfinder is a total winner I don't think I could live without. It's also nice my 50mm and 70-200 F2.8 VR can be adjusted on the D800 so now if I focus on the eye I get the eye in focus... and unlike my D200 that took 2-3 times to get the exposure perfect the D800 I find almost faultless in getting it. The reasons I bought it, now have little to do with how I use it I'm changed.</p>

<p>Just a thought, is an Alienware m11x r3 out of the question? I don't know if it has to be Apple. The m11x r3 is an 11.4" gaming laptop that can act as a netbook with lots of battery life and storage and browsing or a gaming laptop with power. It will easily handle D700 raw files, the hard drive can be whatever size you wish, and has a USB 3.0 port for fast downloads. Can only be had on e-bay, they just recently stopped making them. </p>

<p>I use it to handle my D800 raw files in lightroom and it handles them with ease, in fact I have no problems editing them as well. Just surface blur can take a long time if you're smoothing people's skin in photoshop. 6GB of memory is plenty on it, and one thing I wish Apple would support blu ray. I like to take/make HD movies and distribute them or back up my critical pictures it burns me Apple doesn't support blu ray. You can purchase an external USB blu ray burner for the m11x r3 and it's fully compatible, so you can make HD movies or use it the discs for 25GB storage (it does take a long time to create an HD movie though with one... like 4-5 hours to process but only takes about 20 minutes to burn a blu ray disc). Lastly, go ahead and use it for a gaming laptop it's actually really good at it. If you upgrade later to a D800 or camera that takes SD you'll like being able to just pop the SD card into it as it has a built-in card reader.</p>

<p>It is thick, the screen is 11.4" (720p but has external display connections including HDMI), and very glossy I'm talking almost a mirror but it's what I use and what I love. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I blame facebook, and the accessibility to it through the iPad/iPhone/android. It's the other husband in many people's lives including mine. I think there are more female photographers, but facebook is particularly addicting to females and many have dropped away from it to facebook. It's also grabbed some young budding female photographers and prevented them from experiencing the art of photography and pursuing that craft. Talking to my brothers and other guys, facebook is known as the other husband. I can't get my wife away from it. It's sad when our 3 year old is crying for mommy to play with him, and her response is always that she has to respond to status updates. I used to shoot some nights and weekends but now my nights are watching my son so she can catch up on facebook and on weekends because she didn't do any chores during the week she uses the weekend to do them now instead leaving me to watch our son instead of doing some shooting. Feels good to vent a bit. Thanks</p>

<p>If possible, go to the store and try them out. It really isn't going to make much difference but if you get one you like the feel of you'll be more satisfied with it. Canons typically have the scroll wheels vertical, and Nikon Horizontal it's preference. But put another way...</p>

<p>One scored a 66 the other a 67. One will be hard pressed seeing an image if you took it with a D3100 or Rebel T2i or come to a situation you'll say, boy if only I had the other (insert brand here). Both have very good flash systems with their respective speed(lights/lites), but thinking ahead Nikons is easier to understand since it works in stops (the language photographers use every day) Canon uses the ratio system which I believe is the only thing that uses the ratio unit of measure.</p>

<p>I would actually pay the extra for a D3200. Much better all around camera for only a little more, key important feature is that it uses the updated auto-iso which is incredibly useful for about every single picture you'll ever take with it (the D3100 and T2i use rather useless versions). It also has better low-light performance, indoors ISO 1200 is very, very useful I struggled with a camera that was good only to ISO 800. The D3200 can produce good images at ISO 1200, the others not so much. Being able to shoot good quality images at ISO 1200 is something you'll like a lot... nearly every time you shoot indoors. The updated auto-iso and ability to shoot quality images up to iso 1200 make the D3200 I think well worth the extra. Good luck!</p>