andrewpgrant

Some of these posts have really brought a smile to my face... especially Dana's dog - my dogs (aka faithful assistants) are the same.

 

Sadly, today I had to get up at 5am for real work and found myself thinking that 6am for photography that I actually want to do isn't such a trial afterall ;-)

 

Go figure?!?

<i>"No it tops out at ISo 1600 & 3200 but these aren't standard ISO type settings"</i>

<p></p>

Ellis: CAN the sensitivity of the D2X be extended a couple of stops beyond ISO 800 in the same way the D2H can be extended beyond ISO 1600?

<p></p>

The specs don't say as much (http://www.nikon.ca/products/d2x/specs) but I am willing to stand corrected if I have misunderstood how these things work. Either way, having shot a bit with a D2H, it is rarely practical to shoot in the extended ISO range of the D2H, so I am still unsure about the ISO 800 thing in terms of shooting flexibility in closed arenas.

Greg: Niiiiiice... sounds idealic :-)

<i>:OK, maybe I'm nuts, but I think the nastier the weather, the better. Polypropelene (thermal underwear-keeps you warm and dry) and GoreTex and I'm set for the day. It's like being in an alien landscape without having to leave town.</i>

<p></p>

Amen to that. I particularly love the feeling of hiding inside my Goretex jacket when it's raining heavily. And my boots. I love the feeling of warm, dry feet when you're splashing through wet terrain.

<p></p>

I don't think you're nuts at all, Walt. Thanks :-)

<i>"I have been using the D2Hs now for a long time"</i>

<p></p>

He might still be referring to the D2H...

<p></p>

another way I could have written the preceeding sentance is

"He might still be referring to the D2Hs"... plural.

<p></p>

Anyway, I am still relieved to hear about the ISO issue... my main concern was how well it would actually work at ISO 800. He says it's great, but I guess only time and further shooting will tell.

<p></p>

I know of another photographer who shoots Ice Hockey down Windsor/Detroit way who has been using a D2X for a little while now. He also swears he'll never shoot with anything else... well, until the next 'wave' is released, I guess.

Stephen: I feel your pain ;-) Except I don't mind the drive and love hiking in the dark.

 

Gloria: As Markus mentioned, the pictures certainly are a great motivation.

 

Beau: Whatever gets you going, bro'... whatever gets you going... ;-)

<i>"I think that lesser photographers are sitting at a computer typing things like this instead of getting on with it"</i>

<p></p>

Point taken and your comment made me smile. Although in my defence I had 30mins to kill before I had to leave and when there's the possibility of things like freezing rain in the forecast I like to check the weather maps/radar to find out where it is for myself. Funnily enough, it doesn't change my plans with regard to where I am going, but I do like to know if I'm about to get rained/snowed/hailed/frozen/whatever (which, at times, is half the fun). Perhaps being prepared in that manner is just my own quirk, but I used to be a meteorologist and such things interest me.

<p></p>

<p></p>

<i>"If you need contrived motivation to go out and do photography, you should find another avocation"</i>

<p></p>

Again, in my defence, I've never had problems with enjoying myself immensly while out there... which is motivation in itself. But is there any harm in wondering if other people have any pre-early morning shoot quirks? Havn't you ever stopped for a second and thought about the 'absurd' fact that when there's conditions that'd encourage most 'normal' folks to stay in we find ourselves out there amongst it? Forgive me, but that kind of cynical way of looking at things always brings a smile to my face.

<p></p>

You know what, now I think about it your condescending tone actually irritates me quite a lot. I didn't start this thread looking for that kind of comment.

<p></p>

<p></p>

<i>"Simple - move to Florida."</i>

<p></p>

LOL. If only ;-)

<p></p>

<p></p>

<i>"By the time the day comes you'll be antsy with anticipation"</i>

<p></p>

Oh man, I know what you mean! Sometimes, if it's something like today where I've been waiting for a certain time for a planned shoot (in this case, I've been waiting for fresh snow) I have trouble sleeping with the anticipation. I also like your proposed methodology ;-)

 

Thanks Markus also for the reminder of what it's about ;-)

Okay, so it's just before 6am... it's dark outside, about minus 3

Celsius... the snow is starting to turn into ice pellets... and I'm

about to go and start trudging around looking for photos.

 

While clutching my second cup of coffee, I just found myself wondering

what other folks out there do for motivation on such mornings.

 

Do you have any tricks? Any special routine? Do you have any way to

make sure you still get out there on your days off instead of

succumbing to the desire to sleep in? Anything to make the getting up

and getting out there part a little easier? ;-)

I just borrowed John Hedgecoe's "The New Manual of Photography" from my local library on the advice of a learned friend... it's quite thorough in the range of topics it covers. He also has several other books... one of them is dedicated to light and colour, but I am yet to look at it closely...

 

For Photoshop I gave up on wading through endless manuals covering every minor detail in favour of books like the "Photoshop for Digital Photographers" series of books by Scott Kelby. They're brief, to the point and I found they were a great way to learn by example and explore some techniques that hadn't occurred to me during my own self-guided learning of the software. They're also a good deal cheaper and more interesting to read than most other Photoshop manuals.

 

In terms of theory for light and colour, I like the more whimsical approach adopted by photographers like Freeman Patterson. You won't neccessarily find any great technical secrets in his books (although he does have some neat tips and tricks here and there), but you will find some great philosophy, inspiration (I can't pick up one of his books without having to go straight outside and start photographing) and he does drum home the need for solid graphical design in photography. Some of his titles I found most helpful were "Photography and the Art of Seeing", "Photography for the Joy of it" and "Photography of Natural Things".

 

I'm not sure where you are and what the local municipal or scholarly facilities are like, but I am finding my local library a fantastic source of a wide array of reference books... which is great if you're like me and don't want to (or can't) spend too much money.

 

Good luck!

<i>"The primary reason for buying an SLR is the ability to buy and use a variety of lenses</i>

<p></p>

No disrespect to Richard, but I have to disagree there based on my own experience.

 

Having an SLR in your hands for the first time with either full or partial control over things like shutter speed and apeture enables you to embark on one of the steepest and most rewarding learning curves in photography... these are things of fundamental importance and the best way to learn them is through a manual camera. Most SLRs fit this bill perfectly whereas most digital point-and-shoots etc are limited in this capacity.

If you want value for money (the Canons are great, but most things Canon tend to cost a little more), you can usually get good package deals on the Pentax MZ-6 or similar... they usually cost around $350 new (Canadian Dollars) and often come with at least a 28-80mm lens (usually either Pentax or Sigma).

 

The Pentaxs, while not being as fancy or trendy as the Canons, are solid and great to learn on... a Pentax MZ-50 was my first 35mm SLR and 10 years on I am still using it a lot.

 

I have also heard a lot of good things about the Minoltas.

<i>"Andrew, but there has been no shortage of Velvia 50 where I buy it, here in UK, and the supposed intention is to maintain supply for a year"</i>

<p></p>

No suprise there. The state of things where I am just now (literally known as the armpit of Canada) is that there are only two shops locally that even stock "professional" film, and their stock often depends on who has bought out what and when they happened to put in a new order... I could even buy old Portra 400UC until this last summer b/c no-one else was using it. There is always plenty of the 100F though.

<p></p>

It's never bugged me much as I've either been shooting negative, digital or trying out the new Kodak and Agfa slide films anyway.

That's a shame. I guess everyone's just shooting the 100 instead. Although, it has been many months since I've seen the 50 in any of the local pro shops around where I live, so they are obviously just following the market trend.

PS. Perhaps the D2x is meant to compete with the 1D Mark II?

<p><i>"The point is that the cameras released by Nikon (such as the D2Hs) are not serious competitors to Canons higher end models, and if they are not, there is no pressure on Canon to reduce their pricing of those models, which is bad for the consumer"</i></p>

<p></p>

<p>You have a point, to a degree...</p>

<p></p>

<p>Yes, Canon has most areas of the market covered really nicely (don't get me wrong, I love the current release Canons) and it is a pity that Nikon don't have the same extent of the market covered as effectively.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Nikon have certain niche areas of the market very well covered also.</p>

For example, it is arguable that in the serious-amateur DSLR range the D70 is a more complete camera than the Digital Rebel (and they sure are selling an awful lot of those)!

If you're in the business of shooting sports or journalism (where, let's face it, the money isn't always there in large amounts and you probably don't need larger enlargements than 5x7 or the occaisional 8X10) a performance-based D2H might be a better business investment than a slightly better-rounded 1D Mark II at almost twice the price (often likewise with lenses).

<p></p>

<p>So yes, it is a shame that Nikon don't have anything to match the 1Ds Mark II (perhaps they don't wish to compete with the 14MP Kodaks - which are basically Nikon SLRs with digital bells on) or anything as well-rounded as the 1DMII, but to assume that they're out of the game and that all Nikon owners are browned off with the situation only seems to stoke the fires of head-in-the-sand brand-loyalty.</p>

Cool... I'd be interested in how you eventually make out with it...

Dude, is there any real point to this thread apart from bragging about your 300D, Canon lenses and higher-end Canon aspirations?

 

If you are looking at cameras with pixel count over performance then I am left scratchng my head as to why you would have even considered something like the D2H as an upgrade from a D70 (I interpreted that as your final deciding factor for the 300D from your initial post w.r.t. to future upgrades and lens compatibility)?

 

Go and shoot some action sports with a D2H (or D2Hs... if it comes to that) and then tell me you don't love it to death.

 

If you want flexibility, or a camera for some other purpose, then go with whatever else is more appropriate.

I have a feeling the 1Ds only manages 4 fps... but I am yet to hold one so I may be mistaken...

Oh man, I thought the D2X could do ISO 1600 like the D2H - you just took the wind out of my sails.

 

If it's any consolation, I've been shooting Ice Hockey quite effectively at 1/500th (usually at either f2.8 or f4)... that would make up for the one stop. The only catch would be that is usually at ISO 1600 (in smaller, older arenas). If you're in newer/bigger arenas you could get away with it, but if you're like me and shooting mainly amateur sport, the restricted flexibility could be a problem.

>"...file format and by now you probably wished you had never brought THAT up"

 

That part made me chuckle ;-)

PS. Speaking of portraits, I really dig the stuff on your website.

I just looked at my last post and figured the moral is kind of hard to see... let me clarify with an example.

 

I shoot for a company that photographs both live-action sport and also high-quality portrait services for a variety of clients.

The other day I was shooting ice hockey with a guy from this company who was moaning that while it was great it was that we had the D2H to shoot sports with, we have to use a different kind of DSLR (the Kodak DCS Pro 14n - which suck big time at higher ISOs and are useless for fast-action) for our higher quality, larger-dimension portraits. And that is the way it's typically been until now with digital SLRs - chances are the different models of camera suit some purposes better than others.

 

So far as I see it, the buzz behind cameras like the D2X and Canon's 1Ds Mark II, is that we're starting to see cameras that can shoot fast and at high ISOs without sacrificing the kinds of resolution enabling you to create large, high-quality images.

 

So in my employer's situation, paying extra $$$ for the D2X makes more sense than buying two different high-end DSLRs.

 

So far as personal use goes, you need to think about what you'll be using the camera for and decide which would suit your needs better.

4.1 vs 12 or so MP is quite a stretch if you're talking the maximum resolution of the cameras.

 

What I had always assumed with the D2X vs the D2H was when they designed the D2H they wanted a camera that could shoot fast-action at high ISO in situations where you don't have to worry about images of large dimensions. Hence, it is very popular with sports and press photographers where you might not need larger than 8x10 max. The D2X, on the other had, seems to be an attempt to retain the fast-shooting capacity of the D2H (albeit with fewer continuous frames - 30 vs 40, care factor = nil) with a camera that you could actually use for larger images (hence expanding the practical usefulness of the camera). That is only my interpretation though... and I'd still love a D2X ;-)

I would have to say in-camera (plus a bit of experience), only b/c you don't always have the time to go shoving a light-meter around the place.

 

A handy trick I read in a Freeman Patterson book for shooting outside is before you start taking photos, look at your hand through the viewfinder (filling the entire frame with your hand) and meter off that. Do this once in the sun and once in the shade and use those two exposure readings as a rough guide for the photos you take outside.

 

Of course, you can always set shutter priorty mode/apeture priority mode and let the camera calculate things for as well.

 

I'm sure there'll be a lot of experienced folks here who will also have better ideas as well...

I think if I could have any camera and not have to worry about the price tag, it'd be a D2X... the action sports capabilities of the D2H with some actual pixel-power ;-) Is there any other camera that covers all the bases so well? (sigh)