pge

<blockquote>

<p>Come spring this combo will be out on the soccer field for more use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do not shoot sports regularly, however I have shot several soccer games as my daughter played high level soccer for years (oysl for those from Ontario). I generally prefer primes but I have to say that soccer games are not very conducive to them. It's not like shooting hockey from far up in the rafters. You can generally stand right beside the side lines. Some of the play will be right in front of you where even 70mm or 80mm can be too long, and other action will take place far across the field. I suspect you will switch back to your 80-200mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 58 is really for a small fraction of the people (mostly pro)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes I think that exotic gear is not for pros who often care less about equipment but more for wealthy amateurs. I would put myself in the latter category except that I don't quality because of the wealthy part.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a used 35-70 2.8 is one of the best bang-for-your-buck Nikon lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was going to write something quite similar to what Lisa B wrote with just a few modifications. I used mine on a two dx cameras, the D200 and D300. I find the focusing faster than some of the AFS lenses but not all. All else is pretty much the same. Obviously it is not a wide lens on DX but that never bothered me, I have wide lenses.</p>

<p>It is hard to say without the context of the quote. The "perfect" focal length for portraits, speaking strictly FX has often been suggested to be somewhere between 85mm and 135mm. So, your 85mm lens would fall within that definition either on an FX or DX camera. Really the best way to decide for you would be to take shots yourself, either with the lens or with a kit lens zoomed to that focal length.</p>

<p>Perhaps try to use them heavily for two or three charges and see if they respond positively.</p>

<p>For comparison, here is the original image with photoshop adjustments. I simply adjusted levels to make the histogram cover the full spectrum, and I added 35% (the default) to the shadows with the shadows/highlights tool. Obviously you could adjust to taste, but these two adjustments are the most basic ones, and in my mind the result is a bit more realistic. However realistic may not have been the goal.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Then do I need anything else</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everything Matt says is correct and his advice is always good.</p>

<p>A stobe set is something that you can add to for years, it will not be a one time purchase. They are basically off camera flashes that can be powered independantly or several strobes can be powered by one single power pack. You could go to a site like <a href="http://www.paulcbuff.com/">this</a> to see what they sell, that might give you an idea of what strobes are. After buying a strobe or multiple strobes you have to turn your mind to modifying the light. Reflectors, umbrellas, soft boxes, beauty dishes, the list goes on and on. You must also consider how to fire the strobes from your camera, people often underestimate the expense of a set of wireless triggers. Again the accessories go on and on.</p>

<p>As Matt says, much depends on what you are trying to light.</p>

<p>This example isn't the same but it is what I have. This shot was with a large softbox and a highlight. The highlight hit the background so there is a bit of a hotspot in the upper corner, but basically the background is not lit other than with the softbox. It seems to give a similar result to the OP's photo.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>not sure what you mean by "hard box"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/303731-REG/Profoto_100718_Hardbox_Fits_on.html">link</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>you'll need a white backdrop, at least two lights to properly light that</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that bg is lit this way, I think it is just a result of the large light source.</p>

 

<p>This is very flat lighting. I bet you would get this result by just turning your lights around and bouncing them off the wall behind you, assuming its white. You can't get a practical larger light source than that.</p>

<p>As other have mention, this sounds crazy, but it can certainly be done. As Jeff said, if no duplicate file names just search .jpg with windows and copy and paste. If duplicate file names you can do this with ACDsee's search feature, then "copy to..." with the proper handling of duplicates checked off. I am sure lots of other programs like Bridge would do this as well.</p>

<p>Andrew, thanks for the information, makes sense. But isn't the real point that the aperture ring is a red herring here. All the OP's friend wants is a constant aperture through a series of photos which does not take an aperture ring to achieve on any Nikon DSLR.</p>

<p>You dictate whether to use the aperture ring or the sub command dial in the menu. I shouldn't answer this question because I do not know the D5200 or even if it has a sub command dial. You could not move the aperture from f22 without an error message because the camera menu is set to have the camera body dictate aperture. On my D800 it is F9.</p>

<p>But the real point here is that you do not have to have an aperture ring to dictate to the camera which aperture to use. Just put it in manual, with manual iso and select your settings.</p>

<p>Some don't mind the lack of VR, and some shooting situations cannot take advantage of it. That said, since using VR I would never buy a lens this long without it. If I couldn't afford it I would wait.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"it's my observation that it's not very often that most people need anything higher than ISO 1600"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Need" is a relative term. In the days of film I did not need ISO 6400. When I had a D200 I did not need ISO 6400. However, since 2009 I have had either a D700 or a D800 and I frequently shoot at ISO 6400, in fact I would say I shoot it very often. When you don't have a camera that can manage ISO 6400 you don't need it, but when you do you use it.<br>

<br />By "manage" I mean it can shoot at a certain ISO with noise levels that you can tolerate. For me this was ISO 6400 with both the D700 and D800. In this sense I would say that one is not better than the other. Pixel peeping perhaps, but until a camera can shoot at a higher ISO level and I can still tolerate the noise level, I don't consider it better at high ISO's.</p>

<p>I forgot to mention, D300 1/40th f3.5 iso6400(H1)</p>

<p>Both above are 100%, this is the full image resized of course.</p><div></div>

<p>After</p><div></div>

<p>Before</p><div></div>

<p>I primarily shoot a D800 but also use a D300 for times like vacations when I don't want to risk the more valuable camera. Also I like to have the DX option basically as a teleconverter. I don't shoot with the D300 quite as much as I would otherwise because it doesn't handle high iso's as well as the D800.</p>

<p>Recently I read on this forum about DXO Optics Pro V.9's amazing high iso rendering of raw files when in PRIME mode. I tried it out and I was quite amazed. I took some shots in very low light with unexceptable results (to me) and then rendered them through DXO. The results, even at iso 6400 (which is H1 on the D300) were really very good. In my mind, and given my tolerance for noice, this will now allow me to use the D300 at iso 6400, something I never thought I would do.</p>

<p>I am a Lightroom and Photoshop user, and frankly have many many hours invested in learning these programs. I am not really looking to change my workflow but I see that I will have to incorporate DXO into at least the high iso shots from the D300. I haven't quite worked out how I will do this yet.</p>

<p>Anyone else what to share their experience?</p>

<p>I suspect the reason there is no setting for this, shutter speed range, is that there are better ways to do it.</p>

<p>If you are concerned about shutter speed then why not Shutter Priority or Manual?<br /> In Program you can easily choose other combinations of Shutter and Aperture that would satisfy your Shutter requirements.<br /> With auto ISO you can choose a minimum Shutter speed unless proper exposure can not be aquired with it.</p>

<p>Perhaps if you tell us what problem you are trying to solve we could help with some suggestions.</p>

<p>I have done it with Lightroom, it works very well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd rather not go the ND route for fear of changing the look I want</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't draw this conclusion so quickly. At the very least I would suggest that you test this conclusion yourself before giving up on it. All of the possible solutions so far have been quite expensive, you could likely test this solution for the cost of a cheap rental. I personally think that you can still achieve the look you want with ND filters.</p>

<p>May we ask why?</p>

<p>The best lighting on a budget in my opinion is an old set of Normans or Speedotrons. Ebay is full of them as sets of packs and lamps or sold individually. The modiefiers are inexpensive and there are many off brand softboxes that will fit them. These lighting sets were built for professional use and are still great to this day.</p>

<p>Just something to keep in mind, people often do not budget for a reasonable wireless trigger. You will need one of these.</p>