ronald_smith6

<p>Even worse is that, if you try to take the flash apart, the capacitor is still charged and the thing could KILL YOU!!!!</p>

<p>Good points - I saw a beautiful presentation for a new book launch, yesterday, photos done with medium format back in the early 70's, probably a Mamiya 6x6 - there is much to be said for using cropping. It's still about the light and composition, whatever other tools you need are easily accessible.....We are pretty spoiled.</p>

<p>Yes, high MP sensors might be good for landscapes and perhaps wildlife, but I think we are at the point where returns are minimal. This generation of photographers grew up with cropping as part of their stock and trade - and it can be a life-saver for some captures - but I learned how to fill the frame from my days as a slide shooter. Another angle is that most people still shoot JPEG, natively (especially on an entry-level type of camera such as this), so a large JPEG that results from a 24MP sensor can be manipulated a fair degree before quality degradation. For those of us who shoot NEF's, are we happy that these RAW files are now rather ungainly and require even more storage resources? I am not, for one, excited about that. Anyway, my D40, D50, D60 and D80 bodies are with me until they wear out.....</p>

<p>*Sigh* So many high MP camera lovers. Yes, medium format quality is now fully attainable in both FX and DX, but have we all upgraded our PC's to accommodate these ridiculously large files? Are we all suddenly landscape shooters? I guess the marketing wizards at Nikon have won many over with these latest sensors.</p>

<p>This is so ridiculous having 24MP on an APS-C sensor, especially on an entry-level camera. I guess the marketing forces are still riding the Megapixel wave.</p>

<p>What about the ancient Nikon 80-400mm VR? Yes, it has the slow body-driven screwdriver AF motor, but on the higher-end bodies it works well.</p>

<p>This is the so-called contemporary wedding photography that today's generation seems to think is "good" but it's garbage in my view: I am glad that I no longer shoot professionally, people"s expectations on what is acceptable have lowered to the toilet.</p>

<p>I guess my ancient Nikon bodies (D80, D60, D50 and D40) are a bunch of junk; how much can I get for the group?</p>

<p>It amazes me how people get caught up in the Megapixel race and think their old cameras are now suddenly paperweights......Bah.</p>

<p>I initially thought the 36.3 MP was a bit excessive, but, on a FF body, it has no more density than my ancient D60 and D80 cropped-body DSLR's with 10.2 MP. Still, the files of any quality will be very large....Oh well.</p>

<p>Just what we need, yet ANOTHER card format. The camera looks to be wonderful for pros who use FF.</p>

<p>My only beef with NX2 is that you can't run it long from the Viewer NX2, after a few processed files, it crashes and burns.....</p>

<p>This has been a good read. I am satisfied that the regular contributors are experience wedding shooters and we all learn from what they post, and those who are beginning their journey should heed all that is written.</p>

<p>Any so-called "bitterness" seems to stem from the fact that those excited enthusiasts who feel all they need to shoot weddings is a camera, one flash and a wide-to-short tele zoom are not classed as professionals while they often feel they should be included in such a camp. We all need to earn our stripes and DSLR ownership does not give anyone a license to be a so-called wedding pro. I constantly run into this; many of my younger acquaintances are getting married or are planning on doing so, they feel quite content with asking a "freind" to do the honours although they know I have the experience (150 weddings +) but prefer to put the pressure on someone who barely knows how to operate their equipment let alone any flash intricacies.</p>

<p>I find it hilarious that these fresh wedding images are soon uploaded to FaceBook for all to see....</p>

<p>The world seems to think that camera ownership means you can do any kind of photography, you can always fix it with PP and make it look perfect. "If I had your gear, I could get the same photos you get." Or, "if I was there I could have got the same light and my pictures would be just as good." I have heard all the rhetoric by newbie photogs who feel they don't have to work or learn how to do this craft.</p>

<p>I have made the corporate decision to gracefully decline to shoot weddings, I will never be appreciated the way I used to be back in he days of film. I am not missing much, typical modern wedding "pros" charge $200 for their efforts and give the B/G a CD of all the JPEG's; the time and cost involved for me is at least double that, so why bother?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That white body/lens looks very classy.....</p>

<p>Clean the contacts and try again.....</p>

<p>Is the 16-85mm VR as good, optically, as the 17-55? I can cover a lot of bases with the 16-85mm since I use flash for most of my people work.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Sigma 50-150mm.</p>

<p>Seems there is a soft spot for the D70/70s bodies. Jim, here in Nova Scotia, any card reader with CF is at least $50 - I had cameras with CF cards, before, but I cringe a bit when I think about pulling/pushing a card with all those pins as there is a definite possibility of bending one, plus there is not a big choice in CF cards. Maybe I am just too anal=) SD cards are so simple. But, for $300, it would still be a good acquisition.</p>

<p>I keep wanting to get a almost-new condition D70s (about 7000 shutter firings) but the cost of a CF card reader is frustrating......</p>

<p>It's a simple supply/demand issue - probably 99 out of 100 people now shoot digital, exclusively, plus the C-41 machines are getting old and parts are both pricey and rare. I suspect the E-6 machines are even harder to find. It's all very sad to see analog imaging go away so quickly as it served us well for so many years, plus it's a medium that is truly archival.</p>

<p>Dave, I live near Halifax in Nova Scotia. I was told that Atlantic Photo Supply are the only people doing C-41 in this part of the world.</p>

<p>I used to own a Coolscan V and did that with many weddings, but the time factor involved was enormous. As Dave says, it's better to spend time doing other things than processing NEF's all day long for next to nothing.</p>

<p>There are hardly any C-41 processors in the whole eastern area of Canada, it's a real challenge to get anyone to work with film.</p>

<p>I stopped using film three years ago simply because nobody wanted me to keep using the medium - everyone wanted digital files. That was back in 2008 when the economy started to crumble and now very few people even want my services, as all the guests are apparently professionals and give away their work. Oh well.</p>

<p>I miss my film as I could get nicer prints and smoother contrast using some of Fuji's best negative films plus my lab guy did a great job on them. Now, sadly, this lab does not even offer 4x6 proofing.</p>

<p>I am shooting aerials, nowadays, plus doing real estate work with my Nikon gear.</p>

<p>Smug Mug Pro is an idea I have tossed around as well - so, is it simply a matter of having the client choose their proofs/enlargements? I guess I could do away with the proof book if that's the case. I'd have to charge enough up front to cover the revenue I would/could have got from the album.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. My wedding business is slowing down to the point where I will be passing on most of the requests as nobody around here is willing to pay even the affordable fee I charge, I will focus on shooting aerial images with my father's seaplane. Customers want big photos from that endeavor. The Uncle Bobs in the world can shoot weddings until the cows come home.</p>