Neal Osborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have the same setup as Buzz.
Brett, if you want to wait you can test out my gear when we go fishing in July. I will be bringing it all along. Knowing a bit about your needs, you couldn’t go wrong with the D90 and the 18-200 as a great starting point. The D90 is “kinda” like a D300-light-version. If you aren’t going to publish your pictures and just want great fishing and family shots the aforementioned setup would be great and the money you save on the D90 will allow for the purchase of the 18-200 lens. BTW, my wife uses the D50 with the 18-200 all the time and she gets fantastic travel photographs. Also, the D90 has video capability.
Where all this gets tricky is either 1)you “might” want to sell your photographs, or 2)you “might” see getting more advanced, or 3)you might just want the D300 – kind of like rod and reel purchases really, know thyself and thy means and then make the purchase and don’t look back. The issue of FX/fullframe probably doesn’t apply to your needs but that is a whole nother can of worms to chew on.
Again, I will be bringing all this gear on our trip if you want to wait and try before you buy.
BTW, here is a link for the D90/18-200 package http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=nikon+d90&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=submit.
Damn Matt, that was a great trip. I love how your pictures capture the mood and fun of trip, makes me feel like I was there. Kind of photodocumentary like. Different. Cool.
Aaron, I have a pretty good idea what gear you have already and I know that you have been helping family members research the DSLR game recently, so here a few thoughts to noodle around. The DX vs FX game gets pretty confusing when you start to do the hardcore research and comparison shopping; the lenses, the sensor, the megapixs, etc.. But remember, many professional photographers have “both” a DX and an FX body and a compliment of lenses. However, the real issue for the amateur photographer is not the camera body per se but the “lenses” you will need to “match” the bodies at an affordable yet effective range of coverage.
For example, I love my D300 and [fortunately or unfortunately] I have three “DX” lenses so I’m already at a price point where I need to keep my DX setup (i.e. camera body and lens compliment). However, with the medical macro photography and the fly art stuff I am certainly at the point where my non-DX 105mm wants to live on a full frame body. That lens is good on a the DX/D300 but it is awesome on a D700/full-frame body. Having a true 105mm instead of an effective 155mm for high-resolution macro (or even portraits) would be killer and I saw first hand how it performed on a D700 last weekend and my heart skipped a beat. But that was comparing a regular (i.e. non DX) lens on the two different bodies. IF you only have DX lenses then they will not work on the FX, but the FX bodies can be switched to DX to accommodate the DX lenses but you loose the full frame ability.
On the other hand, IF you buy only regular (i.e. non DX) lenses then you have distinct advantages of utilizing both DX and FX bodies. For example, a 70-300mm lens on an FX body is a fantastic lens and very versatile but you can also use it on a DX body and take advantage of the “crop” or “magnification” factor and that same lens becomes a good wildlife/sports lens for zooming in tight. My ultimate goal is to own both a DX and FX body but focus (no pun intended) more on regular/non-DX lens purchases but keep both bodies in the bag for different applications. Either way, the sensors are just a tool to get you the picture, the lenses are the real issue to ask yourself. Thankfully, regular lenses never go out of style, but the DX lenses can cause headache because they can only be effectively matched to a DX sensor. That is why everyone is starting to chat about the future of DX vs FX.
One comment about portrait photography and the “prime” lenses. This is where things get confusing and potentially expensive. That’s because a lot of internet chatter is about fast lenses and wide open apertures and low light, etc. We often read about 50mm/f1.4 and the like but those lenses are best in the FX format because they come alive without restriction/crop, yet many still own them and they do work on the DX sensors. If you want to truly smile, compare any 50mm on an FX vs a DX, the lens will tell you where it wants to live. That is the very reason Nikon just released the new 35mm DX lens to satisfy the DX market with a fast prime lens that is effectively 50mm.
Finally, with the CS4 software you have, the sky is the limit for post production and you can make your shots pop like a firecracker. I believe that is often overlooked as a potential solution and often people think the only option is to upgrade the body to FX or the like. There is a lot of punch in the DX cameras and many are offering about 12mp which is plenty. Also, how often do we really shoot at f1.4? You can get that creamy depth-of-field look with a kit lens by using post production techniques that are shown in most of the digital photography books.
MW, see if this previous helps answer your question http://www.itinerantangler.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?num=1203547218.
Cameron,
I took the liberty of playing around with your photos. Changed the white balance and hue/saturation and then decided these pictures were just too cool to stand alone. I have the originals if you want a clean copy for your blog.
Cameron, I want to see a picture of your daughter holding up that monster two handed rod for size comparison.
Thanks for sharing this Chad. Paolo’s work is excellent and probably one of the most copied styles in fly fishing photography. I didn’t know until you posted this link (and looking at his portfolio http://www.marchesiphoto.com/) that he originated many of the fine-art filter effects we have come to associate with fly fishing photography. His SAGE work in particular is a commonly reproduced style.
I am glad you guys like the new format and frankly the fly photos speak for themselves. I thought Ben’s photos would be a good way to “apply” some of the tutorials and lighting basics we have been discussing.
Mark, I believe Ben’s comments on knowing your equipment is aimed more at a general audience and the point-and-shoot guys in particular. The PAS cameras can be very powerful but few people take the time to learn how to harness their manual capacity. However, I have noticed that the pros really do know their equipment on a level different than the advanced amateur. In my discussions with Ben he mentioned the importance of feeling the shot and knowing what the camera is able to do on a subconscious level. For example, the human eye can see something like 11 stops of light/shade but digital camera sensors see only like 6 stops – so knowing your own sensor and how it performs in highlights and shadows would help to build a mental library of the equipment to apply to future shots. Also, I recently learned that I “mash” my shutter release button and create shake in my pictures but learned this only by watching a pro snap away (more like fire away) with only a gentle tap on the release. Other aspects of knowing the equipment, especially for macro photography, include understanding your systems TTL flash and metering and how they communicate (very important if you move to off camera flash).
