edwardchen

<p>Supposed you don't have anything. Everything is taken away from you. You are trying to survive making a living.<br>

<br /> As old proverb says "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.", a good Samaritan gives you photographic tools for you.<br>

<br /> Now you have:<br /> 1. A low end DSLR (with built-in flash that comes with it)<br /> 2. A cheap zoom lens kit (ok, for the sake of discussion, 18-55)<br /> 3. memory card (again, for the sake of discussion, 2GB)<br /> 4. Your current photographic skill.<br /> 5. Your current marketing skill.<br>

<br /> Rule:<br /> 1. no other gadgets! (you don't have computer, no other lenses, nothing). You only have 5 things above and will use those 5 things to start.<br /> 2. You can't use your current networks. Start from zero. Imagine you are beamed-up to another city where nobody knows you.<br>

3. You don't have portfolios.<br>

4. You can't approach the good Samaritan as your first potential client.<br>

<br /> Okay, that's all about it. Else, you can use your own imagination. The question is: Can you survive?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=608315">Walter Schroeder</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> , Mar 21, 2010; 10:00 a.m.<br /> Edward sorry to hear that - I wish you all the best for at least some recovery.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you Walter!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" title="Moderator" /> <img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 21, 2010; 10:58 a.m.<br /> Edward, I don't know how your eyesight is now, but since you have a D300, I would use live view to fine tune your macro focusing. For macro work, depth of field control is critical. As long as your subject is static, I would give live view a try.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! D300's live view is such a tremendous asset for me. It helps me a lot!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5575194">Ted Thayer</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> , Mar 21, 2010; 12:09p.m.<br /> You'll be happy with the 60mm. It's a great lens, but you might also think about the 45 PCE recommendation. Being able to adjust your plain of focus vs stopping down for DOF would be a tremendous asset.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and the price justifies it! :) If I can afford 45 PC-E, the first thing I am gonna do is upgrade to FX bodies..:)</p>

<p>I would suggest you let the bride choose two photographers whose portfolios she likes the most. Then you choose one out of the two whose more experience and better equipment.<br>

Case closed.</p>

<p>More expensive (better) camera will give a photographer less limiting factors in creating photos. Good photographer work around his/her tool's limitation and produce good photos one way or another.</p>

<p>Nikon 18-55 VR is fairly compact but I don't like barrel distortion at wide end. it's too much for me too handle. If you are not too critical with the distortion, i would strongly suggest this lens because it's cheap and surprisingly, quite sharp optically.<br>

How could you not like 18-35? The only problem is the big hood and its 77mm filter rim. The body is quite compact actually. On DX, it is super sharp.</p>

<p>Yes Rene' sample please at f/1.4. :)</p>

<p>Walter, I heard good things about this lens but the main problem is the auto focus. I had an eye surgery recovering from retinal detachment last year and my eyesight is not normal anymore (a bit blurry). So I heavily depend on camera's auto focus accuracy to get the job done. So I guess, I am going to get the 60/2.8 the AF-S as everyone suggested above. thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you for your responds. I am heading toward 60 mm I guess as you all suggested. Tamron 60/2.0 is tempting but the problem is it has the same price with nikon's 60/2.8 and it is only for DX bodies whereas nikon's 60/2.8 is FX lens.<br>

I guess I am leaning toward Nikon's!<br>

Thank you everyone!</p>

<p>Please help me to decide which Micro lenses fit my style!</p>

<p>1. Newly AF-S DX VR II Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED<br /> 2. AF-S Micro 105mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED<br /> 3. AF-S Micro 60mm f/2.8G ED.</p>

<p>I use D300 Nikon body. My area of interest for the use of the lens will be food photography, small products (perfume bottles, jewelery,etc) and may be portraiture? Not sure about the last one because I already have 85/1.8D. I am not sure if 105 micro will add much usefulness in my lens arsenal for portraiture.<br /> <br /> So what do you think the best of most versatile of all in term of focal length usefulness, depth of field, sharpness? And the second things to consider are weight/compact, VR, and perhaps, price?<br /> Much advice are appreciated! Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You will enjoy using every minute of it!</p>

<p>Why are people so sensitive these days?</p>

<p>I do hope it comes with VR, nano coating and better optic. I guess it will be around USD 1800-2400.<br>

Whatever it is, I can't afford to have such fancy lens. I have to be satisfied with 85/1.8D.</p>

<p>Robert, that would be nice idea! Thanks! See..There is always something new that I learn from forum everyday.</p>

<p>Thanks nicholas! I will look into them both.</p>

<p>Thanks Steve! I did not read the Original Poster's question. I haven't used A & I for scanning as I have no interest to scan my slides. :)<br>

But thanks for your info, if I am ever needing scans of my slides, i will look into the lab you recommended above.<br>

Cheers,<br>

ed</p>

<p>As the title suggests, according to your experience, what is your most favorite color slide films ISO 200 for studio shoots: modeling, glamour, portrait, etc?<br>

I prefer ISO 200 slides because I can easily match the aperture-shutter speed setting with my DSLR's lowest ISO.<br>

Please advise. Thanks a bunch!</p>

 

<p>I wonder why nobody mentions A & I.<br>

aandi.com</p>

<p>Yes I do. 35 mm. It's like in different world. The feeling is unparalleled.</p>

<p>It's cheaper, lighter, faster, and sharper. But you loose versatility.<br>

But overall, it's still 4-1.<br>

It could be a nice addition to your 18-200. Go for it!</p>

<p>Happens so many times to me as well. Especially when I set the focus release to AF-C. It's shooting frenzy.</p>

<p>the MB-D10 shutter release is even more sensitive than the one in main body. It happens to me many times, especially when I set the camera release to AF-C.</p>

<p>I wonder why you don't even consider AFS 18-105 DX VR. To me, this is the best mid range zoom kit Nikon ever made. The only thing I complain is the built quality. Other than that...it's the best walk-around zoom.</p>

<p>what do you mean "shake"? I hade had D300 for a year and all I notice is this: D300 has quite strong mirror flap. I noticed when I went back to shoot with my old D100. I immediately could feel D300's mirror flap generates more vibration. You need a steady arm. After shooting for hours, it could tire you.</p>

<p>my 17-35 was bought in 2004 and still doing okay until now. I stay with 17-35 (instead of 14-24) because i use filters a lot of time. 14-24 doesn't have filter thread. Also as shun said above..it is more convenient range.</p>

<p>For my application, I'd pick 17-55 and 85. Because I shoot mostly on those ranges...</p>