dan_k6

<p>Do you buy the most memory at the highest speed you can afford or do you sometimes use just several 2 or 4GB cards because a 4GB card easily transfers to one DVD or the 2GB card is less risky than using a larger 8 or 16GB where you might lose more work should something go wrong?</p>

<p>I'm just curious because I like the 4GB card because you can just transfer it to a DVD.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. Thanks Les. I ended up buying the Lexar Platinum II but I bought the 4GB.</p>

<p>Is the counter just conservative or are you compromising the card and pictures if you go over the recommended number of remaining shots.</p>

<p>I am looking for more memory for an upcoming trip. My D200 with a 4GB card says I will get 450 shots. The most I ever shot in one stretch was 384 files on JPEG fine for 1.54 GB. This should mean that my counter is really conservative.</p>

<p>I don't feel like popping off this many shots right now for an experiment so can you give me an idea of how many shots I should really be getting with a 4GB card at JPEG fine. If it's considerably more than 450, I might not even need to buy more memory.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>To add to this, is the 8GB Lexar Platinum II 200x a good card? The 133x Lexar with WA takes forever to download via my PC's reader. I had to buy a Lexar reader and it solved the problem. I am happy with the download speed of the 133x with WA using the Lexar reader. Would the Lexar Platinum II 200x be a good choice?</p>

<p>I was reading through the boards here and someone said that the fastest write speed the D200 supports is only 80x. First off, is this true? And if it is, should I just buy the cheapest card available considering that? I currently use a 4GB Lexar 133x with WA. I see a similar one on eBay for $20, but I see an 8GB Lexar Platium II 200x on sale at B&H for just $5 more.</p>

<p>For this camera, what would be the best option for more memory?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm going on a foreign trip and I don't want to carry my big Tamrac bag. I want to take my D200, 80-200 2.8, 18-70, and my flash. Do you know of a bag off hand that would fit these dimensions perfectly. I prefer a backpack or a sling so I can have my hands free.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Hi John, I am interest in MF film.</p>

<p>I am intrigued by the quality of medium format photography. I just wanted to know if you knew of a book that would be the best choice for learning about the benefits of medium format over 35mm. I see a few on Amazon but I wanted to know which you would recommend.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell even says he likes out-of-this-world colors. When I set my D200 for saturated colors, the pictures look almost cartoon-like and unrealistic. Notice how Rockwell rarely shoots people pictures. He even says he did a friends wedding once and it was not his thing. And he still thinks the D40 with an 18-200 is the greatest combo out there.<br>

I don't like his camera settings but his site does have some worthwhile articles. Camera settings are a personal thing.</p>

<p>I've read all those books except the Light:Science and Magic. My experience is that they are all targeted at pure beginners and they offer even the most intermediate photographer nothing really new. You're best bet is just to ask a pro or a seasoned photographer your questions. I find this board much more valuable than a book. Most of those books are just a waste of money IMO.</p>

<p>I keep hearing how the pro's and serious amateurs rely on a lightmeter to nail their exposures. I'm the photographer for our Church. I shoot at our Church and 2 other affiliated Churches. I'm not a paid professional just a hobbyist.<br>

I have some serious equipment and I want to know if learning to use a lightmeter would help my work out.<br>

I shoot with a Nikon D200, 17-55, 80-200 2.8, SB-800, Quantum Turbo SC. I like to shoot TTL most times but now I want to get into shooting in Manual and Auto modes.<br>

I rarely use a tripod. Most of my work is walk around, then shoot. The shooting is fast and goes with the flow of the Church service or event. With this type of shooting, how do I incorporate a light meter like the Sekonic. Can you tell me how I have to incorporate the light meter into my shooting. I'm a newbie when it comes to the lightmeter. I just see portrait photographers in the studio using them with posed models. I'm not sure how to incorporate it into faster shooting sessions.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Do you feel that the StoFen omnibounce performs better than the dome that comes with the SB800? I was watching a video on shootsmarterTV and Will Crockett said that the SB800 dome doesn't really work well.</p>

<p>Is there any truth to this?</p>

<p>I had the B87 for a year. I used it strictly for portraits and event work. In the pictures they show a Nikon 70-200 with the 85 but Casey from RRS advised me to buy the 87 so that it gives you some room to get your hand in between the bracket and the zoom ring. The clearance of the 85 is actually much smaller than it looks. I eventually sold it when they offered the wedding pro bracket because it was easier to use. With the B series brackets, you either have to mount them to your lens collar or use one of RRS's rails. Changing lenses becomes quite cumbersome. The wedding bracket just mounts to your L-plate and makes things much easier.</p>

<p>The B brackets do have an advantage in that your flash flips and stays in the upright position. With the wedding bracket, your flash sits sideways and that's a problem if you use certain modifiers like the Lumiquest products.</p>

<p>For event and candid portrait work, I prefer the wedding bracket because it's less cumbersome.</p>

I have a D200, 80-200 2.8, 18-70DX, Quantum Turbo SC, SB-800, some wires, and I want to buy a 12-24 in the near

future.

 

Is there a bag that you know of that would be perfect for this gear? The thing is, I don't want any extra space.

I just want this stuff to fit in.

 

I thought of a Tenba Pro Traveler II 655 but I wanted to know if there was anything from Tamrac that would fit?

I had sold my 70-200VR last month because supply was low and demand was high. I

made about $100 on the lens. I then went ahead and purchased a gray market

80-200. I shot a Father's Day church service yesterday and I feel that the

80-200 was sharper wide open and I actually felt it was sharper overall even at

200mm.

 

Have any of you tested both lenses out and would you agree?

 

After shooting all day yesterday, I see how important VR is, If I was at

anything below 1/250th with the 80-200, I most certainly would have motion blur.

 

Surprisingly the AF on the 80-200 is not that much slower than the 70-200VR...at

least with a D200.

 

I should have bought this lens the first time around.

If two people were standing in 1 spot pointing at the same subject. One person

had an 80-200 and the other had a 180mm. Assuming both were at 180mm and person

#1 zoomed out to 80mm, how many steps back would the person with the 180mm have

to take to also be at the equivalent 80mm perspective?

 

 

I want to pick up the 180 2.8 for its sharpness and more importantly it's small

size. I do a lot of work in the Church where I am in the first few pews,

shooting the people on the stage. I want to make sure that when I am composing

that I don't have to move around with the 180mm too much. I had a 70-200VR

which I sold last month because it was too cumbersome to work with handheld for

hours at a time.

What I meant to say was to you think the size of the 180 2.8 aids in getting sharper pictures. The 70-200 @ 200mm felt wobbly in my hands. @ 200mm I needed to be at at least 1/250th for sharp pictures.

 

Do you think with the 180 2.8, I can get away with 1/60th at 180mm since it is lighter weight?

My 70-200 went on eBay last week and sold for $1700. I didn't use it as much as

some of you guys would and when I did...it was too large to take it out in the

streets and it was a pain to carry around.

 

I decided to drop down to the 180 2.8 for size and I hear that it is actually a

better performing lens.

 

Do you think you would get sharper images because the 180 2.8 is lighter and

easy to hold? I always wondered if my 70-200 images indoors could have been

better if the lens wasn't as large as it was. VR helps but a blurry photo is

always a blurry photo.

WOW!

 

Thanks for those responses. I guess I should pay more attention to the new D300. I just always assumed that Canon's were better indoors because I always see wedding photographers with them.

 

I will look into the D300.

 

Thanks again.

I thought about a D300 but it is more expensive. I was considering the 40D because I keep hearing that Canon's AF is better than Nikon's and Canon performs better at higher ISO's.

 

The D200 looks great at 100-200 and sometimes 400 but at 800 on you can easily see the grain and my larger prints don't look as good as I would like them too.

 

That's why I thought of the 40D. I don't have much invested in accessories or anything like that and the 17-55 and 70-200 will easily sell for what I paid for them. If I was going to lose a lot of money, I wouldn't be thinking about a switch.

 

Also is the 17-85IS a "walk around lens" I heard it was pretty sharp. I always planned on getting rid of my 17-55 because I never shot it wide open and a lot of people said that Nikon's 18-70 was pretty decent.

I have a D200 17-55 70-200 setup right now.

 

Most of my work is done in Churches and halls. I find that my D200 has slower

AF that tends to do a lot of hunting in low light and I'm not all that impressed

with my D200's ISO performance at 800 and above.

 

I was looking at the Canon EOS 40D with 17-85. I don't want to go into the

store yet because they will pressure me to buy the gear so I want to ask the

Canon users first what is it that I can expect with this upgrade?

 

In other words what do you feel are the strong points of the 40D over the D200

in my type of shooting.

 

Thanks

I just want to add that when I'm shooting indoors, I'm shooting with an SB800 powered by a Turbo SC. Most of the time the lens is at F4 or smaller because when I am shooting a congregation, I like to get the rows of people in focus.

 

Does the use of a power pack have any affect on my decision?

I can't find this lens on B&H's website anymore, has it been officially

discontinued?

 

If it has been discontinued, do you think this lens will be popular on the used

market?

Thanks for the responses. I like the 17-55. It's a great lens but I don't like $1200 lying around when I am not using it to make money. I'm sure there will be a compromise bringing the 18-55 indoors with AF. But outside on a sunny day, I don't think I would see a difference. From what I understand the 18-55 focuses closer too.