brooks_lester

<p>My 105DC needs +20 AF Fine Tune on my D700. It makes beautiful pictures, is super sharp, and focusses very fast for a screw-drive lens. I haven't heard of focussing issues with this lens when used on DX bodies, just FX, and mostly with D700's. </p>

<p>Focal length recommendations for portraits need to be more specific: for head and shoulders and head shots, telephoto compression is more flattering and will blur the background more than a wider lens. If shooting full body and environmental portraits, a normal to wide angle focal length is traditionally used. The classic focal lengths for 35mm format portraiture are 35mm for full body, 50mm for half body, and 85-105 and beyond mm for head and shoulders to head shots. <br>

What you want to avoid, if flattering the subject is of prime importance, is shooting a tight portrait with a wide angle focal length, however, if you want see the subject, full body or similar, in an environment, such as an aesthetically pleasing natural scene or dramatic urban setting, a wide angle is usually the best choice to render both the subject and the background with detail.</p>

<p>Bariloche, in the central west Andes of Argentina, is a fantastic area, and not too far from BA. Points south of Bariloche, far into southern Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego are even more astounding (Fitz Roy massif, etc.). It's a large country and you need to decide how to spend your time. BA is a great city, but there's much more to Argentina if you want to wander. Buy a few Argentina travel books and search photos of specific areas on flickr. </p>

<p>Since your other travel lenses are primes, the 180 IF ED seems like a consistent choice. It's fabulous, just a little slow focussing for an AF lens. Very impressive contrast and sharpness, good bokeh.</p>

<p>If you're shooting at night I would go straight to full frame DSLR for the superior high ISO ability.</p>

<p>I assume you will want to shoot a variety of compositions, both wide enough for groups and full body compositions, and long enough for half body and tighter shots. <br>

A mid-zoom like the 17-55 would be great for weddings. The wide end for group shots and the long end for half body and tighter shots. The 24-70 is a great lens too, though its wide end is only 36mm equivalent in DX use, which is just barely wide. You might have trouble shooting a group at this focal length if you can't back up far enough. Additionally, the wide end of the 17-55 on DX can lend an interesting perspective to candids as you can get right in the middle of the action. You might also consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's a good lens for the money.<br>

A 70-200 or other similar zoom is best for half body and tighter shots. I wouldn't use it unless you also have a wider lens with you.</p>

<p>I'll chime in and suggest that, for candids of children, who are moving constantly, either 70-200VR is going to yield the most in-focus and successfully composed shots. I like my 105DC's image quality (DC glass is extremely flattering and bokeh is superior, regardless of DC settings) the most of my long lenses, but the 70-200VRII can "get" the shot with much more reliability due to its faster autofocus and the ability to recompose the frame by zooming in or out. The VRII also has its own pleasing look and smooth bokeh.<br>

I have a three and a half year old, and the 105DC is great if she is indoors, seated, or otherwise relatively fixed in one position. If we're outside, the 70-200VRII is easier to use - to get the shot. The 105DC (as other prime teles are) is a lighter, smaller, and less physical work, but the 70-200s are more flexible. However, depending on your strength and endurance, you may find that 70-200s are a little much for you. <br>

I use longer lenses for waist-up and tighter shots, and with a prime, if you fill the frame with a face and that face moves forward, you have to move backwards to maintain your composition. If you're on your knees or crouching, as you often will be when shooting kids, moving backwards can be awkward, slow, or even uncomfortable, depending on the condition of your knees. If you compose a similar shot in the middle range of a 70-200 lens, you have the ability to zoom in or out to cover this kind of subject move, without physically moving yourself (you don't have to get out of your crouch).<br>

Yes, I know you never want to change focal length instead of moving camera position to accommodate a composition (purists' view - choose focal length to produce a particular perspective), but in the real world you just want the shot. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Pogue is just a generalist tech reporter who tries to distill a product review into something a layperson (who is well-educated enough to ingest NY Times writing) can understand. I wouldn't waste your time reading his stuff if you're looking for high level photography coverage - I would look to photography-based media for information and test results/reviews on cameras. DPReview is a convenient and well-respected web-based entity you might explore. <br>

I'm not bashing Pogue; he covers a wide breadth of material and does a good job, but he is not a photography specialist and he's never going to go in-depth with his analyses to the degree that a dedicated photography reviewer would. </p>

 

<p>It's not a big deal. Don't lean over the camera body when changing lenses. Tilt the camera slightly downwards when changing lenses. Do a quick visual inspection of the sensor if you suspect dust may have landed on the sensor. Occasionally stop down and shoot the sky or a uniform light background and check for dust spots on images. <br>

A Rocket Blower does a great job of gently blowing off dust particles and built-in dust removal systems help as well. </p>

<p>Are you travelling with another person(s)? Is the trip oriented towards photography, or is it a family vacation or business trip?<br>

Unless you're going strictly for photographic enjoyment, I'd take the D90, 18-70, and the 35DX, and a back up/alternate camera like the Panasonic LX-3. I wish you had an ultra wide zoom like a 12-24mm or equivalent, but you can shoot a pano for stitching with the 18-70 or 35DX. Sticks (tripod) would be great, as long as you have room for them.<br>

 

<p>I always travel with a laptop, regardless of photography - I want web access for email and internet surfing, no matter where I go. Dump your images into the laptop at the end of every day. Try to maintain two copies of each image, either by filling up a memory card and the computer's drive, or buy a secondary storage device. Keep the two storage devices (card and computer, or card and portable drive, etc.) in two separate places, so that if one is lost or stolen, you'll still have the other device and its images. If you're truly paranoid, burn DVD's of your existing images every few days and mail them home. </p>

I don't know how much traveling and shooting you've done, but I find that there's a fine line between enjoying the vacation by taking justifiable, worthwhile pictures and ruining the trip and potentially memorable moments by taking too many pictures. Sometimes you need to enjoy the moment, rather than photographing it.

 

 

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've owned two 70-200mm f/2.8 VRIs, shot/tested two others, and now have a VRII. If you can live with the minimum focus distance "issue", the new lens, as Ken Rockwell said, (and he gets some things right, believe it or not), is "subtly better than the old one. " In fact, the VRII is an exceptional lens in IQ and rendering, and noticeably better than the first version after you spend some time shooting with it and editing your images. </p>

<p>I'm not even talking about the corner blur and vignetting issue of the first VR lens - which is definitely improved with the VRII. The resolution of the newer lens is higher along with increased contrast and saturation. The VRII comes closer to delivering the feeling that you can "reach into the picture" and touch the subject. I shoot with the D700; I'm sure on D3X the VRII is even more impressive.</p>

<p>At the lower price points, the Nikon CoolScan LS-50 V is the one to get. It's robustly constructed with strip and slide holders, and produces very good 4000dpi scans. You won't get a significantly better scan until you move up to a drum scanner might cost ten times as much.</p>

<p>Nikon DSLRs have traditionally had mediocre Auto white balance performance at lower Kelvin values. Do you have the latest firmware, version 1.02, installed? It's quite an improvement over previous versions, in terms of Auto white balance at lower Kelvin values such as the tungsten lighting you're using.<br>

As others have said, with any subject matter that's important, and if you're working fairly deliberately, why not shoot a manual white balance with a neutral target? <br>

How is the color response of your 24-70AFS when you manual white balance, both in tungsten and daylight Kelvin values? Lastly, are you getting a good auto white balance in daylight Kelvin from this lens?</p>

<p>Here's a way to blend the banded areas together, if needed:<br>

In Photoshop, create a New Layer from the background (original image). Select Gaussian Blur in the Filter menu, and set it to 25 pixels. Create a Layer Mask from this blurred layer by pressing the option key (Mac) and clicking on the mask button at the bottom of the Layers window. Select the Brush tool and use it to "paint" the banded areas in the sky to blend them together.<br>

You may need to vary the brush size to get best results, depending on how steep the banded transitions are. Merge Layers when you're done to get a finished image.</p>

<p>The 105VR is going to give you high contrast images compared to the 105DC. The DC was designed for human portraiture and its contrast response reflects this - medium contrast. Sure, a decent photog can make a beautiful portrait with a micro lens but the same image is likely to be prettier if made with a portrait lens. <br>

The DC also focusses faster than the 105VR and has the DC feature. DCs have "mojo", just like the 105mm f/2.5 AIS, and it's hard to explain until you shoot one. <br>

Either 70-200VR will be more versatile, on DX or FX. <br>

I own the 105DC and a 70-200VRII. Love them both.</p>

<p>Ask yourself this question:<br /> Would I rather choose a fixed focal length and have to physically move my body and the camera on an x,y, and z axis to accommodate the subject, or would I rather not have to worry so much about the z axis (distance to subject) and simply "get the shot", at the expense of having to live with a variable focal length perspective.<br /> There isn't a right or wrong answer here.<br /> I love shooting my 105DC lens; it makes gorgeous pictures and I like the discipline and craft of choosing a focal length ahead of time and forcing myself to compose shots that work for this given lens. I know that with this lens mounted I need to be within 5-7 feet from the subject to get a head and shoulders shot or tighter. <br /> I also like putting my 70-200mm VRII on my D700 and saying, OK, I'm going to shoot head to waist or tighter portraits, and I can zoom in or out to achieve either composition without having to back up or move forward as my subject moves around according to their whimsy (VRI vs. VRII debate put aside for the moment).<br /> If you have time, patience, and the ability to keep shooting until you get the desired comp in your viewfinder AND expression from your subject, a prime is a delight to use. If you need the shot ASAP and won't necessarily have another chance to get the image, a zoom is going to be more useful.<br /> I wouldn't worry too much about bokeh or other aesthetic differences between portrait primes and either the 70-200VRI or II. They all make very pretty pictures and the bokeh characteristics are all aesthetically pleasing. I'd think more about the day to day needs you have with your shooting and choose a zoom or prime based upon that and the physical differences associated with shooting a compact fast prime or a pro f/2.8 zoom.<br /> After owning the 105DC (still have it and love it) and owning two 70-200VRIs and currently a 70-200VRII, I'll say that the VRII is great for portraits and the Nano coat doesn't introduce too much contrast for portraiture. I'm not seeing any problems with my candids being unflattering due to too much contrast.<br /> 70-200VRII at f/2.8 and minimum focus distance:</p>

<p>http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4071/4296909741_c3c484120b_b.jpg</p>

<p>105DC at f/2.8, near minimum focus distance:</p>

<p>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2628/4241953962_83007088dc_b.jpg</p>

<p>AF vs. MF really depends on how/what you shoot. If your subject is not moving, MF isn't hard at all. If the subject is moving, your "keeper rate" won't be as high as with an AF lens, depending on your skill and light levels. As you use MF lenses more, you'll get better at manual focussing. </p>

<p>The M9 is small and compact, but it's a rangefinder, not an SLR. It would cost Nikon a lot of money to develop a Leica-ish small rangefinder FX camera since they're aren't any existing bodies and lying around from which to cannibalize. Sales projections would have to warrant the decision to build. In this economy that would be a bit of a gamble.<br>

I would be interested, though. I'd love to have an Olympus OM2n-sized camera with an FX sensor; an SLR form factor would be even better. <br>

It would be great with a couple of primes, say a 24mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.8, for light duty. </p>

<p>Sure you want one! The OM2n is a classic camera, one of the smallest SLR's ever made, and has a unique and very effective metering system. The designer of the camera, Mr. Mitani, has his own cult following as he was a master of miniaturization while maintaining operability and durability. OM2n's are attractive, a delight to handle and shoot with, and astoundingly compact, especially compared to modern DSLR's. Additionally, the viewfinder delivers a 100% coverage, life size image - fabulous. I keep my black, good condition but "user" OM2n up on a bookshelf in my living room, with a 50mm f/1.8 mounted, proudly displayed. My Nikon D700 lives in its Lowepro bag, ready to go at anytime, but not on display... </p>

<p>OK, I tried to edit my post after I checked the Red site but I timed out, so I'll post the same info here. Yes, Red does call their smaller sensor a 2/3" chip. But, it's not a 3 chip array 2/3" chip like full body broadcast video cameras use. It's an AP-C chip that has similar dimensions to a 2/3" chip, but like DLSRs, the Red sensor is a single chip that uses Bayer interpolation to produces a color image. Traditional broadcast video cameras have 3 2/3" sensors that receive red, green, and blue light from an optical beam splitter in the image path that breaks up light into three colors and delivers it to each respective sensor. Different sensors and different technologies. I guess Red calls their APS-C sensor a 2/3" chip to give traditional broadcast personnel an analogous term for comparison purposes to broadcast video cameras.</p>

<p>The Red sensors are still camera (DSLR) sensors. When you referred to 2/3, that means 2/3" (inch) chips, which was the standard broadcast sensor dimension for BetaCam, and is still used for many full body HD 3 chip (red, green, and blue) cameras like the Panasonic VariCam. 2/3" chip cameras don't offer the depth of field control that full frame 35mm DSLR sensors and 35mm film cameras produce. DSLRs and the Red camera use single chip sensors that utilize Bayer interpolation to render RGB color.<br>

I don't know why Red would use 3 2/3" video chips with a beam splitter as the Red concept is to offer close to full frame 35mm depth of field control in a high def and beyond video camera using a single DSLR-derived chip. The current Red camera uses the same or a very similar chip as the Nikon D300 (APS-C), according to the various reviews and other info I've digested. It's not a true full frame 35mm sensor size, it's 24.4.x 13.7 mm (essentially the same size as the D300 chip), so depth of field not as shallow as is attainable on 35mm motion picture film bodies, but better than 2/3" 3-chip cameras.</p>

<p>I would say the most important difference between the two cameras is depth of field control. If you're going to be shooting at f/8-11, there won't be a huge difference between the two. I do feel, however, that the D700 has a greater "density" to its images and I prefer its color rendition as well. The D700 images look more like film to me, and apparently to others, as well.<br>

I alway felt that my D300 oversaturated greens. My D700 seems to be more neutral. This is said after shooting about 5000 images with my D300 and 8000 images with my D700. <br>

If you want the lightest weight possible, shoot your film Nikons with primes. Use the lowest ISO film you can, buy a Nikon CoolScan V or better, and scan your stuff into the computer. It takes more time, but an FM2n with a 24mm f/2.8 still looks great shooting chromes or Portra.</p>

<p>I don't think it's a shutter issue - the D50 does not have a mechanical shutter, it has an "electronic" shutter which is really just the sensor "turning on and off". During exposure, the mirror flips up, the sensor gathers the image, and the mirror closes. That's why the D50 has a 1/500 sec flash sync; there is no mechanical shutter to slow things down. Your problem looks like a digital processing or storage error; even if the D50 had a mechanical shutter, an shutter issue would like like an optical phenomenon, not a digital one, as yours does.</p>

<p>The fact that two different cameras with different sensors are creating the same issue makes me think the problem MIGHT be somewhere in the workflow or with another piece of equipment. As others have posted, a post-processing preset for the cameras in question would probably deliver suitable prints. You could shoot test charts, do a calibration, and save that calibration as a preset in your editing program. Once completed, this addition to the workflow can be automated so that the addition to the workflow stream adds minimal time to the process.</p>

<p>If you're going to be shooting candid rather than posed portraits on a DX body, the Tamron 28-75 is a good all around choice as it will yield a 44-112mm equivalent focal length. If your subject is moving around, the Tamron's zooming ability will come in handy, and at 44-112mm, you've got an almost classic full body focal length wide end (44mm isn't too far from 35mm) all the way to headshot at the long end of the lens, around a 105mm equivalent . The Tamron also has beautiful bokeh, so you won't be giving up any visual aesthetics vs. the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. I've used the Tamron in just this manner on my old DX body and it did very well for me. I've found that Tamron lenses tend to have a slight yellow cast. It doesn't bother many folks but the colors aren't as accurate as Nikon's lenses. That being said, this image was shot with a 28-75 Tamron and I really like the skin tones:</p>

<p>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3016163626_7547e9cd87_b.jpg<br>

<a href=" title="Loved Little Person by SuperFriend, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3016163626_7547e9cd87_b.jpg" width="1024" height="732" alt="Loved Little Person" /></a><br>

<br /> I shoot full frame (D700) and use a 105mm f/2 DC and 180mm IF ED lenses as long portrait primes, so I'm not biased against this type of lens, but for moving kids I feel a zoom can deliver more usable results.</p>