johnathan1

<p>another for op tech. I just got the utility strap and love it.</p>

 

<p>Been a while since I posted, but find it quite fitting that I use this thread to start back in. Being not only a photographer but also a hunter and outdoor freak in general I have used several adhesive camo tapes including the cloth style which is still on one of my rifles. The older tapes will all leave a residue but it easily cleaned off. Todays 3M camo tape is a lot more advanced than that of 4-5 years ago. I like Mr. Martens idea honestly and it would be very very cheap and easy to make. </p>

<p>I think there is a little more to it than just being the second version. look at the build in one of the grafts above. the elements are placed different, but also the front lens is less rounded on the VRII. does that warrant me upgrading, doubtfull, since I am often going for reach. but it is interesting to see the change. personally I like the focus lock on the original. </p>

<p>Michael C<br>

Well put. A models appearance has a lot to do with the over all image due to the emotional connection we feel to it. There can be a huge difference in technical and emotional presentation. an image in my opinion can be technically sound and still suck with out the proper subject. At the same time an image that has a beautiful subject can suck if there is not more than just the model to draw the eye to it. </p>

<p>a good image is one you print as a 5x7, a great image is one that hangs on your wall. If you are shooting a hot model and the rest of what you did that day went wrong, the images more than likely still suck. An image can only be judged by the effect it has on you and others. Like Wouter I use stages of judging. mine is more of a 4-5 stage process. nocking down many images until I have a few. Some images regardless of lighting, composition have a tendency to grab you and make you look over and over. Is it an image that you may show the client/customer? . Absolutely. If is catching your eye, it may catch theirs to. Is it an image your going to brag about to other photographers, probably not because they will flame you for missing something. Because we as photographers tend to have an "eye" for such things we can speak out about it. I am far from perfect, but it is pretty dang easy for me to tell you what appeals to me</p>

<p>the difference is that Nikon and Canon are not really dedicating their marketing to us, the reason being is that as photographers (in general people with more than average knowledge of cameras) we have a pretty close idea of what we want. networking provides the answers to our most hideous questions. There for to us a pretty boy like kutcher (who everyone knows) may seem like idiocy but to the high school girl wanting a P&S her dream boy is there with one so she has to have one. Appeal to the masses not the select few. marketing is the same in most industries. Nike uses Tiger because everyone knows him, not just golfers. Nike sponsers some 15 golfers but Tiger is the one on the commercials. you see kutcher with a P&S not a DSLR. For us they use people like Chase Jarvis in photo specific magazines/websites. </p>

<p>I use a 1Tb external as well as a full battery backup and spike protection. I got lucky and got it second hand from a corporation that was building bigger servers and needed more protection</p>

<p><img src="http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn51/john101477/RedRose2.jpg" alt="" />also this image was taken with the 50mm</p>

<p>one of the best lenses in my little arsenal. I probably use this lens 40% of the time. the 70-200 a close second and the kit 18-105 maybe 20% of the time. I have long since retired my second buy which was the 70-300.</p>

<p>Craig, I would never say that all the images at a county fair are bad, I have seen great ones as well as bad, seems the smaller the fair the more they need help as a whole. <br>

Dan South, Of your comment "boratography", I know one photographer that has tutorials that is great and one that probably 90% of the people in here know of that should never be allowed near a camera. He makes $$ buy telling half truths and linking to major photographic sellers. </p>

<p>Luay, neither of those acts could possibly be used in the photography world because by disclosing our price we then give other photographers the opportunity to be competitive with those prices. If disclosing a price for a service was illegal then walmart would have long since been sued for this very thing. The laws stated in both of those acts were to keep monopolies from being an issue and from cartels from developing. We as separate photographers, with separate businesses can not be penalized for divulging what we charge.</p>

<p>Ever go to a county fair and see the images being judged? Some county fair exhibits are pretty nice, while others leave a lot to be desired. <br>

I have been to a few galleries in my local area and wonder what the gallery owner was thinking to hang certain pieces. I will not even start to try to tell someone what art is, but in many cases almost anyone can tell you what art is not, and this is where as a gallery owner I would be a little more picky on what is displayed. <br>

James you hit it on the nail head there. In Santa Clair, Ca. I once seen a painting of a thumb, nothing spectacular, no real definition, just a skin tone color with a rust colored background - $5000. I literally walked out of the gallery laughing.</p>

<p>I was discussing this topic a few weeks ago with a fellow photog. he is a Canon guy where I am a Nikonian. His main complaint was the fact that they drilled holes into his camera body for moisture to get in. Now I have never torn apart my camera to see how the mic works but he well may have a valid point. specially on cameras that are supposed to be weather sealed. anyone have an idea how this is accomplished?</p>

<p>Wow Joseph W. Thats a very in depth look at video in DSLR.</p>

<p>SD, who ever told you that is full of crap, thats like saying you will not be a real photographer until you go medium format or large format. Do not get me wrong, I want a full frame camera, but that is noty what makes me a photographer. mastery over your selected genre, and the tools it takes to get it, is what makes you a photographer. </p>

<p>IMO the video function in many cameras is still at an early stage. For the average photog (pro or semi pro included) the video is a waste of space, but once they get the kinks worked out of the video mode it will make life that much easier on the guy covering a wedding. I have used it exactly 5 times since the D90 was released (i bought mine 1 month after release). if and when they can perfect it, I can make video of the hiking trips along with my landscape images from one source instead of hauling around a camcorder to. IDK I do not use it much, but i can see the idea behind having it.</p>

<p>Ken thats the funniest dang thing I have ever read, maybe. I can kind of see what the OP meant here but why worry about what's to come instead of perfecting the way you use the camera you have?</p>

<p>I meant to say 70-200. but yes Andrew the D300s will shoot better sports than the D90. The 51 point Af will help during tracking and panning, the D300s also shoots upto 7fps compared to the D90's 4.5fps. I hear that it is 8.5fps with a grip (I have not tested this). <br>

Do not get me wrong, I love my D90 and probably will not switch to another DX format in my next purchase. I am aiming for the D700 (D700s I am sure in 2 years). but for a cropped frame camera, shooting sports, the D300s does beat the D90. Since the idea is to be able to track the movement, and capture the right action, the D300s is just plain faster. <br>

I still say the 85mm 1.4 would be a waste of money for someone that has not only the 50mm but the 70-200.</p>

<p>If he does not shoot macro why would he need to buy one? I am guessing the $1800 is based on if he takes the D300s back (which if your shooting sports is a mistake IMO). you have decent lenses for Portrait work in the 50mm and the 70-300 is great for 1/4 and tight head shots (depending on how far back or forward you are) and the only thing you may be lacking for sports is more reach. if your shooting night games this will not help but for day stuff a 1.4 telecon would give you that reach coupled with the 70-200. Not the best solution, but the most economical. </p>

<p>Andrew, the image quality of the D90 may be the same as the D300s, but the D300s does have more going for it. the 51 point AF would actually help you in sports shots. the faster frames per would help in sports shots as well. I own a D90 and love it - but I do not shoot sports. I also would not buy a 85mm since you already have the 70-200 2.8. I probably shoot 1/3 of my portraits with it, the rest goes to the 50mm. if you do not shoot landscapes a wide angle will see limited use IMO. honestly, If I was in your shoes I would keep both cameras. have the 50mm dang near permanently attached to the D90 and the 70-200 attached to the D300. The do D90 could go everywhere with you and the D300s could be used for sports jobs and photoshoots. just my 2 cents</p>

<p>just because your a gear head who spent to much on the D300 after the D90 came out does not mean anything. sorry to burst your bubble.</p>

<p>ok I had already read the review. and I quote<br>

First and foremost there's a new CMOS sensor, which Nikon claim produces D300 quality output at up to ISO 6400</p>

<p>ok I am going to reiterate this, the D90 and the D300 and the D300s has the same sensor, different AF, some different software, but the sensor which is what captures the image is the same. Here is your comparison of all three cameras. The improved AF allows the D300 and D300s to perform a little beter in low light situations but not by much.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d90%2Cnikon_d300%2Cnikon_d300s&show=all</p>

<p>That looks pretty good Ray. it changes the entire image and brightens it, but if he likes the original lighting, he will have to find a way to separate the rays from the rest of the image. This is a very unique image with a heck of a lot of potential.</p>

<p>Dave I have no clue who the heck you even are. image to image setting to setting the D90 produces the same image as the D300s. Except for the 51 point AF, and the weather seal. the sensor is the exact same, so the image will be the exact same. I care not what dpreview says. I get my info straight from the source NIKON. You know, the people that make the camera. </p>