Peter_in_PA

<p>No... just no...<br /><br />You almost certainly do not want to do this, unless you want your D700 to never work again.</p>

<p>Yeah, Andrew, good stuff, but I think we have a troll...</p>

<p>hard working band at work.</p><div></div>

<p>Ilkka and I were cross posting... ignore everything I wrote if you want... and just read that post above mine.</p>

<blockquote> <p>There you go again (to quote Reagan) every time someone has an important photo to take, they have to turn off the VR. I hate to be redundant, but if you had to turn off your CPU or hard drive to use your computer, there would be a problem. The fact is that anything you need to turn off in order before you take a photo with a camera lens, should not be there in the first place. And here is what makes it worse than impossible, while you are looking for the switch and turning it off, the shot just left town. You need to be ready when the shot happens, not turning stuff off, in order for the camera to work. It's a con.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Daniel, Daniel, Daniel...<br /><br />No offense, but it really sounds like you're blaming the gear.<br /><br />The other night I shot a dimly lit concert. If I leave the camera settings alone the next time I go out and shoot a landscape, I'm probably going to be disappointed. One setting doesn't work for every photo on any serious camera, sir. It never will (unless you are okay with a smartphone camera kind of photography). For instance, Aperture priority is key for some things, where Shutter priority and Auto-ISO might be better for something else, where Manual might be best for other things. Continuous AF is best sometimes, and Single AF is best others. So it makes perfect sense for the user to learn and know when VR is best to use and when it is not, and therefore have the setting the way it would be best before the shot happens.<br /><br />I suggest taking the time to learn the gear really well, and what it can do, rather than what you might wish it could do, the way it is designed, and not the way you wish it were. And while you're at it, I highly suggest you abandon the "photo taking modes" (like "sports mode") in your camera and stick with P, A, S, and M... that way you'll really learn better, I suspect, when one mode is best and when another is. That will help you a lot. You'll miss a bunch of shots now... but you'll miss very very few later on.<br /><br />With regard to my computer... EXCELLENT analogy. If I"m working on a Word document, I might not mind having 10 other programs open in the background, but if I am doing pro Audio recording or video editing, quitting all those open programs might be best.</p>

<p>Daniel,<br /><br />There is a definite market and need for the D4s, and at that price, too. You are not that market, and you don't have that need, and that is okay. It's not "illogical" at all. They will almost certainly update that camera just in time for the next Olympics, which is their regular M.O.<br /><br />Not sure the 200-500 is VR I, as VR I doesn't have the mode switch that is found on this lens, iirc, and they never claim 4.5 stops of VR on VR I... and I wouldn't be surprised if they just didn't delineate anymore, since they haven't dealt with VR I in a long time on many (any?) lenses. In any case, even if it does "only" have VR I, that might make sense when you consider that on a long lens like that, use on a sturdy support and/or at high shutter speeds (for capturing bird action for instance), and a lot of guys turn off VR (which I think you expect to be some kind of magic bullet that it is not) in such uses.</p>

<p>Diggin' in...</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>The VR option is marketed to require less technique, as it enables hand holding according to the sales pitch. My camera settings are engineered by Nikon, not chosen by me, that said if they do not work, Nikon is to blame.</p> </blockquote> <p>Daniel, a poor workman blames the tools. And a poor salesman (imho) makes promises that can't be kept by the products he sells. And it's very important to know that product claims in advertising are not designed to inform you, but rather to get you to buy the product.<br /><br />Any lens, especially a zoom that is f5.6 at the long end, will have compromises, normally at the most extreme end (longest f.l. for a tele zoom, shortest f.l. for a wide/ultra-wide zoom). That is to be expected. Even some very expensive zooms suffer at those extremes in one way or another (sometimes mitigated by stopping down 2 stops).<br /><br />And what Elliot says about very long focal lengths is inescapable. On a DX camera, if you shoot anything moving (or not even) with a 400mm lens, any exposure below 1/600 can be problematic, especially if your technique isn't really great. VR helps a little (and the 80-400 uses first gen VR if you have the old one, so it's less useful than VR II), but helps the least at extreme focal lengths and in extreme situations.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The 200-500 has the same VR system as my 80-400 lens, it does not even boast the new VR11 as my 18-200 has.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Really...? I'm pretty sure this statement is incorrect, as the lens has the VR mode switch. I appreciate new blood around here, so welcome to the forum (I am pretty sure you just joined), but you seem to throw around a lot of statements that seem odd, sir.</p>

<p>Daniel,<br /><br />I suggest you read less of Rockwell.<br /><br />That said, again, for what VR works well for, it's a wonderful development.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"but it seems to do everything that it should, except for rendering crisp clear photos.",- try 300/2.8 VR, bet you will get crisp clear photos.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Unless of course you misuse VR or use it for something that it doesn't help with, like fast moving action subjects at slow shutter speeds.<br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>I could post the link, but the truth is forbidden here for some reason.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Daniel. KR posts some of the most useless information on the internet, and amid that, of course, there's an occasional nugget of gold. His advice is always contradictory and even he admits his site is for entertainment only.<br /></p>

<p>VR is awesome when used properly and in the situations that call for it.<br /><br />It is not awesome when used improperly and in situations where it can degrade the image.<br /><br />It's that simple.<br /><br />I like Thom Hogan's explanations of this.<br /><br />http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm</p>

<p>Try to replicate settings you know will work.<br /><br />Olympus' menu system is a mess, but once you get to know it (as you already know) it really is just fine, and it's easy for me to match my EM-5 to my old EPM1 even.<br /><br />And the Panny 20 on my EM-5 is good for everything. that lens is simply awesome.</p>

<blockquote> <p>BTW, are you sure you want a Flash site? They don't work with mobile devices, so you'd be missing out on a lot of page hits.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Yes, most web traffic is now on mobile devices, so flash is entirely dead except for legacy sites.<br> <br> Getting back to the original question, if I HAD to go with primes, I'd want 24mm, 50mm (actually I'd prefer 40mm if it existed. I'm using that equivalent f.o.v. on µ43 and adore it) and then a long zoom. I find 85mm, for myself, less useless than I wish I did, and like 100 - 200mm lengths a LOT... and you already have the zoom you love.</p>

<p>Pete S.</p> <p>That may be true, but I've worked at churches for almost all of the last decade.</p> <p>I'm the guy the photographer always coordinates with with regard to lighting, getting into the building, access to balconies or whatever. I've watched the shift from MF and film to digital crop sensor to full-frame close up.</p> <p>I've seen <em><strong>one</strong></em> photographer in that whole time come in and use a prime for <em><strong>ANYTHING</strong></em>... and that was a macro for hand/ring shots only. That's why I ask. Our OP is clearly a Wedding Photographer, and from his questions, I can surmise he is probably not one with the experience and portfolio of the ones you mention. That's why I ask.</p> <p>I'm trying to get to the real root of the questions Wedding Photographer is asking.</p>

<p>I've seen you ask a few questions here lately.</p> <p>I have to ask. Are you the only wedding photographer not just using a 24-70 f2.8 zoom? Primes are nice, but for an event like that...?</p>

<p>Tiny sliver of moon from a couple weeks ago.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm a happy switcher from Nikon DX to µ43.<br /><br />If I shot sports and concerts would I switch? Absolutely no way. If I were shooting events for a living? Most likely I would not switch.<br /><br />Is it a totally boss format for an amateur like myself? Yup. I'm sure it works for some pros, too, but if I were Pro... naaaah...</p>

<p>So, where's the companion article...<br /><br />"1,000 pro sports shooters who shoot DSLR".<br /><br />jus' funnin' y'all...</p>

<blockquote> <p>Now that the shoe has dropped with the Leica SL, I see Fuji coming out on top with a new development.<br /> </p> </blockquote> <p>One has nothing to do with the other. I doubt Samsung is using the introduction of a product that, with lens, is over 10 grand, to dictate or inform what they are doing in the consumer market.</p>

<p>I think FF mirrorless will always be a niche product. If you need full-frame, most, I think, would rather have a DSLR anyway. If you want mirrorless, it's often for the size advantages, and people like me don't want FF for that at all. too big and bulky.</p>

<p>DSLRs aren't going away at all.<br /><br />But I'm not using them anymore.<br /><br />You want to shoot action and sports, they're really hard (impossible?) to beat.</p>

<p>I'd go with 20 or 24, not 28. Fairly easy to crop in from the 20 and 24 and still have a very usable 28mm f.o.v., or even better, just take a step forward. But to me, 28mm is just not wide enough.<br /><br />But, for me... I'd rather have a 17/18 - 35 zoom. There is some amazing stuff available that will make a great image, as good as any prime in most cases.<br /><br />you are a wedding photographer, though, so don't go real expensive on this. I can't see it being a bread-and-butter lens.</p>

<p>I'll bet the Tamron was a better lens for that camera, though, and I'll bet that few can tell the difference between photos shot with them. If you rarely went wider than 24 on your Tamron, you'll be happy, but if you found yourself zooming all the way out often, you won't.</p>