bubba_fett

<p>The perfect 6 lens D300 kit:<br>

1) Nikon 10-24<br>

2) Nikon 24-70 f/2.8<br>

3) Nikon 70-200 f/2.8<br>

...and when traveling light:<br>

4) Nikon 16-85<br>

5) Nikon 70-300<br>

6) Nikon 35mm f/1.8<br>

Add in a couple sb-600's...a cheap umbrella set up...a tripod...a remote, and you've got versatility, portability and coverage from 15mm to 450mm (DX).</p>

<p >"So, to make a long story short: in terms of performance and image quality, why are people paying $2k - $7k for a high-end DSLR?"</p>

<p >My thoughts:</p>

<p >- Low light performance is much better in these expensive cameras, which are capable of much higher ISO performance</p>

<p >- Action photographers get higher frames per second</p>

<p >- Faster, more intelligent autofocus</p>

<p >- Superior metering</p>

<p >- Overall image quality improves with price, though at a far lower pace than ISO performance and FPS</p>

<p >- If you’re including expensive lenses in the mix, you also get better low-light performance, and enhanced control over depth of field</p>

<p >- The more expensive cameras are much more ruggedly built</p>

<p >- Camera software, functionality and customization capability is far superior as the price tag goes up</p>

<p >Put simply, if you have great light and static subjects, most would be hard pressed to see the difference between a photo taken with a $1K DSLR and a $7K DSLR (given the same lens and photographer technique, skill and ability). </p>

<p >If the scenario moves to challenging light and a higher-end lens, however, the story changes—especially if you want larger prints or the subject is moving.</p>

<p >You mention taking photos of kids in the living room without a flash….sounds like you need excellent high ISO performance….decent FPS….solid autofocus….fast lens…. ;-)</p>

<p >I used to keep my camera in a camera bag. </p>

<p >After missing too many amazing candid shots of the kids, I now keep the camera set and ready to go on a high shelf within a short dash from anywhere in the house. Fast lens on, white balance set, batteries fresh, optimized for shooting indoors.</p>

<p >I found that most of the kids' cutest candid moments were disappearing far faster than I could 1) remember where my camera bag was, 2) dig out said camera, 3) change to faster lens for indoor shot, re-check the settings, etc.</p>

<p >Brutally simple, but it’s already resulted in some keepers that I know I would have missed otherwise.</p>

<p>I'd say:<br>

D90 (keep the D60 for backup at weddings). The D300 is showing its age, and many think it will be replaced soon. The D700 leaves no money for lenses that will work in low light.<br>

17-55 2.8 (Major in Weddings, minor in landscape)<br>

70-200VR (Major in sports, minor in...well...what doesn't it do well?)<br>

Just my $0.02!</p>

<p>Bring Windex! Every court I've played in has had glass walls that won't do any lens any favors. <br>

I've never shot squash, but as a player, I'd recommend shooting from the far left side of the rear of the court (assuming right handed players). Competitive squash will have repeated rallies with the ball being backhanded, and in doing so, the player's shoulders will be turned momentarily, allowing a better fiew of the face. (reverse if left handed).<br>

Also, I'd go for emotion shots--especially right after the play.<br>

To be honest, I think it would be one of the hardest sports to photograph well on a traditional court since, by default, the players never look backwards!<br>

Hope this helps!</p>

<p >Elliot: I understand about focal range vs crop and sensor size, but I would suggest that for shooting sports on a budget—or any subject that requires telephoto—a crop body works well. Clearly a D700 will outperform all but a few cameras—even cropping to match a DX perspective.</p>

<p >My point is that if there is a budget involved ($3,600 according to B&H pricing on a D700 and 70-300), I believe that getting good glass on an enthusiast body will perform better than a pro body and enthusiast (slow) glass.</p>

<p >So the question becomes, which kit would have you leaving the arena, field or gym with better pictures? For the above budget, you could get:</p>

<p >- The D90 + 70-200 f/2.8 VR + a 1.4 TC + battery grip</p>

<p >OR</p>

<p >- The D700 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR</p>

<p >I believe the D90 would win every indoor comparison (70-300 = f/5.6 at the long end??!!), and a good portion outdoors…. Thoughts?</p>

<p>I'm assuming there's a budget involved....How about a D90 and a 70-200 VR? <br>

D90 = great ISO performance<br>

DX = Instant range improvement over D700<br>

70-200VR = arguably the best possible lens for your needs<br>

Just a thought....</p>

<p>My opinion:<br>

- Make the disk a somewhat more expensive package option<br>

- In order to maintain an element of quality control, go into partnership with your local lab and include some form of promotional offer with the disk for the customer to have prints made. (you send business their way, they do high quality work, you get some contra from the lab in return?). Include the same picture processed at wal mart and from the lab for them to comapre.<br>

- The two most salient points I read through this was 1) families want high quality digital files as a memory, and 2) would you rather be photographing or digging through archived files and making reprints?<br>

- To make the copyright cops happy, you can put copyright information all over the disc/files, but target commercial (not personal) use. Something consumer-focused, like: "These images are copyright Acme Photography, and may be printed for personal use only. They may not be used commercially in any way without the expressed writtem consent of Acme Photography"? That way, when some senior becomes a famous movie star, you still have recourse....<br>

I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer, but I think that asking Mom not to re-print a picture of Junior is an exercise in futility.<br>

Regards, <br>

Bubba</p>

<p>Now for an even less popular answer...<br>

I can definitely understand your concern from a quality standpoint, but from Joe Public’s perspective, this is where copyright protection goes too far. I would assume Joe’s line of thinking goes something like this:</p>

<p >· I paid the photographer quite well for 1) taking my picture and 2) giving me this print</p>

<p >· The picture is of me</p>

<p >· I feel I have exclusive rights to “me” unless I sign something that clearly states otherwise</p>

<p >· I understand I cannot sell your work or otherwise earn money from it, but I’m unclear as to what extent you can sell pictures of me, and make money from them</p>

<p >· If I want to use this picture of me, that I paid for, in the exact context for which it was created, with no commercial intent, who do you think you are to tell me not to?</p>

<p >Had the image been used commercially, I would wholeheartedly agree with you.. In this case, Mom used the image to communicate how proud she is of her son… I think Joe Public might have a point on this one, copyright or not.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Like I said, a less popular answer!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Bubba</p>