elyone

<p>I am being asked to shoot a personnel visit of a family from USA to a different country. It should be about 2 hours of work, certainly no more, shooting their small, about 15 person, event. No formals or setting up of a portable studio.<br>

I do not know what is a going rate per hour, what they would expect, or would think is fair.<br>

I was thinking about $400, which is about what I would charge for such an event for locals.<br>

I have about an hour travel time each way, with probably an hour to two of post production. I will be giving them the disk with the final images, so I will not be worrying about albums and such like.<br>

<br />Is this acceptable to a USA family?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Is there any option of true binning in the super high MP cameras?<br>

I'll explain. I use in my work (microscopy) low resolution, extremity high sensitivity, cameras. They have a pixel size of about 6x6u (microns) or even 13x13u. So they can literally see 10s of photons and still get a signal. <br>

Now, to gain even higher sensitivity, at the cost of resolution, we can "bin". This means, we can combine pixels to act as a single pixel. <br>

For example, if my native res is 600x400, and I bin at 2x2, I have an actual resolution of 300x200, but now, I have 4 pixels gathering light and feeding into a single point.<br>

<br />I was wondering if any Nikon cameras can do that. As far as I understand, increasing ISO, does not, of course, increase the size of a pixel (unlike in the old film, where you get a physically larger grain), rather higher ISO increases the voltage to multiply the signal from less photons, hence noise, because you are using the electronic conversion process itself to create a stronger signal. <br>

However, in a 24MP camera, I would like to be able to set it at say 12MP, so although I will get lower resolution, I now have much larger pixels and hence better light sensitivity. So I do not need to use a higher ISO, larger apurture or slower speed, to gain better sensitivity/ exposure. </p>

<p>Thanks Thomas. I do like the 50mm on my Dx. I read up seriously on the Sigma 1.4, and was not sure how much more it would give me than the cheaper Nikon 1.8. But I can put it back on the table.<br>

Wouter, I would love an 85mm, and have dreamed about the cream machine for oh, a good 15 years now, and seriously thought about it too, but it's just too long. I agree the 50mm is a bit short, but better crop something, then not get it all in. "...not kind enough on facial features" <<br>

<br />Shen, that is indeed why I am probably not going to upgrade the camera at the end.<br />However, no one, ever, really needs to upgrade any camera that up until that point, was giving satisfactory results. And you can't know that what you are getting can be better, until you try it. (Most of us don't get to try better stuff until we buy it.) That said, I am sure you would agree that upgrading from a D70, for example, would be a great idea for anyone, if he can afford it. Even though it still produces satisfactory images. (Most, even with 24MP, don't print bigger than 8x10). I am sure you can still get great shots from a N90 too. And from there, it's a matter of degree, to paraphrase Churchill's rejoinder. It's a matter of what you can do better and easier with a better tool. </p>

<p>And objectively, I do want better video+stereo, better AF, dual cards etc Higher rez is a bonus. There is no question that I want and can use the 7100 and probably get better results. It's just a matter of <em>how much</em> it will actually improve what I do, relative to the price and my current lens's.<br>

And that's why I asked I my original question re my lens's. I.e. I wanted another parameter to think about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I'd start with one step back first: which problem are you trying to solve? In which ways does your current gear hold you back? Maybe the D7100 fixes it, maybe not. Spending $1200 to still encounter the same issues is not a great way to spend money, after all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that's it, I have no real problem, which is why I am backing off upgrading. In other words, I don't absolutely need a new camera, the D90 works, but there comes a time when it's just time. While it's 90% the photog, it IS 10% the tool...<br />I think I might try to wait for the 7200 or whatever is in the pipeline.</p>

<p>Regarding portrait lens (on the DX), here I do feel I want to go a bit better. That's why I was thinking about all the different 50mm and 85mm versions. I honestly did not consider the 1.8G, simply because I did not see it as an upgrade from the 1.8D. I am rethinking this. Not too expensive, and that's 2 people already recommending it.</p>

<p>Re the AF on my D90, nothing I can put my finger on, it's just a feeling I have been missing shots recently. I can't say it's the camera. Maybe it's getting tired of me hehe. Re AF on video, I never depend on the live AF anyway, I always frame, focus then go Live and start. Video is for me, one of the main HUGE improvements over the D90. That and dual cards. Love the idea of dual cards.</p>

 

<p>I am in a quandary via-a-vis upgrading to the 7100 from my excellent D90. Or go for a lens.</p>

<p>Here is my thought process:<br>

1. I am feeling that my D90 is dated. Video stinks. Missing AF more than I used to. However, it still takes fantastic shots.<br>

2. Ah, but I other than occasional portrait sessions and and small events, I don't really make money.<br>

3. So then I thought of the "other option" - "forget the camera and get a lens". So then I went crazy deciding between the 50 1.4's (Sigma vs. Nikon discussion etc etc). I discounted the (Sigma) 85mm, because on the DX, they are a bit long and I do have an 80-200 if I need that focal length.<br />However, I DO have the good old 50mm 1.8D. As cheap as it is, works great on my camera. So then I decided: forget it, would love the 1.4 but the 1.8 really does give me great shots. And the AF seems to work well with it, so AFS might not improve anything.<br>

4. OK so back to camera; read Shuns review, and it really would be an upgrade. However, no use getting the 7100, which Shun says, is<strong> highly demanding of lens's</strong>, if my lens's are not up to par.<br>

So: I need advice as to whether my lens's are good enough for this camera. If not, I might just forget about getting anything now. Any other ideas for lens are welcome. Maybe I did not think of it. The 30mm I am not interested in. My budget is max $1200.</p>

<p>Nikkors unless stated otherwise:<br>

1. 50mm 1.8D (use for portraits)<br>

2. 17-55 (events)<br>

3. 80-200 AF-D (2 ring version)<br>

4. Tokina 12-24<br>

5. 18-200 (first version to come out. My walkabout.)</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I too am going to wait for the D8000 or whatever they will call it :)</p>

<p>I waitin' for da D8000 ;)</p>

<p>I got the Markins Q3 Emile (their smallest ball) and it holds my D90 + 80-200 perfectly. It's pretty light too. Many might say I need a bigger ball head, but I have found it to be fantastic. Bigger is also heavier, and I backpack too. I moved from the manffroto RC2 system and I am happy I did. Like they say, buy good once.</p>

<p>You might also want to look into the Feisol range of tripods. Carbon fiber. I have had mine for about a year and still love it.</p>

<p>Just a note about GIMP. GIMP is a full fledged image editing program, similar to Photoshop in it's power. There is a steep lerning curve, so plan to spend a few days reading etc. On the bright side, it's free and is being continuoulsy developed.<br>

Picassa, is a much simpler, more basic photo editing program, and is more intuitive for photographers.<br>

Good luck</p>

<p>I shoot the occasional britot and bar/bat-mitzva, and I use the 80-200 for instance, for the all important speeches. Instead of getting up there right in front, I stand a bit the to side and back, or in the middle, but also back, and shoot away. Also for candids. And it's such a great lens. And because you use flash at these events, you don't need the VR. I use it for maybe 10% of the shots, but those 10% are all "must need to get" shots.</p>

<p>You really do need the 17-55 2.8. Before I got it I read a zillion times that for events with a DX it's the lens to get. And I too join the flock and say it's worth the cash - you can find them used for 8-900. Try the buy sell forums on site N. I use it for almost everything. Keep the 18-200 for backup. And get a small side bag to hold the 80-200 while moving around. It's a great combo. I do hate the lack of the 55-120 range though, so sometimes I need to be fast on my feet, but I have a 50mm 1.8 for the critical portraits (FX lens that give me 75mm on my D90).</p>

<p>Great, now I need to eat my words that one does not need to upgrade cameras often lol.</p>

<p>I will indeed stick with my D90, but reserve the right to be jealous of anyone with a D7000! Ill wait for the D8000 to come out in 2-3 years! :)</p>

<p>1. You do not see the focus change through the viewfinder of your camera, unless you push a button (if your camera has it) called "Depth of Field Preview". Then you can see the affect of the aperture change.</p>

<p>2. Whatever you are actually focused on will (or should) always be sharp, does not matter what aperture or focal length.</p>

<p>3. When you use a bigger opening (larger aperture - smaller number on the dial) the total depth of field (i.e. how much of the subject in front and further back of the actual point of focus will still be in focus), will get smaller.</p>

<p>4. Of course, all of this is an <strong>effect </strong>(albeit an important one in photography) of the size of the aperture, not the purpose. The purpose of the variable aperture is to determine how much light hits the sensor! This has to do with exposure! Every lens has a maximum amount of light that can go through the lens at once (thus "brighter" or "faster" lens). The aperture that we can close on a lens can make this amount smaller, to alter the exposure. This, however, affects the DoF! And around we go.</p>

<p>What I am about to say is obvious to long term shutterbus, but with the many recent posts about upgrading cameras and the "worry" about all the new cameras that are/might be coming out, I thoguht I would state the obvious anyway.</p>

<p>I have been shooting since about 1992, and as many who just start out, I got as good a camera as I could afford, and then realized I need lens's. So I got a Tamron and Tokina, a Sigma and a Promaster, and read all about the great Nikkor 80-200 and figured "big deal"; I have a good camera and a bunch of lens's. (What IS the darn plural of lens??)</p>

<p>When digital came out I knew I would change my outlook and start from scratch. I got a decent camera (D70 and later D90 - I then IR converted my D70, after skipping the D80) and slowly started to get good NIKON lens's.</p>

<p>I cannot be happier. True, there is always the want to upgrade lens's too. I have an 80-200 and would love the 70-200, but I also know that the 80-200 is as good as they come. It's my favorite lens. I got some other Nikons over the years, and I am comfortable in the knowledge that even if a D90s or D95 comes out, I don't care! I don't have that "Oh no, I need a better camera" feeling. I simply look at my stable of good quality lens's and am Happy!</p>

<p>I am not saying anything new here, nothing that has not been said 2k times, but sometimes it just needs to be said yet again.</p>

<p>If your camera works, keep it. Get another lens. Or save up for one. Skip the next generation of camera. No one (OK, OK, hardly anyone, to you diehards ;), is using an F4 anymore, but I bet they are all using the lens's they got when they got the F4 or the N90. Get stuff that will last 10 or 20 years. As soon as a digital camera comes out, its already old.</p>

<p>Just some food for thought.</p>

<p>there is the Nikonian "Mastering the Nikon D90"<br>

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=150&topic_id=233798&mesg_id=233798&page=</p>

<p>best compromise: get one 900 to use as master / main on camera flash, and a few 800's if you can. I too was able to get a few before the supply dried up.</p>

<p>I simply removed the rubbery backing off my old N70. I rubbed it off down to the plastic, then it was great,</p>

<p>Once it did not let me put in two exclamation points!! (lets see now)</p>

<p>Like Matt said, (I think he meant that) if the SB800 was not used too heavily, I would prefer the SB800.<br>

If the Sb800 is coming from a pro, I would examine it closely and ask him how much it has been used. At the end, it's a gut feeling kind of thing, the old 'you know it, when you see it' kind of thing.</p>

<p>I would look for a used Nikon D40. It will also take whatever old Nikon (even Pre-Ai) you have. (The D40-60-5000 will not AF with the 50 1.8 lens, FYI)<br>

Start with the kit lens, and shoot for awile. Read. A lot.</p>

<p>I would (as I tend to do a lot) like to give a more heretical opinion. From your lens choice, it seems you enjoy a lot of wide angle photography. For wide angle, a solid tripod is less important. Not NOT important, just less so.<br>

How much do you actually USE that Sigma 300mm zoom? If not a lot, I would concentrate on learning good grip techniques (like the kind of grip Joe Mcnally teaches in his Diary's and probably other books) and don't worry too much about a tripod. For landscapes, even your cheap tripod will let you level the camera and allow a series of shots for a panorama.<br>

I say all this, because once you DO get into tripod land, you will not be happy until you DO spend the $300-600 on CF ones. Getting the cheaper manfrotto ones is indeed a way of getting great value (good quality for cheap) but they are heavyish. What use is a tripod, if left at home? OK all, back to the usual advice.</p>

<p>Cool thanks. Yes, they do indeed fit inside the various hoods and have adaptor rings. I just was unable to fit those on anything else! Now I know why. I seem to have underestimated how long he had been shooting.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I received a bunch of old stuff from a deceased amateur photographer, who shot for over 50 years. From a 1946 Contax through various Minolta gear spanning from ~1965 to 1995. Most of it I sold on ebay (did not make much except on the Contax camera - I saw it mostly as getting the stuff to where it might be used), but I got one bag of filters left, that did not match any of the lens, to any of the cameras. I am thinking it was to something that he no longer had.<br>

I am just curious to what they belonged to before I get rid of them. Please see pic.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Ilkka meant of course that the lower D's have <strong>pentamirrors, </strong> while the D80-90 and up have pentaprisms.</p>

<p>I owna D70 as backup to my D90 and use the D70 as a walkaround with the 18-200, (my 90 has a grip I am too lazy to remove each time) and each time I go back to the 90, I say 'Cool! Now I can see again'.</p>

<p>I cannot do that here. I did not show the rest of the image, but what I was adding is good and cannot be changed nor adjusted. I am combining two images that I never intended to combine.<br>

I just want to make that sharp line gradual or gradiented localy, so that it's less noticeable to the eye. The mess you see on the right half was my atempt to do it. not good.</p>

<p>I am merging two images but I cannot nicely smooth the line, please see pic.<br>

I got each part in a different layer. (here flattened for posting)<br>

Not sure what photoshop tool to use for this.<br>

Thanks</p>

<div></div>