hal_b

<p>I think the one beef with the 105 Micro is that it is only f/2.8, which doesn't amount to very fast for a prime lens. The 105mm f/2 DC gives 1 stop more light and dead-perfect isolation depth of field. For *about* the same money, there's also the 85mm f/1.4, which gives yet another full stop more light and DOF.</p>

<p>I've been to many presentations where individuals had "drag-and-dropped" full-res images onto a PowerPoint slide, and gave the presentation on a public laptop presenter PC. The experience can be painfully slow.</p>

<p>Downsize all your images to the maximum vertical resolution (not horizontal). This is probably 1620x1080 pixels. A wide-screen projector is too wide for photography, and you will be limited by the height. A full-screen projector is too tall for 35mm slides (3:2 aspect), so this would leave you resizing only slightly to match the width, be it 1600 or 1024 pixels.</p>

<p>Definitely settle on .JPG format. Being the most universal, JPG's will render fastest. Any loss in quality will be a moot point compared to the inherently terrible display format of digital projectors.</p>

<p>Obviously, the proof is in the portfolio, so to speak. And that means, as others have pointed out, complete wedding sets, not just the "best of" collection. This will help you pick the best photographer based on their product, not their equipment.</p>

<p>On the subject of camera bodies, however, there is a bare minimum level of quality expected. If the photographer is using a 4MP camera, I would be wary. I certainly wouldn't want my wedding portrait taken with a 4MP resolution, if I wanted it blown up to 18x12" or larger. As even the Rebel 450D has 12MP, you really needn't worry about that.</p>

<p>Make sure the photographer can consistently take the kind of pictures you want. Look for specific poses, first dance, exchanging the ring, etc. Some great photographers are magicians when it comes to pulling great shots out of any situation. This has nothing to do with whether they are using a latest gen entry level camera or pro level camera. Note that the Canon Rebel cameras you have mentioned ARE latest gen. It's not like they're using the original Digital Rebel 6MP.</p>

<p>I would replace both lenses with f/2.8 zooms. Since $1500 won't cover the cost for new Nikkor G AF-S zooms (the 24-70 is $1700 and the 70-200 VR II is $2300. You would need $4k to budget them both), you should look at older, used, or third-party options. Even used, one of these older versions will offer significant improvement over your current lenses.</p>

<p>You can easily find a 80-200mm f/2.8D in excellent condition for $800 or less. You might also look at the Tamron 70-200 or the Sigma 50-150, both in the $700 range.</p>

<p>Tamron's new 17-50mm f/2.8 VC is about $600. You could also look at their older 17-50 without VC for around $350. You could also consider a used Nikon 17-55 for under $1000. Even a used 28-70 might be found for around $1000. Unless you have a wide angle, too, most shooters who use the D90 prefer something in the 17-55 range, rather than 28-70.</p>

<p>Great shot! Nice skin tones.</p>

<p>I'm pretty familiar with the used market for these cameras. Anything in the Rebel series is only worth about $20-40, depending more on the time of day and the day of the week, rather than on its condition or specific model number. Now that the Elan II's and 7's are almost as cheap, it would be foolish to try to save a couple dollars at the sacrifice of so much more quality and features. And for just a few more dollars, you can get an EOS 5 or EOS 3, both of which are much more useful cameras than any of the Rebels.</p>

<p>Basically, if it's not an EOS 1, it's not worth much.</p>

<p>I would ordinarily say get more lens, and less camera. But in this case, that 75-300 lens isn't of much use to anyone. The 55-250 is much better, and has IS, for only a little more money. Since it might put you out of your budget, I would just settle for the 18-55mm lens for now. If you anticipate being able to expand your budget a little in the near future, then get the XS and save up a little to buy the 55-250. If that's not likely, then get the XSi and the 18-55mm, and put telephoto photography out of your mind.</p>

<p>Obviously, the best choice is the XSi, 18-55, and 55-250. I would forget about the 75-300, though.</p>

<p>That thread was closed because the Nikon Forum has an aversion to certain topics. It seems odd to me, since obviously there are still many people who would like to hash out said topics until the end of time. If a certain subgroup of slime-dwellers wants to argue about the relative merits of competing manufacturers until they are old and grey, why not let them? In fact, there should be a "Nikon vs Canon" forum specifically to give these people a place to argue without interfering with the rest of us. Besides, who doesn't like a good brand-slam once in a while?</p>

<p>Can't wait to see your progress when you get this worked out :)</p>

<p>Dude, seriously. ISO up. Camera on tripod so you can turn shutter down if necessary (1/30). Cross your background lights so that the hot spot is in the middle, not to the sides. Background lights on the right hit just to the left of center. BG lights on the left hit just to the right of center.</p>

<p>You're probably over-thinking the "diffuse light" thing. With 2-3 lights on the subject, you kill the shadows and the harsh light thing goes away. Plus, you're photographing stuff, not people, so it's not like you need to flatter them. Get rid of the bed sheets over the lights while you figure out the other technical details. Later, if you want, you can decide to introduce light-modifiers (diffuser panels), but you can't let them impede your progress in the meantime.</p>

<p>Finally, aim your subject lights so that they are hitting the shadows, too, because you shouldn't have to live with gray shadows in front of the subject. Think of the little area around the subject as part of the subject, too. If you notice, you actually have shadows now that are coming from the background lights. The background is so bright that it creates shadows in front of the subject. You need enough light from the front on those shadows to get rid of them.</p>

<p>To get technical, one of the lights is your "key light", meaning it is the main source lighting your subject. The other light is the "fill light", meaning it fills in the shadows. If you think of them this way, it can help to position them correctly and get rid of shadows.</p>

<p>It really depends on if you're refering to the Simga 10-20 f/3.5 or the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. I think most people mean the f/4-5.6. Still the difference in aperture is slight (only 1/3 stop). You probably want to be at f/6.3 or f/8 or above anyway for architectural photography. To do a good job, you should get a tripod, and it won't even matter how fast your lens is. This is a moot point. You can probably do your work with the Sigma, so if you need to save some money, go for it.</p>

<p>You're only talking about a couple hundred dollars difference (like $700 vs $500, right?). If the slightest edge on quality is worth $200 to you, then you'd better get the Canon. I'm talking image quality, not build quality. The Sigma is at least as well built as the Canon. This is probably not one of Canon's top sellers, because Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make good competing lenses that are nearly identical in performance and quality, and beat the Canon on price.</p>

<p>Sorry, that may have seemed like sort of an aimless wandering ramble, but my honest opinion is I don't think you'll ever notice a difference.</p>

<p>I understand adverts on the side bar. Some nuissances can't be helped. It's the ones that pop up and block the page that anger me. I make note of which companies use such adverts, and make a point not to use their products. I don't support such intrusive advertising.</p>

<p>Well, one thing ISN'T up for debate, and that's that Nikon's prices are higher. This is the source of the contention, I believe. We're talking about "value" because if you shoot Nikon, you have to justify why you spent more money. Was it worth it? That kind of thing. With Canon, you get all the features for less money. Some people think there are other compromises that explain the lower price. Other people think Nikon prices their gear inappropriately high. Case in point: Canon 1Ds III vs Nikon D3x. Nikon refuses to compete on price.</p>

<p>For all practical purposes, I would consider the performance identical all the way up to ISO 6400. The 5D might edge out the 1D at 6400, but that would be splitting hairs. At 1600 you would never be able to tell a difference. The 5D II, of course, extends up to 25600.</p>

<p>...Wait a minute. Just now, did you mean to ask about the 5D I when you said "old 5D"? Because that's a whole different animal from the 5D II.</p>

<p>The 5D II only has one thing on the 1D III: resolution. In EVERY OTHER RESPECT, the 1D III is a vastly superior camera. It is built to last forever, while the 5D still has some compromises. And don't think of the 1D III as "old". They came out less than 3 years ago, and only 11/2 years before the 5D II. And since they're so tough, a couple years of use doesn't amount to much.</p>

<p>As your question is simply "Which camera delivers better pictures?" I could assume that resolution is that most important thing to you. But if you never print larger than 8x10, it would be hard to argue that the 5D is any better at that than the 1D. Since the 1D is vastly superior in every respect (as a camera), there's only one option: 1D.</p>

<p>The only thing that might sway you in the other direction is if you shoot wide angles with a 14mm or 17mm lens, or something like that. In that case, only the 5D will give you full lens coverage.</p>

<p>I'm really not a fan of the green screen work. Is there any reason why you can't shoot with a natural background? It seems silly to shoot outdoors at a park in the grass, and then green screen out the background so you can show the dog outdoors at a park in the grass!</p>

<p>Regarding the canopy shine-through: you really need to ensure that you're shading from all natural light that can bleed through with a color cast. Try a double-layered canopy this year to make sure you aren't getting weird color casts from the canopy. You might have to mod the canopy yourself if you can't find a good, thick, canvas type canopy or something that fits your requirement.</p>

<p>Since you're setting up in a park, you might want to keep the lighting more simple. 3 lights seems like alot, especially for a subject (dog) that's half the size of 1 person. Maybe you can pull this off with 2 lights. Since you're working in close proximity, I would think 600ws lights might be a little pricey (read overkill) for this venture. Maybe 200-300ws lights? Anyone else have more insight on this?</p>

<p>Yeah, megapixels matter, but not so much within a certain range. I mean, there's a difference between 3MP and 10MP, but in the range of 3-8MP there isn't much difference. Also, in the range of 10-18MP there isn't much difference. There is probably something to be said for the jump from 12MP to 21MP, but there is so much detail aleady at 12MP that you have to look really close to tell the difference. It certainly isn't a big enough deal to let that alone make a decision for you.</p>

<p>I am confused by your question regarding prices. Are you looking for something in the $1200 range or the $2000 range? It's almost as if you are trying to decide just how many market segments there are, for marketing purposes, rather than for your own use to select a camera. If all you need is a camera, it shouldn't matter how many market segments Nikon has settled on vs how many Canon has settled on. I mean, if Nikon has 6 cameras in their lineup, and Canon has 7, does any of this matter if you're only going to buy one camera? </p>

<p>Name your price, and let's talk specific camera models that are actually competing for your money.</p>

<p>Set your shutter at EXACTLY 1/60 sec. That will grab exactly 1 complete light cycle. No reason to go to 1/30 (that will just give you more problems), and at 1/125 you only get half a cycle. Hopefully your flash will get the skater frozen well enough that you can expose the background at 1/60 without blurring the edges too much.</p>

<p>Why is Bob washing Alice's car? Do men have to do all the work so that a woman can sit around and negotiate contracts? Alice could just as easily be washing Bob's car. Or better yet, she could pick up the sponge and soap and learn how to wash her own car. If she were really money-conscious, she would spend Saturday morning washing the car herself and save the $10, rather than fret over contracts and file litigation against an irresponsible car-washer. Also, does she even have permission to spend the $10? Maybe her husband is planning on washing the car, but doesn't have time to do it until the afternoon. Does that mean Alice should spend the children's lunch money on a professional car wash just because she's not patient enough to let her husband fulfill his promises? Alice has some real priority issues, and something of a superiority complex. She's also far too self-absorbed with this car-washing thing. We all have to make sacrifices to protect our families when times get tough, and maybe she should hold back on the frequency of her car-washing to help alleviate the strains on the family budget. For shame, Alice, for shame.</p>

<p>Good point about the Sigma. It should be a terrific lens, and not something that you would necessarily look at replacing for any quantifiable weakness. I think most people here are focusing on the Nikkor 18-200 VR. That lens is actually really good, or so I've been told. Not having first hand experience, my understanding is that it is totally capable. It is only slightly undersharp at the longer end (150mm+). The bigger problem is probably that the aperture can't open very wide. In landscape photography, this is not really a concern, though.</p>

<p>I've used other super-zooms, and have never been impressed. Knowing how good the Tamron lens is, I would be surprised if it didn't offer some improvement over the Nikon in the 18-50 range. For careful landscape work, however, you would only be able to spot the difference at very close inspection.</p>

<p>I'm not directly familiar with the D50. I guess it's stats read alot like the D70? It still has an AF motor, doesn't it? What's the difference between the D50 and D70?</p>

<p>I'd like to preface by saying that I think you've already achieved something here. The new result is improved over the previous one.</p>

<p>To expound on something I mentioned earlier, the product you would want to look for is "Acetate paper". This is a translucent paper that you can use to make diffusion panels. Also, the bedsheet concept works better the farther from the sheet that the lights are. I can see that you don't have alot of room, so I'll leave it to you to be creative, but the idea is that the farther from the sheet that the light it, the more diffuse and even the light will be. Of course, the sheet eats 1-2 stops of light, or more depending on the thickness, etc. Also, the farther you move your lights, the less effective they are still. The way you've set it up, you are gaining something in the way of diffusion while maintaining maximum brightness from your lights, although you can see from your hot spots that you have not yet achieved perfect diffusion. Also, to add more confusion, the more diffuse the light is the less control you have over its placement.</p>

<p>It appears that it would certainly help if you had more room to work with. Your background lights are so close to the background that they are creating hot spots. If you are to have a hot spot, make sure it is behind the object, not off to the side. You might point your right-side lights to the left more, and the left-side lights to the right, so that the lighting crosses and covers the background more evenly.</p>

<p>In my opinion, I would deemphasize the need to overly brighten your background. I use a setup that isn't nearly so elaborate myself, and I think your desire to increase the quantity of lights from 6 to 9 is probably not necessary. The idea, at its essence, is for the background to appear pure white relative to the subject. In reality, the background IS white, so logic would follow that if both the subject AND background are evenly lit with the SAME amount of light, the background will display as white when the subject is properly exposed.</p>

<p>The problem is only when you light your subject more than your background, in which case the background tends to appear grey when the subject is properly exposed. Again, this is only true because your backdrop actually is white, not some darker shade or coor. You should be able to get by with 3 lights on your subject and 3 lights on your backdrop. Or 2 lights on the subject, 2 on the backdrop, and 2 to fill shadows on the subject and create extra spill onto the backdrop. You have to be conscious of the distance between the lights and the object they illuminate. In your first example, your background lights are far overhead, drastically reducing their ability to light the background. So your foreground lights were acting much brighter in comparison, due to their proximity to the subject.</p>

<p>What you must achieve is for a medium grey object in the subject location to be properly exposed when the white background is about 3 stops brighter. How you achieve this is completely up to your imagination. There is no hard-and-fast rule of "3 lights here, 3 lights there". Because light is so sensitive to proximity, you can really fool the lights be moving them closer or farther away. Also, you will get more evenly blended light the farther away you move them from the object. Note, the key here is blended, not diffuse. Diffuse light is created by bringing the lights closer.</p>

<p>Finally, you don't need to be using exposure compensation at all. Exposure comp is only for using Shutter priority or Aperture priority modes (also Program). In Manual mode, it is irrelevant. All that matters is what you set your ISO, shutter, and aperture. When in Manual mode, your viewfinder meter will indicate how much over or under the meter reading you are exposing. This is a fine point, but one that you should understand.</p>

<p>You might bump your ISO up to about 400-640. This will give you alot more freedom with your shutter speeds and apertures. You ought to have a shutter speed of at least 1/30. If your shutter is all the way down to 1/15, you'll waste alot of time trying to be extra careful that you aren't shaking the camera. Also, D-Lighting isn't something that would offer much benefit in this situation. It just wastes more time while the camera has to process each photo for twice as long.</p>

<p>Matt, I can understand where you're coming from. Truly, I can. There's some sound reasoning behind my complaints, however. And they don't have anything to do with you directly. I also understand that conditions vary from one company to the next, and from one IT department to the next.</p>

<p>Can I share another specific experience without becoming personal? There is a particular software that I use for which each license costs about $6000. An upgrade license cost varies depending on which version you are using. This software gets upgraded every year, and if the company upgrades along with the developer, the upgrades charge is only about $1000 per license per year. However, if you wait, say, 4 years, and then upgrade, the charge is somewhere around $3000 to upgrade.</p>

<p>Now, this software has been 100% sufficient for me to do my job ever since about 2002. There are other users in other departments who are really keen on the latest upgrades, but my department is not so concerned. When the company decides to upgrade, it's done company wide, regardless of the specific departmental requirements. So each year, we get upgrades to this software whether we want it or not. It has gotten to the point where we are now using version 2009, which demands twice the resources that the older versions used to. Each year it gets worse. When we get version 2010, I can expect another performance decrease, as along with upgrades come additional useless features that I have neither the time nor the inclination to learn.</p>

<p>Company-wide, the are spending around $50,000/yr to upgrade all of our licenses for this program, while there may only be 10 users that actually need the latest upgrades. That means they are wasting $40,000/yr due to policy, rather than necessity. This is not security software. It is not OS software. It is not database software. It is just a design tool (think Photoshop, just way more expensive). This means that every year, as I watch my computer get upgraded and bogged down, the company is wasting $1000 on me, personally, so that I may enjoy this new upgrade. And this is just 1 software that I use. There are at least 2 others that are similar, and carry similar price tags.</p>

<p>At the same time, I watch my hardware age with each passing year. My PC is now 6 years old, and running Windows XP. It is literally choking on the software being shoved down its throat. The replacement value of the hardware that I use is about $400 today, due to how dated it is. My coworker's new PC cost the company $4000 for the hardware alone. Add on top of that the IT labor required to bring the PC up to speed with all of our softwares, and the company has more than $10,000 invested in his new computer. And the OS? A $200 software that is bottlenecking the entire system because it can't handle a hyper-threaded multiple-core processor with any competency. The company actually pays extra for a down-grade license on top of what they pay initially for Windows 7, so that we can have the privilege of using Windows XP on a new computer. Similar computers are coming to the rest of us in the department whenever we can justify the need, so that IT can get the budget they need to upgrade our hardware. When it's all said and done, we'll all be running the latest and greatest software on totally modern Nehalem-based Hyper-threaded Quad-cores with $2000 video cards, $1000 monitors, and of course, Windows XP to choke them all.</p>

<p>See, the problem in my particular IT deparment isn't one of limited resources, it's one of mismanaged resources. It is evident by the extravagent purchases that they are able to allocate funds when the need arises. They probably have some misguided notions about the security of Windows XP, or maybe they've just grown accustomed to how they deploy software through XP, or they're just complacent on the issue because migrating everybody to a new OS has to be done company-wide and it's "alot of work". I understand laziness. I use it myself. But mine doesn't affect my coworkers. I'm lazy on my own time, not when others are counting on me. In my company at least, where there's a will there's a way. And IT has no will over here.</p>

<p>Perhaps their will has been broken, or they have some unholy taskmaster enacting his will upon them. As far as I can tell, there is an irrational hardware>software attitude that is only penetrated by department managers with the clout to force their particular softwares to get updated each year. Everyone else must suffer. It reminds me of Catbert, the Evil HR Director, who delights in the suffering of the employees. The story goes on and on, so this is just a part of it. Sorry for making it so long.</p>

<p>I think the choice of subject is an afterthought for textbook writers. These are people who think all day about technical issues, and have little time left over for creativity.</p>

<p>Even when a true expert is creating a tutorial, he's more inclined to just shoot whatever is close at the time, so that his mind is free to explain the technicalities in detail without worrying about creating an impressive photograph to boot. A truly interesting photograph is often not something that you can produce while simultaneous explaining your actions into a video camera.</p>

<p>I only use my 50mm at f/1.8. It's not even worth talking about stop-down sharpness to me, because if I'm at f/2.8 or above, it's the Tamron lens on my camera! The Tamron is as sharp as I could ask for, and I think anyone who's down on that lens just hasn't tried it for himself. I don't even think it's much a matter of sample variation, as Tamron users are almost universally agreed that their 17-50 f/2.8's and 28-75 f/2.8's are extremely sharp and reliable lenses. Tamron must have a pretty decent manufacturing process to produce these with such regular quality. I've used 3 different ones myself, and they've been consistently good.</p>

<p>That said, I'll always keep my 50mm around. At f/1.8, it's 1 1/3 stops faster than my Tamron at its fastest. When the lights go down, the 50mm is all that's left to me. Those of us fortunate enough to have a f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens around are in even better shape. My relunctant answer: keep 'em both. You'll regret letting go of your 35mm f/2.</p>