orcama60

<p>Hi folks,<br>

Peter Zack -- Excellent color rendition and great composition. Congrats !!<br>

Nathan -- Half moon well taken. Congrats !!<br>

Here is my contribution for today. Was taken at Fort San Marcos in the city of San Agustin, Florida. The infantry cannon belonged to Spain and was part of their artillery to defend the fort. </p><div></div>

<p><em>Radio triggers are far more reliable than optical methods like CLS or the SU-800, and unless you're in a papparazzi scrum or working next to a radio station, I see no reason why cheap triggers shouldn't work just as reliably as expensive ones ....</em><br>

<em>>> </em>That is exactly why I posted this question, that I don't know what to get. If radio trigger is the answer, then I go for, but which one to be exact ? Let's put it this way, I do have $500 to invest on this, so, with this kind of budget, what would you get if you were in my shoes ? </p>

 

<p>Thanks guys. Matt, I am new to this but I guess I would like to have iTTL capability. Most of the time, that is what I use in my speedlight setup. Nevertheless, when you say "simple triggering", does this means that you could use any type of setup in your speedlight ( iTTL, manual, etc ) and still be able to trigger the speedlight ? What's the difference please ?</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Maurice.</p>

<p>Hi folks, I do have two Nikon speedlights, the SB-800 and the SB-700. I am trying to decide what would be my best choice to wireless trigger those units, if either with the SU-800 ( expensive ) or with a Pocket wizard or the newest radio poppers. Until now, anytime I want to shoot wireless, I use one of those units as a commander and the other as a slave with umbrella. My Nikon D300 small speedlight can also serve as a commander but I don't want to use that light in my shooting and I know there is a way to shut it off ( kind of ), but I would prefer a more reliable unit, like the SU-800 or the cheapest radio transmitter. </p>

<p>I am shooting weddings sometimes and portraits. In your experience, what would be my best option here ? The SC-28 / 29 wired cord is a good choice but limited to a max distance at about 5 - 6 feet away from camera and sometimes I need more than that. So, definitely I need longer working distance and again, what do you think I should get. This will be my first dedicated wireless unit to buy and honestly, I would not want to spend hundreds on it. Please advise and thank you so much in advance for you help.</p>

<p>Best regards, <br>

Maurice</p>

<p>4 bodyguards to avoid being kidnapped or killed by the Zetas, an xtra liver, a box of sex protection, an insurance policy that cover accident and natural death and a lot of money to pay the "mordidas" from every single cop out there. Good luck !!</p>

<p>Hi folks,<br>

Great pictures today. I do like so far : <br>

- Simon ( Morning all ) : Simplicity, pastel colors, great composition and it does pull you in making you feel that you want to be there. Very good !<br>

- Tim ( Young women on prom ) : Very nice concept, great lighting and great composition.<br>

- Clive ( White sands ) : Very good composition. I like the direction of light. <br>

- Alejandro ( Venice ) : Great picture. Very misty, dreaming and good composition.<br>

- Doug Santo ( Courtyard ) : Great B&W, great composition and well processed. Architecture is well defined in this picture in my opinion, great perspective.</p>

<p>Here is my contribution for today. <br>

Best regards,<br>

Maurice.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Rae,<br>

I have been shooting weddings and models lately. Honestly, to cover all kind of shots, from A to Z, I only use 3 to 4 lenses but rely basically on two only. The two I use most are 70-300 mm and 16-85 mm VR. Then for indoor ( during weddings ) I switch to the 35mm f/1.8 and sometimes, to the 50 mm f/1.8. Let me point out that the only reason for me to switch to the 35 f1/.8 ( sometimes ) is when the light is poor and I need to open my aperture beyond f/2.8. If I would have the D7000 which behave very good in low light conditions and the great 24-70 f/2.8, I don't think I would have the need to use the 35 f/1.8 that much. <br>

Also, If you know how to use a flash for wedding indoor shots, then you do not need a f/1.8 lens except for some shots. Basically you will rely on two lenses, a medium zoom and a zoom ( 24-70 and 70-200 basically ). </p>

<p>If you want to learn how the pros do this, check this website : <br>

www.neilvn.com/tangents/</p>

<p>Neil van Nierke is a professional wedding / model photographer and you can learn from him and see by yourself that he only rely basically on two lenses ( 24-70 and 70-200 ) and sometimes, he switch to a f/1.8 - f/1.4 lens but only on special shots. So, I think this answer your question. Do not hesitate to check him out and you will learn everything you need to know about shooting weddings / models and what lenses you need to achieve the best in your pictures. Good luck.</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Maurice</p>

<p>Here is the other shot with the Nikon 105 ....</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Sheila, I use two lenses for macro : Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 VR or Sigma 150 mm f/2.8. Both are great lenses. I commonly use the Sigma from a distance if I want to shoot insects, butterflies, etc. For flowers, and others, the Nikon 105. Here are a couple of shots taken with both lenses but honestly I do not know if they will work with your camera. </p><div></div>

<p>Charlie, I also have a D300 and I am waiting to upgrade but this is what I do think about : I must have two cameras and If I had enough money right now, my two cameras will be the D4 and the D800. Why ? For landscaping, macro and architecture, the D800 is the best in the market. For any other type of photography, the D4. Now, If I had the money and the D400 would be available, I would pick the D400 and the D800. Why ? Because I like the xtra range with DX lenses and that way I could use my lenses with another DX camera better than the D300. <br>

I do agree with Abib. The D300 is a great camera, but sometimes, I need to increase my ISO and we know the D300 is not that good in this department. Other than that, I have no complaint about my camera D300. <br>

If I do not have enough money to buy two new cameras, then in I would wait for the D400. Practically I am on your shoes. I am waiting for this camera to be available and that will be my first camera and I would keep my D300 as a second camera. For now, that is exactly what I am doing. </p>

<p>There are other options, like the D7000 but this camera is not that good for shooting in RAW due to the buffer problem and I do not want to rush myself. I better wait another 6 months or the entire 2012 to see if Nikon give us the expected D400, otherwise, if they decide not to, then I will try to buy the D800. What I do like about this camera is that I will use it for macro, landscaping, low light and architecture. For sport, portrait and wedding, my D300. </p>

<p>I think you need to define yourself what is it that you want to do with photography before you go for another camera but I do believe it is a good practice to have at least two cameras and in my case, I would like to have a DX and FX if possible. Good luck and read what Thom Hogan is saying about the new D800 and the D4 and the lack of DX cameras we do have right now, except for the consumer cameras like the new D3200 and the D7000, which is not in my opinion, the next step in the ladder for me. I do agree with Daniel. Ken will tell you to buy the last one in the market but that is his opinion. As a photographer, you need to decide what camera is the one you need for the type of photography you do. But if you have the money and you want to add another camera to your arsenal, I would pick the D800 for sure but you know this means, that you would have to buy some lenses to match a FX camera like that one, otherwise, I would wait and welcome to the club. I do have the same problem you do.</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Maurice.</p>

<p>If it was me Jon, I would buy the D4 and will not look back. I would suggest to read Thom Hogan website. In a few days, he will come back from vacation after testing the D800 and the D4 in full and perhaps that will help you to make a decision. We already have other professional reviews that some people does not pay attention to, but it is good to read, like the review given by Ken Rockwell. I like to read all they said about the same subject and that is why I do recommend to read what Ken Rockwell said about this camera, the D800. <br>

But my suggestion is not based on what he said, but simply in the fact that the D4, for my photography style, is better suited. If the D4 is too expensive, then I would go for the D3s. The D4 has more fps, same ISO behavior and enough pixels to get a good resolution in your pictures and you don't have to buy another computer to download the huge files created by the D800. For me, that is enough to point to the D4. Again, this is my humble opinion Jon. </p>

<p>Best wishes,<br>

Maurice.</p>

<p>This is my contribution for today.</p><div></div>

<p>Wow, I am impressed with your picture Dejan. Congratulations !! You nailed it up there. I do love everything on that picture. This is off the chart. Composition, lighting, color tonality and color combination, etc. Excellent !! <br>

Beside that picture, I do like : <br>

JANA's picture : Beautiful model, lighting and composition.<br>

JEANNEAN : I like this macro picture. Great lighting and compostion.</p>

 

<p>Dan, I do have the MB-D10 for my D300 and I my only complaint about it is the multi-selector that it is to tiny and not as accurate as the one in the D300; my question is : have Nikon improved this on the MB-D12 at least ? By the way, I do agree with you that is is pricey. </p>

<p>No offense taken and if I made you angry for my question or statement, then I am sorry. The fact for me is that after I have read everything here, I have learned a lot from you guys. Thank you so much for your time. </p>

<p>Yes Dan, you are right. Are you a dedicated sport photography ? How much of speed will you get a f/5.6 ISO 6400 ? If you are, can you post a picture shot a pro football game please ?</p>

<p>Andrew, never felt like that. Perhaps it was me that did not explain for what type of photography we needed it hight ISO. Different opinions are welcome and this is the way to learn and thank you for your statement. Making a mistake is good. </p>

<p>I do agree Thomas. If you want to have it available when you need it, it is better than not. I am not against anybody to buy this camera. If you want to have a ferrari and have the money, go for it. Problem is most likely you will not be able to drive it at any speed higher than 80, otherwise, the police will ticket you, but I guess it is better to have it than not. I do agree to this.<br>

If somebody in this thread is a dedicated sport photography ( not shooting kids running in the back yard ), I would like to see a picture in which an ISO 6400 ( f/4 - f/5.6 ) was used and how much of speed did you get out of that. Other than that, for portraiture, landscaping, architecture, studio photography, macro, etc, do we really need to shoot at high ISO ? <br>

Let me correct that for landscaping, you don't need to shoot at f/1.4 but f/8 +, just because I said f/1.4 I don't want you to think I meant to shoot at f/1.4 for landscaping. </p>

<p>Well guys, I did not start this to qualify myself as a photographer using your opinion as a thermometer. Everybody is entitle to his own opinion and I am ok with those against mine. For sports photography I have no doubt that you need to use high ISO to get at least 1/250 ( 1/500 ) or more of a second to freeze the action, but for landscaping, art photography, architecture, etc I don't see the need in my humble opinion. Photojournalism mainly use the flash but I do agree that for sport, we need a high ISO performance. <br>

Nevertheless, I do appreciate everything you said. This is the reason we do have a forum, to learn from others and or make our point about something. But again, for my photography style, I prefer to have a f/1.4, good tripod, remote and a D300 to get what I want. High ISO for landscaping ? I don't see the need but If I am wrong, please, explain why you may need high ISO to shoot a landscape ? Please explain cause I maybe be wrong and I would like to learn from you guys. </p>

<p>Well guys, I did not start this to qualify myself as a photographer using your opinion as a thermometer. Everybody is entitle to his own opinion and I am ok with those against mine. For sports photography I have no doubt that you need to use high ISO to get at least 1/250 ( 1/500 ) or more of a second to freeze the action, but for landscaping, art photography, architecture, etc I don't see the need in my humble opinion. Photojournalism mainly use the flash but I do agree that for sport, we need a high ISO performance. <br>

Nevertheless, I do appreciate everything you said. This is the reason we do have a forum, to learn from others and or make our point about something. But again, for my photography style, I prefer to have a f/1.4, good tripod, remote and a D300 to get what I want. High ISO for landscaping ? I don't see the need but If I am wrong, please, explain why you may need high ISO to shoot a landscape ? Please explain cause I maybe be wrong and I would like to learn from you guys. </p>

<p>It is very interesting the way the new D800 / D4 are leading everyone to buy this equipment based on the idea to shoot at higher ISO values, but in reality, we know that we do not need to shoot at ISO 6400 much less above that value. Is it not better to have a faster lens mounted in your camera rather than shooting at higher ISO ? <br>

Any lens f/1.2, f/1.4 or f/1.8 are fast enough to let us shoot in low light condition ... if we need to. But again, we do not shoot the dark but the light, do we ? So, I guess if there is not enough light available, what is the point to make that shot anyway ? Should not be better to turn on some light or use a flash instead ? Or simply, just quit and come back when available light is present at the scene, no ? If it is dark, there is nothing appealing in the scene, is it ? </p>

<p>The D800 / D4 are coming with too many other features that when we put them together, makes us think about upgrade to them, but buying this camera just because it will let us shoot at higher ISO, I don't think is a good idea. As I said before, would not be better to replace ISO with faster lenses ? Would not be better to use for example, a f/1.4 lens and a tripod and shoot at ISO 800 / 1600 ( max ) rather than use a f/2.8 lens handheld and shoot at ISO 6,400 + ? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I took this photo with my D300 and Nikon 105 f/2.8. I could have use my flash SB-800 but I decided to give it a shot to my camera to find out how good it would perform by taking the picture with high ISO. I had to have at least 1/400 of speed to freeze the action and the only way was to increase the ISO.<br>

Here is the result. The picture was processed with Nik Silver Efex Pro II and a noise reduction was not apply to the photo. <br>

For sure, in situations like this, having a camera with high ISO performance is a most. If I would have had the D3s or D4 in my hands, this picture would have been very clean and neat. However, the D300 does not perform that bad and even though we can see noise and grain in the picture, it is usable and still not a bad picture after all. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Interesting Chris but very debatable. I think we have the tendency to believe the newest camera is overkilling the previous one, in this case, the excellent D3 / D3s. I don't think, regardless of that review, that this camera is far superior to the D3s or the last Canon. <br>

We will probably never see the difference between shots taken with the D3s and the new D800. Right now, both cameras behave the same about ISO performance which is probably, the most sensitive area of expected improvement on a new camera and we don't see that on the D800 over the D3s. Other than that, they are both almost the same and if there is any difference about image quality, I doubt it that we will be able to see it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>That's right Dan. It is like buying a 2011 and 2012 car; probably and most likely, we will not see any difference in performance. What they want is our money. </p>

<p>Thomas, read Thom Hogan article of today regarding comparison between the D3s and the D4. As I said before reading that article, I don't think there will be a huge difference between those two cameras regarding ISO performance. </p>