wedding-photography-denver

<p>With that camera and lens, 6400 should be fine. Just get the exposure nailed.</p>

<p>I think that while it is a good general long lens, its performance at 400mm is only good. I found the 300/4 and a 1.4TC a better option if that is the FL you are looking for mostly.</p>

<p>Not sure about the D200's AF system, but I find that the AF methodology will handle most things with Nikon's AF ability. However, having tried that lens (twice) and returned it both times, I would guess your lens may mis focus somewhat at that FL and without AF fine tune, it will be hard to get it back within acceptable sharpness IMO. F6.3 should not be tack sharp on that lens though, but by F8 you should be singing a happier song. If not, send it to Sigma or back to where you purchased it.</p>

<p>On that body, the 50/1.8g is probably the most flattering to your subject and more versatile as a general for full length, 3/4 and head/shoulders.</p>

<p>I like to use a 17mm and even a 12mm on a crop body for certain looks.</p>

<p>I took my second shooter for the first time when he was 16. I think that was very young, and looking back, I would say he was a very capable and relatively mature person by then. He has shot with me for about 8 years off and on and still has some growing to do.</p>

<p>However, 12 is too young IMO simply because at that age, very few children can handle stress, communication with adults at a level of competence that is appropriate for weddings, and can be "invisible" enough to blend when they are carrying a camera. It just seems too young to me, sorry.</p>

<p>This is not so if you have to run a business and earn a normal living...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have D800, just use it. In post processing you have all the time to take it slow and proces right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>…while possible, perhaps not so practical.</p>

<p>Even your -20 on the 50mm is not great IMO. I found there were a few lenses that needed some serious AF fine tuning, but most were pretty close. All the lenses I shot it with were sharper than your -20, esp. on a sharp lens. Just send it to Nikon for AF adjustment, that looks off to me.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Mark Harrington on this (mostly). His advice is solid.</p>

<p>I know how often I get asked by someone like yourself to tag along as a second / third shooter and I have to refuse. Mostly its because I already have a list of people who I shoot with that I can call on. So, I feel for you trying to break into it that way. If you plan to be a BAD @#$%^ wedding photographer at some point, doing things as Mark suggests, will give you way more than the craigslist avenue IMO. The internet will remember you were once on craigslist and will not forgive easily. That said, if your work really speaks for itself and stand above the average, you will not suffer from it too much.</p>

<p>I would evaluate your work, your eye, your understanding of the craft, your ability to let comments and other peoples stress roll off your back and your desire to succeed. After a realistic and critical evaluation, if you want to proceed, make steps that will build quality for the long haul. Invest in creating the best work, showcasing what you can do to those you already know and then let your skill and art take you where it will (along with your hard work and commitment).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had a D600 for about 6 months and it produces lovely files, so from that POV, its a great choice and will provide some great shots when coupled with the right glass and skills.</p>

<p>However..., I prefer the DX format for most wedding work. Reasoning for this, is largely to do with the physics of the cameras and dedicated DX lenses that you can have for it.</p>

<p>While the truth is you will want the best lenses for FX, they are both much more expensive (mostly), and larger/heavier (as are the FX comparable bodies). When you shoot weddings for 8+ hours, and have your main body (24-70 equiv.) jammed up to your eye most of that time, you will notice the difference.<br /> In recent years I have found that having a lighter body (D7000, now D7100) and lens (17-55 Nikon, now Sigmas new 17-70) make me more likely to take the shots as the end of the day appears. That is to say, the camera stays at my eye more of the time and thus, I get more to work with at the days end.<br /> Now, the files produced by the D600 are stunning while the D7100's files are merely very, very good. But for wedding work, and the printing associated, the D7000 and D7100 files provide way more than is needed IMO. In fact, if they had made all the improvements in the D7100 and kept the 16mp file size, that would have been better for weddings as a manageable file for me.<br>

As has been said, the glass stays, where cameras come and go relatively quickly. So the glass that you buy will end up being more important in some ways, than the choice of body. If you plan to stay with DX (i do), then investing in the best DX glass makes very good sense. I will be getting the Sigma 18-35/1.8 when it is available since that will be most of what FX 24-70 offers (at least the end that get 90% of that zoom's use). If the image quality from it is akin to the IQ from the other more recent glass that Sigma has been producing, it will be as good or better than the nikon 24-70 IMO. So the playing field will be relatively level. So for me, going forward with DX makes more sense for now.</p>

<p>Now, to your question about should you wait for the $$ and get the D600. If I wanted to migrate to FX en mass (for whatever reasons), then I would get a D5100 for now ($300-400 used) and have it as your backup/second then sell it and put the $$ toward the D600 when you have the other funds. The only reservation I would offer to this is that the D5100 has lesser AF and is a bit fiddly to get used to, although it is quite capable as a second body.</p>

<p>Lastly, the D600's AF is not (IMO) near that of the D7100, and for me that played a role in the decision making process. Its about 80% of the speed when used in lower light (to lock on and using the same glass) as that of the D7100's AF.</p>

<p>Well, although I haven't touched it in years, the D1 remains for some reason. Not worth anything to anyone other than for parts or something anyhow. The only issue is the batteries are about shot and I cannot see spending $100 or so to get new ones for a 2.7 mp body. </p>

<p>I got some decent 8x10's from it in the day though.</p>

<p>Well, although I haven't touched it in years, the D1 remains for some reason. Not worth anything to anyone other than for parts or something anyhow. The only issue is the batteries are about shot and I cannot see spending $100 or so to get new ones for a 2.7 mp body. </p>

<p>I got some decent 8x10's from it in the day though.</p>

<p>I use the AE-l button on the back</p>

<p>BTW, since the new 80-400Vr hit, I have seen the older version drop in used prices to around 700. At that price, its a great purchase IMO. Better a used one of the 80-400 than a new 70-300vr or Vc IMO.</p>

<p>However, better glass weighs more and is larger. For travel and general photography, its not bad but not great, whereas the 70-300 is great for that purpose.</p>

<p>…and here is a crop 100%</p><div></div>

<p>I purchased both this and the Tamron. I kept the Tamron...</p>

<p>Shot from about a half mile above...</p><div></div>

<p>D600 is about 1.5 stops better in tech terms IMO, but the appearance is richer and more "fluid" from the D600 (probably due to much better DR).</p>

<p>Between the two, the D600 is a better file, but considering that the d7.1k has twice the pixel density, it holds up very well.</p>

<p>I find it to have lots of good (Af and weather sealing are nice), but wish the 24mp was still around 16 or even 12. I am sick of adding HD space all the time and upgrading my computers ability to cope every two years.</p>

<p>I had the D600 since they first hit shelves, and I got this as it hit shelves too (a few weeks now). I have used them side by side and honestly, the AF is better in the D7.1k iMO. Pictures a worth a thousand words, so that is what ultimately decides if I want a body, and this one delivers a great image (considering the overstuffed sensor), and handles very well for me.</p>

<p>I don't readily see a great difference in IQ from the missing AA filter, but hope that in some cases, that will at least "help". Pentax are doing more to pull detail from their lack of AA filter than Nikon.</p>

<p>Seeing that it is useless to extol the cameras virtues with out pictures, here is a cropped shot through dirty and thick glass, in very ugly light (and not a lot of it), that helps show why I like this cam... </p><div></div>

<p>I am so sad to hear this. Nadine has been a great moderator, advocate of good practices, champion of good causes and generally a wonderful person to have gotten to know a little.</p>

<p>I will miss her and, offer her family and loved ones my most sincere condolences.</p>

 

<p>Depending on how wide, the 17-40 would be my #1 choice, then the 24-105 due to its range.</p>

<p>Prime Zeiss glass like the 21/2.8 Distagon T* ZE would be great, but expensive for a single FL.</p>

<p>If you use two cameras, I would use the Sandisk larger cards. My theory (and it has worked for me for years), is to use the largest cards. I never change cards during a shoot, therefore never screw up the connections in the camera, nor do I loose or accidentally overwrite one.</p>

<p>I use two cameras, and have dual cards in them, so card failure, and loss of images is almost (99.999%) impossible. I would have to loose both cameras simultaneously, and I never put them down at a wedding, so no fear of them being stolen either.</p>

<p>When the wedding is done, I put one card from each camera in a little case that stays on my person until they are downloaded to my computer and backed up.</p>

<p>Any time you swap cards during a wedding, you risk not only loosing images due to card corruption from the contacts, but also lost cards, debris getting into your card slot and messing up the next card(s), accidental reinsertion of a used card, etc.<br>

There have long been two methodologies for shooting, but using well tested large cards has never failed me, or anyone I know who employs this system. </p>

<p>YMMV.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear about that Vail. I don't use filters unless its a ND or CPL. Even then, I take them off when that part is done. I do however us the hood for my lenses and it has saved me on more than on occasion. </p>

<p>Filters are a good thing in general, but there are a lot of times in a wedding where you have candles, fairy lights etc., and they will create odd reflections against the front element of your lens. If you know about it, you can plan accordingly, but otherwise, it will spoil a shot. Just FYI.</p>

<p>Hope your new cam works ok.</p>

<p>Delete, sorry.</p>

<p>Filters… ugh.</p>

<p>You may find it limiting in low light due to the AF.</p>

<p>However… I would not hesitate from an IQ perspective. If you could make the lighting work into the dark evenings (auxiliary lights etc.), you could potentially do it. I think the nod would be to something more akin to the Oly OM-D for its IQ and af abilities.</p>

<p><strong>Ricardas,</strong></p>

<p>I know what you are saying is sort of true, but most people are looking at the MP's when they talk resolution.<br /> Yes, you would need 4x the MP's for double the resolution in a strict sense, but not in the common sense, which is what most people recognize I think.</p>

<p><strong>Robert,</strong></p>

<p>nicely written and gives a pretty clear idea of what the D600 offers compared to the D700. I don't see the 600 as a competitor to the 700 in any speed of operation areas, but in terms of MP's, DR and dual cards, it is clearly better.</p>

<p>I have one sold of my D700's recently and purchased a D600 to replace it. For me and my shooting, this was a no brainer. Dual cards have been a must have since the Mk2 canons for me. Combined with the extra res, DR and color improvements, this is a great body for most people photogs. IMO.</p>

<p> </p>