niko_korhonen

<p>It sounds like a completely different experience in Scandinavia than in the US. You must have too many mediocre photographers crowding the market it seems.<br>

Wedding photographers are a highly respected elite and usually are fashion photographers as a day job. I've been reading a lot of the threads in this forum and it's my opinion that too much candid stuff at the reception goes on.<br>

In my country all the shots are posed or formals. It would be very unusual to offer more than 100 shots, often quite less. And the end product is not a cd with all the images but a bound book of the best 50. We would usually charge $1500-$2500 for this. Getting two to three of these a month is a good living, adding to you normal fashion work, so its not unusual to gross $6-8k a month.<br>

We never have these antics with mothers in law or fights over the quality. That would be seen as very bad manners and shunned. Premium quality photography for a wedding that is costing $20-40k is less than 10% of the all up cost. Thats what people here are prepared to pay. And you better be good as well. Its no industry for newcomers straight off. You would expect to have to work as a photographers assistant for perhaps 5 years before you would be let loose on paying clients. Couples here plan their wedding dates around a good photographers availability.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I photograph fashion all over Europe and Scandinavia. The issue needs to be addressed at multiple levels.<br>

To give you an idea about how the fashion and fashion magazine industry have themselves to blame, these were the specs I got last week to find a model for haute couture(so they are also part of it too):<br>

Female caucasian<br>

Age 13-15<br>

Height at least 5'8"<br>

Weight max 55kg<br>

Prefer flat chested (so they know she'll fit into anything)<br>

Try to have the parents waive the permission agreement.</p>

<p>I refused the assignment.<br>

So the next thing they want is if we can't find someone with the above specs, then photoshop a prior image and submit that.</p>

<p>So you see where the problem arises? I for one would be happy to see retouched images compelled to have a small watermark saying so. We never had this issue in the film days because doctoring a film negative or transparency was a black art.</p>

<p>See DPReview:<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/page11.asp</p>

<p>During their testing they specifically mention some AF issues, especially in low light, low contrast situations. They also point out that the 39 focus points are not cross hairs...something I did not realize until I read the article.</p>

 

<p>And whats even better is that they are going up in price...at least in our part of the world.</p>

<p>The trilogy of portrait lenses in Nikon FX (and film) were always the 85/105/135 focal lengths.With the D7000 it becomes a bit less easy as the 85 becomes a 127. To get a closer DX focal length suggests the 50, becoming a 75. This lens is not optimal for head and shoulder shots though.<br>

I would consider a 24-70 or even the 35-70 2.8 with is older, has equivalent IQ and is cheap used. That gives you a 50-110...probably optimal.<br>

If you have another body then there are a host of excellent used Nikon 80-200 2.8s on the market.<br>

If you want to go wide, the 12-24 Nikon is also good. In these three lenses you have everything covered and inexpensively.<br>

In many respects these older AF-D zooms are easy to use because they have aperture rings and AF fast.<br>

What do I use on a D700? An old 105 2.5 and an 80-200 F4 ais. The former has a dreamy quality IQ and the F4 is sharp as.<br>

With portraits AF is unreliable. So as you are having to fine tune focus manually, why go to the expense of an AFS lens?</p>

 

<p>I'm new here and decided to read this thread to better understand the sorts of questions and answers are posted.<br>

My own personal experience in photography goes back to 1960 and in primary school. Its only been since when I bought an F4 that I experienced auto focus. So I was used to fine manual focus adjustments and manually opening up a stop for more dof. In the film days you had to do it like that because you often had to wait weeks to see your results. At least in Finland where I live.<br>

The first DSLR I bought was a D300 which I use for wildlife and a D700 for landscapes, portraits etc. I have friends who have D7000's and neither I not they seem to have a problem with any of our cameras. They also spent half their years like me in the manual film era. Maybe all this is unrealistic expectations?<br>

I will make one comment though, and that is this: I have used my friends D7000 quite a bit and apart from perhaps a later generation sensor, it does not AF quite as well for me as the D300. Its just a subjective observation. I was always thrilled with the speed of the D300. I see it as a D700 with a smaller sensor, which it in fact is. To me both cameras are jewels. The D7000 is good, but to me the D7000's position in the DSLR hierarchy is below the D300 in build quality and its reflected in the price.<br>

My suggestion to those with AF difficulty is to pass on what works best for me. And anyone who had the pleasure in their past of feeling the strong torque effect of the internal AF motor in an F4, was to learn to use the center focus point really well, because thats all you had. Either that or go to the big white rectangle and let the camera do its best. Surprisingly for me, this latter method is remarkably effective. I always have difficulty in between these extremes....how many sensors?...Dynamic or not?...AF lock on?... Thats all too complicated. My absolutely favorite lens is manual anyway: the 80-200 F4 Ais. You need good manual fine tuning for portraits and landscapes anyway. AF is only needed for wildlife or sports, and sports is really hard with any camera.<br>

So again: technique or unrealistic expectations in a lot of cases.<br>

If anyone is coming to Finland, I will take them into the lakes and they can practice shooting ducks with an FM2n and a 3.5 manual telephoto so they can learn how to do it properly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Where's the "English" button on the website?</p>

<p>I had the 11-16 on a D300. it was brilliant, but stick to DX with it.<br>

Go and find a good used Nikon 16/17-35 for the D700, and be happy.</p>

<p>If you have the budget to get some decent lenses, two of these will migrate with you to FX. But these will give you quality and brilliant images proven by the pros:<br>

12-24 (DX)<br>

24-70 (DX/FX)<br>

70-200 (DX/FX)<br>

With minor variations these come in f2.8 or cheaper versions in f3.5-4.5. You will have most focal lengths covered, and if this is all the pro's use, then that should be enough for you. All are available second hand for realistic prices. If you move up to FX, sell the 12-24 and buy either the 17-35 f2.8 or the 16-35 f4.<br>

I have been using the 18-35 f3.5-4.5, 35-70 f2.8 and 80-200 f2.8 for a long time and they were cheap as, used. The latter two were in every pro's bag. I bought the 18-35 3.5 as it was cheap, used, and I can't see any visible loss of IQ over the 17-35. If it was good enough for Galen Powell's gorgeous landscapes then that will do me.<br>

Another tip: There is a clue to Nikon lens quality with the 3.5-4.5 lenses compared to 3.5-5.6 one's.<br>

Buy used, and buy well.</p>

 

<p>What will Leica use for their M9 / S1 sensors if the fabrication business folds?</p>

<p>I went through two el cheapo D700 battery grips and while they worked I always had this feeling that there was a compatibility issue, as the D700 exhausts the grip battery first.</p>

<p>I've since shelled out for the MB D10 and so far no battery niggles.</p>

<p>You lost me at the mushy wide open examples. I wonder how they could pass this off as an ATX-Pro lens when it does not even come close to the 11-16/2.8.<br>

Whats the point of being sharpish at F8 and higher when most AF systems need 5.6 or lower to function properly?<br>

Get a 16-35 F4 Nikon or a used 17-35/f2.8 Nikon from Keh. Ken Grobl did the latter when he migrated from Canon to Nikon. His business would fail if his wide zoom was poor at 2.8-5.6.</p>

<p>Didn't Adobe recently announce that they were phasing out Flash? That would have to be a big factor in choosing a website technology. You would not want to spend all that time and money creating a terrific website if you only had to port it to HTMLx....or whatever.</p>

<p>I only ever upload files from a cf card using the software and cable supplied. I get about 700 shots from an empty card to start. I always reformat, but I'm not taking the cf in and out of the camera slot much. I've read that the pins etc are fragile. I just dont trust a card reader.</p>

<p>It doesn't convert the jpg file back to Nef. It goes back to the original Nef file. The term "non destructive" means that when a jpg is made from the Nef file, the original Nef file is still retained.<br>

iPhoto is good but handling Nefs is best done with Nikons ViewNX2 or the all singing and dancing (unnecessary IMHO) CaptureNX2. I survive fine with ViewNX2. I have never needed anything more complicated. Its not all that elegant but it gets the job done and its free.</p>

<p>Used D300's are down to $900 and D90's are down to $600 but you will still need a good lens. A used 70-210 f4-5.6D might do it, but adding that will need a budget of $1k. For $600 I'd maybe be looking at a Pansonic Lumix or other 4/3 kit.<br>

The Nikon D3100 and D5100 need AFS lenses...and they are expensive. So a D90 might be the go as it has the better AF an also an AF motor in the body so will autofocus AF and AFD lenses.</p>