greglynch

<p>Does anyone know the story on this lens - it's back ordered all over the place with no anticipated delivery date. Is Nikon still having post-earthquake supply issues?</p>

<p>Well, I thought I would catch you guys up on what's happened. No MkIV for me - I found an incredible deal for TWO 1D Mk III's in awesome condition for enough less than the IV that I'll be able to pay for another piece of L glass that I've been wanting. One factor for me, besides the style of shooting that I do, was that it makes way more sense to have both a primary and backup with the same ergonomics than it does trying to switch back and forth between a 1D whatever and my 5D as a backup. So these two bad boys should be here some time next week and I am a very happy camper!</p>

<p>First, thanks to all of you who responded. All of it was good information and spot on as far as addressing my question - doesn't always happen.<br>

Eric - I particularly value what you are saying because your experiences regarding equipment seem to most closely match what I am going through. I find myself shooting at the middle to higher range of my 24-70, pretty much the whole range of the 70-200 but sometimes wishing I had more reach, even with a 1.4x TC. I'm now leaning pretty heavily toward the 1D4 and if I really need to shoot on the wide end there are always primes. I'll keep you posted on how this all shakes out!<br>

Thanks again to all!</p>

<p>Here's what I have at the moment:<br>

24-70 f2.8L<br />70-200 f4L IS<br />70-200 f2.8L IS<br />100 f2.8 Macro<br />85 f1.8<br /><br />Hope this helps - thanks!</p>

<p>What a dilemma - suddenly I have a situation where money isn't the issue. I went to FF about 18 months ago with a 5D classic, which I love. Now I would like to upgrade for better noise handling and video capability. I do a lot of pet portraiture that sometimes involves a moving target - like retrievers in the field, or show dogs - plus I'm doing some children's portraiture on location, mostly natural light. Here's the question: the 5D Mk II is full frame, of course. The 1D Mark IV is a 1.3x crop sensor. Do you think there is a huge reason to avoid going from FF back to the 1.3x crop sensor, given the other advantages of the 1D Mark IV - better noise handling, weather sealing when I'm shooting outdoors (dog field events aren't always in wonderful weather), a focusing system that sound freaking incredible (39 cross sensors?), etc. I have to admit, part of my lust for the 1 series goes back to my film days when I had an EOS 3 and bought an EOS 1 and thought I had died and gone to heaven.<br /><br />So - what do you guys think? Is moving away from FF insane?</p>

<p>Just a thought - on your form, why not give them a place to put the best time to call, or for more information call.... I agree with email is not going to get you into a position to close the sale. I know you said your form can't be changed - but I don't buy that. If you know how to code forms you can change any of them. At least I think so... ;-)</p>

<p>Use the keypad? That really sucks on most laptops....</p>

<p>Exactly what Richard Crow said above. I used to have the non-IS 2.8 version and found that I was leaving it in the bag at times directly because of the weight. I now have the IS version, in f4, using it with a 5D and I am very happy. I don't need the extra stop however; if I did, I would be in a bind. For the kind of photography I am doing, my combination of 24-70 f2.8L, 85 f1.8, and 100 f2.8 handle any need I have for lower light.<br>

Having said that - I used to have a 40D and used the 70-300 IS for outdoor portraits and nature and it was an excellent lens. Tack sharp on the cropped sensor body, but when I went full frame I knew I needed the higher quality.</p>

<p>I agree it's not right. It doesn't matter what LR will do in post - what's happening before that is unacceptable. If it were me, my question about the sensor would start to expand beyond night images. Get a replacement ASAP.</p>

<p>"If Kodachrome was seen as wonderful as everyone here states, the demand would never have dwindled."<br>

<br />That's probably the dumbest statement in this whole thread. It seems to me that the advent of digital might have had just a little impact... ya think?</p>

<p>Tell me again why you wedding photographers do what you do? It can't be because it's fun....</p>

<p>This may be a generalization, but I've heard that the bad copies were pretty much those with a date code earlier than UV - so If you have a date code of UV or later you should be okay. Of course, confirm it with actual images as others have said.</p>

<p>Do NOT use Adobe 1998 as your color space if you are going to output to a device or send to a lab that uses sRGB - you'll really be disappointed in the color rendition. Labs that use Kodak printers are okay pretty much, but labs that use Noritsu or Fuji (which is most of them) use sRGB. Also - and this is a Canon thing, I believe, if you are using picture styles make sure that you are using Neutral, not Standard. The Standard picture style has too much red in it and that could be part of your problem. </p>

<p>Just FYI, it's either a yellow Lab, or a Golden Retriever - they are two different breeds and if you are even thinking of doing this seriously... well, you get the point.<br>

Okay, back to your question. The mistake a lot of beginners make is shooting at a downward angle onto the dog. Get down onto the floor and shoot from the dog's level. For a shot like you are describing the focus whould be on her expression, through her eyes and that is best captured with her not having to look up. I've got some shots in my portfolio here that illustrate that. Good luck with this - it's a tough assignment because it's difficult sometimes to capture their soul. Just out of curiousity, you say the photos will be shot inside. Any reason not to shoot outdoors?</p>

<p>I think I must be missing something (imagine that!) - If you crop a FF image down to get the same crop as on a crop sensor, I don't think you change resolution at all. What you change is the total number of pixels in the image. For me, resolution means how many pixels are crammed into, say, a 1" by 1" space. The density (resolution) of pixels in the center 2/3 of an image doesn't change just because you cropped out 1/3 of the original image. Or does it?</p>

<p>If I'm wrong please let me know - gently :-)</p>

<p>Why not do the 40D, and also the 70-200 f/4 IS? For what you are doing I think you need the IS, and at the price difference you may be able to pull this off.</p>

<p>Why not do the 40D, and also the 70-200 f/4 IS? For what you are doing I think you need the IS, and at the price difference you may be able to pull this off.</p>

<p>Christopher - taking your experience in the photog's corral in Beijing and using it to make the blanket statement that you did about prime lenses is a rather heroic and long leap. I would agree with you that in that arena you may be correct. But not in the portrait studio or any other venue with similar parameters around making the image. Believing that primes are dead is something that can be debunked quickly by viewing the photo.net galleries for portraits, nudes, etc. and looking at how many great images were made with primes.</p>

Every piece of gear I have bought since 1996 came from B&H. This is one of the reasons why. Thanks, Henry, for the heads up - even though I don't need it, it demonstrates once more the outstanding customer focus found at your company.

Elizabeth - I'm not sure if smugmug actually reports to the IRS or not. But it doesn't matter - if you have income you

have to report it to the IRS at tax time anyway, if you intend to be legal. The IRS code basically says that you are

taxed on all "Income from whatever source derived". Theoretically, that means cash as well, although we all know

what happens to cash payments for services rendered.

 

In a really oversimplified nutshell: in a full-blown IRS audit (which is pretty rare) they will obtain your banking records

and compare deposits to your reported income. You will be expected to reconcile any differences to justify the total

amount of your bank deposits not being the same as income. They also compare your reported income to the total of

all W-2s, 1099s, etc. and will automatically generate an audit letter to you if the reported income is not equal to or

greater than that amount.

 

IRS=PITA !

Hey, I've got a plan - I'll buy a few "4 stop" 18-55's and trade them straight up for some of those crappy "3 stop" 17-

55 2.8's - any takers? ;-)

Elizabeth, I'm not familiar with how Smugmug works, but I can tell you that you can use of SSN on your Schedule C for tax purposes - there's no requirement for a tax ID. If smugmug will allow it, why don't you just use that? The only reason I can think of for them to want it is they want to be able to generate a 1099 at the end of the year showing your earnings, rather than them having to report it as their own.

 

Also, if it's in fact an issue, you may be able to complete the application for a Tax ID online on the IRS website and get the number right away. Good luck! I envy you - you're getting paid. ;-)

These threads always fascinate me. I haven't printed and framed a picture of a newspaper taped to a wall, so I'm curious what practical application this has. In the old days - not too far in the distant past - folks would lay their slides out on the light table, study them through a loupe, and then reach their conclusion on sharpness, color saturation, etc. Now that had practical value - I just question whether this exercise does.

Have her pay you in cash and do what everyone else does with cash, taxwise. I'm assuming you are only doing this for her, and aren't starting a photography business that is an ongoing entity.

I agree with Wayne and Ralph. If I shot that, I would print it, sign it, frame it, and sell it (with a copy of my wall, of course!).