lee_richards2

<p>What Kent said. You don't need the D300 for low light. You need a better lens and tripod. I like his recommendation. </p>

<p>In the studio - never. On a editorial outdoor shoot - never. At an outdoor event for the newspaper, over 80% if the time. </p>

<p>Walking around on vacation. All the time.</p>

<p>No offense but you said you have a 200 f2.0? You have a $6000.00 lens hanging on Canons least expensive consumer camera? Now you want to know whether to go full frame?<br>

Am I the only one who thinks something is amiss here?</p>

<p>You can afford it. Buy whatever you think will make your game better. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't know where you live but I will assume you have to buy retial and can't buy on line. That is too bad. If you gave yourself time you could save considerable money.</p>

<p>If you are insistant on the D90 then I would buy the D90 kit to start with. That gives you a new D90 and includes the 18-105 Vr lens. Is this the best lens Nikon has? Nope. But it is not bad and will give you some nice range and a good price. That is your first purchase.</p>

<p>The next thing you should buy (and you should buy it NOW) is a SB-600-800-900 flash. You absolutely can not be a professional photographer without good flash. The on-camera flash is good for your brothers birthday party but it will not serve for professional shooting. NOT AT ALL. For one, you can't bounce it even if it were powerful enough. Do not blow me off on this. I believe I could make a very good case for saying that the mastering of flash is the single most important difference between an amateur and a professional. </p>

<p>Third the lens LuisG mentioned is spot on. Your third purchase is the 80-200 F2.8 Nikkor. If you have to get a serviceable old user to stay in the budget, do that. It is a marvelous lens. Even though I have a 70-200 AFS VR I will never leave home without my old war-horse.<br>

After you have all of these you need a spare body. Even a used D70 or D80 would be OK. They will save your life should your D90 go pear shaped.</p>

<p>Now the best question you asked. You asked "what should i get to practice and for my future pro: work?" That is really your most important question. The most important thing you can get is a mentor. You need to find an old photographer who will mentor you and with whom you can really fight it out. If you can't afford to attend formal photography classes then here is an idea that will give you priceless experience for no money. Call around to retirement communities. See if any of them have a camera club. If they do talk to them and ask if there are any retired pro photographers which whom you can speak. Ask one of them to mentor you. Ask them to share their experiences and critique your work. My experience is that they will be happy to do it. They may not know about digital but they know about photography. It is not your knowledge of equipment that will make you a successfull pro, it will be your ability to take wonderful pictures, manage your surroundings and KNOW THE BUSINESS aspects of the job. And these old codgers can teach you. My first mentor in the 1970's was a former Nazi party photographer who finished his career at Leica magazine. After a load of begging he agreed to teach me. It was an MFA in practical photography. </p>

<p>You have come to the right place. Study what the pros and amateurs here have done and write them with questions. I have found people here extremely generous. Just remember this. There is much more to being a professional photographer than taking a few good pictures. Approach it like a profession and you just might succeed. Your camera is the least of your worries. I guarantee that Annie Leibovitz can take better pictures with a Polaroid than the vast majority of good photographers can with a D3.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I see that now. In that case all he MAY need are the flashes. </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p >Just out of curiosity. You say you are not going to use the 18-200. Why? You can use flash. I assume it is the VR version but even if it is not.....what do you think the 17-55 is going to do that this lens will not? Do you think that the optical quality of the 17-55 lens will be noticeably better or are you interested in DOF differences? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You may not need the 70-200 but I use it frequently. I have a more important question than any of the above. What back-up camera are you going to use? You didn’t mention that. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If this is a wedding tell us and we will regroup and tell you what you need for more than the ceremony. If it is a confirmation or baptism where you will ONLY shoot from the altar and perhaps a few set shots outside then here is what I would use:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Rent spare D300 body. Do not even think of shooting an important event with one camera. Put on it your 50 mm F1.8. There is little difference between this and the 85 f1.8 from 20 feet as far as PS is concerned. Rent a good flash for it as well. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Put your 18-200 on your camera and use this for your primary shooter. You are familiar with it and you will not see the quality difference. Indeed wide open it is just as good as the 17-55 for all intent and purpose. See the reviews. Note that distortion wise there is also not enough difference to matter and PS will fix that right up. OK. So how about DOF. Until you hit about 30mm there is less than a stop difference between the 18-200 and the 17-55. After that you will either not be concerned about it or you will swing up your 50 mm F1.8 and shoot away without a moments hesitation. I am assuming that you already have a SB-800-900 or 600 flash. If you don’t then that is your most important rental BY FAR. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Pros have some of these lenses because it is how we make our living. They are conveniences really. Most of the time we are shooting in the middle of their capabilities and not really using the edges of the envelope. We also consider build quality which is quite different than image quality and frankly something you need not be concerned about just now. So a summary. Assuming you have nothing but what you mentioned in the OP. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Rent: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Spare Body – preferably the D300 with which you are familiar.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2 X SB 600-800-900 flashes.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Then go to the venue with all of this and a friend. Block out your shots and practice with the flash settings. Notice your bounce opportunities and how that looks. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Then have fun. See how much money we saved you. If you already have a spare body and one good flash you saved enough to buy another flash. And you need that if you are going to have these adventures in the future. </p>

 

<p>I love it! Did you really say "the aging 5DII"? LOL! It was released some 15 months ago! Is this how we have become? I still us a D2Hs at some sporting events. Should I get extra credit for using an antique? If I bring my D3s will people know I am serious and not just some burned-out newspaper photographer who publishes thousands of pictures with that old tank?</p>

<p>Buy the 7D and use the $600.00 you save for wedding photography seminars. Learn salesmanship, shooting techniques, marketing techniques and work on your flash. Then join Model Mayhem, get a couple of models, and shoot some really good wedding shots for your website. One wedding won't cut it. </p>

<p>I don't know what you are using now but you seem to be doing fine with it. If you want to be a professional wedding photographer and plan to prepare by being a second-shooter (kudos for that) don't worry about equipment for now. A great wedding photographer with a d30 can shoot rings around an average shooter with a 1DS Mark II. </p>

<p>I vote for William Porters advice. I think some have missed this but look at this quote form Izzy:<br>

<br>

<strong>"However on price, they were going to pay 2.5k for a proffesional photographer, the reason of the change was even though she liked his work, she found him very unpersonable, so she asked me."</strong><br>

<br>

OK. So these folks are not turning to her because they can't afford a good photographer. And that should be the ONLY reason that they would turn to her. If they can afford to pay an experienced wedding photographer they should keep looking until they find one whose work they like and who has better bedside manners. Let me suggest:<br>

<br>

Izzy. Sit down with both if them and suggest they hire a professional at least for the ceremony. You volunteer to do the reception and set shots for free as well as to back up the professional. Do this to learn what he/she is doing. Do not rent a camera. That will almost ensure you will make mistakes. You may choose to rent a 70-200 f2.8 if you like. Your 400D will work just as well as the 1DS Mark II. You are familiar with it which reduces the almost certainty that you will make a new-camera mistake. You want the 1DS Mark II because you want to look like a pro. You can't fool us;) We have been there. A pro will NEVER shoot a wedding with any camera he/she is using for the first time. Never. And renting it for the day before does NOT count. Borrow a back-up body or rent another 400D. It will be helpful to not have to swap lenses anyway. <br>

<br>

Everyone has to shoot their first wedding. I had a second shooter work with me two weeks ago at a very important wedding and it was his first shoot. He is a very experienced photographer but it was his first wedding. He did a credible job but it was not what one would expect from an experienced wedding professional. And he is masterful in his use of flash. And Izzy, you need to learn how to use flash! You will not be able to do that overnight. And you have to know how to work around it if you can't use flash. Some venues do not allow it. I agree with Nadine that you need to think high ISOs and that will not be easy unless you PRACTICE. So your mission between now and the wedding is to draft your best two friends, one in white and one in black, go to the venue (if possible) and practice, practice, practice. Block out your shots. See the light. If you can't go to the venue go to somewhere like it. Take the flash and use it until the batteries go dead. If you have to buy a flash with the money you would have spent on renting the 1DS it is money well spent. You will never regret it. <br>

<br>

I love weddings and you will too. But I too am an old crank just like William. So I will claim the Dutch uncle's prerogative and give you the same loving scolding that someone once gave me.... In order to join the ranks of a professional anything you must first get your head wrapped around the notion that there is a difference between amateur (and even a very talented amateur) and professional. You are studying computer science and math. You can't become a professional computer scientist by renting a more powerful computer. Nor can you become a computer scientist by reading six books and practicing on a computer for a weekend. And your years of playing computer games won't do it either. You will not become a wedding photographer by renting a more powerful camera and reading a few books. Learn to really respect what professional wedding photographers KNOW. Really respect their years of experience. <br>

<br>

This is someone's most important day and you could put the record of that day in jeopardy. If they were poor then maybe you would be a Godsend. But they are not poor. If the bride is a friend of yours then you should help her find a pro with whom she can be comfortable. At least have the professional shoot the ceremony (and formals if they want them). If you happen to find a pro who will mentor you, all that much better. Once you have done a number of weddings you will know exactly what I mean. Reading a few books couldn't hurt. It might help. But please do not delude yourself. The road to becoming a professional wedding photographer is paved with many dreadful mistakes and a few glorious pictures. <br>

<br>

You are going to do it because you already said you would. If you are smart you will try to turn this into a learning experience by working with an experienced pro. If you insist on doing it yourself with a rented camera, good luck. There is a chance you might not mess it up. </p>

<p > <br>

 

<p> </p>

</p>

<p>Just a quick note. I want to agree that the 80-200 is a wonderful lens. No need to replace it right now. I also second what Zach said of the 80-200 "Yes, it is slow to focus, but it also has a very different visual feel from the 70-200." It is a not as fast as the 70-200 but it is fairly brisk on the D300 and D700. As for the "feel" I also agree with that. There are subtle optical differences between the two lenses. I very much enjoyed the 80-200 and still use it periodically but I am currently besotted with the 70-200. It has become my new everything lens. It would be interesting to shoot them side by side on the same camera and see what happens. I would be interested in Zach expanding on what he has seen comparing the two. I am not sure I can articulate what I am seeing. </p>

 

<p>I'm busy trying to earn a living as a photographer. I have been for years. I have to tell you that I have any number of lenses that duplicate at least some of what other of my lenses do. Here is the deal. I have never taken a seminar or workshop that didn't make me a better photographer. So if you promise to sell the 50 and buy some lessons go ahead. Otherwise it doesn't matter at all.</p>

<p>Another of these threads. Sigh. <br>

Photography is like golf. You can't buy a game. The people who debate the value of new drivers and putters are rarely the ones who can tell the difference or even benefit from the most expensive ones. Here is my scientific and carefully researched comparison of these two cameras.<br>

NIKON D700 versus CANON 5DII.<br>

<br>

Pro's:<br>

<br>

They will both take any picture I want to take. They will both make any size print I want to make. They both handle pretty well and auto focus just fine when I want them to. They are both capable of using lenses that produce quality that would take a sophisticated machine to differentiate. They are both rugged enough for a reasonably careful shooter. They are both used by some of the best photographers in the world. You know; the talented ones who have forgotten more about photography than I will probably ever know. In fact one or the other is used by just about all of the best photographers in the world. They both have nice flash options. Models smile, act like they are in pain or look pouty regardless of which camera one uses. They are both cool looking though one very significant difference is that one of them says Canon and the other Nikon on the front thingy. <br>

<br>

Cons:<br>

<br>

They both cost a bunch more than most people need to spend. They both will break if you drop them. Neither floats. Neither one offers a Zeiss 12-400 F1.1 stabilized lens. Neither will give one bragging-rights when a REAL gear head shows up with their D3s or 1DS Mark III and very cool looking Domke vest. Neither camera is talented. Dogs won't look at either one when you want them to. Neither can get the kids to stop wiggling or the bride to stop grinning in that silly way. Both cameras will be completely obsolete in about an hour and a half.<br>

<br>

Recommendation:<br>

<br>

I recommend that Canon shooters who really need this camera buy the 5D II and that Nikon shooters buy the D-700. For first time digital SLR shooters I recommend that they do not buy either of these cameras. Neither camera is worth what it costs for the improvement you will see unless you can raise your right hand and swear that your money would not be better spent on classes, workshops, symposiums and seminars. Do not buy either of these cameras unless you already own a Nikon/Canon top of the line flash, a thoughtful and comprehensive lens system, a professional tripod and head and the knowledge to know why you need these things first. <br>

<br>

Summary:<br>

<br>

If you have to ask which of these cameras you should buy you are not a candidate for either of them.</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>I have to take a bit of exception with the above. The 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor is a legendary lense. It is sharp as a tack, beautiful color and built like a tank. It is not optically inferrior to the Sigma. Not by a long shot. A brand new one with a five year Nikon warranty is about $1050.00. I have a 70-200 AFS VR but I keep the 80-200 as a backup and find myself using it frequently.</p>

<p>I have used the Sigma and the copy I used was not as sharp as the Nikon. Noticeably not as sharp. A plus for the Sigma is the HSM which is nice. Read the reviews. The additional couple of hundred dollars for the Nikon is money well spent. </p>

<p>I looked at your portfolio. (Very nice by the way.) You will very much enjoy the vr. It is practically a necessity these days for wedding and event work. At least it seems so after you experience it for awhile. </p>

<p>Adorama still has the VR1 new for about $1950 as opposed to $2400 for the vrII. They also have the refurbished for $1850 but the extra $100 gets you a new Nikon 5 year warrantee. At least in the US it does. I am positive that the VR is important but I am not sure the VRII is worth $450.00 more. There is talk about the VR being soft on the edges at the long end. As Cheung says this will not bother you at all if you even notice it. I don't. These lenses are sharp-sharp-sharp. </p>

<p>I have had a couple of the 80-200's in the past and they are marvelous lenses but the VR is my new best friend. </p>

<p>I have a Yashica D and it gives me excellent results. There is a telephoto kit for it that works beautifully. These things are dirt cheap now so I highly recommend it. </p>

<p>You will have a lot of fun with the medium format camera. </p>

<p>Get the D90 and a kit zoom. I agree that you will need something much wider than the 35 mm lens. <br>

I know you have some reason for liking the primes and I have heard all of the hyperbole about how good they are. In 99.9% of your shots you will not see the difference. Since mony is of the essense, get the two kit lenses and add primes later if you feel the need. First get the picture is probably a good rule of thumb.</p>

<p>Every Nikon shooter should have the 50mm F1.8. It is soooo sharp. It is super at night but you will want a good tripod and head if you are going to shoot at night. Once you have that the lens choice is not much different than in the daytime.</p>

<p>I'm going with what Cheung said. The venerable 18-70 is a very good lens. Sharp as a tack. I would take a 35 or 50 f1.8 for low light and the 70-300 vr if it is affordable. If it is not affordable the 70-300 af-s g is a good lens and one can be had for a song. VR is nice but I doubt you will be using the 70-300 on the long end in low light. I am a huge fan of flash. If you don't mind carrying the SB600 that would be nice but as Cheung said it brings up a whole new set of issues. You could leave it at home no problem. </p>

<p>So if you are concerned about price the above will get you capabilities that 40 years ago we would have killed for. Have a wonderful trip and Godspeed.</p>