philip_tam

<p>I do think there's a lot of crappy photographers out there. Wedding photography as a business is a lot about the photographer's business/sales.</p>

<p>I think the advice people gave so far is really good, but in addition, if you have concerns about post-processing, flash/available light skills, just ask. Be up front about it. Ask what their philosophy is, and be sure to say what you're looking for.</p>

<p>At the same time, try to relax a bit. I'm sure if any other photographer tailed you around while you shot pictures, they could point out areas where they think you're making mistakes. I did a lot of travel/street/landscape photography before I started doing weddings, and it's night and day. With weddings you're mind is constantly being pulled in different directions: creativity, technical setup, demands on time, anticipation, and your environment. It takes a lot of consciousness of all these aspects, and things slip through the cracks.</p>

<p>Sometimes, you're forced to choose between flaws just to get the picture out of the way and let people go about their business. It's not a portrait session, you have to move on.</p>

<p>Full frame is most definitely better than crop frame... but in your case I would probably buy a used D300 or D300s to use in the meantime. This isn't the kind of decision you want to make with your back to the wall, especially since going full frame would me revising nearly your entire lens library. It also gives you some time to see where Nikon is going in the next 4 months or so.</p>

<p>I disagree with Ikka. While I agree that my D7000 will sometimes miss autofocus in low light with some lenses, I use it at ISO 1600 without hesitation, and up to ISO 3200 if I think it won't be blown up or if I can go black and white.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Seth, no P&S is really that great in low-light without flash. Even with the slightly larger sensor (compared to other compacts), a S95 will be rather noisy past ISO400.</p>

<p>It's a nice little cam, but it is what it is: a decked out P&S. I have an LX5, and I try very very hard not to use it past ISO200.</p>

<p>I have both the 16-85mm, and the 35mm 1.8, and I agree that it's an awesome combo, but I think it's a good combo for certain types of photography. You should really understand what you're getting into before you drop money on a set of lenses...</p>

<p>A 35mm 1.8 is not good for macro. It doesn't focus close, and doesn't look that great when focused up close. It is however, an excellent indoor/low-light lens, and is decent for shallow depth-of-field whenever you need it.</p>

<p>A 16-85mm lens is a good static scenery or daylight walk-around lens. It ok in low-light for static scenes but not so good if there are any moving objects (VR stops camera shake, not object motion). It's a very capable landscape lens.</p>

<p>For me personally, the 35mm is an awesome lens, and the 16-85mm is kind of a backup lens to cover things I can't cover with other lenses. The 35mm gives you aperture range, while the 16-85 gives you focal length range. They are two very different lenses that happen to intersect at the 35mm focal length.</p>

<p>However, neither of these lens are all that great for close up: for that you'd do a lot better with a macro lens... usually macros are 60, 105, or 150mm, etc., but if you want something in the 35mm focal length there's the Tokina 35mm f/2.8. You sacrifice large apertures, and you gain corner sharpness, and close-focusing.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies everyone.</p>

<p>The only real "task" I have is to cover the groom during preparations/dressing while the primary covers the bride. Beyond that, the primary is being very helpful for me, and he says I can take whatever photos I want (and watch/study his style) so long as I don't do anything that would harm the reputation of the studio.</p>

<p>He told me that every photographer shoots differently, but his style is: 2 cameras (5DMII's), a 35 1.4, and an 85 1.4. The only other lens he uses is a 70-200 to get photos of the alter ceremony and the kiss from far off. That's what got me thinking about long telephotos...</p>

<p>Anyways, thanks for the advice everyone.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I've been booked as a 2nd shooter in my first wedding shoot. It's really a start for me to build a portfolio and eventually move onto being a prime shooter. I have a few questions though:</p>

<p>1. Roughly how many pictures do you shoot in 1 day on a full blown wedding event (dressing, ceremony, reception)? I have enough cards to yield 600 pictures (raw+jpeg), but I'm wondering if I need more memory cards.</p>

<p>2. Batteries for flash: how many backups do you prep/carry with you? I have a Nikon SB-600, and I have no experience with bouncing it in larger volume rooms... would it be wiser to get a more powerful flash?</p>

<p>3. Walking the aisle: Everyone tells me that the 70-200 2.8's are essential for the aisle walk. Should I rent one, or can I make do with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 that I have? I will not be able to preview the church, lighting situation, or such beforehand.</p>

<p>Thanks for any advice you can give...</p>

<p>So here's my schpeal with the D3100... I currently have a D3100, D5000, and D7000. Generally speaking, that is the order I like them in, least to most.</p>

<p>The D3100 is nice and light. I actually like the form factor of the D40/d60 better however... the D3100 is kind of pudgier. The D3100 is good in that it has ISO100 base, which is *critical* for me for flash sync speed issues (fill flash) and also long exposures, such as daylight ND grad exposures.</p>

<p>The D3100 however, has crazy shutter lag.</p>

<p>D5000: for all the talk of the D3100 antiquating the D3100, I still like the D5000 a bit better. It has the quietest shutter sound of any SLR I have ever used. I also like the articulated screen for low tripod shots (you ever try to look through a viewfinder with the camera 8in. off the ground?). The shutter is a bit faster than the D3100, and at least some tests say that the D5000 has better dynamic range at low ISO (it has a D90 sensor). The D3100 has better high ISO performance, but dynamic range is underwhelming. My major gripe about the D5000? ISO200 base... same as the D90.</p>

<p>D7000 just beats both cameras. It's faster, more rugged, more responsive (very little shutter lag), faster shot to shot times, better resolution, better dynamic range, etc. etc. It has custom settings, it has depth of field preview, it has a virtual horizon, AI-S support, AF-D support., off-camera flash support, need I go on?<br>

<br />The question is, do you need all of this? I most certainly wanted it. I was waiting for it... a base ISO100 camera, more featured than the D90, and smaller than the D300s. Nikon gave me exactly what I wanted.</p>

<p>If however, my feature list was somewhat less ambitious... I'd be happy with a D90, and the extra $600 in my pocket. Oh how I could spend that $600 in lenses...</p>

<p>I personally went from a D60 (which like 1/2 a generation newer than the D40), to a D5000, to a D7000.</p>

<p>Each step was an significant upgrade. I would say though, that if you're mostly shooting landscape, a lot of the D7000's features don't matter so much (the FPS, the dual card slots, the AI-S support, etc.). So, if you have any desire for another lens, it might be good to stick with a cheaper D90 to save money.</p>

<p>That said, the D7000 is thoroughly astounding. After using the D7000, the D5000 and D3100 both have shutter lag to me. The D7000's noise cleans up really well in ISO1600, and ISO3200 is very useable. 6400 is probably pushing it. For the D60, I often though ISO800 was pushing it. The autofocus is 'meh' when birding (perhaps my technique), and there is that small buffer issue, but other than that I've been completely satisfied. Was it worth my $1200? I do think it's pricey.</p>

<p>I think my point is, whether you get a D90 or a D7000, you're going to be making a rather big leap over the D40. You'll get auto-CA correction, off-camera flash, AF-D lens support, resolution, dynamic range (which is rather poor in the D40/60 etc.), and high ISO. The D7000 will be a bigger leap... faster FPS, more resolution, dynamic range, etc., but is it worth nearly double the cost? That's up to you to decide. The D7000 will definately last you longer (it's packed with the latest features), but the D90 is simply a great bargain right now (though it's slightly long in the tooth).</p>

<p>You have a good lens collection so I think you don't need to upgrade glass... except for perhaps the 18-55. You mind as well grab a kit lens since you're buying a camera, and get VR.</p>

<p>No matter what you do... it might be a good idea to keep the D40 also. It's a rather unique camera... high flash sync speed, base ISO 200.</p>

<p>Look for a Marumi DHG or Super DHG Circular Polarizer on Ebay. I think they're roughly $35, and they're top quality CP's even if they aren't well known compared to Hoya.</p>

<p>I like Hoya's ND filters and UV's, but I always find their CP's a bit weak.</p>

<p>Are we related in a past life?<br /><br /><br>

A while ago, I had every piece of gear you're speaking of: Tamron 10-24, 18-55, and 55-200 Nikons, to go with the D60.</p>

<p>My lens collection has changed, and I now have a D7000. I can honestly say that the D7000 is several leaps and bounds beyond the D60, so if you were to switch, you would have an immense performance gain.</p>

<p>I think though, the differences between Nikon and Canon are marginal. Canon has more video output options, but you can shoot great video with Nikon. It's just really up to you to pick which platform you want to work on.</p>

<p>Roughly speaking for me... sensors are incremental. A new generation sensor is just incrementally better than the previous generation sensor.</p>

<p>Lenses open new doors. A fast prime can do things a slow zoom can't do, which can do things other lenses can't do.</p>

<p>Better sensors will make your photos slightly better, more lenses let you take different kinds of photos. Camera *features* however (FPS, autofocus, etc.) also help you with your "keeper" rate.</p>

<p>It depends on what you shoot.</p>

<p>If you shoot landscapes, keep the D90 and save the money for other lenses. If you shoot in low-light or indoors, get the D7000. It's in another class at high ISO.</p>

<p>I have a D5000 (same sensor as a D90) and a D7000, and the D7000 is one step above.</p>

<p>The 50G and 50 AF-D have more aperture blades for smoother and more circular bokeh, and perhaps slightly less diffraction issues when stopped way down. AF-D probably focuses faster than the 50G, but the 50G focuses more silently and has full time manual focus available (focus clutch mechanism).</p>

<p>The 50 1.8: well it's a lot cheaper. I don't think the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is huge, so having 1.4 available isn't critical.</p>

<p>Don't forget the Sigma 50 1.4 either. (bigger, heavier, looks great on DX cameras, relatively fast focusing compared to the Nikons, autofocus doesn't work in live view for some cameras, great wide open, not so special stopped down).</p>

<p>It really depends on what you want to take pictures of, and how much money you want to spend. If you're getting a good deal on a D60 and you're on a budget, then it's a great place to start. The D60 however, is a few generations old. If you have a more comfortable budget, a D90 is a good place to start, and Canon has many offerings (notably the T1i or T2i).</p>

<p>Consider your lens as well as your camera. With Nikon, it's a very wise investment to pick up a kit lens *and* a 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. The latter will improve your learning and your pictures much more than any differences in camera bodies will, at this price level, in my opinion (unless you shoot only landscapes).</p>

<p>In my opinion:</p>

<p>Canon's are the safe bet for usual no frills pocket Point & Shoots. The SD1400IS takes 720P HD Video, and it has a pretty good jpeg engine. I think it goes 28mm wide.</p>

<p>If you want more zoom range, I think the Panasonic ZS5 or ZS7 gives you more telephoto. I think these two have manual controls IIRC, but the interface is still very P&S driven.</p>

<p>If you want even wider: Panasonic LX3 or LX7 gives you 24mm on the wide end. These are higher quality P&S (they shoot raw, have a larger sensor, and have full manual controls).</p>

<p>I haven't tried Nikon's pocket P&S. I have a Coolpix 5700 prosumer and at least 6 years ago, they functioned decently.</p>

<p>The 55-200mm VR is a very good lens... if your subject doesn't move (autofocus is slow), and you have plenty of light (it's slow in terms of aperture and the VR doesn't work so well). Optically it's sharp, but I've found that it takes care to coax sharpness out of the pictures.</p>

<p>The 70-300 lenses available are much more forgiving: they focus somewhat faster and the VR works much better.</p>

<p>If you're indoors and you need more reach than the 50, I think the 85mm 1.8 would be preferable (but I don't have that).</p>

<p>I have the 60 AF-S, and it's one of my favorites although it's used in really specific circumstances. I have never used the AF-D version.</p>

<p>Let me say however, that this lens focuses *fast*. I have lenses where people say it focuses reasonably fast, but the 60 AF-S beats them all. It just zips into focus.</p>

<p>Speed wise, like photozone said, it doesn't need a focus limiter. But functionally, I wish it did, because when the lens searches for focus, if it guesses the wrong way, the viewfinder goes completely blurry to the point where you can lose your subject/composition.</p>

<p>I do use it for portraits. Indoors, I found that f/2.8 is simply not enough, so I also have a Sigma 50 1.4. However, the Nikon 60mm simply embarasses the Sigma in the sharpness department, so with enough light I always default to the 60mm. If you want to have a sharp portrait lens, another consideration might be the Tamron 60 f/2, but reviews say the corners are soft wide open. I think the 60mm would make an outstanding studio lens. Street photography: if you like the 60mm focal length then it would be good. For street photography for me, it seems 'stuck in the middle'. Wider or longer seems more useful for street photos in my opinion.</p>

<p>The 60mm is different in that regard: it's sharp, corner to corner, f/2.8 to f/11.</p>

<p>The nano-crystal coating: I don't know. It might reduce flare, but it won't work miracles for you. Shooting into sunsets I can still get situations with flare.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies.</p>

<p>Leslie, nice pictures. I would say the last one is rather noisy however.</p>

<p>When I ordered the LX-5, I think I was expecting to get ISO 400, and 800-1600 in a pinch. However, once I sat down and started working on the raw files, I thought that ISO 400 is already pushing it. The chroma noise is splotchy, and it requires heavy luma noise reduction to the point where I'm destroying detail (i suppose part of this is because of the somewhat lower resolution). I haven't printed on 5x7 though, and it probably will work there.</p>

<p>Still, after mucking around the raw files, I did consider a u4/3's camera, even though I had previously dismissed it. The reason I dismissed it was that, pricing out what I'd want, it would have been significantly more expensive and more of a kit than just a single LX-5.</p>

<p>For example, if I bought an GF-1 (or 2), I'd want the 20mm pancake lens, and the 14-45 lens, which in total would probably push the budget to around $1000. Roughly speaking the LX-5 covers the same zoom/aperture territory for $400. The GF-1 is significantly bigger also, and at that point, I mind as well carry around a DSLR.</p>

<p>But looking at the LX-5 raw files, I seriously got to thinking that maybe I should have kept my cheapo compact superzoom, and bought a GF-1 or a EPL-1 with just a 20mm pancake lens for indoors. It just seems like the LX-5 is a more elegant solution.</p>

<p>I recently decided to shop for a premium compact camera and settled into the classic comparison between the Canon S90/95 and the Panasonic LX3/LX5. I thought they would be a lot better than a compact, since the sensors were marginally larger, and I was hoping the lenses would be higher quality.</p>

<p>I picked up an LX-5 and played around with it... and was sorely disappointed at the noise at ISO400. Thom Hogan says it cleans up well in post processing, but I find that it's quite messy.</p>

<p>Is it worth the 2x-4x premium you pay over a normal compact? Or should we just save our money and put it into more DSLR stuff?</p>

<p><a href="http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/850/tokinavstamron.jpg">http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/850/tokinavstamron.jpg</a></p>

<p>This is a comparison I made with a Tokina vs a Tamron. Both pictures were taken at f/8, at 12mm. I let the camera choose the exposure time. The top row is a comparison of the corners. The bottom row is a comparison of CA.</p>

<p>Looking at the top row, it's hilarious how the minor difference is: Tokina (considered awesome), and Tamron (considered terrible). In contrast, the CA on the Tokina, in my opinion is wretched. Look at the purple outline over the car. It's barely noticeable in the Tamron, but it's extremely noticeable in the Tokina.</p>

<p>I actually returned the first copy of the Tokina I got, thinking there was something wrong with the lens causing all the CA. The 2nd copy was only slightly better. The CA cleans up easily, so it's not a huge issue... but when I see CA this bad, it's a significant negative mark.</p>

<p>As for colors though, if you look at the asphalt, you will notice that it's a different shade of grey in the Tamron. I always felt like my Tamron had a slightly Cyan cast.</p>

<p>I've had two wide angle primes: a Tamron 10-24, and a Tokina 12-24 f/4. For $500, I think you can do well with a Tokina 12-24, or if you stretch your budget a little further, you can get the 11-16 f/2.8. Those are solid bets.</p>

<p>A lot of people say the Tamron's aren't good... having owned it, and made comparisons, I would strongly disagree. Yes the corners are softer than most other lenses. However, it's really nothing to complain about. I've compared the 10-24 corners to the Tokina 12-24 corners, in the exact same pics, taken in the exact same conditions, and the differences are really minor.</p>

<p>When I got the Tokina however, I was shocked at how bad the CA was. This is all correctable, but it's the most CA I've ever seen in any lens: roughly 4-6 pixels worth wide open. I didn't think the Tokina was a 'superb' build quality either as people say. The focus ring is wobbly, and there are exposed screws (i think that's cutting corners). The Tamron certainly has worse build quality, but it isn't nearly as bad as people say or like to think it is. The tolerances are tight. I think much of it is a perception of weight, since the Tokina weighs a lot and the Tamron is really light. That said, I *hated* the manual focus motor the Tamron: you're not supposed to turn the focus ring when set to Autofocus or you torque the motor. I *hate* that.</p>

<p>I also think that my Tamron handled flare a bit better than the Tokina does.<br /><br /><br>

I sound like I'm recommending the Tamron, but I'm just saying a lot of people dismiss it based on the reviews or what other people say, and I think it would be premature to dismiss it. I didn't think I'd miss the 10-12 range when I switched to the Tokina... but I really do.</p>

<p>That said, all in all, the Tokina 12-24 is a better lens. It's sharper... the focus switch mechanism works way better, and superficially I think the colors are more accurate, but that may be more of an issue with my cameras WB than anything. The Tokinas are the safe bets. Test the copy when you get it (there are lemons) but if you find a gem, it will serve you well.</p>

<p>I agree with the people saying that you should get new lenses if your concern is working in low-light. If you have 1 lens only, you're not really taking advantage of what the D5000 has to offer.</p>

<p>The D90 has some functional advantages over the D5000 (autofocus motor, flash commander), but the two cameras have virtually identical image quality. If you upgrade from a D5000 to a D90, and you have only 1 kit lens, you will gain nothing.</p>

<p>I have both a D7000 and a D5000, and I do consider a D7000 in a completely different class. I can work comfortably at higher ISO's and the noise cleans up a lot better when using post production software. So if you really want a new camera, a D90 will gain you very little, and a D7000 will be a significant improvement. However, the difference between a D7000 and a D5000 is nothing compared to the difference you will see with new lenses.</p>

<p>$1200 in lenses can net you a lot: most 50 f/1.4's are available to you, Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 is only $200.</p>

<p>I have found the reviews concerning the D7000 to be kind of rubbish. 1 stop overexposure in matrix metering... this would only be a deal breaker for me if I shot JPEG only, and never used spot/center-weighted metering, and never looked at the histogram and/or applied exposure compensation. I found the D5000 tends to underexpose on it's own. *shrug* The reviews give you a perspective... you really have to look at the hard data and handle the camera yourself to judge.</p>

<p>Moussa,</p>

<p>I've had a D60, and I have a D7000 (with a few other 'budget' Nikon bodies between). Although generally buying glass is important, I think you already have a nice collection of glass, and the D60 (although it's a great camera) is your weakest link for what you're trying to do. The 70-300 is a decent (but perhaps not super spectacular) lens for birds in flight.</p>

<p>The D7000 will help immensely. The D90: probably will only help a little bit. I've tried to shoot birds in flight with a D60 before... it's immensely challenging. You have only 3 autofocus points, and significant shutter lag. You only get 3 FPS (the D90 is only marginally better here). It's hard to crank up ISO without introducing some ugly noise.</p>

<p>With the D7000, you'll have tons of autofocus points, 3D-tracking, 6FPS, and you can easily crank up ISO to get the speed you need. This will make more of a difference for wildlife than upgrading over your 70-300.</p>

<p>EDIT: My caveat to this is, the D7000 is an expensive camera. When you go to Africa with this sort of gear, never leave it out of arms reach. From the moment you get to the airport in your home country, until you arrive back at that airport, don't let your camera gear out of sight.</p>