ted_raper1

<p>I agree with everything above; I photograph for gallery exhibits and as such many of my prints are matted and framed. The most recent exhibit I did, 25 prints - the single most expensive part of it was the mats (because I had them custom cut). I already had a lot of the frames from previous exhibits.</p>

<p>So if you're going to do it a lot, invest in - and learn to use - a mat cutter. </p>

<p>I agree with Dave - do a two button reset before panic sets in. I have a D200, old and beat up a bit (and also a Tokina 12-24 that works great with it) and have never had the metering problem you mention. After the reset I'd go out and do some test shots and see what happens. This may sound silly, but Costa Rica is a very humid place - is it possible the humidity somehow got to the metering electronics?</p>

<p>The G10, as I'm sure you know, has 14 MP vs. 10MP for the G12, or G11. If you were only going to use the G10 at its lowest ISO where noise wouldn't be so much of an issue and you could use the extra pixels, I'd say go for the G10. But as others have stated, the IQ on the 10 MP cameras is better once you get above base ISO.</p>

<p>I'd dump one of the 50s, that 18-200, and get a nice 12-24 zoom, and then maybe a 300. Then you're pretty well covered from 12-300mm.</p>

<p>Agree with the majority. Once you decide to "start a small side business", it makes no sense to ponder a general question like "what camera should I upgrade to?" Until you discover that your current camera cannot do what you need it to do, you really have no way of knowing what you need! Start small, maybe with family and friends. You may discover that your money will be better spent on accessories at first - tripods, reflectors, flashes, etc. Then once you discover that your current camera is not sufficient, make a list of what you need that it doesn't do, and then you'll be able to make a better decision about which new camera to get.</p>

<p>Good luck with your new business.</p>

<p>I used one with a D200. Fine lens in most respects, reasonable build quality, great IQ, very sharp. My only issue with it - and the reason I sold it - was that when used for other than macro the AF tended to hunt a lot, which is a personal bugaboo of mine. </p>

<p>Agree with Elliot - I gave up on small sensor cameras and now carry an EPL-1 with a Panasonic 20 1.7 lens on it. Sort of pocketable, great IQ, but I doubt you can get one for under $200.</p>

<p>I'd go to the KEH website and see what's available for $200 and then make my decision. </p>

<p>While I have no use for the camera itself, there are a couple features that I'd like to see in future Nikons. The 16 MP sensor, for one, and the articulating LCD is nice. I used a Canon G11 that had one and it does enable one to shoot at odd angles (like ground level without having to lay in the mud). But I wouldn't want to give up the traditional layout of the D100/200/300 series for a movable LCD, though. </p>

<p>Jonathan, this problem is so weird I'd listen to the above advice and call Nikon tech support first, and if they can't help then send it in. You'll drive yourself crazy trying to figure out a problem that keeps manifesting different symptoms.</p>

<p>Good advice, all of it. I'm a serious tripod user - I have six, plus a monopod - (I carry not one, but TWO tripods in the trunk of my car all the time). Weight is important - if you are going to carry it into the filed, you'll need a sturdy lightweight one; if for home/studio use weight is not so important. Sturdy is job one with tripods; heads are job two. Make sure the tripod head will support your camera with its heaviest lens attached. All the brands mentioned above are good (mine are Gitzo, Manfrotto, and Slik). I have a 30 year old Slik with aluminum legs that still gives me good service.</p>

<p>You will be amazed at how sharp your photos are when you use tripods!</p>

<p>I'll echo the majority of the sentiments here and say keep the 18-70 - the only way you're going to see any major improvement from the 18-70 (I had a 16-85, and it is a better lens, but not THAT much better) is to step up to the pro class lenses, which are expensive. I replaced my 18-70 with a 17-55 2.8 a long time ago, and while the 17-55 is faster and tougher, you really have to pixel peep to see a major improvement in the image quality. So unless you have specific reasons to dump the 18-70 (me, I needed the 2.8 speed of the 17-55), I'd keep it for a while.</p>

<p>If its anything like my E-PL1, you'll like it. I got mine body only, and bought a Panasonic 20 1.7 for it; great combination. I used to carry a Canon G11 as my "always with me camera" but now it's the E-PL1. IQ is great, and the thing is (almost) portable.</p>

<p>My remark was obviously tongue in cheek, and as mentioned, more a reflection of the times. It was not meant to demean or make fun of anyone or anything.</p>

<p>I don't make my living from photography, but I do supplement my income. I find that when people learn that I exhibit and sell photos in galleries, they automatically think I'm a professional; and they also tend to think that if you can photograph a waterfall in the forest you can take photos of their cousin's wedding and only charge them $50. They have no idea of the difference, or how much effort goes into making a living as a photographer.</p>

<p>So my sincere compliments to all of you out there who earn a living with your camera; I wish I could do that!</p>

<p>You're a pro when all your friends start asking you to do their parties, weddings, prom photos, etc. for free.</p>

<p>I can't answer that question directly, martin, as I have had no experience with Olympus DSLRs - my big cameras are Nikons. But, the images that come out of my EPL-1/Panasonic 20 lens are amazing. The EPL1 uses a pretty weak AA filter and the 20 1.7 is a very sharp lens, so I get very sharp pictures from the combination. I'm a low ISO guy and if I shoot my D200 and EPL1 at ISO 200, there really is not much difference; the EPL1 image may even be a bit sharper. </p>

<p>Mine were good, too - in fact at that exhibition I had 20 photos and only sold three of them (it's tough out there these days) but one of them was an e900 image. I really did like that camera, and if I had not given up on small sensor cameras in general, I'd probably still have it. These days, my carry-around-all-the-time small camera is an Olympus EPL-1 with a Panasonic 20 1.7 lens on it. Not quite pocketable in jeans or shirts, but okay in a jacket pocket, and great image quality. </p>

<p>I owned an e900 and as Rob says, the IQ was impressive; I actually have exhibited small (8 x 10) prints made from it in an exhibition. I agree with Rob also that you won't find a significant advantage in the S95 over the e900, but what you WILL find is that the S95 will make it easier to capture the photograph. There's no denying that modern technology has advantages, but to me good IQ is good IQ, no matter how old the camera is. I think the advantages of a more modern camera are probably that it's more reliable, and has all the latest gimmicks to make it easier to take a good picture; and the S95 is a lot more pocketable that the Fuji.</p>

<p>I'm with Jim on this one. Photoshop is a marvelous tool, and I do use it. But I think too many photographers today are depending on it too much; as Jim says, there's no substitute for a well exposed and executed photograph straight from the camera. Personally, I try to get the photo as "right" as possible at capture to minimize the computer work afterwards - this probably is a holdover from my film (actually slides, I never shot film) shooting days when it was mandatory to get it right because I was paying for processing.</p>

 

<p>Doug, my raft trip was a one day deal down the river, so I had a fully charged battery in the camera, and a spare charged one (in a plastic baggie) in the backpack I carried.</p>

<p>I'm not really a pro, but I do exhibit and sell in galleries. My main equipment is a Nikon D200 and a 17-55DX, Tokina 12-24, 50 and 35 primes, and an 80-200 2.8. I used to carry around small sensor cameras as backup (Canon G11, mostly) but got tired of small sensors. So I ditched the stuff and now I use a Pen with the Panasonic 20 1.7 lens; I think the micro 4/3 format is, for me, the ideal system to use when I don't want to lug 6 or 8 pounds around with me, and in the right circumstances, the IQ fro the Pen/20 setup is almost as good as the Nikon. So I'll never ditch the Nikon but I'll use the Pen quite a lot of the time these days.</p>

<p>I also own a D200 and among other lenses, the Tokina 12-24. I went on a raft trip down the Colorado River two summers ago, and had the same dilemma - what to to do? I didn't really want to take the D200 because it's too good a camera to take any chances with, and as David says above, there is no 100% safe solution to keeping a camera dry in a wet environment.</p>

<p>So what did I do, you ask? I shoot for gallery exhibition, so I needed image quality. Before I left for the trip I bought a Canon G10 used (about $300, as I recall) and took that down the river instead. It's a good camera, and I actually got some useful images, and I didn't have to worry about my main camera getting wet. </p>

<p>The Sigma DP series has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. I own one (DP1s) among many other cameras (Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus) and while I dearly love the thing, I'd never recommend it for a solo backup or primary camera; it's just too quirky and unreliable. When properly set up and used, it's capable of stunning images, which is why I love it so much, but I've also done my share of cursing at it. I use it mostly as a THIRD backup - I'll carry a D200, an Olympus Pen as my small camera, and then throw the DP1s in the bag as well.</p>

<p>Like Scott, I'm going to take a serious look when the Sigma SD1 comes out, but the DP series cameras are just not a good idea for primary/reliable backup cameras.</p>

<p>I think I have answered my own question with a little more digging; I can shoot in RAW and use the camera's overlay function.</p>

<p>On the EPL-1, I have multiple exposure capability. You set it through the menu, take one photo, then the next; works pretty simple. But I can't determine through the manual how long you can wait between photos, or if I turn off the camera after taking the first photo, will it overlay the second photo when I turn it back on (my guess is no on that - turning the camera off likely resets the multiple exposure function)?</p>

<p>What I want to do is shoot the first exposure Saturday night when the moon is big - and then take the second photo Sunday morning at sunrise. The only way I can think to do that is do the moon photo, then leave the camera on all night (on a fresh battery, of course) and finish the multiple exposure Sunday morning.</p>

<p>Has anyone done anything like this, or have any suggestions other than what I've proposed?</p>

<p>I have an Olympus EPL-1 with the electronic viewfinder and a Panasonic 20 1.7 pretty much permanently attached to it. While the camera does have beginner modes, it also has a highly tailorable menu system so you can set it up the way you like. The EVF is excellent and allows the camera to be held to the eye (instead of the arms out posture). The IQ is teriffic - the Panasonic 20 is a very sharp lens, and coupled with the weak AA filter of the Olympus this makes for a very sharp combination. Without the viewfinder attached, the setup is (sort of) portable enough to carry around easily. I'm very happy with this setup, and use it more and more when I don't feel like lugging my D200/17-55 around.</p>