russ_konrad

<a href=http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Speed-Light-Instructional-DVD/dp/B000A131ZK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1217561328&sr=8-4><b>Nikon "Speed of Light" Instructional DVD - Joe McNally and the Nikon Creative Lighting System</b></a>

<p>

Outstanding DVD that explains the system very well!

<B>"...Elenor, I think the only boredom that would arise is the client falling asleep after looking at 15 shots which are very similar, over and over again until 1000 shots or more has been reached, crazy IMO..."</B>

<P>

I agree totally David. We have even had a prospective customer comment on a friend who had gotten frustrated because they were asked to choose their images from over 1200 online proofs.

<p>

IMHO - it is our job as professional photographers to eliminate the duplicates (or near duplicates) and present a reasonable number of unique shots - yet enough to tell the story of the day. We usually deliver between 300 to 400 images for full - all day wedding coverage.

<b>"...because who decides what is "full frame?" The old full frames was 35mm format which really has no meaning unless you are shooting film...."</b>

<p>

It has plenty of meaning if you use lenses that were designed for that size format - like the 50mm f/1.8. It becomes an almost totally different lense on a DX body compared to an FX (full-frame) body.

<p>

And Nikon's best glass is (and was) designed for full frame bodies

<b>"...I think we are all a bit loathing of the formal session..."</b>

<P>

I am in agreement with William on this - I really enjoy shooting the formals. It is a great way to chit chat with the people that you will be shooting in more casual situations the rest of the day. It also is good for referrals if you can get the bridesmaids to laugh and relax.

<p>

They get to know you a bit and are much more relaxed when you catch them later in the day.

<p>

Be creative - have some fun - inject your "art" and "style" into the formal shots. Your customers will have a good time and they will look more relaxed in the images.

<p>

But then again - I love wedding photography and I am somewhat puzzled by some of the comments that people make about "loathing" some aspect of the job. I could never do job that I "loathe".

You really should avoid picking up and trying a D300 - unless you can afford one. The LCD screen on the D300 is to almost die for compared to the D200.

 

The LCD screen on your D70s is one of it's weakest features and is the main reason we sold ours.

<B>"I would go for the D200 and save for better glass like the 17-55mm f/2.8....</b>

<p>

Unless you are pixel peeping or printing extremely large - you will be hard pressed to see any visual difference in the output from the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lens and the original poster's Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens. Build quality is much better and you could probably hammer a nail with the Nikkor lens, but the images from the Sigma (and Tamron lens) in that focal range are extremely close to the Nikkor.

<p>

<b>.....I love my D200 and IMO, an extra step of ISO handling and the more FPS isn't so significant.</b>

<p>

What truly IS significant is the image quality coming out of the D300 compared to the D200. As I mentioned earlier - we own both of these bodies and the images from the D300 require a great deal less of post processing compared to the D200 images. The auto white balance is much better - perhaps it should be called much more "intelligent" than in the D200. Mixed lighting situations are captured much more accurately with the D300.

The problem is that you will be forced to use the 18-200 in situations that do require a more wide open aperture and that's where it shows it's mediocrity.

 

We owned one for over a year and yes - it was convenient - but we sold it because I got very tired of an image quality that could be obtained with almost any P&S camera body.

 

In fact - on the wide end, I get better image quality out of my new iphone than I ever did with the 18-200 lens.

 

Again - before anyone gets bent out of shape - all of the above is just my opinion.

<b>"...some compromises in image at the high and low ends by, from what I've read, nothing that can't be fine tuned in a graphics program...."</b>

<p>

Even with the best graphics program on the planet - you cannot make a soft picture sharp without distortion being added.

<p>

More specifically - almost no image from the 18-200 lens will ever be mistaken as an image taken with some high quality fast glass.

Having owned the D70s in the past as well as currently owning a D200, D300, and a D3 - I would highly recommend the D300 over the D200.

 

Anyone who shoots weddings can really use the better low light performance of the D300 as well as the better metering, focusing, and auto white balance.

<b>"...It is faster to focus than my D200 and moves lenses with authority...."</b>

<p>

It actually focuses all the Nikon "D" lenses <B>FASTER</B> than the D300 and even the D3!

<p>

Even though I shoot the D3 and D300 professionally - I still love to shoot film and esp slides with the F5.

I'm sorry - I forgot to address the main question!

 

We have never had any camera body fail over the years. One lens rolled off of a church pew and was damaged but that is the only equipment issue we have ever had.

We always have at least two digital bodies at every wedding and a film body in the car with 15 rolls of film.

 

One "backup" that many brides do seem to appreciate is the automatic backup with 2 compact flash cards in the Nikon D3. Even if you have multiples of everything - you still only have ONE memory card in your camera at a time that could fail and you will never know until you get home on the computer.

 

Any system is only as strong as it's weakest link. This has become just another reason that we can guarantee that we will not lose any of those once-in-a-lifetime wedding shots. It definitely makes me feel better as well as being a great marketing tool when we first meet with a prospective customer.

<b>"...I find myself constantly fighting the D300's meter and white balance...."</b>

<p>

Really?

<p>

We found that the white balance is much more accurate on the D300 (and D3) compared to the D200. The "auto"

white balance setting is much more accurate under different conditions compared to the same setting on the D200.

<p>

We still always shoot in RAW, but there is less post processing necessary on the D300 files (and especially the D3

files) compared to

the D200 files.

<p>

You are right that the D200 tended to underexpose more often compared to the newer models. Generally I find

myself shooting at -0.3 exposure compensation with the D300 and D3.

<b>"...I can't believe any soon-to-be bride would care about dual memory card slots..."</b>

<p>

Every bride cares about her wedding pictures. Dual card slots provide one more piece of insurance that her images will NOT be lost. And despite your experience with memory cards (and our experience) - there are many documented cases of card failure (even from people in this thread). Why do you think that Sandisk includes recovery software with their high end memory cards? Sandisk is trying to provide assurance and a tool for photographers for the day when even their card may fail.

<p>

Believe what you may - but we have received the same positive response from every prospective bride that we have discussed this aspect of how we make sure that their images will not be lost. It is just another marketing tool that is easily understood by everyone that does also provide an immediate backup in camera without the need for immediate download to another storage device.

<p>

Perhaps it would be better for you to have some personal experience with the D3 before you make childish, derisive comments directed towards the owners of the Nikon D3.

Move up to a quad core processor and you will see another big increase in the speed of Capture NX as well as in

everything else.

We have never had any card failures in the past - but all it takes is one time and you will have a HUGE problem on your hand in the wedding photography business.

 

Additionally - the dual card slots on the D3 is just ANOTHER reason that brides are hiring us. They realize that the entire process is relying on it's weakest link. What good is a $5000 camera (or $2000 or whatever) if your $100 CF card dies. We always bring the D3 with us to the first meeting with customers and just showing them the dual slots gives them more confidence in us and our equipment compared to other photographers using cameras with only one slot. Most brides are aware that some people have had horror stories with memory card failures in the past. You know how the internet is - bad stories seem to live forever online and most brides do alot of research before they even meet with their first photographer.

 

I also agree with the above posters that mention the 5:4 crop ratio. It saves time in post processing. The vast majority of the files coming out of the D3 need little or no post processing at all. And when working with 1000 to 1200 files after every wedding - post-processing time IS an issue.

I have owned and shot at least 7 or 8 different film cameras over the years in addition to the D200, D300, and now the D3.

 

The F5 is still one of my favorite camera bodies to shoot. I am always on the look out for opportunities to use film/slide film in my professional work rather than digital. It is simply one of the best 35mm film bodies on the planet.

 

Enjoy!

<b>"Why get an F6?....For landscapes you don't really need a pro body, IMHO..."</b>

<p>

User interface and just the experience of using a high quality tool compared to a lower end body is definitely worth a higher investment. Professionally, I use a D3 - but I still love to shoot my F5 for my own personal pleasure. I did not have the same feeling about some of the lessor film bodies that I owned in the past.

Our experiences in low lit churches (for weddings) with the D300 concur with Shun's examples. You need to nail the

exposure and your noise will go down immensely.

<b>"...The differences are in how the higher-end body allowed you to get to the position of firing the shutter faster/easier/better...."</b>

<p>

Totally correct. In addition - the higher end digital models will perform much better in low light and allow you to GET the shot with great high ISO performance and much better focusing ability at those same low light conditions.

<p>

Having owned a D70s, D200, D300, and a D3 (as well as an N2020, N70, N80, F4s, and F5) - I can testify that a camera body can definitely affect picture quality.

I agree with Lex - the Custom Brackets CB Junior is a nice solid unit at a very reasonable price. We used one with our D200 and grip until we stopped using brackets altogether over a year ago in favor of other, lighter ways to get the same effect - Better Bounce Card, Gary Fong LS, etc.

Nice review Marc!

 

We've had our D3 for a little over a month (6 weddings) and it definitely lived up to all the "hype". Post processing takes less time since the files need very little work. The 5:4 crop is another GREAT feature that takes all the guess work out of framing all those possible wall shots (formals).

<b>"...In what way(s) is the 5D is not a reliable camera?..."</b>

<p>

William,

<p>

Here is just one thread one this forum concerning the reliability of the Canon 5D:

<p>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00NxQL>http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00NxQL</a>

<p>

A little research on the web reveals many threads on this forum and different forums concerning this issue and

others concerning the reliability of this dated, prosumer plastic body.

Nadine,

 

 

 

IMHO - if you are going to shoot weddings - you need the proper tools. Anything less the basics (and an f/2.8 zoom at the wide end IS ESSENTIAL) will result in poor images and an upset bride. Either make the necessary and proper investment or tell the truth to the bride and groom that you are incapable of doing an adequate job.

I did say "almost useless" in most indoor situations.

 

Bottom line - an f/2.8 zoom will be much more useful than the 50mm f/1.8 lens for almost any indoor wedding work IMHO.