greg_lisi

<p >Hi all...<br>

As a novice (in training) I've been shooting small weddings and portraits. I have a D700 with good fast 2.8 glass(es) and a D40x as an emergency backup. I know someone with a creampuff D2xs who would sell it to me for a VERY decent price. I could use the 1.5 crop for extra long reach in church. I've already been in a few cathedral-like churches were I needed to stand in the back with my little D40x on a monopod just to get that certain shot a bit closer. Question is, how is the noise on the D2x say over ISO 400? With fast glass I might be able to get away with 400 (or under), but in my readings I understand the D2x over 400 is tredding on noise-city. I always shoot RAW and do have noise reduction s/w plugins that I never had to use with my beloved D700. The other alternative is to pay substantially more for a decent D300. I really don't want to upgrade my D40x to say...a D90, as I would rather have the bigger body for better balance with the longer lens.</p>

<p >As always, on this forum, your input has been gold for helping me develop (no pun intended) my passionate hobby.</p>

<p>Matt...My editing platform is an HP Pavilion tower with 4GB DDR ram, Pent4, 3.2 Ghz, 250GB HDD (age ~3.5 yrs. old). My maintenance schedule includes weekly defrag and registry clean scan. I store on 2 external drives each in excess of 1TB. I convert NX2 files to TIFF and edit in NX2 using the main tower HDD and set NX2's cache to dump on one of the externals. I don't want to start futzing around with NX2 and hardware/software performance tweaking if I don't have a dual core, 427 Hemi, processor with gozillion Ghz's of horsepower. On this h/w platform LR2 seems to be quicker, smoother, and takes care of my needs for higher volume files...pronto. I'm just unsure of the final JPEG output quality if I don't use NX2 as the end app. Thanks, Greg</p>

<p>Hi all...I am an avid believer that NEF conversion in NX2 will give optimum results... of course, (IMO). I have also been using NX2 for editing for quite awhile after abandoning LR2 as my primary editor. Now, as my photo hobby has increased to the point where I'm doing small weddings and portraits, my workflow has naturally increased. I'm finding NX2 is just plain slow when it comes to volume. I'm reading and studying techniques to increase my editing skills in NX2 but it (the app) just seems to be slow no matter what. I'll still use NX2 for NEF conversions to Tiffs. I'd like to get back to LR2 for smoother, quicker edits using those Tiffs. Question is, would it make any IQ difference if, after edits, I output the Tiffs in LR2 to JPEGs, or should I take the LR2 Tiffs back to NX2 to output the JPEGs? My main concern is weither or not the final output would be better off coming out of NX2.<br>

Basically.....NEF NX2 TIFF----->LR2 JPEG.....or...... NEF NX2 TIFF----->LR2----->TIFF NX2 JPEG<br>

Many thanks.....Greg</p>

<p>John...Your input is VERY valuable for me as I'm just getting into this arena. I'm a dinasour from the Kodak film days (no offense to those still using the rolled gold) and I wasn't sure of fees and such. The only thing I wouldn't do is hand off originals w/o a watermark on each (proof) file. Lately, to get experience and practice, I've been shooting portrait friends/relatives with a home studio lighting kit I bought about 4 months ago and added some other goodies to it. I understand what you're saying about legalities and copyrights to cover one's (photog's) posterior when getting into this field. I'd like to expand with you if at all possible....Many Thanks<br>

Greg</p>

<p>Amanda, this is my unqualified opinion FWIW...<br>

I have to agree with the others regarding skill levels when talking professional photog pay. I would NEVER feel comfortable asking for fees when I know the potential for less-than-adequate results exists. I've only shot 4 full weddings so far, 2 for close friends, and 2 for relatives. Although the bride/grooms were happy, I held my breath when they saw my final PP cuts. Most of my p/t work/hobby with photog is doing portraits and family groups. I'm trying to build SLOWLY from there and read/research/learn, learn, learn.</p>

 

<p>Boris...<br>

Go with the 24-70 2.8 . I turned a little white in the face when I handed over my plastic to buy the lens, but now I see why photogs revere it as Nikon's best. Combo with the D700 this lens' IQ is indeed a killer!!</p>

<p>I had the 28-105 and loved it on my D700. Then came the 24-70...forget it. Outrageous glass is the only way to describe. I had to trade in 4 lens and get alot of help from Santa but I don't regret one iota of it. One thing it did force me to look into.... the MB-D10 grip due to the reviews of better balance. I now have my ultimate image machine!! Merry Christmas to all.</p>

<p>Jeff...<br>

Thanks for the input....I'm assuming my friends comment regarding the relation of primes vs. zooms to PP time has to do with variables (more potential distortion..etc?). As a novice, the only thing I can think of what he's talking about is that he sees primes having an advantage (for lack of a better word) over zooms in portrait application? Clearly, with over 34 years of professional experience, I'm not about to debate with him his "rediculous" comment. However, the more I read about this topic, the more subjective it seems to me. I'll have to talk to him and get more clarification. Anyway, my learning curve continues and it gets sooo interesting!!<br>

BTW...that shot you posted is amazing!!</p>

<p>Thanks alot guys...<br>

Matt, I definitely agree that I need to learn more creative lighting. Although these subjects loved the results, I wasn't nearly as satisfied as I wanted to be. Lens-wise, I'm going to stick to what I have. Especially the 24-70. After the fact, I saw that I could've put an overhead snoot or something to highlight the hair. I just bought a reflector and a shoot through umbrella. Next will come a mono light. I found a couple of great sites on youtube demoing various techniques. With you guys and your tidbits of help, I'll strive to do better!!</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've recently began shooting portraits and group shots in my home. My usable area is about 20x12. I have a D700 and a 24-70 2.8 along with an 80-200 2.8 (2 ringer). I also have a decent lighting kit with some added accessories. Now, everything (almost everything) I read about portrature seems to point to primes. My go-to lens has been the 24-70 2.8 for indoor studio, which has been giving me some very nice images, and the 80-200 for the outside stuff. The only prime I have right now is an old Nikon 50mm 1.4 which, for some reason, renders soft images even stopped down. My lighting techniques are getting better as I learn. But, an experienced photog friend of mine, who's coaching me, is bugging me to ignore the zooms and invest in primes in order to shorten my PP time. First, I don't have the $$ right now to start buying primes. Second, and I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but when I use the 50mm in a session I feel like a freakin' yo-yo. To go tight, I'm in...to go wide I'm out, and with shooting small kids there's no time to use your feet to zoom. I now understanding that if you're going to do studio work, and do it right, you need to keep learning and practicing. So, I'm all eyes...any learning info is more than appreciated.</p><div></div>

<p>I had the Nikon 70-300 vr and thought it produced very good IQ on my D700. Then I sold it for an 80-200 2 ringer. In two words.....no contest. The 80-200 is superb. Heavy, yes...no vr, yes... more expensive than the 70-300, yes. There's flank steak, and then there's prime rib. I often think of food analagies when determinig Nikon lenses. Seriously, if you can swing the extra bucks, go for the 80-200. You won't be sorry!!</p>

<p>FWIW I used to have the monster 28-70 2.8 and thought the IQ could'nt be matched.....wrong!!<br>

I just recieved a new 24-70 2.8 (after practically selling everything except my soul)....good Lord what a difference. The IQ w/this lens is just stunning. I'm shooting with a D700. I do portraits on the side and although I was seriously considering an 85 2.8 investment, I'm glad I pulled the trigger on the 24-70. Yes, it is heavy, yes it is expensive, but most of all...it is one of Nikon's best pro-grade lenses. Don't get me wrong, I was getting VERY good results with the older 28-70, however, this 24-70 is in a league of it's own. I will not be selling this lens....period!! If you can swing it....don't wait.</p>

<p>Hi all..<br>

Just wondering what media/function y'all (I'm from the south) use to backup your treasured photo files?<br>

Recently my neighbor lost quite a bit of his family NEF's/JPEGS to a "reliable" external drive without off-loading to some form of media. He told me this nightmare scenario made him feel as if he experienced a death in the family (God forbid!). I also have a decent external drive with about 200GB of family related stuff. I'm not about to re-live my neighbor's titanic so I've been doing some research.<br>

1. Online backup services-(Mozy.com high recommend) My take:Good, fairly cheap. Recovery not so cut and dry.<br>

2. DVD- Unless you have dual layer functionality and even with that, how can you store large capacity backups?<br>

3. Use another external hard drive-Practical idea, however, it's still a mechanical device prone to failure.<br>

4. Tape (DAT)- Old technology, initial expense, BUT....large capacity storage. HP claims their DAT 72 media can take long term storage.<br>

These are just a few of my unqualified opinions.</p>

<p>When I sold my D300 for a D700 I also sold my trusty tried and true Nikon 18-200 VR. That was my everyday walk around bread and butter lens. I also have a Nikon 28-85 that I love (I kept that). Currently, I found and really like this Tamron 28-300 VC which is a killer. The sharpness, color, focal range versitility, and VC (vibration control) are excellent. Especially the VC...when activated it sounds like a Maytag washer but it is ROCK SOLID. Of course, my 28-85 is still in my bag, fantastic for light, walkaround fun.</p>

<p>FWIW....<br>

I just got off a Carnival Cruise ship yesterday from the Carribean. All the Photog staff members were walking around shooting D300's with the MB-D10's, Tamron 17-55's and huge Metz flashes w/flash bars. I couldn't get close enough to one of the Photogs to read the model numbers on the Metz flashes. The corded hot shoe modules attached to the Metz were big and flat (again, I couldn't get model numbers). Overall, the entire camera package looked like it weighed anything short of a ton. It was definitely equiped for industrial strength shooting.</p>

<p>I bought a new 80-200 AFS 2 ringer about a year ago. My 2 friends who went and plunked down 1700 and 1800 bucks (respectively) for a 70-200 2.8 swear that I lucked out with a "freak" copy. Stopped down to 4 or 5.6 from 80-170/5 and shutter above 1/125 hand held rivals their sharpness, color and contrast (no tweaking just converting to tiff to jpeg). I'm shooting with a D700 raw D2XMODE3. I'll probably take this lens to my grave.</p>

<p>I've just upgraded from a D300 in which I never used auto iso. Now with my D700 I have auto iso set to 1600 with minmum shutter of 1/60. Without exaggeration, at least 98% of my exposures are dead on. I'm loving it especially at PP. I haven't had a need currently for flash so I can't comment. My general purpose lens is a Tamron 28-300 and I'm getting very respectable as well as surprising result swith this setup.</p>

<p>I had a friend who's boss wanted the same thing, except....the boss didn't know jack about digital photography. My friend asked me for some suggestions. God forbid you should maybe suggest something practical like a D90 to get started. That would be embarrasing in the circle of the boss's peers who may know something about cameras. I finally suggested a D300 with an 18-200, 70-300vr and a 16-85. I'm a firm believer in learning tools first then upgrade. As it turned out, after some bickering about how this might apper as a "cheap kit," the boss loved that combo and even humbled himself to attend a DSLR night course. This seemed to be one of those situations were the indivdual had more money than brains.</p>

<p>Thanks James...good link.</p>

<p>Hi Everyone...<br>

I've just upgraded from a D300 to a D700. The few FX zoom lens' I have need to be focus fine tuned. I've been trying to find a site that gives the best info. how to do it. The only one I can find is for primes. Can you give me a hand (not clapping please -). I understand there/s a difference.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 17-55 2.8 and a recent Sigma 24-70 2.8. Both are surprisingly sharp with excellent color. I would love to get the comparable Nikon lens but the price is out of reach. I shoot raw exclusively so the diffrence between the 3rd party and the Nikon is almost neglidgable.</p>

<p>Rico.....<br />I purchased the Sigma 24-70 non HSM about a month ago for my D300.<br />Originally, I wanted the new Nikon 24-70 but the budget said "no."<br />The results I'm getting are nothing less than spectacular with the Sigma. I already have the classic Nikon<br />"Beast" 28-70 2.8 which is a great lens but I wanted a little more wide angle w/o hauling around<br />a panzerfaust (WWII German bazooka).<br />I must have hit on a good copy 'cause I'm happy with the contrast, color, and sharpness of the Sigma.<br />Many say that it's hit-or-miss when buying a Sigma copy.<br />As far as HSM is concerned, one has to ask if it's worth that much more. As far as I'm concerned IQ is priority uno!!</p>

<p>Rick, I posted a thread re:70-300 and use of a monopod. The copy I have is excellent but (to my ignorance) I bought it w/o VR. I dusted off my pod and began learning the proper setup and shoot techniques. I'm now really liking this lens...it's not fast, and I have to stop it down a bit at 300mm, but for the money it's a sleeper in my Nikon lens arsenal.</p>

<p>I purchased an 80-200 (2 ringer) 2.8 a few months ago. Portraits are coming out beautiful.<br>

I also have a sigma 24-70 2.8 that also does an excellent job.</p>

<p>Sammy,<br>

Dead-on....works like a charm! I honesly thought when using a monopod you simply snap it on and<br>

shoot. Apparently learning photo techniques goes beyound the camera itself. Many thanks....<br>

get this .... an article I read in which the photog hung an adjustable weight off the camera swears<br>

it works as good as a pod if not better. Another article explains the "pod-less" technique in which you attach a nylon string to the camera, drop the string to the floor (attach the floor end to a large washer) and step on it causing resistance. This is getting interesting....I think I'kk stick to your suggestion.<br>

Greg</p>