mike_bisom

<p>Thank you Walt! A Raid 1 is <i>NOT</i> a back up solution. The <i>ONLY</i> thing a Raid 1 protects you from is <i>ONE</i> hard drive failing. While it happens, it doesn't happen nearly as often as accidentally deleting a file, or a system error that messes up a directory or any number of other issues that you need to protect against. Since that's the case, this means you still need to back up your data on a regular basis. Now, since you have a regular back up schedule, a Raid 1 isn't a very good use of resources.</p>

<p>Brett, one correction. FW is 400MBps and USB 2 is 480MBps. However, Firewire is a <i>sustained</i> 400MBps while USB is a <i>burst-rate</i> of 480MBps. Thus, in most real world tests, Firewire 400 will beat USB 2. Another advantage to FW is that it is peer-to-peer, less computer overhead. USB's transfer protocol <i>must</i> have a computer to "re-assemble" the bits into actual information. Also, watch out when getting your 3GBps SATA drives- more often than not the jumper is set to limit performance to 1.5GBps. I'm not sure, but I think even 1.5GBps is more bandwidth than a single (non-RAID) drive can do. Finally, the main reason is like eSata is that it eliminates the "bridge" or chipset employed by either USB or Firewire to communicate with your computer. That has given me problems in the past!</p>

<p>To clarify, the SB600 will work as a slave, not as a master. You can use your D700 pop up flash to control the SB600. Personally, I would start with a 900: more power which is essential if you are bouncing. And a faster recycle time. It's also easier to use as a commander (or slave) in a wireless set up.</p>

<p>I would also recommend something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for your stated purposes. I have and love the 18-200 and it rarely comes off the camera. But it isn't a fast lens by any means. And I don't think I would particularly like it with ariel photography.</p>

<p>I don't have answer to Frank's questions, but I must say that I prefer the SB900 over the 800. If using multiple flashes, it's easier to set up- master/slave switch instead of menu driven. The recycle time with 4-batteries is faster than the 800 with 5. The 900 has a gel filter holder and I <i>love</i> that. With the 800 you kind of slide the filter tabs in and bend it over the flash head (I also put a small piece of gaffers tape to keep in there). The downside is it's size. It's a big flash. But not as big as a Quantum! In all fairness, my wife prefers the 800 for it's size. And she has overheated the 900 a couple of times (although you can turn that off if need be). And I am not aware of any reputable vendor having the 800 in stock.</p>

<p>D60 hands down for all the reasons outlined above. Additionally, unless there was a major improvement in the G10s ability to focus in low light (we had a G9), then you have another reason to go with a D60. I keep buying these darn P&S and I keep selling them a few months later because there is always something lacking.</p>

<p>It's all subjective. I frequently use the lens (on a D300) and have no issues with. In fact, I really like lens. I picked it up off CL for a really low price and frankly, I think it's a gem. I don't have the 24-70, I do have the 17-55. Is the 24-85 as sharp, as rich, as quick? No. Will anyone other than a professional photographer notice. No (especially after Raw processing anyway). That said, I may have opted for a D700 (which is still a dream) and the 24-70!</p>

<p>I agree with Chris, I would never want to download a CF card to a hard drive in the field in order to re-use a CF card. That is a recipe for disaster (although apparently I am a sloppy, unprofessional person anyway- I won't go into my workflow but God forbid I make a mistake. I guess it was just luck (said with sarcasm) that my <i>workflow</i> realized my error early before something went really wrong). If your current software won't read Raw files, get some that will. In the end that will be cheaper than buying enough CF cards and hard drives to hold all those Tiffs.</p>

<p>The Raw file doesn't exist as an image and therefore cannot be printed. It must first be <i>processed</i> into an image file (JPEG, TIFF, etc). You wouldn't want a lab that printed a Raw file since different Raw converters give you different results. You would need a lab that used the same Raw conversion software you do and then you would need to upload both the Raw file and the XML file with the instructions that said Raw converter will understand in order for a lab to print your Raw file. Which in the end is simply easier to process the Raw to a JPEG. From what I understand there are some labs that will print from a 16-bit Tiff file. Keep in mind that if you are printing Raw files at home, your Raw conversion software is simply creating a temporary behind the scenes 8-bit Tiff file to send to the printer (some do have a 16-bit workflow).</p>

<p>We have the D300 and a 16GB card holds 400 images with Raw+JPEG. I don't know why you would want to shoot Tiff either- the Raw file will be better and smaller. There are two trains of thoughts on larger cards. 1) Don't put all your eggs in one basket. 2) It's easier to lose or misplace several different cards during the course of a day (and I have left a card at a church- which I recovered about 30-minutes later... but I did it). For me, I prefer larger cards. I have never had a CF card go bad without some sort of warning. So all the eggs in one basket doesn't bother me- so long as I have another few baskets in case a card gives me any kind of problem. I only use SanDisk or Lexar cards though. </p>

<p>

 

<p>Better suggestions? You will need to post examples and tell us what you don't like. As Matt pointed, first you have to make sure the master is triggering the remote properly. After that, you still need to <i>control</i> the flash output of each flash for the desired effect. Telling us the lighting is worse really doesn't tell us anything.</p>

 

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If everything is working for you, great. I not concerned with what anyone else is doing (unless you are shooting for me!).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As long as we are quoting me!</p>

<p><cautiously enters discussion wearing a flame retardant firewall></p>

<p>May I ask what Nikon you are replacing? All of the primes you listed are available for the Nikon as well? If money is an issue (and when isn't it?), the D700 is a few hundred less than a 5D Mark II and has superb higher ISOs. This at least allows you to keep your current flashes/lenses and simply add to them. That seems more cost effective to me.</p>

<p>Jeff- my first reply was simply 3 sentences. Responding to the OP and to those that mentioned formatting their card in the computer. You quoted me, and in another post wanted some sort of technical proof. I responded. So I suppose one could say that you brought us to this point! ;)<br /> Mendel - for me it's a moot point: I would always format the card in the camera I am using it in. Quoting Wikipedia "There are varying levels of compatibility among FAT32-compatible cameras"... so format the card in camera!</p>

<p>Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well the D5000 doesn't have an AF motor either so that only leaves the D90. IMHO, the D90 is the best camera under $1,000. Of course there is the D300 which I like even better but then that's a bit more money. Then again, there is the D700 which is arguably the perfect wedding camera. Although more money yet. Of course if you get a D90 the D50 will be your back up! One big difference between the D90 and D50 is the 90 uses a CMOS sensor while the 50 uses a CCD. Thus, the 90 will give you a far more usable ISO 1600 than the 50 ever could. All of that said, Best Buy online has the D200 on sale (add it to your cart) for $599- and that is one heck of a price. If the CCD/high ISO doesn't bother you, I would get a D200 @ $600 without question. And then once you have a more professional body (D200), you will know why you may have wanted a D300 over a D90!</p>

<p>Just because <i>you</i> haven't had any problems doesn't mean that problems can't occur. I teach a Community Ed class and I would venture that I have had 1 out of 10 students have a CF card problem after formating/erasing their card in the computer. I've never had a virus, but I hear they can be problematic. As to the technical difference, I rely on the fact that there is much more going on behind the scenes to make all of this work than I will ever be aware of. As such, I prefer to take simple precautions to avoid future problems. In the case of formatting a CF card one could theorize that it's all binary code. However, the example I use in my class is to take someone from the Bronx and someone from East L.A. They both speak english but the dialect is vastly different. Formatting your card in your computer is simply different than doing it in the camera. Since the camera is the device we need to use it in, it seems to make more sense to just let the camera do it and avoid any potential issues. As far as the technical difference between different camera models.... I don't know. Again, their is infinitely more that I don't know than what I do know! However, each camera model uses a different Raw algorithm. This algorithm must be written to a card. In order to write something correctly to a card, the card must be able to be read by the camera and so I come full circle to formatting the card in the camera you intend to use it. Now while it is a fact that I have encountered people having issues after having formatted their card in the computer, the exact issue may never be known. But, look at it in terms of spyware, viruses and so on. My understanding is that some of the more insidious versions will create their own little "invisible" partition on any formatted drive. This would include you flash card. Is this what's happening? I don't know! But again, for me it's easy to take simple precautions to avoid future issues.</p>

<p>If everything is working for you, great. I not concerned with what anyone else is doing (unless you are shooting for me!). However, when someone does have an issue, you can't site your experience with not having an issue as a reason to say that the issue must not exist. I bought a PowerMac almost 4 years ago with the ATI 800 graphics card. I had all sorts of issues that NO ONE could figure out. It was in the shop and had literally everything replaced at: motherboard, processors, graphics card, etc... I finally spoke with someone who thought they had recalled seeing something like my issue and to make a long story short, that graphics card was so new that it needed an OS update to worth with Core Image and applications like Motion. They sent me a lesser card until the update which solved the issue and after an OS update that didn't even mention support for my card, the issue was fixed. So not everything is written down.</p>

<p>I would give clients a sRGB file. Most labs, and probably all consumer labs, will want a sRGB image. As to <i>your</i> workflow, do what works for you! We use Aperture which isn't constrained by any color space. Upon export to JPEG, we will allow Aperture to set the color space to sRGB. Otherwise, we prefer to stay in the largest space possible. In terms of how images look on your screen and web, are you using a color calibrated workflow? </p>

<p>It's usually a good idea to format the card in the camera that will be using it. I would never let a computer format a memory card. While rare, I have seen it happen where a computer formats or erases a memory card and subsequently the camera(s) can't read them any longer. </p>

<p>We use a simple 'ole avery style case (like what you get when you buy a DVD movie). We custom design a cover insert and viola', a custom presentation for under $5. And one that the bride's love. Plus, we put our logo on the back cover.</p>

<p>

 

<p>1) Focus on what needs to be in focus. Hence, a portrait tends to focus on the eye closest to the lens. If it's a detail shot of the dress or the grooms tux, focus on what you what to draw the viewers attention too, especially for shallow DOF detail shots. In terms of how the camera meters, it depends on the camera and how you have it set to meter. See point 4.<br>

2) Yes, it's a pretty big deal. You prevent this by getting a proper exposure. If you don't at least know how to dial in exposure compensation on both your camera and your flash, you really shouldn't be shooting a wedding. Sorry, but that's my opinion. Something else to study in this regard would be the characteristics of light. Learning this will allow you to get depth & texture in your image.<br>

3) We have an emergency kit with things like thread, needles, white tape, black tape, static guard and such. For the cameras, we have our "daily" camera bag and each bag contains a rain shield for the camera. We use watertight cases for our CF cards- not that I am about to jump in a lake and test that out.<br>

4) Depends on the situation. Depends a lot on how <i>you</i> want to shoot. Evaluative will meter the whole scene. Spot will <i>usually</i> meter on the center focus point regardless of what focus point you used. A classic example of using spot metering is a strong backlit situation. Again, more important than what metering system to use is <i>knowing</i> how each system works and then being able to <i>adjust</i> the exposure yourself.<br>

5) I shoot A (Av) when I want a certain aperture. I shoot T (Tv/S) when I need a certain shutter speed (most often with a long lens and wanting to keep the shutter at the max. sync speed). I never use program. By weird factors, I assume you mean difficult lighting situations- which brings me back to knowing how to dial in exposure compensation. This is a fairly basic concept for wedding (actually any) photography.</p>

<p>There is really a lot to learn and we all started someplace, but you really need to be able to adjust the exposure in order to get a decent exposure. The shot you posted is indeed over exposed (blown highlights, not just in the dress). You need to be able to see that and adjust accordingly. Had you looked at the histogram you would have seen a graph flush on the right and probably several areas blinking indicating blown detail. Are there instances where highlights will be blown, sure. But seldom (if ever) should this be in the wedding dress. </p>

 

</p>

<p>Hands down the 70-200. This covers the 135 focal length and has VR which will be needed for indoor, hand held church shots. We have the 105 DC lens (on a D300) an it's a great portrait lens but not nearly as versatile as the 70-200. </p>

<p>I don't know about a Metz flash, but a dedicated Canon flash such as the 430EX II or 580EX II will have a focus assist beam that may help. After that it is a combination of the camera and the lens. The better the lens, the better the contrast which aids the camera in AF. Unfortunately, Canon reserves their best AF for their top two bodies. However, AF is said to improve as you move up the consumer line. I have heard of some nightlife photographers mounting a battery powered video light on a camera bracket to aid in such situations. After that, watch the focus point and watch for strong backlit or reflective surfaces that will throw off the AF. I would rather shoot at higher ISOs with the lens stopped down than shoot wide open with a lower ISO (assuming faster glass). The newer bodies will also have a 920,000 pixel screen which will really help show OOF images far better than the 230,000 pixel screens.</p>

<p>Also be aware that many print labs will auto-correct, especially mini-labs found in retail stores, your image prior to printing. You need to use a lab that doesn't do this if you have any hope of getting accurate prints back.</p>

<p>I agree with A. Davis, all else being equal, a constant aperture marks high quality glass. For professional use I would always want a constant aperture alternative (but since I can't afford a Nikon 200-400 f/4 I am toying around with the idea of the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6!). And after having owned a Canon 10-22 and a Tokina 11-16- I can say the Tokina is a superior lens. This shot was taken last night with the 11-16. Marvelous lens to have.</p><div></div>

<p>It is true that a single 4-core chip will be faster in any single application than the dual 4-core chips (8-cores). Since all but a handful of applications can even use all four of the original 4-cores. However, how often is it that we only have <i>one</i> application running? This is where the 8-core will start to shine: when multiple apps are open. If you are like me, you probably have several apps open by the end of the day. With 8-cores, each app will see less (if any) of a slow down, while on the 4-core unit each app open will slow, at least by comparison, considerably more. Add to that the added increase in memory available to the 8-core. Whether done now or at some point in the future. And finally, I think we will see Snow Leopard be able to manage multiple cores more effectively. So if it were my money, I would get the 8-cores. However, if you <i>ONLY</i> work with Photoshop and no other program (not Aperture, not Illustrator, not iTunes, etc) at the same time then I would get the 4-core unit.</p>