michael_hahn

<p>I have both the D300 and the Fuji S5. I really like both cameras ... but the D300 is superior. Both take excellant photos and the tonal range is really good with both cameras. But, the D300 shines in megapixels. Nothing like being able to crop and not loose detail. Get the D300!<br>

Good luck.<br>

Michael.</p>

<p>Peter and Dieter have it right. Good deal if the seller has a good positive feedback rating.<br>

good luck,<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>Good luck. Spot meter ahead of time, and then stick with your reading in manual mode. Sure the light will be going down fast. You might concentrate on an image where the face is close to a lantern. Take lots of shots before the lift off, since most likely the exposures will suffer from some "blurred" movement, otherwise. Also, since you are shooting with a D700 I would have thought you could get away with ISO 1600 or ISO 3200! You might also underexpose by one stop to give you an advantage w/ the shutter speed.<br>

Good luck,<br>

Michael.</p>

<p>I think the answer is a slightly used D300 for less than 1,300. I bought mine on ebay a few months ago for 1,275 (body only). There are quite a few out there ... some "demo" models in that price range that come with a warranty.<br>

good luck,<br>

Michael.</p>

 

<p>I would also go with the Canon G10 or G11. On a trip like that, weight is important. Yes, your original body might break, but most likely not, and you are not a pro. Having a smaller take everywhere camera will help u catch alot more images on your trip.<br>

michael hahn</p>

<p>Sigma also has a nice 105 and a nice 150, but neither are VR.<br>

michael.</p>

<p>wow.makes me want to run out and purchase one. <br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>I would go with a used d40x, d50 or d60 off of ebay. get a fixed length lens ... like a sigma macro (nice lens, cheap).<br>

she will be happy and she can look forward to her first zoom!<br>

good luck,<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>My photography professor thought I was crazy putting a one hundred dollar filter over a 2,500 piece of glass. I on the other hand, thought it was crazy not to put an additional layer of protection over the 2,500 piece of glass! And, don't forget that each filter has its' own significant purpuse. I like UV filters! I hate haze. And always buy the best filter you can afford.<br>

good luck,<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>Good analysis. Any sample shots?<br>

michael.</p>

<p>Great, great series of photos.</p>

<p>michael.</p>

<p>If you use Photoshop, resize only 10 to 20 percent at a time. Keep resizing. You might have to resize 20 or 30 times, but much better output.<br>

Or consider Genuine Fractals which does a good job. The 50PPI idea is a great idea. Let us know how the end result comes out!<br>

Good luck,<br>

Michael.</p>

<p>Always keep the original and disk drives are so cheap, I also tend to save the smaller crops. That way I don't have to go through that "chore" again of cropping, sizing, etc.. And, for prints with a big Impact, you may want to consider A4 Paper (13 by 19 ) I believe. Most of today's digital cameras with at least 8 megapixels can re-size up to A4 size with really nice prints.<br>

Good luck,<br>

michael.</p>

<p>You all have given me some great suggestions. Thank you for the quick feedback.<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>Image after some post processing.<br>

Here is an example (without correction with the Fuji S5 Pro)<br>

Original date/time: 2008:12:31 21:25:04<br />Exposure time: 1/60<br />Shutter speed: 1/64.00<br />F-stop: 5.6<br />ISO speed: 200<br />Focal length: 23.0000<br />Focal length (35mm): 35<br />Flash: Fired<br />Exposure mode: Auto<br />White balance: Auto<br />Orientation: Top-left<br />Aperture: 5.0000<br />Light source: Unknown<br />Exposure bias: -0.3300<br />Metering mode: Pattern<br />White point: 0.3130,0.3290<br />Primary chromaticities: 0.6400,0.3300,0.2100,0.7100,0.1500,0.0600<br />Exposure program: Aperture priority<br />Brightness: -1.4100<br />Digitized date/time: 2008:12:31 21:25:04<br />Modified date/time: 2008:12:31 21:25:04<br />Copyright: <br />Scene type: Photograph<br />User comment: <br />Custom rendered: Normal<br />Scene capture type: Standard<br />Contrast: Normal<br />Saturation: Normal<br />Sharpness: Normal<br />Subject distance range: Unknown<br />GPS Tag Version: 02,02,00,00<br />Camera make: FUJIFILM<br />Camera model: FinePix S5Pro <br />X resolution: 300.0000<br />Y resolution: 300.0000<br />Resolution unit: Inches<br />Camera version: Digital Camera FinePix S5Pro Ver1.08<br />Colorspace: Uncalibrated<br />File source: DSC</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Good info. But Ramon, I don't understand your comment. It does not really matter if you underexpose in the camera or "manipulate" the flash and underexpose? My underexposures are usually 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop. I will try to upload an example.</p><div></div>

<p>Having grown up with Digital for the last 8 years, I tend to always underexpose my photos on purpose ... especially when using flash to keep from blowing out the highights. I now have a Nikon D200 and a Fuji S5 Pro and am expecting a D300 this week. Underexposing requires alot of post processing work to correct many images to the correct exposure. But the strategy does work in keep hightlights from being blown out. Am I just paranoid? Is the metering so good on the D300 (even with flash) that I can avoid purposely underexposing?<br>

Thanks, ... michael.</p>

 

<p>I also have a D200 and while it works well, I agree with your statements. I purchased a Fuji S5 Pro a few months ago and have not even picked up my D200 since! I think the S5 Pro has a much higher quality of image and comes so close to film/slides that it is really exciting to use the S5 Pro.<br>

good luck,<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>Only somebody who has never taken a photograph with a Contax would not include it on this list. I love the Contax AX, RTS II for simplicity, the Contax N1 for handling. All remarkable cameras.<br>

mrh.</p>

 

<p>I liked the camera when I leased it several years ago and wrote a review ....</p>

<p><a href="http://outbackcoyote.com/">http://outbackcoyote.com/</a><br>

you can click on the kodak professional dcs 14 n review.</p>

<p>good luck,</p>

<p>michael.</p>

 

<p>Amanda,<br>

I think everybody is being to hard on you. But, as Mr. Powell indicated, you asked a site w/ a bunch of pro photogrpahers how to get around hiring a pro. It sounds like you really don't spend that much money right now on the shoots, considering the number of cd's you receive. You make a good point about the hasseles involved in re-shooting ...<br>

Go to a pro camera shop in your area, take a large check book (probably 6K to 12 K) for the right equipment. Make the purchase. Then go to the computer store, and put out about 2K for a fast, powerful, computer. Don't forget the backup drives. Then put out another 1,500 for the right software.<br>

What you are doing is very doable ... but it will take time and money and especially time.<br>

good luck.<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>get the d90 and the mamiya kit ... good luck.</p>

<p>mrh.</p>

 

<p>I am curious. The images are great. But are the realistic. They look quite saturated, but lovely. Did the scences really look like the brige shot and the nice street scene above. I saw some lovely blue sky through my sunglasses. Wow. Brilliant. But, of course when I took off my glasses, the blue became rather dull. That is reality. Dull.<br>

Should we enhance reality or just record it?<br>

thanks,<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>If you are really just going to use available light ... leave all the lenses at home except for the 50 mm and the fish eye.<br>

Shoot at ISO 800, be prepared to underexpose some shots ... you might try a few at iso 1600 and be prepared to use some software to help get rid of the noise.<br>

You don't need the other lenses in a small party atmosphere. You can zoom by walking in and out. If your eyes are decent, manually focusing will be easy.<br>

Good luck,<br>

michael.</p>

 

<p>I would keep doing whatever you are doing with that Bridge Photo! Great shot.<br>

michael.</p>