robert_meyers

I had a loss with Hill and Usher. They went with current replacement cost for equivelant. It was incredible and way faster than expected.

 

The package choice isnt the cheapest... But they were very responsive and I would recommend them. They stood by me and did more than right by me.

Hi folks, new here. What did you guys have when you started shooting weddings? What do you have now (for that purpose)?

 

I'm thinking of jumping in, but I'm only DX, mind you, all Nikon stuff...

 

D300

12-24

50 / 1.8

18-200

2x SB-600, likely an SB-900 soon

diffusers, stands/umbrellas for flashes, 10x10 paper backdrop for portraits, etc.

 

 

Thinking maybe one of the older Nikon 35mm 1.4 Ai-F if I can pick one up at a decent price(?)

 

Thoughts?

 

Second body would be the most important or a second shooter.

 

Oh and 2 bodies or more and various lenses. Lots of film. Lol

<p>You know, sometimes people say things that don't make any sense. Being I shot weddings and auto racing for years with an E-1, and it worked fine. I don't see why an OM-D, which has clean 1600 ISO, would really be that problematic. In the end, any wedding photographer knows its about technique and eye, and has very little to do with equipment (outside of reliability).</p>

<p >You know, I always laugh when people complain that a medium format back has a smaller sensor than it should. But when you complain about 645 being a misnomer that is trying to trick people, it is going a little far. The actual 645 format isn’t even actually 60x45. We are talking about a format called 645, is actually 56 × 41.5, another misnomer. So a crop factor here isn’t something I would worry about.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >On the other hand, there is zero chance I would ignore the 50K shutters as a reasonable life. That is honestly a bit over the top in today’s world.</p>

<p>So... when I put my gear on *bay, I guess I should have UK shipping figured out:)</p>

<p>Now when I just get time to pull it off...</p>

<p>First off you you need to decide what kind of portraits. But to help, if you can get friends to hold them, you can learn a lot from simple reflectors. They let you massivly change the feel of a shot. You can get reversable silver, gold reflectors very cheap.</p>

<p>YMMV.</p>

<p>You know, that beep could possibly be quieter than a shutter... if they were smart about it. And being this has no shutter... it could still be quiet as all get out.</p>

<p>Have to wait and see. But I have pretty much decided I will be buying one.</p>

<p>I have used the E-1 for several... so I would expect so:)</p>

<p>Which is not 100% compatible, and that percentage map is all over the board. Example, all pro or super pro lenses can't actually autofocus.</p>

<p>Now I love the aility to use older, manual focus lenses, but losing the ability to AF with AF lenses is absurd. Especially when their AF is a little... odd (focus by wire).</p>

<p>The G1 is such an incredibly neat camera... if I could really use my four thirds lenses... I would have already bought one. It is really an intolerable issue.</p>

You know, I keep seeing people complaining about the price for a camera with no listed price. People we need a firm price first:)

 

If they can make it with one lens for under $18K, they will prob. Have a winner. Above that... And things get iffy.

Has that price been verified?

I would also lean towards a fast prime. But style is where things are gonna get weird. Flash could set off a child, so i would skip it if possible. MHO.

Might have missed it, but what is the age of the person being baptised? For a catholic it may be an infant, for a baptist it could be someone who is forty (and not under 15). And will they be wearing white?

In essence, as the OP, was a lens suggestion thread for people switch to nikon over the D700... So it is ALL of interest.

 

So far I am aiming at one 50, 85 and the 135. Considering primes versus zooms on the wides (35/2 and a fast 28 or 24 and a 21 or the nikkor 14-24 or 17-35). And arguing in my head 180/300 or sigma 120-300/2.8 (as all I have heard is good). And a 28-75/2.8 tamron as a cheap but optically great standard zoom.

 

Granted I probably have a month to argue, but I like solid plans.

So which do you all think is a better lens the 85 1.4 or 1.8? A half stop isn't going to kill me... But bad bokeh and handling might:)

 

Same question on the 50s. I know is canon the 1.8 is better than 1.4 in optical quality. Speaking of the AF. The 1.2 sounds great... But I would prefer AF on a normal lens.

 

Also, how does the 14-24 compare with the zeiss primes or the older 17-35? Or even the fast super wides by tamron or sigma?

 

Thanks all!

You know, we have a few comments in here suggesting a wait for a 5d2. Thing is, the d700 compares to both the 5d and the 1d3. The ability to shoot at super high ISO at 8 fps? Insane in a $3000 dslr. Otherwise... I wouldn't be planning a change.

 

Quality and speedwise, how would you all compare the 180 with kenko pro 1.4 vs the 300/4 afs? I have read it is horridly slow.

An extra question... does VR work well on panning? My EFL in racing shots is ussually 135 - 200mm, but the shots are often 1/60 - 1/30s.

 

Oh and why on the zoom = bad for dirt oval racing (IMHO). I, like many others have missed a wreck because of trying to zoom into it. Figure you only react in time for 20%, and you lose another 50% of that to recomposing. Skip recomposing and you get all 20%, don't and you MIGHT get 10%. But of those you are going to have some weird effects.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I will also have a normal zoom. This is a given. Though honestly I lean towards the 28-75/2.8 tamron, as the quality on a good sample is great. I compared it, the 24-70 and 28-70 on canon. It was right between the two, and costs next to nothing. So it seems like a good saftey lens. But I want a bit better quality... and primes are best for that normally. And I have heard a LOT of bad on the 24-70 on Nikon (which may or may not be true, but unknown).

 

My first thoughts were one of the 85s, the 135, the 180, and one of the 50s. But I did want to hear about everyones oppinions on the primes with this system. I will say I trust Zeiss a bit more. So I really am looking at their wides.

 

And as an aside, I never, ever, seem to shoot a macro. Know Idea why, but I just don't seem to. Weird.

"Prime lenses are a waste of time except for the long lenses - 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, etc. If you have a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 VR you are covered for weddings and dirt track racing. AFS lenses focus about 3x as fast as the lenses you are drooling over. F/2.8 is fast enough for a DSLR, especially outdoors. Even indoors, with or without flash, ISO 400 is sufficient for 90% of your shooting."

 

Er, drooling over? Excuse me? Being I often have had to go well past ISO 400 at F/2.8 indoors, not sure where you get that. And for weddings... DoF is nice to have a little more control over.

 

There are those who prefer primes, and those who prefer zooms. I currently use 3 zooms. I more often use nine primes. It has to do with the way you like to shoot. I consider zooms to steal time from contemplating the right shot. I will use em, and I might buy some, but I prefer primes.

Hey all,

 

With the release of the D700, I consider Nikon to be doing some major changes to the photographys world... and so

they now have my attention. I am considering a jump to Nikon with the new D700. I shoot portraits (70%), weddings

(20%) and occasionally dirt oval auto racing (10%, anywhere from 135 to 250mm actually does this fine, longer is

nearly unusable).

 

So now you know what I shoot, I am asking people what they would grab for a bag of primes. Here are the budgets i

am looking at for lenses: $2000, $3000 and $5000. New or used does not matter. And I don't mind manual focus for

wides. Goal would be to try no flash or storbes with a wedding... not using film (which is what I normally need to do

for that).

 

I know Canon and I know Olympus. I only know one lens I really like among Nikon. If I can't find the lenses... no

reason to jump systems. That lens is the 135mm DC AF. As an aside, how fast do people think that lens will focus

on the D700. I have read a lot about bodies effecting speed with older Nikon lenses.

 

Thanks all!

"what a person earns is totally irrelevant and no-one's business but their own."

 

You would not believe how often people charge a slidding scale based on income. In some areas it is incredibly

common.

Charge her what you believe your time is worth. You have to be satisfied, but if you REALLY need the money. Tell

her you have a sliding scale, but we need proof of her income level.

 

Personally, I would want a minimun of $200. But if you need X dollars do that amount.

This battery problem is absolutly ridiculous. I just don't get why they couldn't make enough spare batteries... or even AA battery packs. I kinda wish I had seen this befor ordering a used AA battery pack I had found on ebay.

I have no expirence with either. However I have constantly wanted to try and trade my leica M6TTL for a Mamiya 7II.:)

I shoot both film and digital. I keep going back more and more to film. Why? Because I seem to spend less time after the fact processing. Why is this? Personal choice. I effect a greater range when taking the shot while setting it up than I do with digital.

 

My processing for film is have a lab print of scan and photoshop it, but before capture, I have sleceted from a wider array of lenses (from my collection only), and selected one of a dozen films I keep. My processing for digital is WAY more intense. I captue raw, then develop raw to tiff. I then process through what ever enhancment packages I am using on that piece. Then I photoshop it. Only thing is... until I am photoshopping, 99% of the work is done unattended by my computer. Yes, sometimes it takes hours (like for a wedding). Is it worth it? Yes. But it is MY workflow. Everyone's is different: film or digital.

 

The times when i want film are simple. They are when I want high resolution. When that happens I shoot film... and scan it. 6x8 cm negatives are HUGE. in fact they equate to literally more resolution than you need for 99% of shooting. But sometimes you need that resolution. And there is no digital than can replace it, that I have seen. And yes I am referring to some of the incredible digital capture 39 mp cameras. They don't have half the resolution. but then... when do you actually need it? Mainly for big fine art prints.

 

I think any MF introduction is a great thing. And wish anyone luck with it. Hmm. Maybe some day I will even move up in the world... maybe a 4 x 5 or 8 x10. Though honestly... I have always been drawn more to the likes of an 11x14. Maybe I am crazy. But I do know I am not reay for that:)