steven_pink

<p>With how helpful you all have been, I'd love your input on this as well... I was just contacted about shooting an event for a charity group and I'm a little confused on how to price/license things...</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00cr0J</p>

<p>I've been contacted to shoot a Wounded Warrior Project Rodeo that's about 100 miles away. The offer was the folks in charge would pay my fuel, food, and a place to stay if I gave them a CD of images to use for promotional purposes and in exchange they will make me the exclusive "Event Photographer". Considering it's a Wounded Warrior Project benefit, I'm willing to give a CD for promotional purposes as long as they will pay my costs of being there, but I want a little more info on writing a usage agreement when giving a CD to an organization... I was also told that they wanted me to sell CDs instead of prints because the past event photographers have done so. So how do I price my CDs fairly and write a license agreement that only allows for private/personal use and printing? (IE: can't give copies of the CD to all their friends)</p> <p>Due to being the sole "Event Photographer", I want to be fair on pricing and not be 'that guy' (with the monopoly on an event's photo services) who sells $100 photo CDs with very limited rights. I was thinking around the $20 mark would be EXTREMELY fair. Considering the event has 750+ competitors, I'm looking at easily selling over 100 CDs (The most I've ever made off of an event is $500 so this looks like a very promising opportunity). </p>

That actually looks pretty cool without the paint! I'm not really concerned about edge performance because a lot of the time I lightly vignette the corners on portraits anyway. I found some examples on pixel-peeper of the sigma at f/5.6 and it seems to deliver pretty reasonable edge sharpness there. However, I also noticed chromatic aberration being apparent in a lot of images at the edges when at f/5.6 - is that common with the older sigma?

<p>Thank you for all the examples, Chip! I'm definitely considering the older version a bit more. I don't mind some edge softness wide open because I doubt I will shoot wide open a WHOLE lot. Especially considering I do most of my portrait sessions outdoors in bright conditions. How's the edge softness around f/2.8 to f/4?</p>

I've become VERY good at buying used equipment. I've bought a lot of stuff solely to resell as well. I've typically made 5% or more when reselling equipment I don't want anymore because I'm really patient and have a lot of time to watch eBay and Craigslist. IE: I only paid $725 for my 70-200mm f/2.8. Here's another question... There were a lot of D7200 rumors leading up to photokina. Is it still possible we could hear about a 7200 before Christmas?

<p>Quick question regarding a new portrait lens for my D7100... Is the DX 35mm f/1.8 better for the value ($100 used) than sigma's new 30mm f/1.4 ($500 new - not really available used) or sigma's old 30mm f/1.4 ($260 used)?</p>

I noticed that too... I'm guessing it was center weighted AF and it accidentally picked 19.

<blockquote> <p>If you cannot afford what you really want, as far as I can tell, there is no compelling reason that you must upgrade and buy additional equipment at this time. It may be a good idea to hold onto what you are using for a bit longer and see whether you can get more paid jobs to finance further purchases.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've determined if I purchase a 30mm f/1.4 sigma and a D7100 body, I will be quite happy for a long time. The D7100 is top of the line in DX and it has most of the features (except for FX low light performance) that made me want a D600. I haven't heard a complaint about the D7100 from anyone and all the cheaper FX bodies have various quirks that make them not as good as a D7100. Not to mention staying with DX for a while means I don't need my 300mm f/4 anymore and I could sell it to cover my 30mm f/1.4. Thank you SO much for all your input! You've been extremely helpful in helping me make the best decision and spend the least amount of cash. If anyone sees an amazing deal on a D7100 I'd love to know!</p>

<p>I always shoot RAW (because editing JPEGs is like trying to make a sculpture out of mud). For some reason my D90's contrast and color seem a bit weaker when comparing to friend's newer bodies. I did a test with a D4 (ya, it's a little unfair to compare) and the difference in color and contrast was easily noticeable to someone with an untrained eye.</p> <blockquote> <p>Steven - if you stay with DX, I highly recommend the Sigma 30mm</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks for the recommendation! What's the difference between the old and new versions? If I could cut the cost in half for a used old version (I see they're around $250 on eBay) it would leave me a lot better off.</p>

<p>My 50mm is the G version and it delivers very nice bokeh. If I'm going to stick with DX I definitely want to replace my 50mm f/1.8 with a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or sigma's newer 30mm f/1.4 (Hard to beat the $500 new price tag). However, I would still really like a newer body... My D90's color and vividness just aren't on par with newer bodies and I would really like a bit more freedom in cropping for sports shooting. Let's say I want to go minimal with a D7000? I know it has the D600's lesser AF system, but anything is an upgrade from my D90's AF and a 16MP sensor would give me a bit more flexibility for cropping. Not to mention it would give me dual card slots for backup. A used D7000 goes for under $500 used consistently, would it be a better option until I can afford something nicer like a D750 or D800?. I just found a D7000 from Henry's Camera that was used for a demo and includes the original 2 year Nikon warranty.</p>

I do see having two card slots as being a really nice feature. I've never lost a card of photos, but it would be awful if it ever did happen. I would prefer a D610 for the AF performance, no oil issues, etc. but they're quite a bit more expensive than a D600. And considering I only do this for fun, I prefer not to spend a fortune on a camera body because it depreciates and becomes "outdated" faster than any piece of equipment. Sadly, my craigslist D600 sold this morning when I called about driving down to buy it. :(

I do see the no self cleaning sensor as being probelematic. I didn't know that was missing in the D3! As much as I wish I could afford a D810, I can't. I can't even afford the reasonable D750. I have to buy something used for around the $1100 mark. If I could afford a used D800 I see it being perfect for me, but such is life and I have to compromise. I've considered the D7100 a bit more, but I still don't know if it'll pull off the low light stuff that I'd like (but it's better than my D90) and I'd need to sell a few of my lenses to buy better suited lenses for the short end and "normal" range with the DX sensor.

How does the D3 compare to others in image quality? It has dual card slots, blazing fast frame rate, great battery life, and it's as durable as a body can get...

My previous question still stands... How does the AF system of the D600 compare to the D90? It has to be better, right? 95% of the time I have my AF set to only use my center point and my AE/AF lock button is re-assigned as AF-ON.

<blockquote> <p>To improve your portrait quality and what you can charge, keep the D90 and put the money into lighting (I'm assuming you don't have any now.)</p> </blockquote> <p>All the portraits I do are outside and I try to use natural light with reflector panels when possible. I have two speedlights and wireless ProMaster receivers, as well as an Orbis Ringflash I won in a photography contest a while back. </p> <p>I should also mention I've been getting more and more requests to do sports/events. (Two people called me today about a dirtbike race and a music festival!) So, maybe a body with sports performance will be in my future after all.</p>

I feel like I'm the lowball photographer Kent curses... $75 portrait sessions and giving away unlimited printing rights with my photo CDs. $10 for 8x10s with my sports pictures and event photo CDs for $15-$30 depending on the venue... I could charge more, but I'm too kind hearted to charge more. It's a hobby for me, ya know? I'm being payed to do my favorite thing in the world, I can't charge a lot for that regardless of how good my work is. Ya, I could charge more and buy fancy equipment with the extra money, but that's not why I do it. I take pictures because I love capturing the moments in life that bring people joy and will be remembered forever. Heck, if it didn't cost me anything to print photos/make CDs/drive places to take photos I'd do it all for free.

<blockquote> <p>This evening a D600 (with freshly replaced shutter mechanism and sensor) was listed on my local craigslist for $1100 with an 85mm f/1.8 or $950 without the lens and it's pretty hard to beat a price like that.<br> <br />i would snap that up then. an 85 is nice on FX.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm conversing with the seller this evening and I'm planning a trip tomorrow if all goes well. Perks of online college? Driving 3 hours spare of the moment to go buy a cheap camera.</p>

<p>I slightly misused the term bokeh when I said,<br> "...the smaller sensor produces less creamy bokeh than a FX sensor would"<br> but under the same shooting situation, it is true that a DX sensor's bokeh would be less "creamy" than an FX sensor... I know a client doesn't look at the quality of bokeh, but it is very apparent when a photo has the thin DoF (resulting in a more creamy blur) delivered by a full frame sensor. Now that we can disregard the terminology dispute, I would greatly appreciate any more input anyone can offer contrasting the pros and cons between the D600 and D700.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Steven, I hope you still find time to use that FE2. I just picked one up and I absolutely love it.<br> Also - killer deal on the D600 + 85mm, especially if it is the new G version.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sadly, my FE2's film advancing mechanism broke...<br> And the 85mm f/1.8 isn't the G version.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Kent, the OP is getting paid work <em>right now</em> with his d90, and has indicated 4.5 fps is enough for him, so it's probably safe to say he's not shooting HS sports. also safe to say a d800 is not required to shoot paid portraits, and a healthy d600 would do just fine in that regard. my concern regarding the d600 was around the sticky oil issue, which is one reason prices are low. if you're seeing them for $1200 used, isn't it worth it to pay an extra $150 to know if you do have a problem, nikon will fix it?<br /><br />re: bokeh: yes, there is a difference between DX and FX, and it's apparent on wide-aperture lenses shot at wide apertures. if a 70-200 is your bread and butter lens, it's probably worth upgrading to FX to get better subject isolation if that's what you're after. <br /><br />also, the cost of FX lenses doesnt have to be astronomical. the Tamron 28-75 has a surprisingly good rep on FX, and is one of the better deals in 2.8 zoom lenses. i personally find it a _little_ soft at 2.8, but sometimes you want a slightly soft focus for portraiture, as when shooting portraits of women. in any event, it sharpens up nicely by f/4. if you're currently using a 50/1.8 AF-D, i would upgrade to the G version or the Sigma 1.4 as soon as you can. the nikkor 50 D's bokeh is pretty harsh.</p> </blockquote> <p>Most people selling D600s on eBay are selling them after they've had the sensor oil issue fixed and I would only buy one if the owner had proof the issue had been fixed. This evening a D600 (with freshly replaced shutter mechanism and sensor) was listed on my local craigslist for $1100 with an 85mm f/1.8 or $950 without the lens and it's pretty hard to beat a price like that. Also, I've considered the sigma 1.4 to replace my 50mm f/1.8G. </p> <blockquote> <p>Hi Steven, Here's the info on that shot.<br> Nikon D700, AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D, ISO 3200, 200mm, f2.8, 1/640 sec, AWB, RAW<br> I try to keep the ISO to 3200 or below, though in a pinch I let it climb a bit higher. ISO 6400 is really the top end for usability.<br> It's certainly no D4, but the D700 has served me well for five years now.<br> Best,<br />-Tim</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you, Tim! </p>

<p>Correct, Chip. I have NOTHING against DX cameras, but I want a full frame (as the OP specified) for what I do. I wish I knew someone who could loan me a D600 as you said earlier... I hate to rent one because it would mean less money to spend when actually buying one.</p>

<blockquote> <p>This shot happened to be one of the "Top 30 football pictures" for this week at the paper I shoot for.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks, Tim! I noticed the exif data for your photo was gone... Do you remember the ISO on that shot?</p>

<p>Those weren't mine, just an internet example. I wanted to show the actual amount of background blur difference between full frame and crop. I've got myself covered for the full frame lenses and a full frame camera just seems logical for what I do. A D7100 is a great camera, but not what I want. I have extremely high standards for all my photos. This is an unedited/cropped copy of one of my worst photos that I have ever used (it was printed in Propeller Magazine) due to it being the only photo I had of the driver who broke a record:</p> <p><img src="http://stevenppink.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/orangecup-41.jpg?w=1200&h=" alt="" width="1200" height="900" /></p> <p>This is my definition of "keeper" quality... Minimal to no noise and tack sharp - no editing required:<br /> <img src="http://stevenppink.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/geese.jpg?w=1200&h=" alt="" width="1200" height="797" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>You will see no difference at all in bokeh between D7100 and D600.</p> </blockquote> <p>I can absolutely see a bokeh difference between pictures shot on my D90 and my friend's D3 when we shoot events together. I know a client can't necessarily tell the difference, but I believe the bokeh delivered by a full frame camera (due to the crop factor) looks much better in portraits. Also, the noise in your soccer picture is pretty rough, I personally wouldn't consider a photo with that much noise a keeper unless I couldn't possibly capture a better image.<br> Here's a comparison (f/2.2 on full frame giving the same bokeh as a crop sensor at f/1.4):<br /> <img src="http://www.photographerslounge.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=150&d=1279405092" alt="" width="1066" height="800" /></p>

<p>Thanks, Kent. I understand that spending money on any equipment is burning up assets. However, I'm overdue for a body upgrade. My D90 has started feeling limiting to me and I have been budgeting money for an upgrade for some time now. As I said before, I've planned ahead with lenses and I already own a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR 1 and a 300mm f/4 (which is overkill for everything I do on my crop sensor). If I were to upgrade with another DX camera such as the D7100, I would need to replace some lenses with more fitting DX lenses. (IE: 50mm f/1.8 with 35mm f/1.4 for portraits)<br /> I could only hope, Chip. I saw a D600 on my local craigslist for $1000 this week but it was sold in less than an hour.</p> <p>Out of curiosity, can someone who has used both a D90 and D600 give me an AF performance comparison between the two?</p>