andrew_luke2

I've shot my D70s with an SB-28 (+ pocketwizard) on the shadow side aimed at the pitcher at high school games to get the sync at around 1/500 to 1/1000 (if the PW allowed it...noisy areas prevented this sometimes) for better action-stopping... but I do have to shoot way open to get the extra reach of the flash and sometimes an ND filter was required on really bright days to prevent the overexposure from shooting f/4 and 1/500... the DOF can be a real hindrance though.

 

I always try to overexpose a third stop shooting film... actually i loved shooting velvia and pushing it that third to half stop.

honestly, the Elinchroms do not feel all that robust but I still intend to get several. I've used PWs before and they're not all that robust either. the hotshoe is the worst part of them being two separate halves as opposed to one cast piece. i see no issues using the Elinchroms at all.

 

plus that smaller size is a godsend. I hated the way the PWs stick 6" off the top of the camera.

I'd keep the 17-35. it performs better on the crop sensor than the 17-55 IMO and I still shoot film too. honestly, I'd never have even owned the 17-55 in the first place but if I had to choose, it'd be gone.

 

plus the 17-35 maintains it's value better as you can use it with any nikon SLR as opposed to the crop lens that can't work on the new pro bodies to the same degree. and i'm pretty sure nikon's not going back to crop anytime soon on the pro line.

with outdoor sports being the prime subject and at that, more individual shots instead of scenes...I'd say the D300. the crop will make your lenses act longer and the speed will be your friend.

cambags.com

 

maybe a rezo series lowepro? I have a 190 but i'm not sure it's deep enough for the 80-200...

Consistency is key sometimes. When I shoot with my F100 or hassy, I don't want mixed color tones on the film from frame to frame. Profoto holds up way better than alienbees at lower power levels. for some, it's not all about power and weight. even then, profoto's lights are not that much heavier than the bees. if you want to take them with, longevity should outweigh ease of carrying them...what good is it to carry a broken light because it fell over?

I despise the wein slaves. I've had nothing but trouble with them. from what I understand, the sync voltages of the nikon flashes are too low to effectively trip the slave. i'm not sure how that works, but that's what the response from wein was...I've seen vivitar flashes (that have a higher sync voltage) that they work flawlessly on but on sb-28s, they're a bust.

From what I understand, my 28-105D lens uses a hybrid aspherical element that involves plastic. I think that lens is very sharp for the price...it's not up there with the 28-70 or the primes, but for under $250, it's honestly my favorite lens.

As strange as this sounds, the absolute best thing you can do to project a more professional image is to add a grip. I've assisted at events (not weddings) before and people saw my 30D with the grip and assumed mine was a better camera even though the real pro had a 5D...the grip just made it too heavy for her to shoot all day with the L glass and 580ex on top.

 

Professionalism is all in perception. most will not know the difference between the D200, D300, or even a D50. I can almost guarantee though, if you go with a D80 and the grip, people will assume that's a better camera because the overall profile "looks like what pros use."

My 28-105 does macro pretty well at 105. it focuses just inches from the end of the barrel. Pretty damn sharp too.

 

The ability to focus closer is in the design of the focusing system. sometimes, different focal lengths (ususally the wider ones from what I've seen) can focus remarkably close for the ratio of the zoom. rarely does this approach the 1:2 ratio like some of nikon's zooms but a closer focusing distance is often designed into the lens as a "in case i need it" thing. a true macro photographer will usually pick up a dedicated prime but for a guy like me that rarely does it, a lens like the 28-105 works great for those once in a while shots.

a grid should do the trick next time and it'll be way smaller than a cereal box. I have two different ones I made out of black drinking straws that are different lengths for different angles. one of them gives a head and shoulders spot at about 12' and it's only about 3" long. granted it's a light leech but at full power I think I shoot about f/8 or something...I really can't remember at the moment.

I understand now that I screwed up by not testing first. I just wasn't sure if it was possible the lab botched on accident.

 

as far as 2 stops, the filter factor from hoya says 2.4. it's my understanding that that means 1.4 stops compensation. I may have that wrong too...I'm new to this balancing tungsten to daylight thing. I've mostly shot strobes and natural lighting in the past. I've honestly never used any filter except for UVs for protection.

you know I looked into this yesterday and found the factor for the filter is an extra 1.5 stops, not the 1.0 I was told at the counter (that's what I get for listening to a salesman).

 

I realize the exposure is in my control but the amount of time the film is left in the developer well change the exposure.

So I shot 4 rolls of fuji 800z the other day using 4 500w halogen lamps. I used

several different light setups with totally different positions and directions

of light (ie some with all 4 direct, some with umbrella, some bounced of

ceiling, etc). I also was using a hoya 80A filter to bring the colors back to

daylight and factored the extra stop in by metering at 400 with the sekonic.

 

I shot all manual as I always do with metering on my sekonic L-358 set on

incident. I double checked some of these with the on camera spot meter on my

f100 and they were within a fifth of a stop pretty much every time. all 4 rolls

I got back were underexposed identically about a full stop. no matter the

lighting conditions or room i was in, they were all the same. is there

something I missed about this? the meter is dead on in daylight as I shot

several rolls of 120 on my hasselblad a month ago and the exposure was perfect.

I'm kinda pissed because now I have to scan them and see if I can salvage many.

the model loved like half the shots and I've got nothing unless the one roll of

120 comes back ok.

 

they were processed at a lab using C-41 if that makes a difference. I'm

wondering if they didn't expose the film correctly.

I had one and used it one weekend. Took it back the next week and bought an 85 f/1.8.

 

It's sharp enough for most everyone not obsessed with resolution but it was too damn slow to focus. That and the image shifting in the viewfinder as it focused pissed me off.

I absolutely love my 35-350. It's not perfect (10x zoom - completely expected) but I love to use it at around f8 and get razor sharp shots. For motorsports, I have found no better lens (on a 1.6 crop). I can catch a wide enough shot to see several racers in a turn or zoom all the way in to single out one. I think selling this lens now to get an extra 50mm is a waste.

 

Now the 100-400 does take an extender but from my experience, the sharpness suffers a little. The 400 f/5.6 is a way better solution as with an extender it suffers little and would give you way better shots IMO.

 

It's really in what you need. I have a 35-350 and a set of primes I'm working on. I rarely need fast zooms because the low light stuff I shoot is too low light for even a 2.8 zoom at 3200. To me the 35-350 right now is not expendable. I love it for it's range that none of my primes have yet. I'll probably sell this once it's no longer servicable but until that day, It'll be in my bag.

rounder bokeh, much better at f/2.0, and the better auto and manual focusing all made me shell out the extra for the 1.4.

 

I just purchased a 35-350L as my all-around lens for good daylight (was planning on the 28-300 eventually but I got a real steal on this one) and intended to fill in with primes for low-light and portraits. with that purpose in mind, the 1.4 was miles ahead of the 1.8 for me.

 

now if you want it for everyday use and intend to use it a f/8 or f/16, the 1.8 will serve you nicely and you can get out lens, filter, and hood for less than half the cost of the 1.4. mine was almost $400 with the hood and a b+w filter on the 1.4

+1 on the 85 f/1.8. although the min distance can be troublesome sometimes in other situations. but for studio portraits, it's the first lens I reach for. the 50mm f/1.4 is usually my second as they both cover each end of the "staple" 85-135 range for a portrait...although, I've shot around with the 28-135 IS when I had it and I really seem to like the 35mm range as well with the crop

and here's the other sample

Ok, so i shot these to give some idea of how it's working. this wall was shot at approx 10' straight ahead with the center focusing point selected and focusing on the black edge between the stucco and the frame.

So I've always felt my 50 f/1.4 was a little softer than most examples I've seen

when used opened up. Today i believe I found out why. I shot a few coins

randomly laid out on my desk from a tripod using the 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and 85

f/1.8. every time I focused on the leading edge of a center quarter (nice and

contrasty) and every shot had the face of the coin (behind the edge) razor sharp

with the edge soft. Then I shot the face of the dime in front of it and sure

enough, the edge was sharp.

 

Still not completely satisfied I repeated it shooting newspaper taped to a wall

and shot from the side at a 45* angle. sure enough, everything just behind the

word i focused on was sharp.

 

so being out of warranty, I need service. anyone ever have this problem?

anyone know a ballpark cost/downtime? and last, should I wait until I pick up

my 24-70L and 70-200 28 IS later this year and just get them all calibrated

together? waiting is not so much an issue because I spend most of my time in

the f/11-16 range for my shooting lately and the images still come out fine.

I'd still like it dead on in case the instance comes up that I need to shoot a

concert or low light shot.

 

thanks

andrew

I've achieved the look now with a slight blue filter on the light (maybe a 1/4 at most) and shot the pic with a warmer white balance (usually selected in post). that way the background is a little more (usually about 3-4K) warmer than the model and foreground. the more golden bokeh adds to the look for me. take note that this only works with substantial spacing between the model and background. otherwise the light spill on the background ruins the effect.

I'd rec. against the 70-200. big and white screams steal me. Looking like a camera bag or not, as soon as that thing comes out, the secret's all over.

When I shot shows a while back, I used a 28 1.8 and a 85 1.8 on a pair of rebels and shot both wide open. I'd end up around 1/60 pushing 800 a stop.

 

sometimes a 2.8 zoom isn't an option. it's cool to be able to shoot 200mm at 1/15 and get a solid pic but concerts move...even at 1/125 now on a 50mm f/1.4 at 2.0 and 1600 I've had trouble at the punk shows I go to with motion blur.

 

a lot of times you get lucky at good venues and get good light for the first 3. I've gone to shows here in socal at the henry fonda, house of blues, and the Wiltern and have never seen a white zoom on a camera (granted none of these are major label stars). most use the 70-300 IS or I've seen many with the 24-105L. but when it comes to local shows...3200 and a 2.8 will not save you...I shot a few months ago at 3200, 1.8, and 1/40 with my 50 1.4. It can be rough.

I picked up a 12GB Extreme III a few weeks ago with this promotion they have. It ended up being half off.

 

The way I shoot is not reseting the file numbers. That gives me a rough idea how many shots have been taken on the card. As that number gets higher, I'll replace the card and use the new one for important stuff and mark this as a second for backup purposes.

 

If you think about it, the #1 cause of card failure is abuse...getting dropped, crushed in the bag (even just bumped around), and the like. If the card stays in my camera and never comes out unless I'm at home I believe it'll last longer than swapping cards 3, 4 times a day and having to store them.