david_duffy1
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by david_duffy1
-
-
<<With soccer even a 300mm with the 1.5x camera multiplier will be short.> Ya' think so...an equivalent 675mm AOV is short?>
I must be missing something. How are you getting 675? I'm talking about 450mm equivalent, and yes this can be short on a full soccer field if you want to isolate individual players. Unless you are going to shoot a LOT of soccer I'd still recommend a 70 or 80 - 200mm 2.8 zoom first because of its versatility. If you are going to shoot a lot of big field outdoor games like soccer, baseball, softball, football, etc. I'd recommend the 300 prime.
For the 1/2 field kids soccer games 300mm is overkill. A 300mm prime would be really hard to use.
David
-
Of the three you mentioned I'd get the 300 f/4. With soccer even a 300mm with the 1.5x camera multiplier will be short.
However, I'd seriously consider a 2.8 zoom (either a 70-200 or 80-200). They are well worth the extra money. They won't cover as much of the soccer field as a 300 but are much more versatile.
David
-
D80 vs D200
in Nikon
Since 80-90% of my pictures are vertical it was a no-brainer for me: the D200 with MB-D200. For me the vertical shutter is worth its weight in gold.
It may not seem like it but there is a big difference between the 3 fps of the D80 and the 5 fps of the D200. Shooting at 5 fps is highly therapeutic (I use this outdoors with my 4 year old a lot).
I'm also a gadget freak. I love being able to hook up a GPS unit to the D200 and look up my pictures using Google Earth.
Either camera will serve you well but I'm positively giddy with my D200 (keep in mind that I answered "yes" to 9 of Dan Park's 10 questions above, "no" for #2). I hope this helps!
David
-
I have used this lens to shoot bald eagles and some sports (mainly soccer, baseball and hockey) for about 2 years now, first using an F100 and D100 and now using a D200 only. I made the mistake of getting a 2x teleconverter. Don't! The 2x hunts like you wouldn't believe. I've heard the 1.4 is pretty good.
As Mark has pointed out it is a really good lens. It is the only non-Nikon lens I own. Overall I love it but if I had $5K I'd get the 200-400 in a heartbeat.
My ONLY complaint about it is that you have to turn in the opposite direction of Nikon lenses in order to zoom. It takes a while to get used to. This can be problematic with sports but with bald eagles I'm always shooting at 300mm anyway so it doesn't matter.
Bottom line: I love this lens and don't regret for a second buying it.
I don't have any eagle or sports shots online right now but feel free to e-mail me if you'd like a sample.
David
-
D70 vs D100
in Nikon
As usual, it depends on what you shoot and how you shoot it. For me 80%+ of the shots I take are vertical so the second shutter button is invaluable. I've heard from people I shoot sports with that the D70's autofocus is slower (I can't confirm that, however). If you aren't worried about these two things I'd get the newer D70. -
I few months ago I bought Photek's 8x12' "blackest black" background-in-a-bag from B&H and love it! The background was around $160 and the stands were around $100(?).
-
I would suggest getting this group done as soon as possible so they can run play afterwards. One trick I use all the time with little kids is to ask them what sound a lion makes, then a monkey, etc. Then how about a giraffe? That usually stops them in their tracks, when I tell them it says "moo" I almost always get a laugh. When they say "no it doesn't" I ask them if they have ever heard a giraffe? Sometimes I get to the point where most animals not on Old MacDonald's farm say "moo" (giraffes, bald eagles, hippos, rhinos, starfish, etc.). It may not work for that many kids at once but it has definitely has worked for me with smaller groups of kids.
-
<p>It gets even better! Look at the bottom of these pages!<br />
http://www.jfalkphoto.com/faq4.htm <br /> http://www.jfalkphoto.com/words8.htm <br /> http://www.jfalkphoto.com/dates06.htm <br />
<p>It'll be nice when Google indexes this thread so that anybody who searches for him will discover what a fraud this, um, guy is.</p> <p>David </p>
-
Jeff,
You typed in the URL wrong. The actual address is:
The landing page is down but the other sub-pages you have screen captures of are still up. E.g.:
http://www.jfalkphoto.com/port30.htm
http://www.jfalkphoto.com/port25.htm
It looks like he had a spider download your entire site, added his logo and put it up as is.
He has his photo number and email address on his site (http://www.jfalkphoto.com/contact.htm) but here is some more info should you and your favorite lawyer want to talk to him.
http://www.whois.org/whois.cgi2?d=jfalkphoto.com
I hope this helps!
David
-
I work full time as a web developer and shoot on the side. Taking pictures that will last a lifetime and put a smile on my client's face every time they glance at it is a priceless feeling. To be honest I do photography because it helps me to fund early retirement, travel more, and buy more toys than Batman.
-
OK, I give up. What are these "phone books" everybody is writing about?
About two weeks ago I just started my $85/month online ad on TheKnot.com, Minneapolis area. So far I've had on average of 2-3 hits per day from them. From that I've had several e-mail inquiries and met with one couple and will meet with another this weekend. So far so good.
-
There's gotta be some interesting stories in this one...
I had a wedding last year where the couple booked me two months
ahead of time. Cutting it close but not exactly extreme, How about
you?
-
Sorry if my original post was unclear. I'm trying to determine what packages I'm going to offer and at what prices. I've always shot weddings for other photographers where after I gave them the film I was done. The whole business side of it was a nebulous world to me. I used to marvel at what the better photographers could charge. Now I'm scratching my head and thinking "that's it?" Your advice has been terrific, keep it coming!
-
Happy New Year!
In addition to the actual hours shooting a wedding, how many hours do
you estimate for meeting with clients, lab runs, album editing and
assembly, etc.? It seems to me that the grand total would be about
double the actual shooting time.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
David
-
I'm sure mathematically it's quite possible if not probable but it
seems like every time dust gets on the sensor of my D100 it lands
smack dab in the middle so that I have to clean up every single
portrait. Grrrr.....
-
When I shoot digitally for weddings with my D100, I shoot everything RAW. The Nikon software makes it easy to correct for various unexpected color shifts (I once had too much tungsten ambient lighting that would have been exceedingly difficult to correct if I had shot jpgs).
As others have noted, use multiple cards! If you shoot using only one card and it goes bad, you are screwed. Half-gig cards are cheap, buy ?eem!
Before heading out to the ceremony make sure to take some test shots and double-check that there is no dust on the sensor so that you don't end up spending hours on end removing dust marks with Photoshop. Even then you might get nailed. Another plus for film.
My $0.02.
David
D 200 and MB-200 shorting out?
in Nikon
Posted
I've had the exact same problem with my Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (screwdriver type) and my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lenses without teleconverters. Re-seating the MB-D200 has always fixed it for me.
I've also had it where the vertical shutter will focus but won't take the picture. Again, re-seating the MB-D200 fixes it for me.
I'd guess that 80-90% of everything I take is vertical which seems to loosen up the MB-D200. My D100 and F100 never any problems with their battery packs however.