steve_lajoie

<p>Thanks to all for the responses and the advice. My goal is to be able to make the most of the limited time I have available to go out and shoot (Maximizing that time is VERY important - I work, have 2 young kids, house to maintain, etc). I the answer I am hearing from the group is to keep eyes and ears open - there is always an opportunity to learn if you take the time to pay attention.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>I'm curious to know what resouces others rely on for ongoing development of photographic skills - Photo magazines? Magazines which feature the types of photos you shoot (then try to work backwards to figure out how the shots were taken)? Websites? (Obviously many of us feel that we are learning something from each other here.) Seminars and workshops? Conversations with other photographers? Trial and error?</p>

<p>So you know where I'm coming from - I'm a hobbyist who enjoys putting my work up on my wall. Occasionally friends and family will ask for a print and I am pleased if I can put my work on their walls. I'm not a professional and have little intention of exploring professional status (at least until I retire - and I still like what I do now). I am always looking to improve on what I do.</p>

<p>I subscribed to Photo Life for a year. They have a great range of topics, but I did not renew because most articles barely scratch the surface of each topic. I pick up Nature Photographer off the newsstand occasionally. The articles in this magazine do not only address photo gear and techniques. Contributors frequently delve into the natural history of the subject matter and how they approach the subject. I'll also pick up issues of various natural history and geographical magazines to examine the photos within. I stop by here on a weekly basis and catch good ideas. My local photo club didn't return my email asking when they meet, so either they are not interested in new membership or they are defunct. Trial and error can teach, but I find that the learning curve can be slow and limited, especially if I have developed a persistant habit.</p>

<p>Where do you go to get new ideas or build technical skills?</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>I struggled with the same question recently. Prior to going digital, I owned a MF 300 f4.5. When I bought my D300, I bought the 70-300 VR, then bought the 70-200 f2.8. I came to the conclusion that I owned too much glass and had to decide on an overall strategy.<br /> I sold the MF 300. It was great for shooting airshows where the subject was largely fixed at near infinity, or birding if the subject wasn't moving much, but after shooting with new AF lenses, I quickly realized that my MF technique was not up to the standards of modern AF equipment. I won't be looking at used 400 or 500 MF lenses.<br /> I sold the 70-300. It is lighter and produces quality results, but after reviewing many photos from the two lenses, I kept more from the 70-200 than the 70-300. I concluded that the 70-200 2.8 is faster to focus on a subject, resulting in more acceptable photos.<br /> I have thought about the 1.4 or 1.7 TCs, but have decided to hold off. I think that if, after shooting for another year with the 70-200 I find holes in my photos that a longer lens will fill, I'll save some bonus money for a prime 400 AF lens.<br /> Steve</p>

<p>(In the meantime, I picked up a RRS ballhead - now that was a quality purchase!)</p>

<p>Thank you all for your thoughts. I think that I will be holding on to both until I get a chance to test a 1.7 TC on the 70-200 and compare that to the performance of the 70-300.</p>

<p>It would be nice to see Nikon release something like the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 USM IS...</p>

<p>Hello all: I shoot with a D300. I currently use a 70-300 f4-5.6 VR and a 70-200 f2.8 VR. I have been spending alot of time thinking about consolodating my "lens strategy" and could use some advice. I check in on this forum frequently, but have not seen any advice specific to my situation.<br /> I use my long lenses mostly for wildlife photography, but I also do some aircraft photography and some amateur sports. Most of my shots with either zoom are at the long end. I do find some circumstances where I appreciate being able to back off the lens to a shorter focal length. I shot primes for years with FE bodies, but a combination of concern over dust with changing lenses in the field and the high quality of modern zooms has moved me away from primes.<br /> About 40% or less of my photo time is done with long zooms. I am not going to become a professional in the forseeable future and have not attempted to publish my work, but I am interested in trying to sell prints at local craft shows through my in-law's booth. I use a manfrotto 055 tripod with a light manfrotto ball head that should be replaced with something more sturdy. I use Lightroom 2 for my digital work.<br /> I have been impressed with some of the results of the 70-300 VR (my first purchase). I bought the 70-200 2.8 later. It has provided some impressive shots as well, but I have yet to get used to the bulk of the lens. I bike, backpack and kayak into most of the areas that I am shooting the long zooms. The 70-200 is a beast compared to the 70-300, and is not always long enough.<br /> My habits ask for a lens can reach into the 300mm range. I can learn to lug around a beast, but I don't want to if I'm not getting solid performance for that effort.<br /> Option 1: sell the 70-300 VR and purchase a 1.7 EII teleconverter to get extra reach out of the 70-200.<br /> Option 2: sell the 70-200, and work with the comparative limitations of the 70-300.<br /> Is the 70-200 2.8 with a teleconverter attached better or worse IQ than the 70-300 4-5.6 VR? <br /> Option 3: Should I sell both and get a 300mm f4 AF-S? (I also use the 28-70 f2.8 and 105 2.8 Micro which spend the majority of time on the camera)<br /> The relative money is not an issue...I just don't want money tied up in lenses that I don't use to their potential. (not to say money is not an issue...I'm not shining out for a 200-400 f4, 300 f2.8, etc).<br /> Thanks in advance for your thoughts.<br /> Steve</p>

<p>I have an intermittant problem with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 (motor driven) on my D300, but not the same problem you see. </p>

<p>My D300 will suddenly be unable to detect the apeture of the lens and assign it an apeture of F1.7. If I fire off a shot under this condition, the camera will either misfire, leaving a black exposure, or leave the shutter open for a few full seconds. </p>

<p>When I turn the camera off, remove the lens and turn the camera back on, the camera detects the correct settings for the lens and operates correctly.</p>

<p>When the camera/lens are playing nice, this is a very crisp lens.</p>

<p>I have replaced the lens with a nikon 24-70 2.8, but still have it. I am not sure what to do with it. I don't know if this is a factory issue or a communication problem between the lens and the camera. I have cleaned the contacts and experience no such problems with my nikon lenses.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>Not a bad question. I own both lenses now (D300 body). I struggled with the same problem and went with the 70-300 VR initially. I have taken some very good photos with it. <br>

I then convinced myself that I could use the 70-200 2.8 VR. I have also taken some very good photos with this lens. </p>

<p>If you are starting a pros and cons list:</p>

<p>70-300 VR - Pros: (1) MUCH lighter and easier to handle handheld than the 70-200. Also easier to pack into a bag. The 70-200 will not pack easily into my Lowepro Primus AW backpack and will not fit my Domke shoulder bag. (2) Extra reach...300mm got me closer to a colony of Great Blue Herons nesting high up in the middle of a large, deep swamp than my feet could have reached with 200mm. Don't get me started on how much I'd like 400mm. I would have had an easier time identifying the chicks as they grew.</p>

<p>70-200VR - Pro: (1) The extra speed is a real bonus if you want a low ISO while shooting in low light, fast motion or want the shallow depth of field to pop a subject. I think that my camera focuses faster with the 2.8 lens (but that is a subjective observation, not tested side-by-side). I think that some photos from hockey games shot with the 70-300 that appear "muddy" were a result of the camera just not getting the focus right in time.</p>

<p>IQ difference? Can't say. I have brilliant shots from both lenses under the correct conditions. I tend to shoot outdoors. I would be hard pressed to distinguish between shots between the lenses. Both tend to show excellent sharpness, attractive bokeh, very little chromatic aberration and solid contrast performance (I'm a bit colourblind and like converting photos to "B+W" in Lightroom).</p>

<p>I bought the 70-200 telling myself that I would put the 70-300 up for sale. I have not been able to convince myself to doing so. It is a very convenient lens to carry and has only disappointed me in very specific situations (low light, fast subject,where grain would degrade the effect of the image). If you are concerned about weight, I would personally recommend the 70-300. </p>

<p>You did mention that you are thinking of moving to FX eventually (as am I). I don't know how these lenses compare on an FX body. I'd be interested in hearing responses from the D700/D3 owners who may have both.</p>

<p>D Syd: I am sorry the way the "cheapskate and troll" comment came across...Those were terms sometimes used by staff to describe particular visitors to the stores. I am embarrased that my use of such derrogotory terms were taken as an indication of my view of other people.</p>

<p>When I worked with staff, I tried to make them understand that they were there to work with every person that walked in the store fairly, that categorizing a person could do nothing but harm the relationship with any customer. To reinforce that message, I told them stories about customers that appeared to waste staff time, but eventually would turn out to be valued customers if staff treated them correctly.</p>

<p>I expected my staff to be consciencious. In return they could expect better than average pay and hours.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>I went to digital last year and have retained my MF collection. My 300 f/4 gets great shots at airshows. You are mostly racked out to infinity, so AF is a non-issue. I have a D300 and rarely see CA with this lens. My 50 f1.4 gets a good bit of use now as a short portrait lens. </p>

<p>I don't use my 24 or 35 much now though. With the crop factor, they are now standard lenses and have been supplanted by a 12-24 f4 and a Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The newer zooms have their place on walkabout or hiking. </p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>Interesting discussion. I spent years in retail management (not photo) and am an unabashed gearhead.</p>

<p>The local situation will dictate what is available. From that local situation, your decisions may influence what kind of service may be available.</p>

<p>My advice: Crawl your local shops. Get to know the Owners/Managers/Key Salespeople. Be friendly, and be honest with them. Do your research, both on the gear you seek and the pricing from alternative suppliers. Share what you know with those key people in the shops. Don't threaten them with what you learn from your research, but discuss it openly and honestly.</p>

<p>Decide what premium you are willing to pay for personal service. I was ready to pay CDN$20.00 more for a pair of snowshoes at a local retailer than I would have paid had I purchased the same pair online from MEC. The local retailer's representative had walked me through the various models, their advantages and shortcomings. He also introduced me to another regular customer who was an enthusiast and had his own perspective. He then invited me to a demo day the retailer had organized with 3 manufacturers at a local nordic resort. (This is not to bash MEC...they have a great organization with great and helpful people, but they are not local to me!)</p>

<p>I think $20.00 was a good investment in keeping this retailer in town. MEC's online folks could not have provided me with this level of help in reaching the decision that was correct for me. </p>

<p>When I went to purchase, I found that the local retailer had also been listening to thier customers. They had matched MEC's pricing on the shoes. And they had developed a customer reward program.</p>

<p>If you can not get this level of service in your local area, by all means, take your trade to the cheapest reliable source available. The poor stores will either adapt or die out, and hopefully someone with a better handle on retail will come in to fill the void.</p>

<p>Frank: As to your particular problem - When I was in retail, I recieved regular visits from manufacturers/distributors sales representatives. If I had a customer with a unique problem that my product lineup could not solve, I would ask the rep to bring up samples and arrange a meeting with the customer. Perhaps you could ask one of your locals if this could be arranged?</p>

<p>There are also a number of comments in this thread about the behaviour of customers. A difficult subject. I also spent a great deal of time with browsers, trolls and the despicable cheapskate who would take the education I provided and cross the street to a big box retailer to save a few dollars or take advantage of a no-payment plan. I learned early that I could not cut corners on anyone. Sometimes the troll recommended me to thier friends. The browser spent a year in my store consuming hours of my time but finally surprised me when he/she walked in the door with the cash and made that purchase. The cheapskate got fed up with dealing with the revolving door of uncaring, untrained, commission-driven staff at the big box and started buying the (higher margin) consumables with my stores.<br>

Good business is about good relationships. If you can't find one, try to make one.</p>

<p>Good luck with finding what you want. Make the right decision and pay a fair price.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

 

AF-S 50mm f/1.2. I like the way you think.

Sorry...I'm waiting on the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8...I said my eyes are getting bad...

I have the 105 VR Mirco and it is a fantastic lens for portraits, particularly for getting subtle shots of people. The

lens is long enough that you are not in their face, and I have taken some charming shots when people are relaxed

and unaware that they are being photographed.

 

Having said this, I have found that it can be uncomfortably long sometimes (I also have a D300). You need to be a

fair distance away from your subject to get a head and shoulders shot, never mind the distance you need to be to

get 2 or 3 people into a shot.

 

I can't speak to the 85, but to me, a micro is a must have in the bag. Details often define the story.

 

My eyesight is terrible too, which has forced me to give up on my manual focus 50 f1.4. Too many out of focus

shots, even if I relied on the little green dot in the lower left corner to tell me that the shot should be ok.

 

If you are looking to replace the 18-200 and only carry two lenses (an ultrawide zoom and the 105 or 85), consider

this: I also carry an ultrawide zoom (Nikon 12-24 f4) and the 105. While I love the ultrawide, and I love the 105,

there is a massive gulf between those 2 lenses. I am waiting on delivery of a Tamron 17-55 f2.8 because there are

situations that demand something in the normal range. My thought is that the 17-55 will wind up being on the

camera most of the time (the 12-24 has that distinction now) with the others coming out when the situation calls.

 

Steve

To respond to the further questions in your post:

 

1. Post processing RAW files has challenged me the most to date. Having never worked in the "Digital Darkroom", I have found myself back at school so to speak. In some ways, mixing chemicals and timing development/temperature settings was easier than keeping track of the number of development controls that are available with digital software.

 

2. Being aware of the dynamic range of the camera is also a challenge and can lead to alot of inital mistakes. I find shooting the D300 more like shooting slide film. It is easy to overexpose an area of a photo trying to capture the shadows of a scene. If you study your photographs, studying mistakes that blew out the highlights of a photo will make you more aware of lighting conditions and how to control them. The nice thing is that you have the histogram available to immediately review the photo, see problems and (perhaps) reshoot before you leave the field.

 

3. This camera provides many technological variations that can be accessed quickly and easily (as mentioned in my prior post, I find the controls very natural). This means that you can take the same shot multiple times varying the control options, then review them to see the results. This will expand your knowlege of what these controls do and how they affect the resulting photograph. This can expand your range of creative options in various shooting conditions.

 

Keep in mind that (as earlier posts mention) the camera is a tool. It will not make one a better photographer, but it will provide the tools to allow a creative photographer to capture exceptional images. The best thing I can say about this camera is true of any digital camera...It will allow you to shoot lots of photos and review them quickly which can lead to a faster learning curve.

 

4. You can set the camera to Program mode, Multi point metering, Multi point focusing, Auto white balance, ISO 400 using the 18-200mm VR lens and get technically proficiant photos under most conditions without ever rising to the challenge of learning anything else about the camera system.

 

Steve

I grew up shooting with and FE, then moved to an FM3a when my pair of FEs passed on. I had never shot with a programmed, autofocus camera and was skeptical of shooting digital SLR because of all the preprogrammed features. I loved the feel and control of the FE/FM3a systems and wasn't sure that a preprogrammed camera would let ME take the shots.

 

I purchased a D300 about 2 months ago and do not find my D300 a challenge. I have found the controls quite natural (although little things like having shot-to-shot control over ISO and being able to immediately review a photo and it's histogram takes a bit to get used to).

 

I generally shoot in Aperture priority mode with spot metering and AF set to single point focus. I have also been using my fixed focal length, manual focus lenses more than the two AF zooms I purchased shortly after buying the camera.

 

In general, I find this camera to be very easy to fit into my old habits. I could see it being a challenge to someone who came into photography relying on cameras with programmed modes such as "night", "portrait" and "landscape", but I don't see that as a show stopper if the person is willing to put the work into learning how to use traditional photographic controls.

 

Steve