ecnhoffer

<p>Sounds to me like Mark Domingo wants to spend some of his money on new toys (tools). This is what keeps Nikon in business and presents all of us with more choices. As others have written previously, this is like buying a new car. You get information about all the different makes and models and questions concerning how you are intending to use the product. The consumer ultimately makes the choice. Nikon hopes you continue to spend money on their products.</p>

<p>Harvey:</p>

<p>I have more images such as yours than I would like to admit. But using all of the technique suggestions mentioned above (using a tripod, getting closer, spot focusing on the subject, control of aperture and shutter speed, etc) resulted in much improved images. In short, the equipment is less a concern than proper technique.</p>

<p>I think that Natalie should post some photography work and then it may become more clear what Natalie really needs, whether it's equipment, technique, composition, post-processing, etc. It's obvious that Nikon gets Natalie's money, but what does Natalie get (or need) in return?</p>

<p>I took photos of a wedding over the Labor Day weekend last year. It was an outdoor wedding, but there were opportunities for close-ups before the ceremony inside a private home and afterwards at the dinner. I used my primes (20mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4) and an 80-200 mm f2.8 zoom and was able to stand where I wanted (although I had to compete with guests). So if I was using a D700, I would mostly use the 35 and 80-200.</p>

<p>I took photos of a wedding over the Labor Day weekend last year. It was an outdoor wedding, but there were opportunities for close-ups before the ceremony inside a private home and afterwards at the dinner. I used my primes (20mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4) and an 80-200 mm f2.8 zoom and was able to stand where I wanted (although I had to compete with guests). So if I was using a D700, I would mostly use the 35 and 80-200.</p>

<p>Most of these cameras should provide good photos using default (or automatic) settings. I would compare your hand-held technique to that with your camera mounted on a tripod (or monopod) to see if there are any significant changes.</p>

Let see about approximate cost for shooting film/slides versus digital. Film camera ~$1,000. A 36-exposure roll of

film/slide ~$5. Develop and scan ~$15. Computer to read CD of scans ~$1,000. So for 25,000 shots, that's ~$16,000.

 

Low-end digital camera ~$400. Computer ~$1,000. Cost for 25,000 shots ~$1,400.

 

High-end digital camera ~$5,000. Computer ~$1,000. Cost for 25,000 shots ~$6,000.

 

This is a back of the envelope calculation. Hope my math is close.

I would have to agree with most of the others. The lens is too slow for dim lighting and stop action. I shoot pro football

from the stands in-doors and shutter speeds are typically 1/250 to 1/400 at f2.8 and ISO 400 to 800 with my D80 and 80-

200 mm. My experience with soccer was to shoot before the sun went down!

http://www.lensinc.net/manuals/F90X_N90S_user.pdf

And be careful and observant of your surroundings. I was on a beach with a large group of

people during am extended visit to Peru back in 2000 and was robbed (FM2 stolen along with

inexpensive lens) by some bandits (our whole group, which included Peruvians, was robbed).

There's another possibility to consider. Why not a shooting jacket? I have used the Domke

PhoTOGS vest with good results for an Alaska trip this past summer. It worked quite well. I

put 20, 35, 50, and 70-200 mm lenses in different pockets with the D80 around my neck.

The 70-200 mm stuck out of the pocket but the other lenses fit very well. It was easy to

change lenses. I left my Domke bag at the cabin/hotel, although I have found that wearing it

across my body (strap over the opposite shoulder) relieves a lot of the pressure.