ronald_smith2

Isn't the 18-50mm designed more for the APS-C sensor?

I assume the FL50R has a guide number of 50 at ISO 100. That is about average for shoe mount strobes. Of course, at ISO 400, the guide number is double that, which is what these types of flashes work best with IMHO.

I was playing with the E-3 a few days ago, very impressive DSLR. I like the build quality and ergonomics, plus

the sweet swiveling screen. The E-410/510's seemed like toys in comparison.

 

I keep thinking the E-3 and 12-60mm would be a dynamite combo. How good is the flash system that Olympus offers?

Are the fill-flash exposures accurate? I am an old Canon EOS film user, I get good results with their Speedlites

but have had some exposure mishaps when using my 550EX on my G6 digicam. I assume you can control the flash

output relative to the ambient exposure with an Olympus flash.

 

I like the idea of 4/3 only because I hate the 3:2 ratio of most film and digital SLR's offer, I regularly make

8x10's and 11x14's, I find the Olympus philosophy more sensible for creating standard-sized prints.

The idea of shooting a slide with a 1:1 macro or some kind of adapter sounds great - you'd need a 100% viewfinder, though, such as can be had on the D3. This would be a fruitless endeavor with anything less.

 

It's sad to see the Coolscan V being phased out, it means Nikon even are acknowledging that film imaging has passed on to the realms of history I have had my scanner for almost five years, works great and I have digitized about 10,000 slides. I hope it will keep on going for awhile yet, but it's not worth ever fixing - the parts will son be hard to get, too.

I have wondered if the local county newspaper could use a good photographer on staff as a part-time basis. There

are many events that happen in my community, oftentimes nobody comes to record any of it. Old me always has a

camera around my neck, I am just wondering if the local rag pays a few bucks for the occasional image.

I recently had a file enlarged to 30x40 inches and used on a banner for our local farmers market, it looks amazing. It was from a TIFF. I regularly shoot RAW with my G6 and it takes *some* time to process, but the results are usually worth the effort. The direct-TIFF mode does save me time as my RAW files end up as TIFFs.

 

Sounds like the Nikon color is fairly consistent across the range.

I have been the happy owner of a Coolpix 8400 for about a year, picked up a mint one in an eBay auction with only

700 shutter actuations. Being an erstwhile Canon shooter for about 25 years, I find myself enjoying the colors

this little Nikon provides as well as a certain "smoothness" with regards to image quality in general. My Canon

digicams - the G6 and S80 - serve me well, also, but just don't seem to have that quality of color I get with

this compact.

 

Besides the overall appeal in the Nikon DSLR's as far as design goes, would I find them to have similar color

rendition to my humble little Coolpix?

 

Do the D80/200/300 series allow you to shoot TIFF files, directly? I love that feature on the 8400.

I think I'll see if I can use my nifty Coolpix 8400 to do some cataloging, it has a 24mm equivalent on its wide end. I certainly don't want to spend hours and hours doing PP, these are just record-taking images and JPEG's are fine. I think a couple side by side files of an interior might be more than satisfactory for most people

 

The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens, but I couldn't use it for something like a wedding or other people-oriented events. Maybe real estate companies might be interested in my services if I had an UW zoom. Kudos to Nikon for making a true wide-angle to medium tele standard zoom.

I am thinking of starting a side business by cataloging people's personal

property, I'd need to have a true wide angle focal length. I know the 16-85mm VR

is the equivalent of a 24-127mm in 35mm thinking, and I've always been a fan of

the 24mm focal length for film purposes.

 

The only other option with a Nikon lens would be the Nikkor 12-24mm AF-S which

would allow me to shoot in tight quarters - I may want to also get back into

dong more people-oriented imaging such as the occasional wedding and family

group shots, so I'd prefer to get the 16-85mm as my "one lens can do it" all

solution.

 

I find the limitation of Canon's EF-S lenses to be far more limiting than

Nikon's APS-C optics, at least Nikon have a good selection.

 

Of course, I'd have to get a Nikon body, either the D60 or the D80, maybe the SB800.

 

Thoughts?

Russ, I need to see if I can find a lab in Nova Scotia that can do that for T400CN. Thanks.

I must admit this thread has taken on a life of its own, great commentary.

 

Marc, you site one of the big reasons why I begrudge shooting digital - the time factor involved to process files - does anyone actually ever get paid for their time on such tedious things? Honestly. I used to work in a mini-lab about 15 years ago, I used to print all my own work and the finished album was perfect - it easily took several hours of painstaking effort in the lab, then I had to assemble the album.

 

We somehow have convinced ourselves shooting digital is cheaper - how can that be? There is the investment in gear plus time to spend behind a monitor. I do like the idea of controlling all the variables from the get-go, that has universal appeal - with a lab, you have to work with your printer person and get the results you want.

 

As I said awhile back, I am pretty much out of this business. I can pick and choose the odd job that I would like to do, such as family shooting or something fun. I just offered to shoot 15-year-old girl's prom pics; she's gorgeous and I know this would be far more enjoyable than a boring wedding filled with record shots.

Les hit the nail on the head - people want fast turnaround and a DVD, that's it. It seems to be a bonus if the quality of the images are good. $200, please!

 

Another factor that plays into all of this is there are fewer and fewer weddings where I reside - many live common-law. Some of these weddings are actually 2nd or 3rd timers around the block, these client's don't want anything fancy for photos.

 

The high-end wedding photos are very elusive, most just want quick, cheap and dirty. One of the best shooters around had to basically quit his full-time professional photography job and sell cars for Kia.

 

I guess we didn't touch on the fact you can get family photos done at Wal-Mart for under $10.

Probably not.

 

I am overwhelmed to see the passion many have for the old-school film medium, I will continue to stick with it. I truly feel a need to develop some sort of style that is identifiable with me, or my talents will just get thrown in the same bag of others and I won't stand out in an overcrowded market.

 

The T400CN idea is workable - I normally shoot four rolls of 36-exposure - that means about 8 hours of scanning of the Coolscan V. I think that may be actually less time than processing RAW files from a with a DSLR. The costs to get that far are minimal, four rolls of film and four develop-only, that is roughly $75 with all taxes.

 

The costs of ink and paper will be the big expense - 130-odd proofs from HP Premium Plus, with a 20-sheet pack of 4x6 paper costing almost a dollar per crack. I am guessing I'd use three to four #59 HP gray tanks, at about $35 a shot. I would use at least one #57 and #58, a further $70.

 

Total costs - film/developing ($75), paper ($140), ink ($180) = $400

 

Time needed to scan negs is about 8 hours, to make 130 prints would be 4 hours for 12 hours total. If I add the time at the wedding (say 6 hours), that is 18 hours of total time for the job. If I pay myself a modest $20/hour, I can charge $800 for the whole package and feel OK about it.

 

That is still a bargain in my books for what you are getting.

 

Ron

William, you certianly do make sense to some degree and I appreciate your thoughts. Maybe I just need a fresh angle of looking at weddings. Here's an idea:

 

I love using Kodak's T400CN (now BW400CN), it's a chromogenic C41 processed film. I own a Nikon Coolscan V, and have had great success in getting superb 8x10 b/w prints with my HP 7960 printer from these scans. Digital ICE is a great dust/scratch killer. If I exclusively shot b/w weddings with T400CN and scanned the negs and made the prints, I would have a very unique product - the time factor would be huge but the results would be amazing.

 

Ink and paper would be a major expense, but, if the effect was well-received, I could charge a high fee to recoup the costs. In the end, I would have a very different product.

 

Just an idea I have floating around my head......

The marketing thing may be a weak point, I used to depend solely on word-of-moth, never advertised, and could shoot 10 weddings a year, piece of cake, Now, I have to compete with the newbies/cheap packages and the average Joe often doesn't give a rat's arse about the results.

 

In rural Nova Scotia (that's in eastern Canada for those who don't know!), people are so cheap it's not even funny. If people charge $200 to shoot weddings and someone else wants $600, the first photographer gets the call no matter how little experience he/she has; the other guy (like me) has to hope someone actually cares and wants an experienced shooter.

 

TBH, the only weddings I have done in the last five years or so have been "freebies"or favors, almost impossible to get of commitments. My work is still excellent, but the call for digital imaging seems to take priority.

 

I *could* try to break into the market in Halifax, the closest city, but it's a 90-minute drive and gas is almost $1.50/liter up here, I'd have to charge an arm and a leg to make it work my while using an 8-year-old Sentra.

 

I guess I am more or less convincing myself it's not worth fighting, there are others out there who are hungrier than I am to shoot weddings for nothing; it was a great fun while it lasted.

I have done a fair amount of advertising, and I had a firm price for this type of work - it's significantly higher than what is being offered by so-called "pros' who are more or less newbies with 12 MP DSLR's. It frustrates me to no end that people with little or no experience shoot weddings and charge next to nothing, people (at least up here) expect to pay very little for a wedding.

 

I see children of former clients aren't even asking me about such work, maybe I am just too old to be shooting these things. I find it hard to justify the expense of getting a DSLR system when I have a perfectly good film system.

 

I am glad to see film still has some standing with people.

I have accumulated a very nice, albeit old, 35mm AF SLR system over the years -

I own two EOS A2 bodies plus VG-10 grips, the EF 24-85mm f/3.5~f/4.5 and EF

70-200mm f/4 L. I own the 540 EZ and 550 EX Speedlites. The A2 is almost silent

in operation and the rewind is incredible - nobody knows the film is evening

going backwards inside the chapel. The USM lenses add to the quiet approach of

shooting.

 

With Fuji Pro 400, the Speedlites work like champs and I can often use f/8 for

just about any flash situation, lots of distance. I have the Canon external pack

with 8 AA cells, I can shoot like a demon and keep up.

 

So, how come nobody wants my services - is it because I shoot film? I have about

150 weddings under my belt over the past 20 years.

 

I hope this generation doesn't equate me with being so behind the times that I

don't have any skills when it comes to these blessed events. Long before the 1.3

MP digicams, I had cut my teeth on honing my skills. Do people simply no longer

care unless you shoot digital?

I have been shooting 35mm film for almost 25 years, and have a special place in

my heart for slides. Over the last few years, I have accumulated three high-end

compact digitals and have learned to fully appreciate the usual 4:3 (or 5:4)

they bring to the table - making 5x7's, 8x10's and 11x14's are far easier with

these proportions.

 

With 35mm, I always found myself second-guessing if I should crop the image

before I tripped the shutter or wondered if tis image might ever be destined for

a large wall print. For slides, it wasn't as much of a deal since the idea was

to fill the frame, or so we were taught. Verticals with 3:2 just seemed to

oblong and ungainly.

 

Now, I am thinking of a DSLR system and wonder if it's time to break away from

the old film standard.

 

Of course, Olympus has out all their eggs in the 4:3 basket and many people are

gravitating towards their philosophy. Seems like the answer. Question - do

people regularly print/make 8x12's or even 7x10 "full-frame" prints? Have we

become accustomed to that 3:2 ratio for larger prints?

 

I guess all DSLR's should have the 5:4 option that the Nikon D3 gives you.........

 

Any thoughts? Should the aspect ratio play a role in the selection of a DSLR system?

I have done film scans in the past with my Coolscan V; it's extremely time-consuming, but, if I charged a reasonable fee for my time, it might be good to add to a package. I have done a LOT of advertising in local papers for wedding work. I feel a Website is about the only way to attract attention, nowadays.

Rich, my comments about film cams not being welcome basically refers to the fact few people want film for recording their precious memories, they are either brainwashed into thinking digital is better or simply want it.

 

BTW, the 12-60mm is very fast for a zoom, plus it offers the flexibility that is most welcome.

 

At this point, the E510 would be a front-runner for the heart of a DSLR system.

I am finding my old film SLR's are no longer welcome at weddings, despite the

fact I get great results with them - oh well.

 

I love the idea of the 4/3 approach, minimal cropping to get common 5x7 and 8x10

prints. Not surprisingly, the big guns in photography, namely Canon and Nikon

still hold to that old 3:2 standard. I love that for slide shooting but for

print work, it royally sucks.

 

I like the E510 and its feature set, like in-camera IS and effective sensor

cleaning. The new 12-60mm is VERY appealing. If I had the large Olympus bounce

flash, would this trip make an ideal wedding "starter" set-up? I might add the

50-200mm at a later date.

 

How is ISO 400 performance? Does Olympus allow seamless TTL flash operation?

 

Opinions, please.

One thing that impresses me about my sweet little Coolpix 8400 is a

direct-writing TIFF mode. I find this is almost as valuable as shooting RAW,

since TIFF files usually are the end result of this work flow. Yes, it takes

*time* to write the TIFF to a card but it really cuts down on post-processing work.

 

I know some of the Nikon DSLR's used to have this feature, do the likes of the

D60/ D80/300 have it?

The EF-S 17-85mm covers about 28-135mm in 35mm terms, not by coincidence as Canon has an EF 28-135mm IS lens. The wide end of this zoom is terrible with tons of distortion and the overall optical performance is mediocre. The new Nikon 16-85mm VR has already proven to be a stellar performer. Being able to go to the equivalent of 24mm would be ideal.

I think many people noticed the dust more due to the large front elements. I have seen my share of dust in lenses and cameras over the past 25 years, it just happens and you learn to deal with it.

Thanks for all the great answers to my inquiry. Seems the D80 is not perceived as being a "wedding" DSLR as some other higher-end Nikons are, and I think I'd better stick to the EOS system - the 40D does have the 1/250th sec flash sync, excellent EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, plus I already have some accessories that "cross-over" from film to digital.

 

Pity Canon does not have an EF-S lens similar to the 16-85mm VR.