rgb1

<p>The only way film makes sense to me is medium format. You get the kind of resolution and latitude you have to pay at least $8K for in medium-format digital. I own three Pentax 645 bodies (they really do handle like an SLR) with doubles of the range of lenses. I used to use them for weddings, one with the tele and the other with the wide, and a third for when the job needed a second shooter. Now I don't do weds any more and only occasionally use the one, and I'm looking to sell the other two, can supply complete outfits, mint shape. The slides are gorgeous. Could make a cool lamp-shade with them if I worked in wood frame.</p>

<p>Believe me, if I didn't make back money with it, I wouldn't own a D700 either, no matter how great it is. I never afforded the top-line film cameras either, after the FTn, keeping my original FTn until the FE2 came out, and then settling for pairs of FE2 and then trade up to AF with the pair of F100 bodies until the D700 came along, and I'll probably just get another after its replacement comes out and the prices fall further.</p>

<p>I loved my old FE2 wth MD-12 drive, had two, but eyesight forced me to trade for the F100 and AF lenses for work, got two, and I finally got rid of the two of those to get the D700, my first, and probably last digital SLR, unless I go for two.</p>

<p>I still have one of the FE2 bodies and MD-12 (never liked to shoot the FE2 without it—much greater stability and grip), and a few FE bodies, one broken, and an FM, all of which I'm going to sell, and a lot of manual AIS lenses I still prefer to use for my own shooting on the D700 (35 f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 105 f/1.8, 135 f/2.8), and I'll often use my AF lenses in manual on the D700, for my own, slow-paced shooting.</p>

<p>I don't shoot film in 35 anymore, only in medium format with the Pentax 645, which I love, since it handles like a 35 SLR, and its lenses are really spectacular, great negatives or slides from them. You want to make the slides into some kind of lighted lamp they're so beautiful.</p>

<p>I'll never afford a MF digital, and I doubt they can match, certainly not supercede MF film's latitude anyway, despite that the MF digitals have met MF film's resolution. I have two 645 systems, but will be getting rid of one of them, as well. Then it will be just the D700 and a 645... and a lot of lenses.</p>

 

<p>The D3 and D700 are the low-light champions because of the size (pitch) of their CCD pixels, providing undetectable noise at ISO3200 and nearly undetectable at ISO6400, with capacity to go beyond that in the most extreme conditions. Both bodies have exactly the same CCD sensor and processor, so your consideration between them will be mostly a consideration of:</p>

<p>speed (D3 is faster, but only so much so that sports action would make a difference),</p>

<p>cost (D3 nearly $1500 more),</p>

<p>memory storage (D3 allows two CF cards to the D700's one, but with 8 and 16GB and 32GB CF cards, this is not much of a factor),</p>

<p>size (D3 considerably larger and heavier, unless you add the MD10 battery pack to the D700),</p>

<p>flash (D3 has none, as the D700 has a built-in, which combined with it's low-light capability, can be used with -1 to -2 compensation to provide just fill light. Built-in flash can be set for commander in Nikon's CLS lighting system,</p>

<p>view (D3 gives 100%, compared to the D700 96% viewfinder coverage)</p>

<p>and CCD cleaning (the D3 has none, as the D700 does, which is why its viewfinder is not 100% coverage, and the cleaning can be set to automatically actuate when the camera is turned on, off, or both on and off, as well as manually actuated with no auto activation.)</p>

<p>The factors weight for the D700, unless you will be involved with fast-moving subjects.</p>

<p>To take advantage of the excellent low-light capability of either body, you will want lenses with maximum apertures of at least f/2.8. Faster lenses will allow you to isolate on subjects, due to the very limited depth of field they have wide open, requiring careful consideration of the alignment of the focal plane. Preferable lenses for this are the f/2.0 - f/1.2, which are much more expensive.</p>

<p>Older, but more durable manual-focus, fast lenses (AI or AIS to be sure you have Nikon NIC coatings) will give the same optical performance as AF lenses and cost half of the equivalent AF lens, and can be entered into either body's menu system to allow Aperture-Priority, in-camera metering and matrix metering. These include the 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2, 55mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4, and 105mm f/1.8 (the 2.5 is very good and less expensive than the 1.8).</p>

<p>In AF, the 85 f/1.8 is a very affordable fast lens, while the 105 and 135 f/2 are much more expensive. All are excellent.</p>

<p>For weddings, the D700 with a 50mm f/1.4 would be the choice if only one fast lens. You should be taking two camera bodies to a paid wedding though, in which case the ideal would be two D700 bodies, one with the AF17-35 f/2.8 zoom, and the other with the 85mm f/1.8 mounted. The zoom is expensive, but is, IMHO, indispensable, in most any venue, aside from weddings.</p>

<p>If you can't afford two D700 bodies, then use the 85 f/1.8 (or 1.4) on the D700 (105 and 135 are too much tele for many wedding situations) and put a wide-angle zoom on the DX body, at least f2.8 fixed aperture, or a 35mm fixed (f/2 are pretty fast and affordable) if you can't afford the DX zoom. You can also, if you have one, use a medium format as the second body, in which case, you should use a wide on the D700 and a portrait tele on the MF (clients usually want large blow-ups of portraits, which are better from MF film than digital, but OK with the D700 if you can go with two to use a port-tele lens on one of them).</p>

<p>You really don't want to be having to change lenses at paid wedding shoots, so don't even think about one camera and two or three lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The soft, finishing touch on a year of preparation.</p><div></div>

<p>The Pentax 645 really does handle like a pro 35mm SLR, such as a Nikon F6/D3, so it would be the best choice for a field medium format. But size and handling are not the only reasons it's a great field camera. The quality of the SMC lenses is fantastic, yielding beautifully detailed images. You want to put color transparencies into some sort of light box to display them, they're so beautiful. Wide selection of lenses too, very cheap these days. And it has a big prism and eyepiece that renders a bright viewfinder image, easy to focus, with interchangeable fresnel options, and the eyepiece has diopter adjustment too.</p>

<p>If it's for the field, you must have durability, and the Pentax 645 is the most rugged of them all. The body is based on a rigid aluminum diecast, plated frame that is surrounded by a glass-fiber mixed polycarbonate armor 1.7 times thicker than normal coatings, with an extra-thick and precise stainless lens-mount plate. This gives you a body that's highly resistive to shock, while retaining the light weight and compact size required for it to be as mobile as a 35mm. This ruggedness has been verified time and again by the endless examples of cracked exterior casings caused by abusive drops, where the functionality and light-tightness and mating of lenses and film inserts were all left unaffected by the surface-damaging impact. At a wedding, one time, I put the camera on a high table (hip high) in a hotel lobby, dropped a film roll on the floor and bent over to pick it up, forgetting that the camera was attached to me via the flash cord to the battery pack on my waist. The camera went crashing to the uncarpeted marble floor, and I was sure I'd have to get the backup, but it was still working! It had impacted on the left side corner of the flash bracket (AF400T which also still worked), creating a slight dent there, and somehow, in the settling bounce to the camera side, the lens wasn't damaged. I used the camera to shoot the reception pictures and was sold on the claims for its ruggedness. That was 12 years ago, and I still use that same camera, without a repair stop, today. What more can you ask for?</p>

<p>Since medium-format digital cameras cost as much as cars, I'll be using the Pentax 645 for large or extremely-detailed image needs for the foreseeable future. I just wish the prices were what they are now when I bought my systems.</p>

Absolutely, get a used D200. It is the first Nikon DSLR with a pro-grade body, and it will offer you the greatest flexibility, not only in terms of camera features, but also lenses, accepting the Nikkor AF D and G lenses and the AI/AIS manual-focus lenses, which on a budget, is the best option for expanding your lens coverage, as all AI/AIS lenses have durable builds, modern coatings, and are ridiculously priced. There are a lot of D200's on the market on eBay from owners who moved up to D300, D3, and D700, so it is a Nikon best buy for the DX CMOS format.

If you can only use one fixed lens for a wedding, you shouldn't be getting compensated for it. You should have two bodies so you can have two lenses at work without changes, but also, and as important, so you have one camera if the other breaks down. Assuming you cannot buy new equipment, take the 15 seconds to change lenses when needed. Shoot the shot with what's on then change and shoot again. You'll use your 35mm most of the time, but will want to put the 50 on in anticipation of head-to-waist and closer shots. Use the 50mm 1.4. The added brightness won't mean as much to your exposure system and flash as it will to AF and you being able to see better through the viewfinder in poor light.

Do NOT make your business dealings/problems with contractors or providers public. Whether or not you need the job, it's bad business and bad taste. And the buyers don't want to know your troubles or read the fine print where you might explain it to them. What you need to do is negotiate with the provider. Start solid and tell them 15% is too steep. Offer the print options you have mentioned and see what they say, or offer a lower percentage, say 5% in hope of getting a reduction to 10. Make sure they understand all the time and costs that you incur in prep for and after the event. Remember, too, that they were happy with the job you did, and they would be taking a risk to change to another supplier. Do you think that risk is worth 5% to them?

This is the first time I've ever participated in a forum, and I

don't particularly know why I am doing so now, but perhaps my

experience can help. Perhaps not.

 

<p>

 

If you use different films a lot, you'll find that the complexity and

flexibility of today's pro equipment (considering the ways you can

bias both the camera's program for speed or aperture preference, and

the film's ISO for metering) makes achieving a level of consistency

with values important. The system I have evolved into takes three

factors into account and uses a set method to address them. It's not

a system anyone knows about or has named, that I've ever seen, but

you'll find that after learning the presets (FT and EL compensation -

see below) it does reduce the variables for any shot down to one: the

subject/zone reference value (SZ).

 

<p>

 

The first preset is film type (FT), using the ISO setting to adjust

for the type of film, and leaving it there for that film, regardless

of other conditions. An auto camera designed to use this system would

have a 3-position switch: one setting for reversal film (-1/3), one

for natural-color negative films (+1/3) and one for vivid- or

enhanced-color negative films and B&W (+2/3).

 

<p>

 

The second preset is the environmental lighting (EL), not to be

confused with the subject lighting. EL is another way of saying

contrast range, but contrast range is difficult to define without

math, and that slows down the determination, so it's quicker to think

of the overall light, or shadow of the environment which surrounds the

subject. I use compensation setting to take care of EL, because the

amount of compensation will change under different environmental

conditions more often and I like to keep the IE constant for film

type. An example: adding +1/3 compensation for shooting in overcast

conditions vs. +2/3 in light strong enough to create darker shadows

(including flash).

 

<p>

 

Finally, I figure and add- or subtract-in the subject-zone (SZ)

compensation, which in a sunny, winter, full-body shot could be

another +1.

 

<p>

 

So, if the film is Portra 400 NC, the FTIE is already +adjusted to 320

(+1/3) and the EL to +2/3 (darker shadows) on the compensation

control, the total compensation for this example is +2. If the film

is Portra XXX VC, the IE adjust is +2/3, and the example would shoot

at +2-1/3 total. If it were overcast, the +2/3 environmental

compensation is dropped 1/3 and if reversal film is used, the FTIE is

-1/3 instead of +1/3 for NC, and so on. If I move in for a head and

shoulders, nothing changes except the +1 SZ value, which will drop to

+1/3, and to zero if I go closer for a full face.

 

<p>

 

This system provides me with two constants: the film type preset (the

FT-IE adjust), and the lighting environment preset (a constant

compensation component for sun, shade, strobe, tungsten or filter

factor), leaving me to concentrate on the only shot-to-shot variable:

the subject/zone reference value, which is dialed into the

compensation formula at the brink of shutter release.

 

<p>

 

If I were to give it a name, now that I'm thinking of it, I guess I'd

call it the FT-EL Preset (already sounds like Nikon, the only 35SLR

make I've ever owned; so, it must be good). Works for me, and films

today are so widely sensitive that the FT-EL Preset will never leave

you with an unusable image. Factor in an old standard to this, the

"Sunny 16" rule, and you don't need your meter either.

 

<p>

 

© Malcolm Kantzler.

August 28, 2001