todd1664878707

I moved up from the D200 to a couple D300's. I find the AF system was MUCH better on the D200. Check the forums, there are a lot of people who agree with me. I've had the same issues you are talking about.

This is a very lame attempt at competing with the current Canon promotion.

This doesn't answer your question directly, but you may find it useful.

 

http://www.macrophotography.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=15

 

Todd

That sounds about right. I take about 1200 shoits at a wedding and don't quite use two batteries. I don't however use VR that much.

Desiree, I assume that you want crique on your work and not just coloring. These comments are on the Mabel and Jeff wedding. I think they are ok. You need to focus on some more poses and different angles. You kept shooting the same angles and the same straight on portraits. If stiff traditional is your style, then your fine. Else, you need to start thinking outside the box and try different things. Exposure wise, the pictures were great.

Scott,

 

I read on a different forum that when someone bought theirs, it did not come with a USA warranty. Try Amazon.com. I think they have the same price.

Ernie, both will give you good results. I happen to use BL.

I have the 85 1.4 and love it. I would advise against the 105 or 135 and instead get the best Nikon lens out there (in my opinion) the 70-200 VR. I find myself using the 85 more than the 70-200 because of its low light capability.

 

On a side note, speaking from a wedding photographer's point of view, be sure not to get in the way of the professional photographer and try not to be his shadow.

It is very important to have good glass, but on the other hand having fast autofocus is just as important. I have both the D70 and the D200. The D200 focuses in low light in a snap while the D70 hunts. If money is really an issue for you, I would consider the D80 with the same focusing engine as the D200.

Bob,

 

I am a wedding photographer so sometimes I'm running around like a mad man trying to get the shots I need. As a result, there have been several times where I have changed out a lens and never turned off power. Of course by accident. I've never experienced problems.

I posted my answer to this in the Nikon forum.

I also have the D200 and Pro-T bracket. I chose not to get the battery grip because the lens to flash distance will decrease which will increase the chances of getting red eye. Do some testing with and without the battery grip.

Daniel,

 

Maybe Sony hasn't announced a full frame sensor, but maybe it's not coming from Sony. Maybe it's coming from Fuji...

Thank you for your responses. I will check out the cables that were mentioned and investigate it a little more.

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I can't find any info on it.

Is it possible to fire the D200 using a Pocketwizard? If so, how?

What cables should be used?

In my opinion, Nikon is ahead of Canon in every aspect except noise. The 5D crushes any Nikon Camera. And yes, I shoot Nikon. If all you are worried about is noise, get Canon, else get Nikon.

A thanks to everyone for all of your answers. I now know how to answer my friend's question as to why the 18-200 isn't better than the 28-70. And don't worry, he wasn't offended when you called him a moron although it would be nice if we could be a little more professional.

Thank you for all of your answers. I just needed help with what to tell him, and you guys supplied me with the words. On a side note, it's funny how most people think the 28-70 is useless on a DSLR. I love the range, mainly because I pair it with the 12-24.

OK, so I'm about to buy the nikon 28-70 when a friend says to me "why

not buy the new 18-200? It's an optically strong performer and with

the VR, it's actually 'faster' than the 28-70". I didn't know how to

answer this. VR is supposed to be good for three stops, and the 18-

200 has an aperture of 3.5-5.6. When you add the VR in, it will be

way faster than the 28-70 2.8. How do I explain the 28-70 is a better

lens? Is it a better lens?

Please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not positive of this, but

isn't the weakest part of the DSLR the sensor and not the lens as far

as image quality? Yes, the Zeiss 50mm is probably a little sharper

than the Nikon 50mm, but can the CCD even tell the difference? On a

side note, we need to apply sharpening to get our images are sharp as

they should be. Would you even be able to tell the difference between

two images taken with the Nikon and one taken with the Zeiss after

sharpening has been applied?

I definitely agree with you Steve. His right shoulder is "almost" in focus. Like i mentioned in my post I just bought the same lens and it is an incredible lens, but the DOF is real tricky. It's really cool if you know ho to use it, but if you don't, you'll have a lot of OOF shots.

I just wanted to chime in and add my two cents. I actually just did some lens tests this weekend with that lens. I just bought the 85 1.4 from B&H also and I wanted to try it out against my 70-200 VR. I did tests of the two side by side on a tripod at 2.8, 4, and 8. It turns out that I could not see a difference in sharpness at 100% crops between the two lenses. However, the 85 was a lot less sharp at 1.4 and 1.8 although I found the sharpness at both of those apertures to be the same. I did find that the sharpness of the 85 at 1.4 was sharper than the 50 1.8 at 1.8. On the other hand, I did however notice a HUGE difference in contrast and colors. The 70-200 had MUCH better contrast and colors than the 85 1.4 which I was really surprised to see. What did I conclude from my tests? The 85 1.4 is a very sharp lens, but the 70-200 is just as sharp and has better colors which makes the 70-200 a much better lens in my book than I previously thought.

Man, I hate table shots. Of course I do them when they are requested, but I would never think of doing them if I wasn't asked. As soon as all the guests are seated waiting for dinner, start walking around. Personally, I go for a really wide zoom, the 12-24. That way I can squeeze between the tables and manage to get everyone in. Also it allows me to quickly take a couple pics without having to have people get up and all gather on one side of the table. If you use a lens that wide in a dark hall, make sure you have a good flash diffuser so the flash can fill in the outer edges of the frame.

Of course! It will force you to be creative. In fact I'm sure that some people here (although they probably won't admit it) have shot a wedding under those circumstances. Maybe they were just starting out and didn't know what they were doing. Maybe that's all they could afford. Formals with a large group might be an issue with a straight 50, but it could work if it had to.

The formals are the only time I get bothered about it. Not only does flash bother the wedding party, but as I'm shooting I constantly have to remind everyone to look at me and not Uncle Bob. I have a statement in my contract that takes care of this. Something like:

 

"It is understood that XXX Photography is the exclusive official photographer retained to perform the photographic services requested. Wedding attendees may take pictures, but will be asked not to if they intrude on the photographerﾒs responsibilities."