billsymmons

<p>The difference between them is $1200, which goes a long way towards a 70-200mm!!</p>

<p>Three click correction in Photoshop<br>

RGB correction from curves<br>

Curves correction for brightness contrast<br>

Selective colour correction on red and green</p>

<div></div>

<p>One click correction in ACDSee plus brightness touch up</p>

<div></div>

<p>For stills plus movie capability I would go for the Panasonic GH2. This would possible give the best overall capability for the kind of work you do.</p>

<p>At events I shoot D700 with 24-70mm and Olympus with 50-200 f2.8. This gives me pretty seamless 24- 400mm f2.8 range with no lens changing.</p>

<p>20mm. No question!</p>

<p>When I light a reception I use off camera SB 800s and 600s on stands in the corners of the room, out of the way from the dance floor. I use Nikon equipment and the pop up flash is my trigger. when this is turned down a stop or two, it acts as a fill. the off camera flashes do not all fire, depending on which part of the room the action is. So what I get is a one or two off camera flash set up that gives me a freedom to shoot in any part of the room. I don't use any light modifiers, as others have said they just lower the amount of light and don't really soften much. You have enough equipment to try a lighting set up that suits you. I would experiment with what you have and you will then be able to determine what suits your style. There is no need to light the whole room for a shot, just as in the studio your really lighting the shot. </p>

<p>My take, not in PS since it's a quick try on my netbook. In PS I would burn in the top of the arbor and also add contrast to the grooms face</p>

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

<p>Consider the nikon 28-105mm f3.5/4.5. Its still a very good lens and quite cheap on the used market. An alternate also very cheap lens on the used market is the 28-200mm nikon' it's a bit slower but very good</p>

<p>Here's mine</p>

<p>Bill</p><div></div>

<p>I have done quite a lot of weddings and in terms of gear you have every thing you need.<br>

My usual set up is 24-70 on one camera and an Olympus 50-200 0n the other, that gives me 24-400mm coverage for the day, both being f2.8 lenses. The only change I usually make to that is to use a 17-35mm lens for the reception candids and the Garter and Bouquet throwing. The wider lens really helps here.<br>

As far as experience and ability is concerned, if you know your camera's well enough to be able to adjust them in the heat of the moment (weddings are fast paced, ever changing events) then I would suggest that you study wedding blogs and magazines to look for the posing styles and lighting being used. A very large component of wedding photography is the pose and composition, not just technical expertize. And posing doesn't just apply to formal shots, the angle you use and moment you pick to press the shutter on candids also results in the "pose" you capture.<br>

So I would recommend as much study as you can get in and pick out some compositions you like and think you can use in your shots and mentally carry them into the event. This should help give you some confidence through the day.<br>

If you choose to get your feet wet, prepare well and enjoy it.</p>

<p>For weddings I carry<br>

D700, 17-35, 24-70<br>

Olympus E510, 50-200<br>

For street, I mix, depending on how I feel<br>

Olympus 14-54, 50-200<br>

or Sony R1 24-120<br>

or Canon G10<br>

For vacation type travel I usually carry the G10<br>

For casual event and performance when I don't know what I will be up against i carry<br>

D700 and Nikon 28-200G, with ISO up to 12800 this works for most light levels.</p>

<p>I think it would be improved by taking out the tree and warming the colour. The pose and expressions are excellent</p><div></div>

<p>Aleisha, the grain is really not that bad in the image you have posted and I think easily cleaned up to give very good 10X8 prints. Also there seems to be a slight magenta/cyan cast to the image which can also be cleaned up. So I think this image at least and many others should be quite salvageable. The bad side is that each image may need work, which means a lot of computer time.<br>

And don't feel bad, I still remember doing a wedding where I was using fill flash and couldn't understand why my shots were all completely blown out, until I realized I had been shooting aperture preferred and The needed shutter speed was 1/250th but on flash I was getting 1/60th!<br>

We all learn. I'm sure you will check your camera essential settings before you leave the car next time.<br>

Bill</p>

<p> </p>

<p>SMC Takumars where and are superb lenses. they had a way of "drawing images" that was superb. Back in the 80's I changed to Nikon and spent a year trying to reproduce the creamy quality of the pentax lenses. Today I use Nikon and Olympus equipment and find both to be great but Olypus is closer to the old takumar look.<br>

I still have some screw mount Takumars that I use with adaptors on my Oly equipment and they stil are superb. The only problem is a yellowish tinge that needs white balance adjustmeny.<br>

If you have equipment that gives the results you showed here, stick with the equipment, don't doubt the3 quality.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

<p>I shoot weddings with a D700 and the 24-70mm for the majority of the event. The f2.8 aperture and high ISO capability has never caused me to use my fast primes. Depth of field at greater than f2.8 requires very good focusing technique and can be difficult in the heat of the moment unless you are very experienced. I also use either the 70-300 vr or my 50-200 on an Olympus body for long shots. The Oly lens gets the nod if it is very dark since it has an f2.8/3.5 aperture, but I would not hesitate to use the 70-300 and crank up the ISO. The D700 is excellent at ISO 3200 and in very dark conditions I have used it with good results up to 12000 ISO. At the reception I sometimes change to a Tamron 17-35mm f2.8/4 to get in more of the action. Shooting at ISO 3200 with this lens and no flash has worked great.<br>

In short, I think you can shoot the wedding with the two lenses you mentioned, but if you want to hedge you bets then the 50mm f1.8 is cheap and excellent. Every Nikon shooter should have one.</p>

<p>Wow! What a bargain the D200 is for anyone shooting in any light requiring less than 3200 ISO!!</p>

<p>Not too sure about the pose, It's hard to tell what is happening. The image seems to have some detail and tone that could be worked on. I would increase the red sky and lighten up the couple and the image could be made to pop.<br>

Bill</p><div></div>

<p>I also had a Nikon 20mm and sold it since I had very disappointing sharpness on digital camera's. In my opinion you will never be satisfied with it.</p>

<p>More than 200-300 proofs for the B/G just gives them a major task picking the ones they want in an album etc. Also that number gives the photographer a good discipline in culling down to the very best images. Photographers that give more than that are, in my opinion not giving the B/G the best of their talent, but leaving it to them to do a lot of the culling. </p>

<p>Keep what you have and wait. There two advantages to doing this.<br>

Nikon are likely to replace the D90 (and possibly the 300s) this year. So you can see if there is a desirable advance for your uses.<br>

When this happens, the D90 and D300 will drop in price and will be even more of a bargain.<br>

Also I have a D200 and have exposed many images at 1600 ISO with very usable results up to 10X8 printing sizes. So unless you print bigger or shoot a lot of 3200/6400 ISO images, there should be no need to rush into buying anything. The 17-55mm lens you have just got is a keeper, hang onto it.</p>

<p>Only two wants:<br>

Either of 24-120mm f4 for FX or<br>

50-150mm f2.8 for FX</p>

<p>My main Zooms with the D700 are:<br>

Tamron 17-35mm very good<br>

Nikon 24-70mm superb<br>

Nikon 70-300mm Vr Excellent especially in the 70-200mm range<br>

I've resisted the 70-200mm because of expense and weight. The other two lenses do all the work in low light and all three are excellent in good light.</p>

<p>My 80-200mm f2.8. It was just so heavy to use all day that I sold it in favour of the 70-300mm VR plus the olympus 50-200mm f2.8 lens.</p>

<p>From what you have done with this and other lenses, the most likely culprit is the lens communication with the body or since the older 70-210mm seems to have the same problem it may be the camera setting that is telling it to expose this way with longer lenses. Have you tried a complete camera reset to default?<br>

Also being a long lens the 70-300 will have a tendency to expose a little more in many cases because it is "semi spot metering" but not to the degree of your examples</p>