rick_m.

<p>I want to go back to one point on this. The complaints that we see here are similar to those expressed by many retail businesses when confronted with the internet and the ease with which someone can become a "company". Also the ease with which a customer can access the lowest bidder. As Jeff said, there are no end to photographers willing to give away their services in exchange for their 15 minutes of fame. As a PJ I am constantly assailed by people willing to work for a press pass. </p> <p>The deal is though that none of these folks are willing to do the real hard work. That is prospecting. They put some blown out pictures on CL and declare themselves wedding photographers. Even the ones who post lovely work are still unlikely to succeed unless they are willing to do the hard, grind it out, work of promoting themselves. To make it in photography you simply have to do this.</p> <p>If you have a shoot this afternoon, you need to get up and prospect in the AM. Then go to the shoot. If you have no shoot today you need to spend the day looking for work. Putting up a website and advertising on CL does not count. I wonder if anyone is reading this post. Here is a way to look at this that I have absolutely never seen anyone express this way. Here it comes. Most photographers earn what a part time job earns because they are part-time photographic business owners. By this I mean that if you don't set a minimum 40 hour work week and stay working that whole time you have not earned full time wages. </p> <p>So. You do an engagement shoot this AM and it takes 4 hours. You go back to the office and do the proofs in two hours. You still owe the company another two hours. What do you do? Call customers on the phone, visit wedding planners, make presentations to venue managers........get my drift?</p> <p>If I hired "you" at $20.00 per hour full time as a staff photographer in my business and you did not have a shoot today, what would you expect me to ask of you? Sit at the computer and post pictures to your profile? I don't think so. You would expect me to have you out pounding the pavement looking for business. If you don't want to do that then you get $10.00 per hour part time and I call you when and if I need you. Right? And if you won't be a shooter for $10.00 per hour I can assure you that I can hire your replacement the same day I post the opening. </p> <p>So the bottom line is that being a professional photographer/salesman is a full time job if you want full time wages. As the owner you will be lucky to get to the point where you are only working 8 hours a day. So don't expect to get full time wages from a part time job. </p>

<p>I looked at the pictures you posted in your portfolio and I can assure you that not just "anyone with a DSLR" can take shots like that. You are thoughtful, have a good eye and it appears serious skills. Don't downplay your abilities.</p> <p>One thing that really annoys professionals is the notion that anyone can do what they do. While I would be the first to say that there are talented and well trained amateurs who can produce results that are every bit as good as professionals, they are not all that common and more importantly they are not available to the general public. I could point you to several amateurs on this site whose work is wonderful but they are not for hire. </p> <p>Here is a direct answer to your question. If you wish to be a professional photographer working for yourself, you will earn your money as a salesman and shooting the assignment is just the fun part. It is your skill and tenacity as a salesman and marketer is what will make you successful at supporting your family. Here is an example for you to consider:</p> <p>A few days ago I shot a charity awards and fundraising event for which I was paid fairly well. Why did they pay me when a talented amateur with a DSLR (indeed there were several there) could have easily handled the job? Because I convinced them that they needed to ensure that they had professional quality photos on-time and without excuses. In a carefully prepared sales presentation I pointed out all of the possible uses for these photos beyond the newsletter they were thinking about. I told them what a nice "recognition gift" it is to give the speakers and awardees an nice 8X10 of their time in the spotlight. They had never thought of that. I showed them how these pictures, in a nice frame, were more personal and much less expensive than the presentation items they had been giving. While I was at it I mentioned that shots like these require a certain skill by reminding them of the annoying red-eye, wonky lines, poor white balance under the multi-vapor lamps, and blown out highlights with which they were used to contending. I reminded them how annoying it was to have photographers intruding into the action and told them that professionals know how to get the shots discretely and unobtrusively. I mentioned how we know how to "work the crowd" to get good candid shots (with the subject's name and cut-line information) for their newsletter. I mentioned how we know the correct way to pose people for the group shots. I told them about how I would visit the venue and carry the exact equipment that would be best for their event. In other words, they did not hire be because I was a professional, they hired me because I made a good sales presentation which inspired confidence, took away one of their many 'worries' and gave them value that they did not know they could expect. All for the very fair price of....(insert your own number here). Then I delivered the final product in person, three days early, mentioning that I "got right on them" because I knew they would want to get the awards out right away. We sat at their computer and "enthusiastically" went through the shots that were not printed to ensure they had what they wanted. I left them a stack of business cards and with the commitment that they would write a nice yelp review, and the 'promise' they would call me for the following year's event. (I will call them first but they will find that out soon enough.)</p> <p>So the point of this admittedly wordy post is to inspire you to realize that you have two opportunities to succeed in this business. First and foremost are your obviously prodigious photographic skills. Skills you will never stop learning to broaden. The second you can acquire with a lot of work. These are the skills necessary to prospect for work, make great presentations, add value to the customers process and deliver on-time and on budget. There are plenty of photographers out there whose photographic skills are first-rate but whose sales skills are amateur. They will never succeed as professionals. </p> <p> </p>

<p>The D2H is a real charmer if you are used to the non-pro Nikon bodies. It is fast, (8FPS) and focuses fast enough for any sports in good light. It is tough as nails, relatively weather resistant and feels super in your hands. The controls are right where you want them. If you are capturing names of runners from an announcer or after the fact you will come to love the voice annotation. As the runner crosses the finish line and the announcer says, "Bill Smith for the win" all you have to do is hit the button and you can record this info right with the shot. Very handy.</p> <p>How soon we forget. I remember when I first got mine how we thought it was as good as it gets. Compared to the current consumer Nikons you will find it has a feel that is quite different and very pleasing. If you are coupling it with a screw-drive lens it will be as fast as anything out there. With AFS still pretty darned fast. Image quality is just fine for internet publishing provided you mind not blowing out the light areas in the sun. You will also appreciate the 4MP workflow. No need to manhandle zillion megabyte files for the net. </p> <p>I agree with the $200.00 price range. More than that and you are getting close to some better cameras for not much more. The D300 with a grip comes to mind. </p> <p>This might be a good introduction to the Nikon pro bodies. They are really a different animal from a handling standpoint. </p>

<p>I still own a D2X and until just recently also had a D300 still going strong. So comparing the two.</p> <p>The D2x is a lovely camera. It is built like a tank and feels very good in my hands. As a photojournalist I adore the voice annotation. It saves me from the extremely tedious necessity of keeping notes that I can actually read. I still use it for daytime sports such as rodeo. Also, for some reason I can't put my finger on, the D2X produces beautiful skin tones. </p> <p>The D300 is a step up in image quality as well as higher ISO performance. The D3oo, for example, has two stops better dynamic range. That is considerable. Add the good Nikon grip and the D300 will rip along at 8 FPS. </p> <p>IF you don't need the voice memo, and sticking with your condition of only considering these two, the D300 is a wiser choice. \</p> <p>Shame on you for crabbing the D7100. It is a spectacular camera. I shot an event today. Carried the D4 and D7100. I just keep reaching for the D7100. I have a grip on it as well and I like the way it fits in my hand. </p>

<p>+10 for the backup camera. It doesn't have to be an expensive back-up but you absolutely must have it. </p> <p>For the record, I would not send any camera anywhere right before an event unless I was prepared for delays in servicing, the possible need for an undiscovered repair and had time to give the camera a thorough work-out upon its return. </p> <p>Clean the sensor, test your cleaning job, provide yourself with a backup and have a great trip. </p> <p> </p>

<p>+1 for the D7100. This marvelous camera has been delighting everyone who owns it while others pine away for the heavier vapor-ware of the D400. This so-called D400 is going to have to be a heck of a camera for me to put it in between the D7100 and D4.</p> <p>Movies? Meh. I may push that little button some day to see what it does. It is cute. </p>

<p>There is an old saying, "I don't know anything about __________but I know about you....." </p> <p>You were concerned enough to post your concerns here so exchange the lens. $120.00 on a lens that you are going to keep for many years is a small price to pay for piece of mind.</p> <p>If you think it is cleaning or dirt rather than a scratch you could consider sending the one you have to Nikon for CLA but with the state of their customer service these days you may as well just exchange it. </p> <p>Great lens. I know you will enjoy it. </p>

Macs and PCs now use the same family of processors. The electronics are a wash. PCs are generally cheaper. There is more software available for PCs. Most monitors will work just fine on either. I use both. I prefer PCs but that is familiarity with Windows and the fact that I always build my own desktops. If you compare like processors, memory and video card (if you use one) there should be no appreciable performance difference though the MAC will doubtlessly cost somewhat more. If I were familiar with MAC and liked the OS, I would probably stay with that. Particularly if I was faced with replacing a lot of my software.

<p>Put me in the 24 PCE group. You are experienced otherwise I would not recommend it. It was designed to do exactly what you are doing. </p> <p>If you have shot 4X5 before you know what the experience is like.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Wonderful! </p> <p>Congratulations!</p>

<p>I agree with Ellis. I think you will find yourself using the longer rather than shorter lenses more. I lived in Bozeman for a time and that was my experience in the park. </p> <p>I also agree that you should buy lenses for the camera you have. I don't know why you are committed to primes. Such inconvenience. I also wonder what lens you have that has tele "covered". Surly not a 105 macro? </p> <p>Based only on what you have said, if I were going to Yellowstone with your budget I would buy the 18-55 vr kit lens and the 70-300 vr. That should fit in your budget. You can keep the 70-300 when you go full frame and the 18-50 is so inexpensive (though very good) that you can keep it for your backup camera. </p> <p>Then shoot carefully. And please use a tripod when you can. That will be of greater effect than any small differences in the quality of lenses. </p>

<p>All too often new photographers offer "free" stuff to build their business. I am not a fan of this unless it is offering free photos to a nonprofit as a networking method. </p> <p>Perhaps more important even than doing excellent work is learning to sell your services. Photographic skills will make good pictures, sales and marketing skills will make good money. As Ellis said, your marketing plan seems to have paid off a little. Just not in the way you planned.</p> <p>I really don't know about the copyright issues and since I am not a lawyer prefer not to get into that. What will be important in the future is that you try to develop sales strategies that minimize this sort of thing. John said something that is particularly important. People tend to assign value to something commensurate with the price they pay for it. Free stuff is free stuff and must be worth very little. </p> <p>Every established artist encounters this. Charities are always asking for free paintings or photos. They imagine very little expense associated with the creative process and therefor value it very little. So to them any money they get for the painting or photograph is just all "profit" and has cost the artist 'nothing'. If you want to score good art at bargain basement prices, just attend a few charity silent auctions. I know a notable local painter who had a friend buy back one of her paintings for her because she knew it was worth several times what it was going for at the silent auction.</p> <p>The whole point is that, as a new photographer, you need to work very hard on getting paying gigs. They are the ones that count. Free stuff is best left in the networking activities. Shoot for a charity event and hand out business cards for example. If you had only charged this lady $25.00 for the session SHE would have taken it more seriously and the whole dynamic would have changed. Instead of telling her admiring friends. "I got this for free from a new photographer just starting out" she would have said, "I got this from a new professional in town. She only charges $25.00 for the session and then you can choose the best shots to buy". HUGE difference.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The most important consideration in any business domain name is how Google will consider it. For example, if I was a photographer in Phoenix I would be much better off with phoenixphotographyguy.com than with JoeSmithphotography.com. </p> <p>It remains to be seen how Google will consider the .whatever names. I always heard that .com gets the most weight. I could be completely wrong on this. </p> <p>Search engine optimization is the biggest consideration in any website. I believe I could make very good case for asserting that economically one would be better off with mediocre content and good SEO than the opposite.</p> <p>You could check the SEO forums and see what they are saying. I really don't know the answer but I suspect a good SEO person could tell you how to get the most bang for your buck. </p>

<p>I watched this last night. Thanks for recommending it. </p> <p>I was struck by how 'modern' some of the scenes looked. It was almost uncanny. What a cool piece of work.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I agree with much of what Andrew said. If I were advising an aspiring photographer I would advise Canon or Nikon. (I am a Nikon shooter for almost 50 years so my decision is based more upon tradition than any quality differences.) Both are fine.</p> <p>I would not go with one of the other brands. Nikon and Canon offer you great starter cameras and seamless upgrades to the two finest professional bodies on the market. They offer a wide variety of lenses and accessories from affordable third party lenses to state-of-the-art professional versions. With either you can rent a wide variety of lenses if you need to and find plenty of friends with whom you can share or from whom you can borrow.<br> At this point I would not be overly concerned by the quality of lenses you choose. The kit lenses will get you going just fine. The time to buy a new lens or upgrade a kit lens is when the lens does not allow you to take the shot you want. If you can't articulate exactly what you want your new lens to do that your current lenses do not do, don't buy it.</p> <p>As soon as practical you will want a good quality flash (not the built in one) that is designed for your camera. This will enable you to go to a whole new place in your shooting. </p> <p>Please consider making a real effort to attend seminars and workshops. You can learn a great deal on this site looking at threads about how to take good pictures but attending good workshops is a wonderful way to jump-start your photography as well as meet other folks who are just getting going.</p> <p>I would not worry about your current lenses. Go with a good kit set. Both the Canon and Nikon "first three" bodies will offer you a good choice for not too much money. You will hear from fans of the other brands (Sony, Pentax, etc) and I am not hear to denigrate their choices. No doubt these brands have some nice features. Photography is a long journey. Getting started with a brand that has legs will make the future much easier for you. So Nikon or Canon. One or two kit lenses. Wide to telephoto. Flash when you can. Most importantly learn how to use them. Study the manuals, read online articles, attend workshops and give yourself assignments. That will really start you into a hobby or even career that has been a joy for all of us.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'm with Dan. Our OP did not ask a physics question, he asked a photography question. Is his question really about resolution? Not really. HE wants to know what the difference between the two sensors are as a practical matter. As a practical matter the 24 MP sensor will allow him to crop twice as much as the 12 MP sensor. Why do we have to make this stuff so hard.</p> <p>I remain unconvinced that a 24 MP camera approaches in any real sense the capabilities of any good modern Nikon lens. There are FAR more important factors in that illusive thing called 'sharpness' than can be discovered in MTF tables. Dan's comments are absolutely spot on. Technique is infinitely more important than any differences between lenses. </p> <p>I know that this is heretical on a gearhead forum but Dan's is the very best advice to give our OP.<br> So the take away for Doug is that the D7100 will be a far better camera for him than his current camera. It will give him better picture quality and a much better ability to crop than he has now.</p> <p>As Doug is quietly walking through the woods, stalking the bird, getting as close as he can, the very last thing he ought to be worried about is whether his lens is going to ever so slightly affect the shot he is about to take. Put that one last. First he should consider doing all of the great things Dan suggested he do. </p> <p>I like sharp lenses. I own some legendary ones. Not a single one of them will make up for a failure in my technique. </p> <p> </p>

<p>The parochialism is a bit misleading I find. I vote for the D7100. The A65 is not even in the same class of camera. You will love the D7100. Why is it better?</p> <p>It has over a stop better dynamic range. Its low-light capabilities are better. Its color depth is better. The viewfinder...well I suppose someone might like the Sony, but I don't know who that is. The viewing screen is better. Battery lasts longer....on and on.</p> <p>The D5300 is a great camera but inherent in your decision between the two is the assumption that the money difference is not that big a deal. The D7100 gives you more room to grow than the D5300 does. </p> <p>I have a D3 and D4. My D7100 has charmed me. It is a great camera and easy to fall for. Get one and don't look back.</p>

<p>Let me join with those who say that the brand doesn't matter much at her level of experience. Either one is great. </p> <p>If she has had bad experiences with her Nikon she will appreciate the Canon more. That is what presents are about, right? So I would get her the Canon. I would get her the newest model that remains affordable and a kit lens to start. </p> <p>My observation is that Canon service (in the unlikely event she should need repairs) is much more responsive than Nikon's. I am a lifelong Nikon shooter by the way and my experience is that these service issues are recent. Nevertheless there is a motivational value in using a brand in which you have faith. Sounds like she is a Canon girl. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Keep in mind that while you are doubling the megapixel count, you are not doubling the resolution.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think you should explain this more. I believe he is doing exactly that unless you wish to consider lens quality or airy disk issues. <br> He wishes to crop more. The 24MP camera will do that better than his D90. A lot better. Then there is the issue of overall better electronics. The D5300 would be a significant improvement. There is the issue of more than a stop better dynamic range and greater color depth.</p> <p>I agree that the D7100 would be a better choice and that the 300 F4 is a nice lens. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I agree with Mike. <br> FWIW:<br> You can rule out the 28-300 right away. It covers much of the same range as your kit lens. The 150-600 lens is a specialty lens which you might like if you are going to shoot wildlife or some sports from the stands. It is a handful. </p> <p>The 70-200 F2.8? is a nice lens and could be a good choice as long as you understand what to expect from it. </p> <p>Let me ask you why you are mentioning Tamron lenses? They are less expensive than Canon lenses by and large. There are other choices.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I vote for either the 18-105 VR or the 18-140 VR for your trip. As nice as the two primes are, they are not practical choices for your trip. </p> <p>Once you have experience with your camera, and can see what focal lengths you use frequently, you can see about additional lenses.</p> <p>Go with the one lens and have fun. </p>

<p>Absolutely not.</p> <p>Absolutely not.</p> <p>Absolutely not.</p>

<p>Welcome! Nice shots in your portfolio. </p> <p> </p>

<p>As a photojournalist I think about this from time to time. As we craft pictures to support stories we are aware that those photos will have a context and life beyond the family snapshot. </p> <p>I enjoy old photographs and frequently find myself looking at the backgrounds to try to see what yesteryear looked like. I imagine myself in those places. The advent of color compresses time somewhat as we loose (or gain, take your pick) the sense of other-time in the photo. </p> <p>The desire to contextualize my subjects, particularly in portraits, does affect my composition. The editorial croppers frequently thwart my efforts but.... </p> <p>Some time ago I wanted to see what it was like to be a news photographer back in the day. I photographed one match in a boxing event with a Speed Graphic. When I scanned the photos and showed them to people they wanted to know where I got the old boxing photos. <br> News photos are often printed in black and white and frequently I am struck by the retro nature of these shots. I see it in the work of others more than mine because it is hard not to 'remember' the event and contextualize the photos I take myself. </p> <p>The shear magnitude of photographic libraries these days may make any effort along these lines by any photographer a mere personal quirk. Who knows what will survive the test of time. Certainly all of it may survive but it remains to be seen what we access in the future. Probably the most survivable photos will be those associated with news. Shear ease in research dictates that the future observer to a historical event will refer to the photographs already indexed with that event. So perhaps my paltry efforts will be in some tiny way effective. More likely they are a mere vanity on my part. </p>

<p>Well if you are made of money.....</p> <p>If you are not then why not take the 24-85 AFS VR and the 50mm F/1.4?</p> <p>You are probably not going to shoot sports or wildlife in Chicago so you really don't need the reach of the 300's. Besides, with the sharpness of the 24-85 you can crop like crazy. </p> <p>Adding the 24-120 new version will not give you enough to make the investment worthwhile. the 28-300 is nice but also not really going to give you much. </p> <p>I say go with what you have.</p>