kevin_swan1

I use it for presenting my portfolio to clients. I hand it to them and let them flip through the album at our first meeting,

while I ask them about their wedding. So far, the reaction has been great! I never actually bring it to the wedding itself,

as I'm paranoid it might get stolen at the reception.

<p>I'm a loyal Asukabook customer. My clients are always really impressed with the polish of the finished product.</p>

<p>Is the Nikon D300 really so antiquated that it doesn't even make the list as credible equipment anymore? :) I picked the D300s, since it's the closest.</p>

<p>Interesting survey. Seems a little Canon-centric though. Was missing the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (my workhouse lens), SB-800 (it's not *that* old yet), and the 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye.</p>

<p>I like the text font and content, but I have a couple comments about the overall design.</p>

<p>First of all, I wouldn't waste the money paying for the images on the back of the card. Dual-sided printing is going to be more expensive than single-sided anyway, and to do it in full colour instead of simple black-and-white is more expensive still. Business cards are tiny, and I don't think showing your photos on such a small medium will have any impact at all - particularly if you're cramming *3* of them on the back of a single business card!</p>

<p>Along the same lines, the image on the front of your card should be changed I think. Currently, it's just a close-up shot of a dress. The card is too small to really showcase the detail, and the subject is too abstract to have any real impact, or demonstrate your artistic talent or professional proficiency.</p>

<p>I'd pick a nice, formal or candid portrait for the image on the front of your card, and just leave the back blank.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents!</p>

<p>Wow, I wasn't expecting this to ignite such a lively discussion!</p>

<p>Just to expand a bit on the reasoning behind my desire - I currently have a D300 and I love it. However, I want to upgrade to a full-frame body. In addition, I'm very intrigued by the groundbreaking advances that DSLR's have brought to amateur film making. The hollywood-esque shallow depth of fields, the ability to use all kinds of exotic lenses in a *video* context (fisheye, macro, tilt/shift) is very appealing to me, even if it's not very practical. I'd just like to have a camera with which I can play with that sort of stuff, sort of dip my toes in the amateur film making world, you know what I mean?</p>

<p>My D300 is aging, and is due for a replacement. I just don't want to "settle" for a D90 or a D700, right before Nikon comes out with a worthy competitor to the 5D.</p>

<p>My frustration is that the 5D has been king of the "full-frame, 1080p, 24 fps" hill for several years now, and Nikon hasn't fielded any competition at all. They've come out with new models that do video, but it's been more of the same - 720p, crop frame, lacking 24 fps. Why bother even releasing a camera like that? Are they even TRYING to compete, or are they completely ceding the amateur film making domain to Canon?</p>

<p>Of course, not literally.</p>

<p>I want to replace my D300 with a Nikon that does video, but I don't want to be a sucker and buy a DX sensor body (D300s, D90, D5000, D7000), or even an FX sensor that doesn't do full 1080p (D3s), right before Nikon finally comes out with its answer to the Canon 5D (full-frame, 1080p HD video).</p>

<p>Why is Nikon so slow coming out with a full-frame DSLR that does full 1080p HD video? Is anyone else keeping their wallet in their pocket until Nikon catches up to Canon?</p>

<p>I was particularly pleased with how this one turned out.</p><div></div>

<p>While blowing the highlights is definitely deliberate on the part of some popular contemporary photographers, I think this is also related to the growing popularity of digital publishing. Specifically, highlights that look blown on a computer monitor may actually retain some detail when printed on pro-level printers. Physical print media has a broader dynamic range than modern display monitors.</p>

<p>That said, some photographers definitely deliberately blow the highlights as a stylistic decision. I'm not making a value judgement on that decision, but some clients do gravitate towards that "look".</p>

<p>This is a great photo, perfectly captured. You have great reflexes, and I wouldn't change anything about the photo itself. My only complaint would be the grungy border. I think it's a little trendy, and in a few years is going to be as dated as selective colouring is today. If it weren't for the gimmicky border, this photo would be perfect, in my opinion.</p>

<p>That said, all that really matters is that the couple likes it. :)</p>

<p>I'm a wedding photographer, and I use identical bodies. I shoot weddings with a pair of D300's. I consider them interchangeable - I swap lenses on each of them, and honestly I don't even keep track of which one was my "primary" and which was my "secondary." I just use them both however is needed to get the job done.<br>

I always start out with my 17-55 f/2.8 on one body, and my 70-200 f/2.8 on the other, but by the end of the day, after swapping in my 55mm macro, the 10.5 fisheye, and my 50 f/1.4 prime for low-light reception shots, I don't know which one was originally paired with which lens. And I like it that way. Having 2 identical bodies makes it seamless to swap lenses/flashes as needed, during the event.</p>

<p>If you remove the "Wildlife" requirement, I'd recommend a used Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. I find this lens performs flawlessly for portraiture, landscapes, and street photography. It's tack-sharp and built like a tank. I guarantee you'll fall in love with it. You should be able to find a used one for close to your budget requirement.</p>

<p>As others have mentioned, the "Wildlife" requirement is a whole separate category, and you could spend your entire budget and only end up with a mediocre "wildlife" lens that doesn't do any of the other categories well at all.</p>

<p>A CD-ROM only holds about 700 MB of data. My full-resolution JPGs can be anywhere from 3MB to 9MB each, so worst case scenario, a CD would only hold less than 100 photos. Since my all-day coverage typically generates between 300 and 350 photos, I only deliver photos on DVD-ROM.</p>

<p>Just off the top of my head, to get the "blurrier" foreground and background, you should:</p>

<p>- User a wider aperture (f/4 is actually not that wide, it's a standard kit lens aperture)<br>

- Get closer to your focal point (shorter focal distances result in shallower depth of fields)<br>

- Use a longer focal length (longer focal lengths also result in shallower depth of field)</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>If your concern is "seasonal" photographic work, you should know that weddings are seasonal, too. :)</p>

<p>Your equipment is inadequate for weddings. For starters, you should have a professional body, rather than a simple low-end Rebel. Also, you should have a backup body that is equally able to handle pro-work. Finally, your mid-to-wide lens (the 18-55 kit lens) is too slow for professional work. You need a constant 2.8 aperture wide zoom lens. Also, I have a concern that the 430 EX flash is not powerful enough for the extended use required at a dim reception (a 580 would be preferable).</p>

<p>To answer your main question, I "broke" into wedding photography by contacting a local pro, and apprenticing with him for a season, free of charge. That gave me the experience I needed to branch out on my own. However, you need the proper equipment first.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>The thing is, DSLR video is very attractive because it enables the high production-value "look" of far more expensive video productions, at a fraction of the price. The reason is due to the relative enormity of a DSLR imaging sensor, compared to the sensor size of video-capable compact point-and-shoots (or even dedicated consumer-level camcorders, for that matter). Also, the availability of wide-aperture lenses (again, compared to conventional camcorders) enables dramatically superior low-light video, and that coveted super-shallow depth of field that suggests a far higher production value than is justified.</p>

<p>The drawback, as others have noted, is the focusing. I'm sure DSLR manufacturers are working on it, but in the meantime, your best bet is to get comfortable manually-focusing on the fly. This is actually how pros do it all the time - they're just much better at it than we are. The problem isn't that DLSR video is too primitive to use, it's that it's too ADVANCED. It behaves more like a pro-video setup than an amateur one, and that throws amateurs for a loop. With practice, you can get far better video from a DSLR than from a little point and shoot (or a camcorder), but it takes a lot more effort.</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>You're right, I noticed something "off" about the formal photos, too. The outer edges of the photos almost look like they'd been shot with a LensBaby or something. In full sunlight like that, there should have been more than ample light for a deep depth of field, while keeping a very fast shutter speed. I'm also suspicious of some sort of equipment malfunction.</p>

<p>Richard, those photos really are pretty bad, I'm very sorry for the situation you find yourself in. Good luck with your case, it looks pretty open-and-shut to me.</p>

<p>David/Douglas,</p>

<p>Regarding the metering mode when shooting in manual, of course the metering mode still influences the exposure evaluation in the analog display (the camera telling you whether or not the shot will be under/over exposed) - I simply meant that the camera does not <strong>act </strong> on its evaluation, as your actual exposure is locked in by your manual settings.</p>

<p>I think you're right, the meter was clearly fooled by the white fabric, and maybe even a bit of the daylight coming in through the windows in the back.</p>

<p>I agree with Steve, this looks like a situation where I would've gone to manual mode and opened up my aperture a bit. I'd probably have been at f/2.8, 1/60, ISO400, with flash set to TTL. That would've let in much more ambient light, while still being fast enough to freeze action, especially with the extra "pop" from the flash. In even darker situations, I'll sometimes have my camera on my tripod, but with only one leg extended, so it acts like a monopod.</p>

<p>Regarding your metering question, I only ever use Matrix metering mode. Obviously, when I'm in manual mode, the metering mode is moot.</p>

<p>The biggest gap I see in your arsenal is the lack of fast, wide-angle coverage. Both your cameras are DX bodies, which means your 28-70 acts like a 42-105. The 18-200 isn't fast enough for paid work. So my first recommendation would be to pick up a used 17-55 f/2.8. That'll run you around $1,200.</p>

<p>That leaves you $1,300 to work with. Let's say you sell the D80 with the 18-200 for $800. You should be able to easily find a used D300 (no need for the 's') for less than $2,100, with some change left over for your UV filters and a few other goodies. I think your lighting is adequate.</p>

<p>Then you'd have 2 "pro-am" bodies, one with the improved ISO performance you seek, plus the fast/wide coverage essential for good wedding photography.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>I agree with the others, my main comment is that your webpage is too much text and not enough photography. I think you should simplify, and really hit your visitors with a couple of your best, eye-popping photos right off the top, to get them interested.</p>

<p>I own the 70-200, and it's a fantastic lens, but to be honest, I could shoot weddings without it no problem. It comes out for some candid, creative couple shots, but the rest of the time, I rely heavily on my 17-55. I think you'd be fine without it.</p>

<p>Shot along the famous Rideau Canal in Ottawa, Canada.</p><div></div>

<p>OK, this is weird - I set everything up again tonight to try some of your suggestions, and it worked. The exact same configuration I had when I was first having the problem, only now it works. I'll keep an eye on this and see if I ever encounter the problem again. Thanks for your input guys,</p>

<p>Kevin.</p>

<p>I'm not going to comment on the other preparations you should be making, but I agree with what the other posters have said.</p>

<p>I'll simply say that like you, I shoot with a pair of D300's (that's plural, not the 's' models), and the 17-55 is my workhorse lens. I have the other "staples" (50 f/1.4, and the 70-200 f/2.8), but I'd say at least 80% of my photos are taken with the 17-55. It's a fantastic lens on that body, and you should definitely get it.</p>

<p>Forget about the off-camera flash stuff, but I'd recommend a sturdy tripod for the formals, and possibly some shots at the reception.</p>

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>I have both flashes set to Manual, and the camera also set to Manual exposure. I set the aperture to 2.8 and set the shutter speed to around 1/10th (I was testing this indoors tonight).</p>

<p>Erwin,</p>

<p>I believe the Pocket Wizards are fine. They're brand-new, and when I press the "Test" button, the remote flash fires fine. Also, if I turn on the flash in the hotshoe, the remote flash triggers fine. It is only when I turn *off* the flash in the hotshoe that the remote flash refuses to fire. Like I said, it's behaving like if the camera doesn't detect an active flash in the hotshoe, then it's not sending the "Flash" trigger through the PC port (where the Pocket Wizard would relay it to the remote Pocket Wizard and flash).</p>