dave wyman

>The last thing I need is a client/magazine asking me what camera I'm using and them not hire me because I don't have a professional camera<

 

Donna, in the real world, no client who wants to hire you is going to reject you because you don't have a "professional" camera. If a client asked about my camera, I'd drop the client. You're not being judged on your equipment, you're being judged on past results or on the basis of your representation on what you will be able to deliver.

 

I CAN see a client asking what type of camera you would use, depending on the project - digital, 35m, MF, or LF. In my admittedly somewhat limited professional career, I've had editors and/or clients specifically ask me to use different kinds of cameras. But no client has ever asked which model of camera I use. (Some of my most satisfying photographs and sales in the last few years have been made with high-end digicams.)

 

I think the difference in megapixels between a D70 and a higher end camera, like the D200, will be insignificant if you are creating a photograph to be used for something as enormous as a billboard.

 

Of course, if having a wonderful camera like the D2x or D200 makes you feel good, and you can afford it, that's reason enough to make the purchase. :-) But don't imagine potential clients will put you down for the camera you use, they just want you to make them look good.

>I don't wish to slam Ken here, but I'm suspicious of any reviewer that must inundate their reviews with commercial links and referrals.<

 

There are ads on this site - and the online versions of the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, etcs., are larded with online ads. The presence of ads, or lack of them, does not validate or invalidate information posted on a website. And I don't believe, in Ken's case, the ads on his website influence his opinions in the slightest.

 

I've got the 18-200mm VR lens - I wouldn't want to use it for bird photography, unless I had some way to come very, very close to my subjects. I think you will find that many bird photographers believe it's necessary to use lenses far longer than even 300mm if they hope to make striking images. If you are serious about your photography, I would do as Peter, Greg and Mark suggest, and look into the 300mm f/4.

 

Good luck!<div></div>

Just remember that the Eastern Sierra is the desert side of the mountains. You're going to have to work a bit to find spring color in terrain that's in a rain shadow.

Here's one of Fern Spring.<div></div>

One of my favorite non-standard places is Fern Springs, at the lower end of the Valley.

 

<P>

 

Stoneman Meadow offers some non-standard views of Half Dome (I'm not a big fan of Half Dome photographed from Sentinel Bridge). Check out the oaks in front of the Ansel Adams Gallery. Look for shooting stars on the east side of Cooks Meadow. There is a small but exciting cascade on the road about halfway between the stables and Mirror Lake.

 

<p>

 

For historic spots, explore the Pioneer Cemetery adjacent near the Visitor Center. You might try for the historic barns at Foresta, a few miles outside the Valley. (Cascade Creek is on the way; it's best to photograph it early in the morning, before the sun swings around, creating too many shadows). The rear of Yosemite Chapel includes a nice view of Upper Yosemite Fall.

 

<p>

 

 

I've got some of my own photos of these locations <A HREF="http://www.pbase.com/davewyman/yosemite"> here </A>

Mihnea,why do you think asquare photo concentrates all the attention in the center? It is not necessarily so.<div></div>

>David, anyone with fairly normal vision can see the difference in image quality between D200 and D70 in a 8x12 inch print, let alone 12x18. I assume that your post was in jest.<

 

Ilkka, this might be true if David or Armando were to make photographs of identical subjects with both cameras and then hang them in tandem. In the absence of such a comparison, photographs from a D70s are going to look as good to viewers as photographs from a D200.

Rob,

 

I'm not sure a tripod is going to be of much service on a cruise ship. Tripods usually help with long exposures. But a ship moves, and that movement will cancel out the stability of the tripod.

 

If you men to use a monopod or a tripod on the land portions of your trip, the monopod sounds like a good idea. I cruised to Alaska last summer but didn't bother with a tripod or monopod - for longer exposures I relied on VR and found supports where I could.

 

Others have suggested you need longer and/or faster lenses. I think what you have is fine, although I'm not sure why you would bother wtih the 18-70 when you've got the 18-200 lens. You can always wish for a longer lens than you have. Frankly, should a whale breach close to your ship, you will have a difficult time finding it if you have a long lens attached to your camera. I know I did. And if you spot whales some distance from the ship, you will never have a long enough lens.

 

Certainly you will be close enough to photograph glaciers with the 18-200mm lens.

I like the LowePro Photo Trekker, I haven't used the other packs. Mine has a non-padded compartment into which I can slip my laptop. But I doubt the Trekker could hold all that you have - sounds like you might need the Expedition 8, the Trekker, the R-103 and the Addicted combined, as well as a very strong back, to haul all that gear!<div></div>

Probably mid-May for the height of dogwoods in bloom in the Valley this year.<div></div>

I'm a fan of the Trekker. There are lots of models now, you probably know to look for one with a comfortable waist belt.

Pinhole photo of my best friend.<div></div>

Circular reasoning/possible troll alert!

 

>I think that one must get the top lenses from Nikon to truly appreciate their picture quality.<

 

What does "their" refer to? To the "top lenses?" Then you are saying that one must have the top lenses to appreciate how good they are.

 

You don't need to purchase a Picasso or a Ferrari to recognize their superior qualtiy to the paintings on your living room wall or the car in your driveway. But you don't need a Picasso or a Ferrari to appreciate what you do have, either.

 

Of course, I think you really meant to say none of us can appreciate the lenses we already have, UNLESS they are the most expensive avaiable.

 

I think you should give yourself more credit, and less to your lust for more expensive camera gear.

 

The appreciation of photography is not necessarily tied to photographic equipment. One of my favorite recent photographs, which I made with my own Nikon DSLR, was made with a less than expensive lens. In fact, I made the photo without putting a lens on the camera.

Chris, I think the 500D took down my Sunpak diopter!

I'm with Richard, I don't see much need for a warming filter. Because it's easy to bump up saturation with digital photographs, a polarizer probably isn't as necessary as it once was, but I still carry one for nature and travel photography.

 

I've got UV-type filters, to make sure I don't stick a fingerprint on a lens, but I'm as apt to use screw-on lens caps, because I don't like using unnecessary glass between my lens and reality. The screw-in lens cap offers a lot of protection that a snap-on cap can't provide, unless a UV filter is also in place.

Here's my contribution - a quarter, photographed with the 18-200mm VR at 200mm, with a cheap Hoya UV filter on the front of the lens, magnified with an inexpensive, 67mm Sunpak +4 close-up filter, hand held against the UV filter. (The inset is the quarter photographed without the plus filter.)

 

No edge-to-edge frame sharpness, but the quarter itself is fairly sharp.<div></div>

>I would like to have eye color along with warmer tones and more vibrant colors. Could anyone give me some settings in the "optomize image" part to help me out? thanks a bunch<

 

Try the Vivid setting, scroll down to Custom, and choose Enhanced Saturation. Then, to warm things up, hold the White Balance button on the back of the camera, use the sub-command dial and, with Auto white balance, and dial in - 3 (you can use all sorts of WB settings, this is just a quick and dirty way to add some warmth).

 

Good luck.

Rob, did you you go out and conduct a survey of what all pros in your field were using for lenses in the late 80s? :-) And have you taken a survey to see if "everyone" really has "fallen in loves with primes"

 

Your questions have been asked many times over a longer period than the past 17 years. Zooms produce sharp images, and some people - me, for example - won't necessarily bother with a truck load of admittedly awesome prime lenses when a few zooms cover the same range.

 

I haven't taken a survey, but I think most photographers, pros and amateurs, probably don't bother to make side by side tests of prime and zoom lenses to see if one lens is better than the other. Photographers probably purchase what they like or think they will like, and also factor in what they can afford.

 

You might as well ask why all pros don't still use medium or large format cameras for fashion and headshot photography anymore, since the optics on those cameras produced photographs with far more resolution than today's smaller format cameras, or why pros have switched from 35mm to digital cameras.

 

Beyond that, what makes for a good photograph is open to interpretation, and probably has as much to do with subject matter, color saturation, contrast, etc., as it does with overall sharpness.<div></div>

David - words like "improve" and "true" are often relative and subjective in meaning. I think we'd have a more complete understanding of what you want from your camera if you give us some more information, such as what you mean when you say you want to "improve coloring." How? More color, less color, warmer or cooler color? Do you want your photos to be closer to the way you eye saw a scene, or closer to the way your friend's camera recorded the same scene?

 

It would also help if we could see the picture your friend made next to the one you made of the same scene, and it might help if we knew the settings of each camera.

 

I'm going to assume you've already played around with the various settings on your D70s, like color saturation. But if you haven't changed the stock settings, see what you can find and what you can change to give you the kinds of photographs that please you.<div></div>

say purchase a new camera because if you're in Alaska again, and your one camera fails, you'll wish you had a second camera.

 

That said, I don't think it makes a difference which camera you use, when it comes to making quality photographs - prints, posters, for the Web - unless the D200 has some special features you think you need that are not available on the D70.

 

You ask: "How much better....the D200 is over the D70." "Better" is often a subjective word, and I think that's the way you are using the word, too. In that sense, there is no answer.

>I have decided that the D200 has the most "film- like" color and image presentation of anything even remotely in my fiscal grasp<

 

Janet, the idea that the D200 creates film-like images in color is, I think, just that, an idea. What kind/brand of film does the D200 match? Slide film like Fuji's Velvia or Provia, or discontinued Agfachrome? Kodak's Kodacolor print film? And what do you mean when you say the D200 has the "most...image presentation?"

 

The D200 may be "better" than many other cameras, but not because it makes photos that look like they are out of your N80.

 

As for your need for a lens, the 18-70mm is fine, but it is limited - no macro, no telephoto. To obtain what you've said you want, you will need at least second lens (and some way of making macro images - plus lenses, extension tubes, or a true macro lens).

 

My recommendation for a lens: the 18-200mm (it does everything you want, except macro). You know that's the lens you want.

>What does the f/1.8 on a 50mm f1.8 lens stand for?<

 

It is a ratio, and it could actually read as 1/1.8 (or 1/2.8, 1/3.5, etc).

 

What does the ratio refer to? Imagine a lens opening - the circular aperture - in front of a lens. Turn the aperture at right angles to itself. March the now sideways circle backwards toward the camera.

 

Crudely stated, the number of times its takes this sideways circle to travel from the front of the lens to the body of the camera is the f/stop. In other words, if the f/stop were 1.8, the circle would travel down the lenth of the lens itself 1.8 times before reaching the camera. An f/4 aperture? It would take four circles to march from the front of the lens to the camera body. F/16? It would take the equivalent of 16 little circles to reach the camera.

 

That's why an f/16 aperture is much smaller than, say, an f/2 aperture. It's really 1/16th and 1/2, and 1/16th of something is a lot smaller than 1/2 of something.

I have one accessory that I like to use with my camera and it works well with tripods as well as with hand-held use: a right angle viewfinder. The angle finder works especially well when the camera is at or near ground level.

 

Nikon version - very expensive. From ebay/on-line these are much, much less expensive, maybe a touch less elegant in looks, but just as functional. Depending on your point of view, an angle finder turns a DSLR into a sort of mini-view camera or makes it function a bit like a digicam with a flip/twist screen.

I like the Bogen 3021, too - solid enough, not too heavy for travel (but not hiking any distance compared, of course, to a carbon 'pod), not too expensive, and it is ok/good for macro photography becauses the legs splay out, the center column can be reversed, and there's an optional low-angle adapter to replace the center column. And the 3021 has clips for expanding/collapsing the legs, rather than the screws on the 3001 (which is also an excellent tripod for the D50 and 18-200mm lens).

> one photographer has won major awards there for running around with Olympus 8080 fixed-lens cameras.<

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844