ronald_smith2

<p>Sarah, you can use this email - superbaldguy@gmail.com (the one photo.net has in its sytem is different)</p>

<p>Sarah, I tried to email you on your Home page, it bounced - please try to contact me via the photo.net system. Thanks.</p>

<p>Since investing in a Nikon D80 system (body, 16-85mm VR, 70-300mm VR, SB-800), my EOS A2 system is sitting in a Domke F-1X bag collecting dust. I have two A2's, VG-10's, EF 24-85mm, EF 70-200mm f/4 L, 540EZ and 550EX Speedlites.</p>

<p>Yes, some of you will wonder why I went to Nikon, I didn't see Canon making an EF-S 15-75mm L lens anytime soon, I need something wider than what is currently offered. The fact that Nikon have a two-year camera body warranty and a five-year camera lens warranty iced it. Anyway, I have tried to sell the EOS system as a package, but it seems $1500 is just too much and unjustified in today's digital world.</p>

<p>I can easily sell the 70-200 L zoom, but what about the rest of the gear? I don't want to send out eight different packages to eight different buyers.</p>

<p>I could simply offer it at a rock-bottom price of, say $700 or something crazy, just to unload it, but that seems rather like giving it all away.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>BTW, there is a mode on the command dial to set for this, but it's an automatic exposure one, I'd like to dig into the manual a bit more. it doesn't jump out at you, though. Thanks for the resposnes.</p>

<p>I have been trying to play around with the tracking mode on the D80, I'd like to be able to shoot with subjects moving towards or away from me and the AF being able to track the movements. Maybe I haven't figured it out, but my 17-year-old Canon EOS A2 has this predictive AF and it works like a champ.</p>

<p>Does the D80 work like this? I am using the AF-S 70-300mm VR lens. Right now, it seems to be hit or miss.....</p>

<p>I am amused at how many people suddenly want to be wedding shooters after they buy a DSLR, don't they realize they're endeavoring in of the most difficult photographic challenges there is? They need to learn about composition, lighting, exposure, all in a short period of time - it takes YEARS for most of us to get proficient enough to even want to tackle weddings.</p>

<p>I have shot about 150 or so of these blessed events, all with Canon film SLR's, I have yet to be approached to shoot a wedding since I bought my D80 system. I probably will decline to shoot digital simply because I only have the one body and one Nikon flash.</p>

<p>Another beef is the time factor - any wedding shooter worth his/her salt would use RAW files. I estimated it would take about 15 hours to process NEF's to workable JPEG's. I'd have to actually ask more for shooting digital than for film due to this time constraint. In my neck of the woods, people are too cheap to want to spend the money, sadly, and Uncle Bill ends up taking the phtoos with his PS compact. Oh well.</p>

<p>If you have a Nikon Speedlight, the system will not allow you above the X-sync speed of 1/200th.sec.</p>

<p>Take an Xacto knife and carve frame lines in your D300 for the 5:4 aspect ratio.</p>

<p>(just kidding!)</p>

<p>There is a history of this lens' SWM failing, moreso than the other AF-S lenses on the market.</p>

Hahaha.

 

For simplicity, I can make an adjustment in the color tab on the HP 7960 print box, just go one notch lighter, seems to be about right - I just have to remember to do this if I am printing files from the D80. It would drive me to drink to try to calibrate two or three sources for printing.

All images on the CRT look dark, whether they are Web files or something I create. I suspect the ideal balance would be between the CRT and TFT. I think I will simply use the old desktop for making prints from my older compact digitals that feature a more usable 4:3 aspect ratio; anything from my D80 files will be commercially printed.

 

Maybe I should set up a new printer solely for the laptop.

For years, I had good luck making 8x10 prints with my beloved HP 7960, using an old desktop PC and CRT monitor.

Now, after using an Acer laptop with my recent Nikon D80 purchase and Capture NX2, the files I get that look

great on the laptop's TFT screen, but come out dark when I take these files in my flash drive and transfer into

the old desktop for printing.

 

Of course, unless I make adjustments to these files, the prints come out dark.

 

Are there really such great discrepancies between monitors? Am, I not looking at my laptop's screen properly when

I process digital files? Fortunately, these files are processed from NEF's and the TIFF's can easily be altered

as need be in Paint Shop Pro. I have wasted a lot of 8x10 paper as it seems almost trial and error.

 

I have seen calibration kits that cost several hundred dollars, that is not an option.

 

Do printers adjust to the PC in use? i.e., if I hook up my laptop directly to the HP7960, will the resulting

prints match what my laptop produces on the screen?

IIRC, the Nikon D3 has a 5:4 mode specifically for wedding shooters who want 8x10's (and 16x20's). Too bad other DSLR's didn't have such a mode.

This shows the down side of plastic-mounted lenses. Maybe you should spring for the 16-85mm VR, just a thought.

An EF-S 15-75mm f/4 IS L

I find myself getting a bit frustrated as I do all the work do process my NEF files into JPEG's, I make a couple

sample 4x6 proofs on my HP 7960, they look fine, then go to a local kiosk to make the large volume of prints - to

my dismay, they are mostly washed out as if my density was off with my laptop and/or printer.

 

Are all kiosks the same as far as density (and color balance) for that matter? Are they supposed to be calibrated?

 

It is not cost effective to make high-quality 4x6 proofs on my HP, maybe I am expecting way too much for 20 cent

kiosk prints.........I just seem to be frustrated by the whole digital imaging thing, at times. It's almost as if

all the planets need to be lined up to get what you want - you have exposure with your DSLR, calibration with

your printer, then issues with a kiosk.

 

Thoughts?

All great suggestions, folks. I will also be running across otehr mixed lighting with this type of shooting. I don't have time to be shooting RAW for this work, I am trying to make this cost-effective - I will play with the +/- controls on the menu settings. Since these are tripod-mounted images, I can re-shoot and re-adjust if need for each file be to try to get the color balance more accurate, that will take less time than doing PP work.

 

I guess we should appreciate the WB controls, or we'd have to resort to using filters like we did in the good old days of film.

I recently did a photographic inventory using my D80 and 16-85mm VR, results were fine but the color balance

using the WB settings were not consistent. I have read about this issue in other threads. The AWB results in

mostly orange-yellow casting, and the Incandescent setting only helps, marginally. Some seem perfect, many are

way off. I don't want to spend hours doing PP work for cost-effectiveness purposes, I need to shoot JPEG medium

mode as these files need to fit on a CD.

 

For most clients, the slight orange-yellow cast is not a big deal, the idea is they can identify their belongings

in case of loss. This is more of a nit-picky photographer trying to improve his craft.

 

I know there are adjustments in +/- increments, do they really help that much?

 

Be mindful these photographs are shot using a tripod, flash really isn't practical. For shooting clothes in a

closet where space in limited, my SB-400 would be fine, though. I also have the SB-800, just wondering if flash

might help me out in a larger room but there are many glass surfaces in a home that could create a problem.

I can foresee the APS-C camera body for many years, the major players have lens sets to accommodate those needs. I have read in this thread about the need for primes on FF bodies and a certain mindset of how a particular lens "looks" after years of shooting, makes sense, but many enthusiasts now use zooms, exclusively. The camera manufactures recognize the far greater popularity of this type of lens and most cropped-body optics are zooms.

 

Not long ago, the APS-C format didn't have a lot of true wide-angle lenses to cover the bases, but that has changed.

 

Both formats can co-exist, the market forces will control the destiny of APS-C.

Except for the sluggish lens speed of f/5.6, I see no reason to go for the larger 70/80-200mm f/2.8 models unless

you need the fast aperture; the optics in the 70-300mm VR are excellent. It's a shame Nikon do not (yet) make an

AF-S 70-200mm f/4 VR, give them time.

Hehehe.......I might be pioneer in this field.

Since getting the D80 and a couple zooms (16-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR), I had this idea floating around in my head

to blow the dust off an old friend- my Minolta Autometer IVF. I no longer shoot 35mm slides with my EOS gear,

it's more or less has become idle for over a year.

 

I find the matrix metering to be fairly accurate, very handy for fill-flash stuff with the SB-800, but I'd like

to be able to nail perfect exposures every time - and I could feel confident in the JPEG's I get when I use the

RAW + FIne JPEG setting. Of course, I can take the NEF's and create/overwrite to a "better" JPEG than the one the

camera recorded. If I use manual exposure and set the parameters as per the flashmeter's reading, I should be

able to get what I want.

 

This is exactly how I shot slides. Always worked like a champ.

 

Has anyone ever tried this? Maybe it's just a silly idea.

OK folks, the film system is staying. I will take it with me when they put me in a box and put me six feet underground.

 

Interesting thread, eh?

Kevin has a good point, if I ever got back to doing any number of weddings, I already have a complete system. I doubt I would want to get involved with this endeavor with a DSLR, the time consumption factor is ENORMOUS as I'd be a slave to my laptop by processing hundreds of NEF's. It's so much easier to just shoot film, people always want proofs.

 

I'd have to invest in an extra Nikon DSLR body and another flash if I just used digital for weddings.

 

The reason I went the Nikon route is Canon failed to create a lens in the APS-C format I felt was useful for my needs - the closest thing wasn the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, but ti wasn't wide enough. The AF-S 16-85mm VR is perfect, and it's an optical sweetheart, probably as good as the Canon 17-55mm (minus the speed)

 

I think I'll go back to my original idea - this EOS system has to go as a package, I'd be "stuck" with some gear that would just sit around and collect dust.

 

Or, it can just stay with me and still be a valuable tool.

I recently bought a Nikon D80, AF-S 16-85mm VR and SB-800 flash. The system works like a champ, I get incredible

flash images. My aging Canon EOS A2 bodies, EF 24-85mm and EF 70-200mm f/4L and 540EZ/550EX Speedlites are

sitting quietly. I have only shot a couple weddings in the last few years, they came out wonderfully thanks to

Pro 400 and Reala.

 

Canon's flash system is decent, works great with neg film, but Nikon's Creative Lighting System is certianly

deserving of all it hype.

 

I am in a dither as to whether I should keep the old film gear or try to sell it and add to my Nikon system.

 

I have kicked some tires to see if anyone is interested in the EOS system, no takers. I can easily sell the

70-200 L and maybe the Speedlite 550EX, but the rest of the stuff seems destined to be basically given away. It's

pointless to have a bunch of old film gear sitting around and unsellable. It just seems that it's too good of a

system to unload, there must be uses for it besides weddings but it has little value in today's digital world.

Selling it painfully slowly, I'd do well to break the $1000 mark.

 

I assume there must be some of you out there who are thinking of switching to digital or recently did so, what

are your thoughts? Do you/can you use both mediums?