mike_bisom

<p>I have found that flash brackets are highly personal. We have been through a lot of different brackets around here, including the Stroboframe (which any Stroboframe ranks at the bottom for us). Never used the Demb flip. The current favorite inexpensive bracket would be on the the Custom Brackets. That said, our favorite bracket is the RRS Wedding Pro- it's not cheap considering you need both the L plate and the bracket- but the ability to fold flat is a huge plus. And I even like the L plate when not using the bracket- it frames the camera for added protection.</p>

<p>I don't know about an HP390a but we have a HP D5360 that will print to a disc. I don't like it mind you but it does! As far as the epson going bad... I have probably gone through at least 6-epson printers in the last 3-years. Starting I think it was with the R200 > R220 > R280 and so on. However, we print quite a few discs. The last time I bought the Epson, I bought the extended warranty. That was a mistake. Sure enough, the printer went south but I needed to send it to the repair facility and pay shipping back.... which for a printer of this cost is ridiculous since buying a new one is almost as cheap and you get new ink cartridges. I finally broke down and got a Primera Bravo SE. Pricey, yes. But I really like it! Finally, a note about generic ink- my understanding is that it doesn't use the same (if any) anti-coagulants that the branded ink uses. Essentially, this will end up clogging the nozzles on the printer sooner rather than later.</p>

<p>Can you rent a D90? If you can then the D90 will also have an excellent high ISO and layout/controls will be almost identical to the D80. I know around here I can't rent a D90- so that only leaves you with the D300. As pointed out, the D300 is in a different league than the D80 so I would rent it one day just to play with it and get familiar with the controls. Other than that, I'd say your rental list looks good. It really depends on the shooter, but I would say we use the 17-55 70% of the time. </p>

<p>1- I am not sure what you mean by this, but only Lightroom is cross-platform. <br>

2- Apple's own Discussions have been one of the reasons I love my Mac. Perhaps the best support there is. There will be more literature for LR (cross-platform), but that doesn't make it better. Especially if it's a hardware issue!<br>

3- Pretty much a draw. I can round trip from Aperture to Photoshop and back no problems.<br>

4- I've been using Aperture since 1.1 and I haven't had any stability issues. At the time, I was using Bridge and trying to rename a folder of 1,000 Raw files was an exercise in patience. I am sure Lightroom is better since it uses a database style of management similar to Aperture.<br>

5- Personal preference. I MUCH prefer Aperture. I downloaded the LR free trial and was very frustrated with the tab approach. The keyboard shortcuts for Aperture are amazing. LR may have this as well, but I was just too frustrated getting around LR I never bothered to find out. And at the time I landed on Aperture, LR didn't have dual screen support. Now it does- but at the time (for me) it didn't. That killed it for me! Finally, Aperture will support CMYK files. LR won't. Occasionally, I am working with CMYK files.<br>

6- I think either program will have a learning curve. I remember feeling frustrated as I learned Aperture. I uses a managed (not referenced) library(ies) and it took some time to get use too. Now however, I can't live without it. The organization within Aperture is my bread & butter. We have three computers. Some software we have one license for, most we have two, and only Aperture has three licenses. If you have a MobileMe account, you should really give Aperture a serious try as it's so easy to throw up a quick web gallery. </p>

<p>For what it's worth, we bought the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. One of the "selling" points for me is that the Sigma uses a 77mm filter. Most of my filters are 77mm- having access to all of them was a pretty big deal for me!</p>

<p><sigh... here we go again></p>

<p>First, any camera in the hands of someone who knows how to use it will produce great results. That said, after having used Canon DSLR's for several years I am now a Nikon Fanboy. Why? I get more consistent results from my Nikon cameras then I ever did with my Canon's, and yes, I know what I am doing. I get better, more accurate AF, and more consistent exposures, especially when using flash. With the Canon I was constantly riding the FEC to obtain the desired result. I hardly touch FEC with my Nikons and when I do, it's often to turn it down! Is it because the Nikon offers a better metering system (all else being equal) or more AF points (again, all else being equal), I don't know. I do know that we shot a graduation last fall using a 40D with a 24-70 f/2.8. Three graduates, arms around each other, filling the frame: nothing to else to focus on. Shot looked ok on the little screen (which BTW is why you DON'T want a 40D- at least the 50D will use the 920,00 pixel screen!) but was clearly out of focus when viewed on the computer. Couldn't blame the photographer: we were using the center focus point, the camera said it focused and it took the picture. There wasn't anything else on a different place for the lens to even focus on. On top of that, we were outside, in the shade, but with plenty of light. The worst of it is, I put up with this behavior for so many years. Having said all of that, the D90 is a fine camera. The D300 isn't much more than a 50D and it is one GREAT camera. Completely different league. </p>

<p>I might also suggest going to the camera store and holding the cameras. IMHO, I like the feel of the Nikon. Also put each camera to your eye and look through the viewfinder. That alone might do the trick ;)</p>

<p>Correct- they are rectangular pixels. "Full" HD is 1920x1080. In the "mirror" displays, one device will always be distorted so to speak. So if you choose 1920x1080, the projector will look OK, but the iMac will look funny.</p>

<p>If they are there, data recovery software should find them. We ALWAYS shoot Raw+Jpeg. We had an incident a number of years ago where 866 out of almost 1300 Raw files were corrupted (not a wedding thankfully). Since then, it's always been Raw + Jpeg with maybe 10-15 corrupt Raw files over the years. It is a good idea to switch out cards before it fills up.</p>

<p>Good Luck, but I am confident that if they are there, data recovery software will find them. BTW- I wouldn't use that card again. Memory is cheap. I wouldn't be able to trust the card (and brand?) again. </p>

<p>John, to answer your question after my post, it would be silly of me to say that I don't worry about scratching my lens! Because I worry about it, I see no need for a protective filter. Especially when that protection may have unintended consequences not only in terms of image quality but also in terms of causing the very thing the filter was meant to protect against: scratching the glass. If I am shooting, I have my lens hood on. Worse case scenario- I drop my camera on something hard like concrete, lens first. With luck, the lens hood will absorb enough of the blow to keep the lens safe. A filter may break and that glass has more of a chance at scratching my lens then the concrete. I believe a filter to be an insurance policy in mind only. For every story I have heard about a lens being saved because of one, I have heard a story where a lens is damaged because of one. </p>

<p>I have heard where some will actually use a step up ring for added protection- and that makes sense to me. The ring may absorb some damage from the fall and give a bit of protection against the front element. But I have never used one.</p>

<p>Hello 24601 (although that would mean Jean and not John)....</p>

<p>I only use B+W filters. That said, I don't like UV filters; I will use polarizers, ND, Grad ND and so on. But I don't like the extra element in front of my glass unless I need it!</p>

<p>How are the numbers mixed up? Is it simply a sorting issue? That said, I have always used at least a 3 (usually a 4 digit) sequence when numbering images: 101-xxx or 1001 - 1xxx. I like four because it lets me vary the first digit for different "subsets". A senior sitting might 5xxx, whereas a wedding is 1xxx. The problem with starting at 1 is that you have no control how every device/computer shows the sequence. Numerically, you might have any filename starting with 1 followed by all the filenames starting with 2 which isn't in numeric sequence. Using at least a 3-digit code keeps the images in numeric sequence- unless you have more than 100 images!</p>

<p>In terms of #3, I would rather have a new D90 than a used D200 (but you can get a NEW D200 @ BestBuy.com for $640- that deal seems to change all the time). The D90 will also use SDHC cards which the D40 also uses I believe. The D300 will use compact flash cards. A D90 will give you at least 2 f/stops ISO performance over the D200 (CMOS vs CCD). Yes, the D300 is one of the best cameras I have ever used- but I might find a way to do the D90 and the Nikon 70-200vr.</p>

<p>To obtain a huge jump in R/W speeds requires either a hardware Raid (rare) or at least 3 if not 4 or more drives in a software RAID 0 (3 or 4 to overcome the software overhead in managing the Raid). 3 or 4 drives just too much risk for me: one drive fails and all is lost. You could do a Raid 5 to protect against one drive but all in all, Raid configurations for most end users are not all that effective/efficient. Far better off keeping the OS and applications on one drive and all your media on separate drive(s). Faster, safer (and less expensive than a Raid). As others have pointed out, Ram will be a huge factor: the more the better. And I might look for a local custom PC shop and have one built. These might cost a little more (but not that much) and tend to be far more stable than anything you pick up at Best Buy or Dell: less pre-installed software junk (huge plus), no wacky custom BIOS etc. </p>

<p>I agree with an earlier post: Ram and network speed will be the bottlenecks long before the processor. The more Ram the better. Gigiabit ethernet is a must and chances are your router is 10/100 and not 10/100/1000! However, I might also suggest taking the images off of a network drive and keeping them on a local drive. In the case of an iMac that would be a FW800 drive or in the case of a MacPro that would be a 2nd internal drive. The internal drive being the faster of the two options. All told, the MacPro will be faster than the iMac- but I am not so sure you will notice any day-to-day productivity increase provided you have enough Ram and the the images on their own drive. </p>

<p>Well, in terms of plugging things.... David Ziser has 4 Lessons (each lesson has many tutorials) over at Kelby Training. Kelby Training costs some money but might be worth it for some.</p>

<p>And, if you are a NAPP member, then you will get a discount joining Kelby Training. And a NAPP membership is fairly inexpensive and if you order quite a bit from B&H it pays for itself since you get free shipping from B&H with a NAPP membership. </p>

<p>Here is what you need to do.... open Disk Utility, create a new disk image the size of the media you want to burn, this disk image will mount on the desktop. Drag all the files you want burn to this mounted disk image. Back in Disk Utility, select your disk image and hit burn. Viola'. Cumbersome, yes. But it's a completely different burning method than Finder and/or Toast. And far more reliable. The catch is that the disk can only be read by a Mac- PC's won't recognize them. </p>

<p>Here we go.... a Raid 1 is NOT a back up solution. For 99% of consumer/prosumers, it's a waste of money/resources. A Raid 1 ONLY protects you from hard drive failure. Nothing else. You also need to protect yourself from accidentally deleting a file, a file (heck even a folder) becoming corrupt, a directory problem, just a simple power surge (or dip) and so on. This means having copy of the information, preferably offline, that is regularly "backed up". Since you now have a copy of your information via a back up, a Raid 1 then becomes your 3rd line of defense. However, that means that one of the Raid hard drives must fail AND you back up fail before the Raid 1 serves any useful function. Pretty remote.</p>

<p>Anyway, our strategy: we use Burly Bay 5-bay Towers x3 (so up to 15 drives at any given time). Client files are on one drive that is backed up nightly. iTunes is on another drive that is backed up monthly. Images are imported and burned to optical discs. Then imported into Aperture. Aperture libraries are kept on their own drives. The Vault is updated. And Vaults are on their own drives. Client proofs/correspondence and so on all go in the Client files which again is backed up nightly. At the end of a project, all client files are burned to optical media. Aperture libraries and Vaults are left on their own hard drives and stored. So, at the end a say a wedding (proofs delivered, album done, etc) I have all the images on two hard drives (Aperture Library and Vault), I have all the original images on the first set of optical media, and any prints, proofs and so on and the final set of optical media. On top of all of that, I don't make any promises on how long I will have any image. Optical media that I load from 7-years ago has a 20-25% fail rate. And while I plan on keeping my Aperture Libraries, I am not sure I am going to be consolidating them onto newer hard drives in the coming years.... but I probably will!</p>

<p>To quote the article: "The larger issue rests on repeat buyers looking for more camera at less of a price in years past"; this was us in a nutshell. The 50D came out with more MP, not with better metering, better AF. We jumped ship. That said, I have been eyeing the 500D <i>because</i> of it's video capabilities. 30-minutes on one 4GB card (keep in mind that you can only do 720p @ 30fps). When it starts making it's way into users hands and I start hearing what it's like- it's darn hard to beat 30-minutes of HD, with great interchangeable lenses @ under $1,000. And to top it off, I have always disliked Canon video cameras- the fussiest cameras I have ever worked with. I guess I actually view this as more of a video camera, and a potentially great video camera, than I do a still camera. If I was worried <i>only</i> about stills, I get a D90. If I wanted video, the 500D looks very promising.</p>

<p>What's your back up?! We use a D90 for back up/2nd camera. For professional use we put a decent lens on it. For personal use, we pop the 18-200 on it and couldn't be happier. I have tried various P&S cameras, the latest being a Canon G9, but I have never been happy with them, including the G9. I have been spoiled too much by the DSLR.</p>

<p>If you happen to check back on this thread.... I would google and run Memtest to check all the memory just to be on the safe side. A bad DIMM will be nothing but headaches until diagnosed.</p>

<p>Power makes everything work, or not. Intermittent or "bad" power is the underlying cause of a LOT of misdiagnosed issues. Maybe it isn't the power, but a bad power brick <i>could</i> be causing these problems and it's cheap to replace. If the drive isn't clicking or making unusual noises when it does mount, then I am not so sure the drives are failing, but the <i>could</i> be! In my experience however, you usually get some some of warning prior to total drive failure: clicking, OS X saying the drive is damaged, thrashing, etc. Occasionally mounting/dismounting makes me think connection issues: cable, port, or power supply. </p>

<p>As far as data recovering, goes, you need to be able to mount the drive to use any consumer software data recovery methods (and there are a few). Keep in mind that if it is a bad power supply, you don't need data recovery. The rub is, some data may be corrupted if it was a bad power supply. If the drives are indeed failing and you can't get them to mount, things get much trickier- especially if this is some sort of Raid 0 configuration. You could try a data recovery specialist. Make sure they understand it's a LaCie drive (probably multiple drives) in a Raid 0. They can let you know if they can get any data off the drives. In my experience (I am sorry to say!), they will first let you know <i>if</i> they can recovery any data and then how much that would be. But it will be expensive, probably easily over $1000. Another caution: I would spring for the new power brick no matter what. If you do get the drive to mount (using the old supply) and you start copying data from the old drive to the new and it does turn out it <i>was</i> a bad power supply- then the copied data runs the risk of being corrupted. Brownouts, which are dips in power supplies, are far, far, more common than surges (which are commonly protected against), but brownouts can easily corrupt data, lose files, crash a computer and so on. </p>

<p>Could be a bad power supply. If under warranty LaCie should send out a new one. If not, you may have to buy one. As fir any other suggestions... is this an iMac/Mac Pro/Powerbook... not that it matters too much but make sure there is NOTHING else on the bus. In other words, no other Firewire devices at all (all ports share the same bus). If on a Mac Pro you can add a PCI firewire card to keep the hard drive on it's own bus (highly recommended). Also, don't use the FW port on the front of the Mac Pro- it's kind of fussy. If using a MBP, you can add an express card to add a firewire port that is on it's own bus (assuming multiple FW devices). And finally, don't buy a new LaCie! 4 out of the 5 I owned bit the dirt faster than any other drive I have owned. After you get past the slick marketing- the LaCie is only an enclosure that holds the cheapest hard drive they can get their hands on. Better off buying you own hard drive and enclosures.</p>

<p>I wouldn't buy a used D70. Not saying it wasn't a fine camera, I am saying it's quite old especially for a digital camera. If high ISO's are needed, it's a D90/300. If not, the build of the D200 is better than the build of the D90- but I still like the D90 better overall. </p>

<p>Edward, I read somewhere that Blu-ray was actually developed with archiving data in mind. I think it has a better error correction and recovery already written onto the disc- far better than CDs or DVDs which were never developed as a data archiving solution. In other words, even if the surface or the dye layer of the disc is corrupted, you have a better chance of recovering your media on Blu-ray than CDs or DVDs. That said, I am still a bit nervous using Blu-ray as an archival data source until I am confident they don't change some obscure spec and render my disks useless.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I am not doing Blu-Ray so I can only offer suggestions....</p>

<p>First, you do know you will need a Blu-ray reader drive to read the disks? So I am assuming that you burn your disc with Toast, eject the disc and upon re-insertion it can't be read? That would be strange. The only advice I can say is to go to Disk Utility (Applications > Utilities) and create a custom size disk image. Copy you files to the disk image and then burn the disk image using Toast. Now what what happens?</p>