Jump to content

josheudowe

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    233

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by josheudowe

    More FX lenses?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>First of all, thank you to everyone for providing some outstanding comments and suggestions. Joris, your thoughts above about me understanding every complexity regarding light is probably right on. I'm certainly not a professional photographer, just an amateur that loves the art and am so inspired by those who have the understanding and capability to create astonishing images. But you, and many others, are probably correct. I need to invest more time learning about light and the options I have with the D300 before I try and compensate my lack of understanding. David, Ilkka, Shun, Bela, Steve, Robert and everyone else - thanks a lot for your thoughts.</p>

    <p>That said, I think everyone has convinced me to work more with my D300 and pick up a few new lenses. I ordered the 50mm f/1.4 and the 24-70 f/2.8, as well as a few books recommended by others. These lenses, combined with my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 105 f/2.8 should be good - although I do love the 85 f/2.8 suggestion above as that tends to be right around where I shoot a lot.</p>

    <p>Anyone have an excellent book they can suggest?</p>

    <p>Again, thank you for a truly educational discussion. I really am impressed by everyone's knowledge and capability - I hope to be there myself some day!</p>

    More FX lenses?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Thank you everyone for some great help and a very colorful discussion.</p>

    <p>Can I just ask one simple question... bottom line, can anyone tell me how much of an improvement over the D300 the D700 is in low light situations? Furthermore, how much better is the D3S over the D700? Obviously assume you're shooting with the exact same lens. Some people say 1-2 stops better with a D700 over a D300 and then go on to say that the D3S will go 1-2 stops over the D700. That's a 2-4 stop improvement over the D300 with a D3S - is that correct to say?</p>

    <p>My trouble is, and many people seem to miss what I've said a few times above, that I use a D300 with a 50mm 1.8, a 70-200 f/2.8 and the 18-200mm. Clearly, the 18-200 isn't a good low light lens. I know that. But I find FOR MY SITUATIONS that the 50 1.8 is good, but still shoots dark. I'm wondering if I put that lens on a D700 and then a D3S, would I be able to take shots that are of great improvement over my D300? Some shots (if shooting on program) can't even be handheld because I'm well below the 1/60 range. Does that mean with a D700 those shots that are at 1/60 will be in the 1/125 - 1/250 range?</p>

    <p>Thanks again.</p>

    More FX lenses?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Gen, thanks for your suggestions. I do use a prime 50 1.8, but in terms of "candid" photos, I'm one to circulate around a room and around situations and love to shoot people from distances so they have no idea they're being photographed. That's been hard with a 50mm lens because of proximity.</p>

    <p>Where I basically started this question was discerning between the D700 and D3S in terms of being the best in low light situations and what FX lenses are the best for me. For example, if I were to shoot the exact same picture with my D300, a D700 and a D3S with my 70-200 f/2.8 would there be a significant different in low light performance? I've been told the D3S would be a big improvement over the D700 and the D700 would be a big improvement over the D300. Is that true?</p>

    <p>Again, I don't want to argue semantics, but just looking for opinions and experiences on these bodies with the same lenses being used (just comparing bodies - not the, "D3S with a low-end lens isn't as good as a D300 with the best lens" argument.)</p>

    <p>Thanks again everyone!</p>

    <p>Josh</p>

    More FX lenses?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I appreciate everyone's response, with the exception of Les, who I believe was a little antagonistic (thanks Lex). First off, I'm not a professional photographer (please feel free to see what I like to shoot - www.jmephotography.com). I'm an amateur with a great passion for it and have been doing it for years.</p>

    <p>Some of you perhaps misread my original post. My plan was not to use my 18-200 and/or a 24-120. I was merely saying that to take good candid shots without being in someone's face, you need the versatility of a longer lens, the 17-55 or 24-70 is nice, but not really long enough for me. That said, the suggestions of a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8, etc are all great ones, but again, a prime lens makes taking real candid shots very difficult (hard to get a true candid when you need to be in someone's face to get the shot you want...)</p>

    <p>Clearly, there are a lot of D300 owners who were somewhat insulted by my comment(s). Relax. No one is personally attacking your ability, your talents or your children. I'm merely saying that MY experience with the D300 in low light situations hasn't been good (and no, I'm not new enough to the game to use my 18-200 or even my 70-200 and expect stellar results - read my post again, and slower, and you'll see that I said even when I use my 50 1.8 I have a hard time getting great shots in low light). The people that I've spoken to praise the D3S for being "significantly" better than the D700 in low light settings, which in itself is far better than the D300. Therefore, what I'm interested in is getting the shots I want. Believe me, as much as I appreciate everyone's desire to help me save money, what I'm really interested in is help in determining if the D3S will yield the results that I'm looking for. Do you feel that the D700 would be a noticeable improvement over the D300 and the D3S is complete overkill? Set aside the financial issue for a moment and talk results. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a multimillionaire willing to needlessly waste money, but I love photography and I want to have equipment that yields the results that I want/need.</p>

    <p>As for being an amateur/pro... as for those of you fortunate enough to be a full time photographer, I'm envious. But telling me that I'm basically insulting the magazines and calendars that have published your work is a bit extreme, no? Again, I'm not insulting your family, merely talking about my experience with my D300 and what I'm looking for with a more light sensitive model.</p>

    <p>Thanks again for your advice. It's all fantastic. That's what I love about photo.net - the passion and the willingness of so many to help others!</p>

    <p>Josh</p>

    More FX lenses?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I've been a D80, then D200, now D300 owner and really want to make the switch to the D3S (the low light ability really plays into what I find myself shooting more often than not). However, I am so frustrated with the choices of non-dx lenses! The 24-70 2.8 is nice, but come on. How about some more variety? Clearly I'll be getting rid of my very versatile 18-200, which is okay. I have the 70-200 2.8 and love it. However, I'd like a 24-120 - something a little more of an all purpose lens.<br>

    Is there any reason why Nikon does this? Do you think now that FX is becoming more recognized for its enhanced capabilities that Nikon will begin to release some additional lenses?<br>

    I'm troubled to spend $5k on a new body, plus the $600 in the lost 18-200 and the added cost of 1k+ for a 24-70 (or something like it). Ugh.<br>

    Anyone has some opinions that may help me make this frustrating decision? I shoot a great deal of landscape, portraits and candids of people and am always finding myself shooting in low light where I can't use a flash or tripod. Truthfully, the D300 sucks in low light - no way around it. Even when I shoot with my 50mm 1.8, I'm hard pressed to get a great candid inside shot with ambient lighting above 250.<br>

    When you're shooting candid shots, you absolutely need the versatility of a zoom in the 24-200 range, but where do you go with FX? Carry around two lenses - a 24-70 and a 70-200 and swap them quickly? Hard to do without missing shots.<br>

    Thanks!</p>

    FX Lenses

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Thank you all for some terrific responses. Let me ask you this, out of the lenses that I have, I would plan on selling the 18-200 and the 10-20 sigma and buy the 24-70 f/2.8 - keeping my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 105 f/2.8. Will these two last lenses work excellently with the D700?<br>

    Thanks again!</p>

    FX Lenses

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I'm sure this question has been asked a million times, but after searching around here, I can't find the short answer to what I'm looking for...</p>

    <p>I have a D300 and am thinking about upgrading to a D700 mainly for the lighting advantages. How do I know what lenses are true FX? This is what I have:<br>

    Nikon ED/VR 70-200 f/2.8<br>

    Nikon VR 18-200 (which says DX on it)<br>

    Sigma EX 10-20mm<br>

    Nikon ED/VR 105 f/2.8</p>

    <p>When looking on the Nikon site, how can you tell which are FX or DX lenses as well?</p>

    <p>THANK YOU! Sorry if this post is redundant.</p>

    Closeup and animals - which combo ?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Just my two cents, but shooting animals can be difficult with a prime lens. They're moving and sometimes the ability to "zoom" helps frame the perfect shot rather than having you locked into a 300mm lens. However, I do agree that the prime lenses offer better results (does depend on how large you intend to print, as someone mentioned earlier).</p>

    <p>Good Luck!</p>

    Amatuer photographer in need of lens advice for a Safari!

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>David,</p>

    <p>I agree with everyone else with the 70-300VR suggestion as a purchase. However, you may want to rent a lens or two for your trip (lots of places do it). I would probably look to rent and bring the Nikon 200-400 F/4 and a 600 f/4. These lenses for animals and your existing lens for landscape and "taking it all in" would be a great combo.<br>

    <br />300mm is nice, but you're going to find yourself wanting more and given this wonderful opportunity to travel, I would do it right.<br>

    <br />Best of luck and do return with some shared photos!</p>

    <p>Best,<br>

    Josh</p>

    Speedlight Question

    in Lighting Equipment

    Posted

    <p>Excellent! Thank you both so much for the help. Yes, I'm using a D300. Is there a better solution than using my SB-800? In other words, for similar cost (maybe up to $300) would I be better with something else? I've very new to lighting indoors, so your help is SO much appreciated!</p>

    <p>Best,<br>

    Josh</p>

    Speedlight Question

    in Lighting Equipment

    Posted

    <p>Question -<br>

    I use a Nikon SB-800 flash, but would like to setup something in my home for some portrait work on my kids. The harsh light from the flash is too much. I'm an avid outdoor photographer (amateur), so I'm entering unchartered territory here. However, can I buy a stand and umbrella and merely use a remote for my flash? Or would a better option be to buy something else (1 or 2 other lights for a dedicated location?<br>

    Again, dumn down your answers, because I'm not very familiar with indoor lighting options.</p>

    <p>Thank you!</p>

    Help - Amateur needs pricing help!

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p>Good points...<br>

    The shooting will probably take me two days and I will probably just charge my time and pass on the cost of enlargements, etc. Shots are being used for two of her interior design jobs, nothing that I would need to protect in terms of using for advertising, etc.<br>

    What is the typical hourly range people charge? It's less how I value my time and more of what she could hire someone else for.<br>

    Thanks everyone!</p>

    Help - Amateur needs pricing help!

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p>I am a total amateur photographer with a love for photography for many years (www.jmephotography.com). Recently, an interior designer working at my wife's company, saw my website and loved my work. She's wants to hire me to photograph some areas of a nearby town (to capture "old school" Greenwich was her words).<br>

    I've been hesitant to do it, but that's probably just a confidence issue. However, if I do, what the heck do I charge?! I have absolutely no idea.</p>

    <p>Thank you!</p>

    Want to learn

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Kenny,</p>

    <p>What type of camera are you using? Personally, I started by trial and error. Believe it or not, reading the instruction manual that came with my camera (about 20 years ago) and just taking pictures. Now that I've gone digital (and so many other have) it's even easier to just pick up your camera, shoot and go. See what the results are as you play around and you'll start to learn what works and what doesn't. Moreover, I would use the web (and this site) as an excellent source for learning tidbits here and there. I would also pick up a good book on basic photography and perhaps basic lighting.</p>

    <p>It's an amazing hobby and hopefully you'll get hooked like the rest of us! Best of luck and we're all here if you need some guidance along the way!</p>

    D300 and decent lense or D80 with prime lense?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Coming from someone who uses a D300, I LOVE the camera. Since this probably isn't your only purchase, I would go for the D300 and eventually upgrade to better glass. I think the D300 shines over the D80 for a few main reasons. Again, get the best you can... save up and buy better glass as time goes on.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...