eric_arnold

<p>the E-500 was actually a pretty good camera; my ex-gf had one. good build quality, produced decent 8mp files. But the d90 has higher resolution, strictly in a megapixel sense. the Oly looks different than the d90 because it has a CCD sensor, whereas the d90's is CMOS. while CCD sensors arguably had better IQ than CMOS, they are more limited at high-ISO -- especially considering the smaller sensor size of a 4/3 camera -- which is why they are no longer in use. the E-500 produced weird colors at high ISO.</p> <p>(as an aside, i have to say i considered swooping on the e-500 two-lens kit when they were about $500 new. now you can get them used for about $300, and some of the better 4/3 lenses are now affordable used. so if budget is an absolute priority and you like the e-500 files, you could replace your unusable cameras for not much coin. for studio work at base ISO, the e-500 could still produce usable files, although 8mp is far below today's standards.)</p> <p>in any event, you say you never had a backup camera, then you say the d90 is your backup currently. that's confusing and seemingly contradictory. if the d90 is your backup camera, what's your main camera? or are you looking for a main camera for which the d90 will be your backup? if it's the latter as Andrew surmises, a d3300 will be a step backwards in many ways from a d90, except for the much larger resolution, of course. a d7000 would be a much better choice, especially because it has a focus motor to drive screw-drive lenses. and since the d7000 is built on the d90 platform, the control layout and UI will be similar and not nearly as frustrating if you are switching back and forth between two bodies.</p>

<p>that's just stage lighting. that shot is SOOC, so not attributable to software.</p>

<p>with that budget, you can forget doing weddings for now. also, the only thing a d3300 has going for it over a d90 is resolution and maybe better video. they both have primitive AF, but the d90 has an internal focus motor which means you can use screwdrive lenses on it, like the original tamron 17-50 and many nikon AF-D lenses. the d3300 is less suited for professional use than the d90, which also has two control dials. both would be okay for studio use, but i'm not sure why you say the E-500 was a better camera. it had less resolution and was far worse at high-ISO. also kind of misleading to say it had two card slots, since one was for xD cards, which Olympus doesnt even use anymore. </p> <p>in your situation, i would try to find an extra $100 and jump on the d7000+ tamron 17-50 "kit." that would be far better than a d3300 with kit lens and makes more sense as a long-term option. the bottom line however is that you just can't cheap it out on equipment and also expect to do everything you want right away.</p> <p>but here's a thought: if your E-500 set up worked so great for weddings, why not continue to use that and do portrait sessions until you can save up enough to invest in a good, recent, DSLR system? all you really need to make money off photography is a website and business cards if you already have a home studio. i realize 4/3 is an obsolete system, but some of the lenses for it were optically-excellent and can be found used for good prices.</p>

<p>as far as stage lighting goes, you have to work with what you're given. sometimes this means extreme shadows and hotspots in the same frame. so, it's a balancing act to get your settings right and you find yourself constantly adjusting.</p><div></div>

<p>have to say that static/seated shots of musicians doing uninteresting things aren't what works best in concert photography. and while jeff has perfected his flash technique, the recharge rate on most OEM flashes can be limiting, since you've essentially got one chance at a shot. sometimes you need to shoot a sequence, especially with very active artists who move around a lot, which gives you more chances to nail "the" shot.</p> <p>i actually really like shooting in available light at venues, and prefer jeff's shot above to his one of the singer in red for its moody atmosphere, but in order to do that well and consistently, you do need specialized equipment -- a camera with a fast frame rate and hi-ISO capabilities and fast lenses. </p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p> Let the shutter speed drop and pick moments.</p> </blockquote> <p>i wouldn't rely on this advice. the moments you pick may be full of motion blur and unsharp photos. 1/80 is really only good for static shots, which can be boring, unless you're using flash as Jeff's example shows. a 1.8 or 1.4 lens really means shooting at f/2-2.2, but regardless, you need a faster shutter in available light. i used to use a d300 and would get constantly frustrated in low-light club shooting scenes. generally i never went above 2500 ISO with that. with a d7000, i'd be hesitant to go above 3200. if you need a higher ISO, full-frame is really the way to go. btw, with my D3s, i continually get cleaner shots than other photogs using DX cameras at the same venue. but if you dont get paid for taking photos, a full-frame camera might be cost-prohibitive. for DX users, the sigma 18-35/1.8 zoom might be the best option for those times when 2.8 isn't fast enough and you need something wider than 35mm.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Yes, there's a significant price hit (except FX wide angle lenses can be better/cheaper than their DX equivalents due to physical constraints), but looking even moderately long term FX seems the way to go for what you describe. </p> </blockquote> <p>you are aware that a d3300 kit costs $600 and a d610 kit costs $2400, right? and that the 17-35, 14-24, and 16-35 wide-angle FX zooms are 2 to 3x the cost of DX wide-angle zooms, no? and that a redundant set of 610s with the bells and whistles kent describes would cost $8-10k, while the same setup with 2x d7100 and DX/3rd party lenses would be about half that, yes? with that being the case, i dont think anyone is being 'forced' into FX, especially if it's cost-prohibitive. </p>

<blockquote> <p>would it be frowned upon to use Nikons 3200cor 3300 slr for professional work?</p> </blockquote> <p>yes. not that a veteran shooter couldn't coax good images out of them, but pros are supposed to have better gear than amateurs, and at a wedding, it's likely some guests might have DSLRs. what you dont want is the perception that just <em>anyone</em> could make the same images you do.<br> <br> perhaps even more important though, is the limited functionality entry-level bodies offer. these things may not make a difference so much in casual shooting, but when doing events, you want everything to be right at your fingertips. missing a shot because you have to menu-dive is not very professional. an entry-level body is also not going to balance well with a pro zoom, especially a telezoom.<br> <br> also, i agree with Kent, you really should be looking at redundant bodies if you want to shoot weddings professionally. 2x d7100 would be the way to go for a DX shooter (although d7000 would be almost as good); the main difference is going to be high-ISO performance in available light shooting, as well as no crop factor -- which may or may not matter, depending on what lenses you chose.</p>

<p>there's a tradeoff using a 24-85 on DX which has nothing to do with optical quality. first of all, the 6mm difference is actually more like 9mm in real terms once you factor in the 1.5x crop factor. this is significant, though not as significant as using the tamron 28-75 on DX. second, you gain a whole lot of reach on the wide end over the kit lens, which makes the longer zoom better for portraits.</p> <p>while the 24-85 is a marginally better lens than the 18-55 optically, better built and a bit faster, i dont think the sharpness difference will be earth-shattering, especially if you tend to shoot at around f/8. you'd be much better off with an older tamron 17-50/2.8 which is one of the sharpest lenses i've ever used, period. as to why you dont see pros shooting with kit lenses too often, the constant 2.8 aperture is useful in low-light or for subject isolation.</p> <p>getting back to the 18-55, it's possible the lens got knocked around and is now misaligned, but also possible that user error is responsible for any perceived lack of sharpness. did you set a fast enough shutter speed and focus correctly? without examples, we can't tell. </p>

<p>the 24-120/4 is a 5x zoom whose weaknesses will be more apparent on a 36mp camera than a 12mp camera. whether you can live with that or not depends on what you use it for. if you need critical sharpness for landscape photography, that wouldn't be my first choice. if you want a walkaround lens which can do a bunch of things reasonably well, it's probably better for that than the 28-300 super-duper-zoom. of course, this raises another question, do you really need a 36mp camera for casual shooting? obviously the d810 is going to perform best with high-end lenses; the 24-120/4 is a consumer-grade lens. i don't really think of the d8xx bodies as all-purpose cameras -- more like hi-res specialists which optimize image quality, especially at low ISOs. for non-critical applications, a d610 (or d700) would probably be just fine, depending on how large you need to print. besides having larger files, a 36mp sensor requires more careful technique and as others have pointed out, can magnify the shortcomings of some lenses.</p> <p>i do a lot of event photography myself, mainly with a D3s and 24-70/70-200 combo; i rarely find the need for triple the resolution, except maybe for cropping. when i shoot events, i tend to shoot so many frames that large files would only get in the way. also, i dont always shoot events at base ISO. if i had a d810, i'd probably be very judicious in how i used it -- with the best glass, and in situations where i could make the most out of that sensor.</p>

<blockquote> <p>the VC on the Tamron is going to be your best friend. Worth at least two extra stops of aperture.</p> </blockquote> <p>uh, no. unless you have really shaky hands, VC won't help much. it doesn't stop motion blur, only camera shake. and motion blur is the number one cause of unsharp pictures. as i've said before, the key to live concert shooting, and most action, is keeping your shutter high. stabilization allows you to shoot still subjects at lower shutter speeds, i.e., 1/15, but doesn't do much for moving subjects. if you have good handholding technique and a high enough shutter speed, camera shake should be a non-issue with a compact lens like the 17-50.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Most stage lighting - even at amateur level - is more than adequate for exposures in the region of 1/60th second and shorter at f/4-5.6 and ISO1600.</p> </blockquote> <p>unless you're shooting classical music, 1/60 is going to be far too slow of a shutter speed and will induce motion blur into your shots. 1/125 is really the minimum for live music and 1/250 is much better. it's worth sacrificing some aperture and perhaps boosting ISO to get your shutter speed up. i routinely shoot live shows at wider apertures like f/2, so i don't agree that you need to be at f/4-5.6 just to get sharp images. you do need to have good shooting technique, however.</p><div></div>

<p>would love to see some pics. i'm waiting for the price on the x20 to fall...</p>

<p>outdoor night shows with a DX camera = bring the flash for sure. i've probably shot upwards of 500 shows... usually i shoot with an FX body nowadays because i like available light and the sensor can handle hi-ISO, but on a d7000, i wouldnt go above 3200. besides lighting issues, the main thing to be aware of with flash compared to avail. light is recycle times. without flash i can shoot a burst on CH and capture a sequence. with flash you have to plan your shots a bit more carefully, unless you're using a radio trigger and external battery pack. you can also get faster recycle times by raising ISO and lowering flash power in manual, but that may not be feasible depending on how much stage/natural lighting there is.</p> <p>the main thing with shooting live concerts is to keep your shutter speed high to freeze motion. with flash you'll top out at 1/250, which should be ok.</p> <p>as far as lenses, i dont think you'll need the 70-300 too much. my advice is to get up close, front of the stage. depending on distance, you may use the 11-16 for wide group shots, but the 17-50 will be your main go-to. i would only use the 35 and 50 if you're trying to shoot available light and you need an aperture wider than 2.8; otherwise just stick with the tamron. my experience with that lens is, its very sharp in the center at 2.8. you'll want to stop down if you want more than one person in focus at typical shooting distances, however. also, you will want to move around and take shots at different angles; if you can get on stage, at the side, that can be a cool perspective, especially for band-with-crowd shots. i would also say, don't force it, let the shots come to you. take notice of the musical interplay and you can predict the musicians' movement from the rhythm. this is especially true when you're not doing high-FPS shooting due to using flash for single shots. it's better to have 50 perfect shots than 500 'almost' ones.</p>

<blockquote> <p>When I'm photographing something that doesn't move I press and hold the AF-ON until I acquire focus and let go of the AF-ON button and take the picture.</p> </blockquote> <p>keep the AF-On button on while you take the picture.</p>

<p>not sure i would trade the sigma for the nikon 70-200. but if you need to get to 400mm, the 80-400 is the way to do it.</p>

<p>i'm with RJ on this one. CF cards feel better in the hand. i never liked SD cards' small size and fragility.</p>

<p>one obvious problem is that $400 isn't really enough to buy a lens which will be as good at the tamron, optically. you could maybe get a m4/3 native prime with AF for that, but forget getting a 2.8 zoom at that price. the bigger issue is that if you don't get why videographers sometimes prefer manual focus, you may need to develop more skills and education as far as shooting techniques. all of the Samyang/Rokinon "Cine'" lenses are MF, for example.</p> <p>technology doesn't mean much if you cant utilize its full capabilities. and there are probably more technical logistics involved in shooting video than shooting stills. your posts don't really serve as convincing evidence that you know what you're doing, completely. So... i'm not saying dont get the GH4, i'm saying you need to be realistic that you're facing a huge, daunting learning curve in all likelihood. maybe there's someone, a professional videographer perhaps, you can learn the basics from. if not, take a class or three. i know a pro videographer who teaches students who just went back to school to learn motion graphics. the reality is that with video becoming more accessible and affordable, competition has increased at every level. you really need a technical background to do this well, or competently, and there's no way around that, except trial and error, lots of practice, and diligent study. good luck.</p>

<p>shot the world premiere of the coup's shadowbox at the yerba buena center for the arts. an amazing show/experience.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>If you get a Nikon D7100 for $1100, you save $600 over the cost of the GH4, get a better all-around camera with the high end AF system, it will be 100% compatible with your lens and the size difference won't be noticeable. There's pretty much no downside.</p> </blockquote> <p>for still photography, yes. but we're assuming the OP wants the GH4 for its video capabilities, which the d7100 can't match. </p> <blockquote> <p>I also don't see the sense in buying a small camera and then sticking a large unbalanced lens on it.</p> </blockquote> <p>as noted earlier, the tamron 28-75 isn't exactly a large lens. it's just over one-half an inch longer than the panasonic 12-35/2.8, and actually shorter than many m4/3 long telephotos, such as the 100-300. using the tamron on m4/3, however, you completely lose the wide end, so that would have to be addressed.<br> <br> what's unclear to me is how the OP plans to use the GH4. there seems to be an expectation of holding the camera like one would a still camera, i.e., with two hands on the body. the OP stated a concern about needing both hands for stability, however, in that scenario, there's no difference between using the focus ring and using the zoom ring; you'd need to remove one hand from the body to use either. a much more practical solution would be to use a monopod for stability, which would allow one hand to be free. but given that the OP seems unclear on basic video shooting techniques, i'm not sure any advice we could give is going to be helpful, especially because this is the Nikon forum. perhaps the OP would have better luck asking this question in the Olympus forum, where, presumably, there are some actual GH4 users and/or people experienced in video shooting.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Focusing manually will engage both hands and contribute to camera shake.</p> </blockquote> <p>just wondering how you plan on zooming then, without contributing to camera shake... can you twist the zoom ring while holding the camera with one hand?</p>

<blockquote> <p> I dont want to manually focus on a moving subject because i will be shooting non static things and i need to move around and have at leasr one hand free. Focusing manually will engage both hands and contribute to camera shake. Do you think im right in selling this lens for that reason and invesring with limited funds in a four thirds lens that will communicate automatically....</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> i'd actually probably invest in a stable platform first. if you are trying to shoot video handheld with no support, it could be a shaky proposition. i have a friend who got a GH3 and built a support rig out of PVC pipe for pennies on the dollar, compared to the expensive DSLR video rigs. he even made a space for the external mic and vidlight. he also got the 12-35 when it just came out, the price has gone down a bit since then. other video shooters i know use monopods or handles for better framing and panning.obviously, AF is what you want for shooting fast-moving things like sports, action, and dance. but as i said earlier, a lot of cinematographers shoot exclusively in manual focus and look for lenses with a long focus throw for smooth transitions. it also depends on your style, whether you pan a lot, transition from near to far focus, etc. it's not really a big deal to MF since with a zoom lens you will be using one hand to zoom anyway -- in fact, that's also why a lot of video shooters use primes, so they have one less control to worry about. not sure what your experience level is, or how professional the videos you shoot are going to be, but i'm working on a documentary with a videographer right now. he has a Canon 5dII setup and uses manual focus a lot even with his AF lenses, which include a 70-200/4.<br> <br> as far as lenses go, i would proably hold on to the tamron if you can't afford a 2.8 m4/3 lens right now. you're losing a lot of DoF with the smaller sensor (just remember that in terms of DoF, 2.8 on m4/3 is going to be closer to 5.6.), so getting a less expensive, slower, variable-aperture m4/3 lens is not going to be an ideal solution. you may also want to invest in something wider and/or faster. the 28-75 will be a 56-150/2.8--not bad specs, actually--but shooting video on m4/3, something like the panasonic 20/1.7 would give you both wider and faster, as would the olympus 12/2 (but it's pretty pricey). Rokinon also makes a 12/2 which is inexpensive but also manual focus. <br> <br> bottom line, IMO, if you want to be a good video shooter, it's in your best interest to get comfy with manual focus sooner rather than later. i dont see where you have anything to lose at this point by sticking with the tamron, which won't sell for that much used, maybe $250. you certainly can't replace that with another 2.8 zoom for that price. since it seems you are just learning, you might want to see if that combo works for you, unless you have the budget to go whole-hog from the get-go and pick up the 12-35 too. <br> </p>

<p>both your cameras will benefit from UHS-II cards. and both cameras will fit in a <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=563908&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9OzZFDD5deYnoyTdwQ7glQSOD4Zi_-uojnI875zZwAcaAtvg8P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details">lowepro Inverse 200</a>, a trail-ready fanny pack which can also be shoulder-carried and has an AW cover. in practice, you should get around 300-350 shots per battery. the problem with fuji is that they dont give a battery level percentage, and the indicator will drop suddenly from white to red. so, i'd recommend two extra batteries -- the wasabi power wp-126's work great and are cheap.</p>

<blockquote> <p> I was told i need an adapter and that everything will be manual on the gh4 with this lens, including the aperture, shutter and focus. This is impractical for me as i want to shoit vidwos and i wont have both hands available to constantly readjust.</p> </blockquote> <p>i know a lot of videographers who actually prefer manual focusing. some buy older primes precisely for the focus ring. if you are just getting into video shooting, there's obviously a learning curve, but MF isn't necessarily a dealbreaker.</p> <blockquote> <p>You will not want to use that lens with the GH4 (a FANTASTIC camera, btw, and for video, one of the very very best), as there are better options for it in the µ43 realm.</p> </blockquote> <p>there are two m4/3 native lenses which are 2.8 zooms -- both retail for more than $1000.</p> <blockquote> <p>I have the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S. I mainly use that on FX bodies, and even so, I have received comments from non-photographers that the lens is big.</p> </blockquote> <p>the tamron 28-75 is about 1/3rd the size of the 28-70 and 24-70 nikkors. it's not much larger than than the 2.8 m4/3 zooms. the panasonic 12-35 is 2.9 inches, the tamron 3.6 inches.<br> <br> all misinformation aside, i would try the tamron with an adapter which allows for aperture control first before ponying up an extra grand for the m4/3 version. while it may not be an optimal video lens, it may be ok for right now as you grow into the GH4's capabilities and your own video skills. </p>

<p> i read a fuji executive interview on DPreview awhile back which made it seem like fuji was test-marketing the bayer sensor and seeing if it sold more than the x-trans at the lower price point. i dont think anyone outside of that company has an answer for you; you'll just have to wait and see.</p>