trevans

<blockquote>

<p>I have found that a bottle of vodka can usually be obtained locally</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Correct! Vodka cleans many things well. As does diluted vinegar, which is also found pretty easily.</p>

<p>Don't underestimate the power of alcohol and acid. They clean well, are cheap, and aren't necessarily backed by a large marketing department telling you what you have to use to clean your plastic.</p>

<p>If it's me, and there's some dirt on my camera body, I use some spit and my shirt.</p>

<p>The only reason we talk about crop factors and multiplying focal lengths is because the 35mm format has been so dominant for so long. Ever seen what a "normal" lens on medium or large format cameras is? 150mm or more. That's normal. (Whatever that means.)</p>

<p>We could easily say "Well for FX, remember, you have to reduce the focal length by 1/3 to get the real field of view." How is that for mental gymnastics? :)</p>

<p>Saying a 24mm FX lens is really a 36mm lens on a DX body is incorrect. That lens will always have a 24mm focal length. Them's physics.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why don't we just say than some people need more megapickles and some need more high ISO performance?<br /> Some people need an SUV and some a sport car. We learned to live with that already so let's apply it to cameras too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I happen to think that everyone should just drive hatchback rally cars, but then again my fantasy world is a fun and muddy one. ;)</p>

<p>I don't wonder if we'll get to the point where you can choose options for your camera as you can with cars. Just as with engine choices on cars, maybe we could get sensor choices (provided they're the same form factor)... do you want the high-ISO 10MP DX sensor, or the high-res 18MP sensor? Or do you want the specialized B&W/IR sensor? (drool)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I believe that pixel size matters, just as pixel count matters. If you crowd more pixels onto a given-sized sensor, the pixel wells will be deeper in proportion to the area of CMOS at the bottom of the well. In my low-tech understanding, fewer pixels means a better ratio in that respect — hence the improved ISO performance.<br>

I suppose there is a crossover point that represents the best trade-off between these two dynamics. Perhaps that crossover point is not at exactly 12.1 mpx — maybe it's at 15 or some other (probably similar) number.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good points raised here. Of course, the thing to remember is that not only do pixel size (light gathering ability), crowded pixels (heat and crosstalk), and other sensor-specific specs, but so does the amplifier and A/D converter behind it. I don't know this, but I'm guessing that the evolutionary 's' cameras keep the same sensor (expensive to change) and might fiddle with the amplifier circuits (cheap) and maybe the firmware (cheaper still).<br>

I do wonder what this crossover point might be that you talk about... but I think a better way to describe it would be (all other things being equal) the ratio of pixel area to pixel volume, or maybe the ratio of individual pixel area to total sensor area.</p>

<p>Howdy, my two cents:<br>

I agree with Eric here. The 17-50 is a great lens, especially considering its price. I was really impressed with the one I had. I ended up keeping the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 I was also considering. I did notice that at 17mm, the Nikkor had noticeable barrel distortion, whereas the Tamron had a higher-order distortion (more like an old-tyme mustache, if that makes sense). If you're shooting straight lines, that may be a problem, but otherwise, who cares?</p>

<p>What you save by purchasing a new Tamron 17-50 over the Nikkor 16-85 could also pay for a Nikkor 35/1.8, btw. Or you could spend it on other, more important things (groceries, etc.) :)</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Haven't been here for a couple weeks, but I feel I can contribute as I've had both lenses (at one point or another).</p>

<p>Your 18-55, if it's anything like mine, has a VERY loose, low-resistance zoom ring. The Tamron (again, if it's like mine) feels tighter and at least for most people, they feel this gives them more control. A little friction helps at times. (Sorry.) Plus the Tamron is moving more glass than the kit Nikkor, so there's a little resistance. Overall, I don't think you need to worry unless it's making grinding or otherwise unpleasant noises. Enjoy that lens, it's great!</p>

<p>Also worth mentioning, even though you <em>can</em> manually focus with the Tamron set to Autofocus, you shouldn't do it (the owner's manual says not to). Remember it's not a silent-wave motor, it's got a direct geared connection to the focusing element from the motor, so you risk stripping gears/breaking things.</p>

<p>Andre, we've had opposite experiences. Mine is plenty sharp and only distortion at the extremes, like any lens behaves.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Done, thanks for the input guys. Going with the Tammy. I now have a large gap from 50-70, may need to look into a 35-70 to fill that in. NAS!!!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not really a large gap. You don't need to have every millimeter covered.</p>

<p>The DoF should not change. However, while you will lose resolution as compared to the DX sensor (since pixel density is different), you will still benefit from the larger photosites and have better low-light resolution.</p>

<p>I can't imagine why anyone would do this. As an engineer, though, I am all for thought exercises!</p>

<p>I just tried it on my D40, using the procedure you described. Since the D40 gives you cheerfully helpful messages, mine told me "No Bulb in S Mode."</p>

<p>And knowing is half the battle.</p>

<p>In the studio, probably not. For weddings and studio work, I would guess the real differentiator would be the Auto focus system, and obviously the D300 is the better body for that. But I imagine for studio work, when you have time to compose and frame your shots (and you're not trying to catch people "in the moment") then it won't matter so much.<br>

Maybe the viewfinder coverage will make a difference, too. If it were me, I'd go with the D90 and get some adverts up.</p>

<p>Maybe you could read their terms of service?</p>

 

<h4>Can I take the lens out of the US?</h4>

<p>The terms of the rental are that the equipment not leave the US. However, we will make exceptions if you notify us in advance and the location is reasonably safe. The lens <strong>must</strong> be delivered to and returned from a US address. Remember, though, lenses are targets for theft and you are responsible for loss. Our insurance policy will insure the lens against breakage, <strong>BUT NOT THEFT </strong> , outside of the US.</p>

<p>I agree... at this point, a D50 or D70 would probably be better than an older-yet, higher-end camera since they're probably not going to destroy it and would benefit from being one generation newer.</p>

<p>But yes, the 35/1.8 would be a great choice as it is cheap, light, sharp, and easy to handle. Maybe just get her that and the 50/1.8 for starters (or obviously the kit 18-55 can be picked up for about $100 US).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">Depth of Field Calculator</a></p>

<p>Hi Melony, and welcome to both Photo.net and our shared obsession. :)</p>

<p>As for budget, well, that's up to you... you can quite literally spend as little or much as you want. Your base dSLR with a kit lens can run from $400-800, a mid-line camera body alone can be $800-1200, and good new lenses can run anywhere from $200 to $1800 or more. So... what is your budget like? :)</p>

<p>Hey everyone,<br>

So here's my comments for the week. I didn't see one bad picture in the lot!</p>

<p><br /> @Jose Angel - You never fail to impress! I am blown away with what that camera can do at ISO1600. Curious... why not ISO800 and 1/500s? Not fast enough to freeze this guy?<br /> @Joseph Leotta - Apart from the guys being purple, I like the composition here. Maybe you could do some PP and make it look like an olde-tyme photo? :) I'm a Phils and Cards fan myself, and don't understand why those Yanks insist on not having names on their jerseys. ;)<br /> @Paul B - Very cool! I like the lines here. Is that CA going on out in the water around the rocks in the upper left corner? Or maybe a product of sharpening? I'm trying to learn more about PP, this is why I ask. :) This makes me want a wide-angle lens though. Also, remember to check how your post looks on the second screen where it gives you the chance to update. ;)<br /> @Bryan Meadows - Very cool... I'm impressed with the darker details standing out yet the highlights are preserved. This must have been tricky. Where did you focus here, do you remember? And is the biker staged or was (s)he just walking through?<br /> @Anish Mankuthel - Such vibrant colors! It looks like the parade was a great time! Do you have more pictures?<br /> @Monika Epsefass - Are we to take it that these are your eyes? Your expression seems so intense! Maybe if you're still playing, you could put the eastern hemisphere in one eye and the western in the other instead of having them match, just a thought, feel free to tell me to bugger off. :)<br /> @Justin Weiss - Is it the reflection in her eyes? (Edit: saw your post, ah ha I thought so!)<br /> @Shun Cheung - Very cool. Are you there working, or as a spectator? And if a spectator, do you ever have problems getting hassled about bringing in pro-level gear?<br /> @Steven van Heerden - Mmm... why don't they call them Crepes?<br /> @Ton Mestrom - Oh my... I love it! How about the details? Is there a story behind this shot?<br /> @Chris Court - Another fine shot, sir. Eye-popping detail. Pun intended. ;-)<br /> @Leo Papandreou - I really love the tones that film brings out in the petals here.<br /> @MS Keil - Those S5s can do some cool things... I love the foreboding feeling I get here. The compression of the foreground rocks to the ones in the background is nice, too.<br /> @Nick Doronin - Very nice clarity and colors here... what was the shutter speed/aperture/ISO here? Lovely capture. Where were you?<br /> @Mike C - I think my favorite part is the way the hills fade into the haze in the background, and the little point of light on the... lighthouse on the point. Hah! Great composition here, and no need to apologize for ISO1600, I think it's justified in this case.<br /> @Hamish Gray - I think the theme is landscapes involving water of some sort... and another great wide-angle shot. Nice tent, btw. I'm not sure if I like the grass in the foreground or not though. Part of me does and part wants to pull it out.<br /> @Jens Frederiksen - I always love the expressions musicians make while practicing their art. I wonder if we make funny faces too?<br /> @Ian Rance - Well done, and I think that the short DoF adds to the mysterious nature. I like it!<br /> @Bernard Mills - I'd like to see a little more exposure here, and the DoF is a little short (maybe get both eyes in focus). Otherwise, she's beautiful. :)<br /> @Rene' Villela - Continuing this week's theme of lanscape with water... nice dock! I'm Swiss, maybe I'll go visit that someday. I like it better with the boardwalk. One of the simple landscape rules is to have an object of interest in the foreground, so you did well. :)<br /> @Alejandro Held - Really getting a lot of use out of that lens. :) I love the bokeh this produces, especially with the subject you've chosen here.<br /> @Leo Laksi - Very nice portrait. Pictures like these make me wonder if that boy will remember this moment, and wonder later in his life if the picture still exists.<br /> @Matt Laur - Cute. :) Nice equipment that guy has there! The B&W treatment does well here.<br /> @Sjoerd Leeuwenberg - More carp! (water...) (Thanks to Rene, I guess not really a common carp, but neither are Goldfish)<br /> @Susan Wolfe - Oh my! Wow! I'm curious, if you were using flash, why not bump up the shutter speed? Although maybe you did it for the slight blur of his wingtips, which I rather like...<br /> @Gary McGhee - Impressive clarity from a water shot! The slight ripples make it look like heat distortion.<br /> @Darko Vrsic - Looks like a lot of fun :) did you do any painting yourself? I miss art class. :(<br /> @Elliot Bernstein - what a graceful animal. Nice job of getting detail even though he's submerged. And contributing to the water bit. :)<br /> @Harvey S - Welcome! I love the little details along the stem. Hope the blight hasn't gotten you this year; it's hit the Northeast pretty hard!<br /> @Jeannean Ryman - Wow, what an awesome Macro of a drama unfolding. The things that happen all around us that we don't see...<br /> @Richard Armstrong - Nice summery scene, and part of the developing landscape w/ Water theme. :)<br /> @Margaret Hamwood - My favorite so far!! I can just hear the sound of the water dripping here... amazing!<br /> @Aaron Bonnici - Clever... do you have a PC-E lens or is this in Photoshop? It does look neat. Vibrant colors, too. I love it!<br /> @Ray Gosalia - Ah, another majestic lion; a continuation of last week. What magnificant creatures.<br /> @Pedro Cardoso - Marvelous! I love the halo effect around him in the beanbag.<br /> @Adam Zyto - Was it you that went with your son? How was the show? (I seem to recall two tickets stuck in the strings on the headstock of a Les Paul a week or two ago...)<br /> @Jesse Gonzalez - Oooooh Tron!<br /> @Aguinaldo de Paula - I think it's only fair you get to take their picture, then. :) What are they?<br /> @Paul V. Gorky - Haha great! And the duck in the edge of the frame makes one think that there could be dozens more...<br /> @jim interlicchio - Great portrait... an old friend? :)<br /> @Amy Zlatic - Bravo! Looks like a great place to eat!<br /> @Bogdan Nicolescu - Sorta gross, but it does remind me of the old fishing docks where I'm from.<br /> @Tom Pernal - Om nom nom, nice find. :) I especially like the little guy's colors contrasted with the flowers and background.<br /> @Mike O'Day - Fake miniatures for you too, huh? :) Nevertheless, it's neat. Do you find you need to expose pretty high to get the miniature look? Looks like you've got loads of light here.<br /> @Eddy Furlong - Oh Eddy, this is amazing! And the bee just makes it!<br /> @Jonas Fjellstedt - Lovely color on the moss there... I just love a good walk in the woods. Helps clear the spirit.<br /> @Lawrence Ho - Two expensive hobbies at the same time! Nicely done, sir! haha and the theme continues...<br /> @Ofey Kalakar - Ah, ubiquitous but never cease to amuse. Nice.<br /> @Paul Cochrum - Very well executed! Great shot! It just screams summer.<br /> @Sanford Gerald - keep the car shots coming :) but be sure to preview your posting so as to avoid the double posts. Gorgeous car! The grass there looks like a putting green.<br /> @Mircea C - Wow, I'm amazed. I love that people are willing to let you take their picture. As I said before, I wonder if they'll remember this, and what they might think of.<br /> @John DeMarco - Another pretty car :) I love Porsches.<br /> @Laura Pond - Wow... a powerful shot and a sad reminder of what we've gotten ourselves into. This shot is worthy of display somewhere prominent, just as the subject itself is being displayed.<br /> @Paula Wang - Fantastic! Amazing colors...<br /> @Benjamin Schaefer - Congrats on the new treasure :) I rather like the yellow, actually.<br /> @Doug Santo - Very nice treatment of Tahoe. I may have omitted the foreground tree, but it also works here. Just a personal preference I suppose. I like the lines the boat wakes make here as well. Such a clear lake...<br /> @Jose Antonio Ramirez - You made me laugh! haha Nice subject too ;) apparently you weren't the only one that found her interesting.<br /> @Steve Vanderford - Wow, I love the off-camera flash! And also I really love your treatment here, almost an abstract but it still looks like a photo in some of the details. I'd love to hear more about how you did this, if you don't mind sharing your secrets. :)<br /> @Mikhail Tsypkin - I'm SO jealous of everybody getting to go to these wonderful places! Another fantastic shot! Way to keep the theme!<br /> @Louis Meluso - Congratulations on a fantastic portrait! This is one that<br /> @Thomas Burden - Love the composition here, the soldiers all in a row.<br /> @Janne Kaakinen - Just great!!!<br /> @James Kazan - Great environmental shot... this looks like it belongs in a tour guide book!<br /> @Sergio Galicia - I've seen similar shots, and you've done it as well as any of them. Though I do see your sensor dust. ;)<br /> @Jeanne Hauschild - Gorgeous! I love the simple composition here, very effective.<br /> @Rick Dohme - Hahaha Free Ice Cream!<br /> @James Blachly - Cool :) Railroad stuff is one of my favorite things to photograph.<br /> @Steve Phillips - How do you like that LensBaby? Looks like she's having a good time. :) Almost time for school!<br /> @Waldemar Giers - I'm thinking that sounds better than work and moving houses! Hope you enjoy your summer!<br /> @Thadd - It appears nice, but it's hard for me to see. I'd love to see a bigger version.<br /> @Jim Baughman - Oh how exciting! Maybe next time try a larger aperture to get a faster shutter speed, slow down that motion blur a bit. Or if that's what you intended, then well done!<br /> @Jared Angle - Nice, but I prefer the Vette myself. ;)<br /> @Richard Karash - Lovely! The composition is about perfect here to my eye. Nice, sloping fairway, very picturesque tree, impressive cloud formation in the background and a tiny little detail of the pin way back there. Very well done, sir.<br /> @Finlay Jolliffe - Gorgeous colors here... and nice detail.<br /> @Pietro Paolo Angelo Pravettoni - Oooh I like the perspective and crazy lines here. Nice B&W treatment as well.<br /> @Charles Becker - Well done! Great lines, nice composition, and the picture really lets the viewer know what is going on here.<br /> @Pete S. - Congratulations. ;)<br /> @Lester Rosebrock - Oh wow! I don't even know what to say... that's amazing!<br /> @Wenshu Chen - Simple, elegant, and lovely. Nice contrast of the vine here. One of my favorites!<br /> @paul sooHoo - Is he really a policeman? He must be off-duty.<br /> @Jay Poel - Very cool shot of a very cool trick. You Canucks know a thing or two about parachute teams too it would seem. ;)<br /> @Lance Noell - Your shot made me laugh out loud, prompting visitors to my cubical. Thanks! haha<br /> @Lex Jenkins - Neat Macro. How do you like that 55mm Macro? As compared to the 105 pictured?<br /> @Cees Maas - Very clever! It reminds me of the "Kodak Photo Spot" or whatever they called them. I like the off-axis shot of the "magazine cover" here... much more interesting than it would have been straight-on!<br /> @Yuriy Granov - I love your shot's tone here (I like low-key B&W photographs). I can't decide if, were it me, I would place the bench to the left or right side of the frame, but I do like your photo quite a bit. Also, try to remember to confirm your posting "looks right" on the second page before hitting the "submit" button... if it needs fixing, make the corrections and hit the "update" button first and then "submit" when it looks right. It can be kinda tricky.<br /></p>

<p>Well if you're getting it for free, what do you have to lose?</p>

<p>I'd also like to chime in on the Tamron, it's one heck of a little lens. Yes it does have a built-in autofocus motor ("whirrr, whirrr"). Now that it has VR built in... what are you waiting for? This is something you'll only find in Canon (that is, a normal-range 2.8 zoom with stabilization).</p>

<p>chauncey,<br>

Please let us know how you like your new lenses. You did well getting them used (I got my 17-55 used as well) and now that someone else took the "new lens" depreciation hit, you shouldn't lose any money on them should you decide to sell them in the future.</p>

<p>Looking forward to seeing some images... post to Nikon WedNEsDAys!</p>

<p>PC (XP Pro SP3) and Linux, actually. :) I can't bring myself to spend the kind of cash that Apple wants for its notebooks (or desktops for that matter).</p>

<p>Hey everyone,<br>

I'm normally pretty active in the Nikon forum, so I may recognize some of you.</p>

<p>Anyhow, I've gotten to the point where I want to improve my workflow and go to strictly RAW. Right now, I shoot RAW+JPG(basic) (it's all the D40 does), I import everything using Picasa3, put the pics in folders named as the date I imported them and then the "keepers" go into an album with a more appropriate name.</p>

<p>For instance:<br>

Folder: (External HDD)\Photo\20090814<br>

Album: Family Vacation 2009</p>

<p>Now the reason I shoot RAW+JPG is because I can usually get it pretty close to how I want the picture to look in the camera and haven't really wanted to change that. If I get a particularly good photo, or something I messed up (WB or exposure, that kind of thing), then I have the RAW file I can edit. I haven't gone to JPG conversion from RAW because, well, I don't care for ViewNX, and I'm not willing to pay for CaptureNX. I do have Adobe CS3 (and if I recall, ACR updated itself to CS4, but Photoshop is still CS3 obviously).</p>

<p>I've been really happy with how Picasa works as it is quite intuitive. However, it just feels a little slow since I'm starting to amass a lot of pictures and I'm not sure it handles some RAW files right. Some of my shots end up looking like their JPG previews, then they lose the saturated colors and look RAW, and then darker ones sometimes get even worse with all sorts of horrible noise.</p>

<p>Basically, my point is, I've got CS3, and I was wondering if I would really benefit from dropping Picasa and in-camera JPGs and going with CS3 (or CS3 + ViewNX). Any thoughts? I've never tried a batch conversion, the concept seems somewhat daunting...</p>

<p>Thanks for your help.</p>

<p>I must say, I do love my Nikon stuff but if I was looking for a big upgrade (going full-frame) I would look long and hard at the 5D MkII. What a sweet rig, especially paired with that, what, 24-105/f4 IS lens? I think that's the one.</p>

<p>Seems to me that the Canon lenses tend to run a bit less in price than their Nikon equivalents. Also, seems more Canon lenses have IS than Nikkors have VR. Not that this matters a LOT, but some of the L series shorter zoom lenses have IS whereas none of the pro-line short zoom Nikkors have VR (like the 17-55). Obviously both systems are present in the 70mm+ lenses.</p>

<p>Mitchell,<br>

Are these JPGs straight out of the cameras, or both RAW conversions? You may consider that the D300 does less image prettifying (favoring low noise over very fine detail, which might be what you mention as "sharper" and more dynamic range) than the D40 in its JPG engine. This is just a guess though.</p>

<p>Your best bet is to make sure you are using RAW files if you aren't already.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Part of me wants to suggest waiting until you can afford an excellent quality used 17-55/2.8, and then down the road, that 300 you're thinking of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Part of me does, too, but then again I own it, love it, and maybe I'm just trying to justify my purchase. Anyway, yeah if you find yourself using your telephoto at big apertures (f/4 up to f/2.8) then you may want to consider a "normal" 2.8 zoom. I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 for a brief period and had I not found a hell of a deal on the Nikon, I would have kept it... it's <em>very</em> good. No major complaints and it is better in every way than the kit 18-55 zoom. (I didn't notice much difference at all between 50mm and 55mm, FWIW)</p>

<p>Another thing to point out, since you mentioned wanting to do portraiture, is that 50mm is probably the shortest you'll want to use on a DX camera for headshots, and obviously a larger aperture will allow more background blurring. If you really want to do portraits, you already have a great lens (your 80-200). Use that. When I'm doing portraits and the like, I find myself using my 17-55 (since I'm still in the honeymoon period and I use it all the time and it's my best lens) but I'm always at 55mm and wishing I had more. Occasionally I've used my 55-200VR zoom, and it works well but depending on the background and lens settings the bokeh can get somewhat hairy and distracting.</p>

<p>All in all, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be a fantastic choice, unless you think you want more reach (and instant autofocus override) and are willing to give aperture speed, in which case the 16-85 may be for you. You shouldn't have trouble finding either one new and they'll both please. I know a lot of people love their 18-200 and it certainly has its place, but you'll be duplicating the range that your 80-200 already does <em>significantly</em> better.</p>

<p>**EDIT** Sorry I misread your post. Your telephoto zoom is broken? $500 to repair it? Well, how often do you use it and at what focal length do you use it?</p>

<p><strong>Goodmorning everyone, and Happy WedNEsDAy!</strong> <br /> <br /> <strong> @Jose Angel</strong> , is there a particular reason you arrived at the odd capitalization of Wednesday? I was just curious.<br /> <br /> Thank you everyone who commented on my picture last week, who responded to my questions, and who simply took the time to look. :) I hope to continue to learn from everyone as I have already.<br /> <br /> <strong>I've started to notice that each Wednesday forms a theme or a trend</strong> or two. Starting this week, <strong>I'll try to point them out.</strong> <br /> <br /> I also think <strong>we are onto something with the posting phase and commenting phase</strong> ... why don't we all post on Wednesday, there will be a few coming in on Thursday, and we can begin commenting on Friday (there will always be a few stragglers posting). That way we'll have all of Friday and the weekend to carefully consider and post on the pics that stand out to us.<br /> <br /> To those of you wanting comments... <strong>quid pro quo</strong> . :) I've also noticed that if you ask questions, people are happy to talk about their pictures. It is a <strong>discussion forum</strong> , after all.<br /> <br /> <strong>My comments are to come Friday morning</strong> . :) I want to be able to include as many as I want so I think the <em>waiting is good</em> .<br /> <br /> So without further ado, here's my picture. I submit "<strong><em>Another Year Gone, Another New Beginning</em> </strong> "<br /> <br /> I took this on Sunday at Marsh Creek State Park near my house. I was out on a walk, on my birthday, out with a girl I've been seeing (and am just <em>smitten </em> with ::sigh::). I had to show off a <em>little</em> . :) It had just finished raining, and we were walking along the lake while chatting. At one point, we encountered a bit of mud, and I stood in it and let her step on my feet to cross so that we could go play with the Cattails growing on the shore. <em>(Oh, the things we do...) </em> Anyhow, on the return to the car (it was getting dark as you can see) the sunset was very pretty, but I wasn't really interested in just another sunset shot. As I turned to walk around a large puddle of water, I caught the reflection of this tree silhouetted against the sky on the top of the hill and immediately knew this was <strong>THE </strong> shot.<br /> <strong><br /> Photo Comments</strong> : I don't have the RAW file on me or else I'd do maybe a bit of work to this. This is SOTC. I shot it at ISO200 with a much too slow shutter, 1/40. In retrospect, I'd have bumped it to ISO400, shot it at 1/60, braced myself a little better, and closed the aperture a bit. Oh well, these small sizes don't show motion blur (almost straight up and down in this one) too bad. It'll make a nice small print. Thank you for looking.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9726824-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<h1>Another Year Gone, Another New Beginning</h1>

<p>Equipment: Nikon D40, Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G DX Nikkor</p>

<p>Richard, so true... I was out on a walk with my ladyfriend yesterday and got a great reflection sunset shot and I exclaimed, "Now I've got something for Wednesday!" She replied, "What?" "Oh, nothing." :)</p>

<p>I have a 17-55mm lens and the SB-800 mounted to my D40 and don't find it really all that cumbersome. Having said that, it's nearly an entirely different camera with the small 35/1.8 and the SB-400 mounted. It really depends on what you are willing to deal with. You may try taking your D40 to a store and mounting the SB-600 on there to see how it feels. After all, in the end it just matters how it feels in YOUR hand.</p>