danielsimionescu

<p>Mhmm... delicious post :)<br>

In Nikonland it use to be one digit for pro cameras (i.e. F5, D3) the "hundreds" for semipro (i.e. F100, D200) and the "tens" (F80, N80, D80) for amateurs (or "advanced" amateurs). A few years they came up with the thousands, which in the beginning they were a kind of point and shoot with plastic surgery :) Now they have the D7000 which kills a D90 for example. If one camera maker can't be consistent in it's own nomenclature, we can't expect to have a "standard for all"<br>

@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6610644">Smooth Carrots</a>: you usually don't change the lens with the viewfinder towards you to look into it. You change the lens that way to have your camera ready as fast as you can for the next shot. If you shoot still subjects that's not a problem, but when you shoot action you really need it.</p>

<p>I'm interested in upgrading my D80 and I would go for the D7000. Everybody is praising that camera.<br>

The fun part is that your post caught my attention because of the title (and a glitch of the homepage). Check the image to see why :)</p><div></div>

<p>@ Peter, about the 8-16: Come on, I'm trying to narrow the search, not to wide it :) Luckily for me, I have an issue with "filterless" lenses... So, Tokina 11-16 ... sold!<br />... how about Tokina 12-24/f4 ;) ?</p>

<p>After reading your inputs and some digging on the net, I realized that the Tokina 11-16 would be a good choice for me. I'm not 100% sure about that (the 11-16 zoom is to short to be called zoom) but hopefully will do the job.<br>

@Wouter: Thank you to (almost) making me reconsider the DX system. About DX vs FX ... that's another topic, another research :)<br>

Thanks all!</p>

<p>With the teleconverter, I got the point: I wont take it, at least not now.<br>

<strong>Andrew Gillis:</strong> I love the 12-24, but as far as I know, Nikon discontinued it (it's still a mystery to me why) and people seems to love so much, that they don't sell it (e.g. I looked for it at Adorama and I couldn't find it).<br>

<strong>Andrew Garrard</strong>: Yes, as a long shot, I'm planning to switch to FX. IMO the DX is a "digital compromise", at least for DSLR cameras and it will disappear at some point. Plus that the FX has a clear advantage when it's about the wide lens (no crop factor). About lenses, I learned from experience that the top notch lenses are - beside their razor sharp quality - a good investment. I paid (I think it was four years ago) 1100$ for a D80 and 600$ for a Nikkor 24-85/2.8-4 lens. Now the D80 worth's 3-400$ if you're lucky and the lens is around 400$ (used).<br>

<strong>Wouter Willemse</strong>: I'm planning to build a set of "good to best" lenses with a range from 12 to 200mm. My "dream team" would be Nikkor 12-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and of course 70-200/2.8. That's the dream. The need (here and now :) is a wide lens and I would go for 12-24 if I find it. The way I think is to buy a set of lenses and keep it. To me lenses and cameras (the digitals) are like water and stones: "A Stones will remain for ever while water passes" (it's a Romanian proverb I like).<br>

<strong>D.B. Cooper</strong>: The D7000 it tempts me, but as I said I would rather wait and take an FX. Till then, I get the lenses.<br>

Thank you all for your inputs. </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

It's time for me to update (upgrade) my equipment and I will start with the lenses. The question is if instead of buying two lenses I can "trick" it with one lens and one teleconverter. The plan "C" (if the vignetting of the teleconverter is an issue like I heard) would be to buy a fixed focal length (14mm or lower) and a 24-70.<br>

I own a Nikon D80 (I will upgrade the camera too, but lenses are the priority now...) I mostly shoot landscapes and rarely events. Now I have an opportunity to shoot house interiors where a wide (aspherical) is a must.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>How about this ones:<br>

<a href="http://www.powergenix.com/?q=products">http://www.powergenix.com/?q=products</a><br>

I heard they are VERY good, so good that if you don't have a recent generation flash (e.g. Nikon SB800, which comes with surge protection) you might burn your flash, if you don't let him to cool down.<br>

Anyway, this topic came in the right time, because I want to "refresh" my battery collection too.<br>

Let me know what you think.</p>

<p>If the question is not about film, it's common sens (for me, at least) to define image size by the number of pixels (check what Photoshop says when you check Image Size :).<br>

Considering the pixel density (good point, Frank) the result can vary in either way, which leads me to the conclusion of a bad wording (too bad for a "Certified Professional Photographer Exam" IMO).</p>

<p>We are in the same boat (looking for computers), only that I'm sure about desktop (like most of the people in this topic, too).<br>

<br /> About configuration, I will very likely go for the i7 with 2.8GHz. I asked an IT guy - friend, not salesman :) - and he told me that when is about processors, it's not all about speed anymore. For example an i7 with 2.8Ghz is more stronger than an i5 with 3.2GHz. You can see the exact configuration at<br /> <br /> http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/compare-result.aspx?ProductIds=%2C10137261%2C10137276&returnPath=%257e%252fcatalog%252fcategory.aspx%253fpath%253df7ffd2127ffffbc6eac9332fe93123f3en01%2526category%253d10607%2526lang%253den<br>

<br /> About RAM, keep in mind that the 64-bit Windows 7 eats around 2GHz of RAM, so do the math and check how much you need. I'll go for 8 gigs.<br>

<br /> By the way, here's how my toy looks so far<br /> HP Pavilion Elite Intel Core i7-860<br />Processor Speed 2.8GHz<br />RAM 8 GB PC3-10600 DDR3 SDRAM (Exp. To 16 GB)<br />Hard Drive Speed/Capacity 1 TB SATA<br />Optical Drives Super Multi LightScribe DVD Burner<br />Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT230<br />Pre-loaded Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit<br />Video Memory 1.5 GB<br />Price 1300CAD<br>

<br /> Theese are my suggestions, but I'm wide open if there's anything I should know...<br>

<br /> Good luck (to both of us:),<br />Daniel.</p>

<p>I usually "kidnap" the groom and bride to shoot formal in another location. The problem appears when shooting groups. Anyway, from all theese suggestions at least one of the should work. Funny ideea about the 15 "assistents" and I will definitely try the tripod.<br>

Thanks again,<br /> Daniel SIMIONESCU.</p>

<p>Yes, it's about formal shots and me the "official" photographer. Thanks for the "tripod-tip". I will try it, even though it's slowing me down and the people, especially groups, are not an example of patience ...<br>

And to David Shilling ... I have a couple of those on that wedding :) And it's funny to shot the "competition", but <em>after</em> the formal shots :)<br>

Thank you everyone,<br /> Daniel SIMIONESCU.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

It's been the last time to a wedding, but it's something you encounter almost every time you shoot people and there's a second camera.<br>

The question is how to handle situations when there are more cameras and subjects are looking in another camera but yours? It's even worst when you do group shots: they look like they are attacked from all sides :)<br>

Personally, it doesn't bother me when other people are taking pictures. The thing is that everybody looks in a different direction and pictures look bad. In ALL cameras...<br>

And another thing is that when you work with people you have to be nice. They dont have to only LOOK in the camera, they have to SMILE :) at...<br>

Thanks for your inputs,<br /> Daniel SIMIONESCU.</p>

<p> </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=271274">Nadine Ohara - SF Bay Area/CA</a><br>

"Or, since you appear to belong to PPA, ask for referrals from your colleagues there."</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5266593">Rick Allen</a> , Jul 29, 2009; 01:17 p.m.<br>

When hiring ANY subcontractor, demand to see their portfolio, also ask for references,and CHECK their references.</p>

<p><strong>REFERENCES</strong> is a magic word in this case...</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5307715">Angel Taylor</a> , Jul 28, 2009; 11:06 p.m.<br>

"The sad part is they were living houses away and were neighbors, and I thought we were friends."<br>

I do feel sorry for you and I think it's the last thing you want to hear, but that "I thought we were friends" tells me a lot. I hope (I'm SURE) it will tell you the same thing... NEXT time!</p>

<p>My advice? Pay the price and move on. Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

Usual the "hiper-mega-pixelized" cameras dont impress me much but this one did. The new Leaf AFi 10 (Leaf

is a trademark of Kodak corporation) has a True Wide Frame sensor of ... 56 megapixels!

 

But this is not it: the "Leaf Verto internal sensor rotation technology" allows the rotation of the sensor from

portrait to landscape with a push of a button.

 

Of course, at this resolution, it's not a surprise that the file size is between 114-171MB.

 

For more details, check

 

http://www.leaf-photography.com/afi10

 

Enjoy,

Daniel SIMIONESCU.

 

PS: Excuse me if my post is in the wrong category. New guy :)...