russ_konrad

Since our main camera is the Nikon D3 set up to shoot in the 5:4 ratio (i.e. 8x10 crop) - we deliver all of the digital files in the 8x10 crop size. Cropping the smaller number of images from the other camera to that same ratio is not a big deal. (Usually, I can process 1000 -1200 rough images down to the final 300 to 400 images in about 10 to 12 hours.)

We do tell our clients that the images will be perfect in the 8x10 size and that if they want small prints - they should order 4x5 prints rather than the more common 4x6 images.

To address the CD copy issue: We post all the images online in a Smugmug gallery for the guests and relatives to order from directly so the bride and groom do not need to pass their DVD-ROM around to friends and relatives.

Anish,

<p>

For roughly the same money (or less) get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM lens. It <b>WILL</b> autofocus on your D60

and is very sharp. I use this lens on our D3 and am very pleased with the results.

<p>

Here is an image from this past Sunday at the track:

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/2730041464_edd8366405.jpg?v=0">

<p>

Nikon D3, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/3200 second

<b>"...I'm not even an amateur yet, but not a total dSLR novice anymore..."</b>

<p>

Based upon your "experience" - the following comment has little or no validity:

<P>

<b>"...I can't live without bracketing, and everyone I've known who's ever had it on a camera (which is everyone at the

entry-level but Nikon), finds it difficult to go without it...."</b>

<P>

As someone who has shot for many years as well as training new photographers for our wedding photography

business - that comment reveals a severe lack of understanding of the capability of today's DSLR's.

<p>

With today's DSLR's and the ability to immediately check the histogram - bracketing is nice - but a feature that I (or

the other photographers in our company) rarely use. Why should I bother to bracket after I have learned how my

camera responds to different lighting conditions? Just a useless waste of card space. Shoot with your DSLR for a

month or so and you might also realize this fact. (BTW - we shoot with multiple bodies - D200, D300, and D3)

<p>

I suggest that you go out and shoot with your pentax camera and quit posting useless and troll-like threads in this

forum. It is obvious that you don't own a Nikon camera body and your current thread adds nothing of value to this

forum.

<p>

Finally - no one is asking you to buy a D40 or a D60. Buy what you want and quit wasting our time and bandwidth on

this forum.

<b>"...It is neither right or wrong..."</b>

<p>

It does become "right or wrong" when you are hired to photograph a wedding and you get bad results from the first

dance shots. If you can take GREAT images on a very dark dance floor with no flash - AWESOME! But (IMHO) I

don't think there is anyone out there that can do that.

<p>

I shoot with a Nikon D3 that and can get acceptable (yet grainy) at ISO 12,800 on a dark dance floor, but there have

been situations where it is even too dark for that ISO.

<p>

My main concern is with the customers out there and their satisfaction. Many could read this thread and

conclude that they don't have to "bother" with flash since "Jeff" or someone else has built their business on that style

or model. That thought process could lead to some very disastrous results and very upset customers.

Flash is simply another tool that helps you capture the special day of your customers. Learn it and use it when necessary.

Steve C. showed us some excellent examples of "capturing the moment" that would have been impossible without using flash. Those moments in challenging lighting conditions are just as important to the customer as the ones in perfect "natural" lighting conditions.

IMHO - learn how to do it RIGHT before you agree to take any money for wedding photography or don't do it. People that are paying money for someone to capture their once-in-a-lifetime day deserve better!

Flash is a great tool that gives you more flexibility in capturing the images as well as putting a sparkle in the eyes of your subjects.

We never use flash during the ceremony, but use it for nearly everything else.

<b>"and that's a psychiatrists view of his world... t"</b>

<p>

Now Tom - how do you REALLY feel about that? Let is all out - talking about it will make you feel better.

<P>

And while you are at it - tell us all how you feel about someone photoshopping a flying saucer into an image and posting it on their website.

Totally different designs.

The D40 uses a CCD sensor and the D3/D700 use a CMOS sensor.

In addition - all of the associated electronics are totally different as well

Here is an image taken with this lens on the D3 today at the horse track: (200mm, f/2.8, 1/3200, ISO 900)

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/2730041464_edd8366405.jpg?v=0">

This shot was taken right after we took the fun one above:

<p>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2105/2136578854_1f4a9087d5.jpg?v=0">

You need to have them lighten up and have some fun:

<p>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2343917409_655b89f619.jpg?v=0"

<p>

After they do something like that - the more formal poses are not so stiff. Everyone is more relaxed and natural.

<b>"...glenn losack MD..."</b>

<p>

Are you a professional photographer who works in Maryland or a medical doctor?

<p>

Just curious since you don't have your website listed in your profile. I would love to see examples of your work if you really are a professional photographer. I really enjoy looking at the work of other professional photographers so I can learn and improve my own work.

<p>

Please post a link to your website and/or a link to your work so we can all see the great results that you get with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens.

I know for a fact that the Olympus 5060 point and shoot doesn't use the Nikon 18-200 VR lens!

;)

<b>"...Next year you will all be raving about a NIKON 800 and the year after that the D900. It is utter nonsense in my professional opinion..."</B>

<p>

IMHO - many other "professional" photographers may question your "professional" opinion after you posted your earlier remark concerning the 18-200 VR lens. You stated it was a "fantastic lens" along with the tokina 12-24 lens.

<p>

It may very well be a very good plastic, consumer lens and a good lens for travel purposes - but I do not know any real professional photographers that actually use it in their professional work. It is too slow with too much distortion on both ends of the zoom for most serious photographic applications.

<b>"...DX 12-24 TOKINA and 18-200 DX Nikkor lenses?..."</b>

<p>

Those lenses will not work without severe vignetting on the wide end of each lens.

<p>

They are both designated as DX lenses and are not designed for FX or "full-frame" camera like the D700, D3 and any 35mm film bodies.

<b>"I dunno, Shun. Seems like a gouge to me..."</b>

<p>

Then don't buy it!

<p>

No one is forcing you to do anything. Your D3 (if you own one) will work perfectly fine without this optional upgrade.

<b>"I'm at a loss. Will $500.00 make a better image....?"</b>

<p>

It will allow you to take more consecutive images in a high speed burst that otherwise you would have been unable to capture. An image that IS captured is certainly "better" than the missed shot!

<p>

So yes indeed it may indeed allow you to make a "better" image in certain situations.

I find it humorous (and somewhat sad) that most of the people complaining about this don't have a D3 and probably will never own a D3.

Do I need to upgrade to this faster buffer? No. Am I going to piss and moan about the price? No

Will I upgrade - maybe during the slower winter months when the wedding calendar is not so full.

Print sizes are not an issue with any late model DSLR.

As others have already mentioned - there are other issues with the Olympus lineup that make it better suited to types of photography other than weddings.

For you starting out it will make a fine second/backup body, but as you shoot more weddings - you will discover that the low light performance is really not acceptable compared to what is available from Canon and Nikon.

Being able to capture a beautiful, noise free image at ISO 6400 during a candlelight ceremony with our Nikon D3 is worth the price tag of that camera!

<b>"...All of this does not absolve the photographer of applying dicipline to their shooting as well as editing. 20 rapid fire captures does not assure that "magic moment" will be one of them. In fact, it most likely won't be there. Careful observation, anticipation, and timing is a far better way to grab that nano second of time that expresses volumes in a single image. That is what "still" photography is all about."</b>

<p>

Well said Marc!

<p>

Another thought on the same subject:

<p>

If you shoot an 8 hour wedding and you deliver 1000 images to your customer - you would have need to have averaged 1 GOOD shot every 28 seconds (8 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds = 28,800 seconds divided by 1000 images = 1 image every 28.8 seconds) And that is only the GOOD shots. How many shots did the photographer edit out of that many? 1500? 2000? 3000?

<p>

We shoot every wedding with at least two photographers. Both of us started a long time ago with film and we have the same philosophy that Marc posted above - <b><i>"...Careful observation, anticipation, and timing..."</b></i>. Even with two of us shooting all day - we only end up with around 1000 shots total.

<p>

<b>"...So what would be even better would be 1 image for $5000...."</b>

<p>

Yes it would!

<p>

Even though I love shooting weddings and working with people - I still enjoy landscape photography. I would love to sell one of my landscapes for $5,000! I don't market that aspect of my photography - just word of mouth - and my individual print sales have not reached that level yet.

Ric, Tom and Daniel are all correct.

The full frame sensor provides many other awesome photographic opportunities besides high ISO performance that are not available with the D300 (or any other crop sensor).

We do not the D700 but I have captured thousands of images on our D3 and the D300 so I feel the same way as Ric, Tom , and Daniel.

One thought that everyone should consider:

If you deliver 100 images for $2,000 - each of those images are extremely valuable and precious to the customer.

If you deliver 2000 images for $2,000 - the value of each image is considerably less.

"Quantity versus Quality" is a valid concept in this discussion that many customers see in many different

services and products but yet it is a concept that some photographers have dismissed as not applicable to them

and their product.

Giving a customer thousands of images devalues the worth of every image and IMHO devalues the work of the

photographer.

Nikon is providing total compatibility with all of it's camera bodies with software that is available on it's website and at

retail locations.

<p>

It clearly states that Capture NX2 is compatible with the D700. The D700 is NOT listed as a compatible camera body

on the spec page of the older Capture NX version.

<p>

<a href=http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Imaging-Software/index.page><b>Nikon Imaging

Software</b></a>

<p>

Expecting Nikon to make all older versions of Capture compatible with every new DSLR body is not "standard

practice". Just like the older versions of Photoshop will not support the latest camera bodies - you need to have CS3

and it's RAW converter to be able to use the NEF files from the D300, D3, and I expect the D700.

<p>

Two different companies following the same "standard practice".

<p>

And besides - Nikon is in the business to make money. Complaining about having to spend $109 to upgrade to a

much improved version of Capture NX seems rather juvenile and immature - especially after the OP just dropped

$3000 on a new camera body.

<p>

Personally - I have no problem in spending a few dollars to get a much improved version of Capture - even though the

older version worked fine with our D300 and D3.

<b>"...i wasn't planning to upgrade to NX2 quite yet... i hope this isn't nikon's way of marketing NX2...."</b>

<p>

Sorry - no offense intended - but you spend $3000 on a new camera body and you don't want to spend the $109 it costs to upgrade to a much improved version of Capture NX?

<p>

Maybe I'm missing something here - but that really doesn't make much sense to me.