[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin gilmore /img/forum/go_quote.gif None of my film cameras would have a chance at doing this.

I took a look at the picture.
Out of curiosity, what about it would be hard with film?

 

[Arainach]

Something about crystal-clear ISO800 is something film's never been any good at.

 

[stuartr]

Focus is more important than lack of grain. Film is not bad at 800 or 1600...it's above that where things get bad. Don't get me wrong, modern APS-C and full frame DSLR's will usually strongly outperform film at high ISO's, but modern films still do reasonably well...and when they go bad, they just get grainy...when digital fails, you get things like banding, ugly mottled noise, and color noise.

ISO 800 film:

This is 1600 film:

Anyway

 

[dj_mocok]

I love grain on B&W and sometimes on coloured night shots. I don't know why some people look at grain like it's contagious.

 

[kevin gilmore]

Not fair to compare iso 1600 B&W with iso 1600 color.
High speed color is almost always messed up, and roll to
roll variation is huge.

 

[WhatMACHI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Weddings move so fast, you don't have time to be changing lenses while the cats get herded. The 18-200 is perfect for that. As for faster lenses that do similar things... not at the price you are looking at. Add a fill flash. That will be as flexible a rig as you could hope for. See ya Steve

Cheers. I keep thinking to get a Tamron 24-70 2.8 but i really dont see me using this lens outside of events (general walkabout). Maybe when i have more money i can get something decent. But for now i geuss its an upgrade to a 18-200 since im not expecting to get the main shots from the wedding anyway

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhatMACHI /img/forum/go_quote.gif Cheers. I keep thinking to get a Tamron 24-70 2.8 but i really dont see me using this lens outside of events (general walkabout). Maybe when i have more money i can get something decent. But for now i geuss its an upgrade to a 18-200 since im not expecting to get the main shots from the wedding anyway

In all honesty, if you are on a tight budget and need a fast lens for a DX camera, I would probably go with the 85mm for 400$us. It is pretty fast, and nice for tight shots of people at close distances, or body shots at far distances. For a wedding on a budget, the 50mm and 85mm F/1.8 would be a cheap way to go for getting some really nice pictures.

The typical pro wedding setup is one camera with a 70-200 F/2.8, and another camera with a 24-70mm F/2.8. That's typical.

 

[bigshot]

A 24-70 wouldn't be a bad choice for mingling at close quarters at the reception, but you might need something longer for the ceremony itself. They usually stick you up in the choir loft if you're packing. A fixed length long fast lens would be ideal for shooting from the boonies. But for the grab shots at the reception, a zoom is important. Do you have a good flash? You'll need that for the grab shots too.

See ya
Steve

 

[OverlordXenu]

Whoops, double post.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I see the point that film is a good way to learn... and that's where I learned with both 35 and medium format- both B&W and color darkroom work. But I've never found that restrictions and difficulties lead to a better grade of thinking. They just slow thinking down. Sitting there with my stopwatch and bucket of water at the precise temperature taught me nothing. Neither did having to wait several days to see what I had shot. I learn a lot more when I'm shooting and reviewing pictures than I do when I'm thinking out all the settings. I've shot since I was a teenager, and the things I've learned that are the most important involve composition, lighting and how to be in the right time and place to push the button. Those things are infinitely more complex than depth of field, reciprocity or adjusting color balances subtractively. Cameras have progressed from something you have to think and labor over to tools that fit your workflow so seamlessly, they make the adjustments you would make a hundred times faster than you would be able to. I think that's a great thing, because it frees the photographer up to do the thing that machinery will never be able to do... capture light in a beautiful way. The difference between film and digital is an entirely different story though. If you are a professional shooting landscape, high end studio or architectural shots, you won't be using digital. Nothing can touch medium and large format view cameras for that sort of thing. Digital is more of a replacement for amateur uses and news photographers. See ya Steve

I find that film allows me to consider the composition more. I really need to focus more on lighting, but I just don't have the money for a commander and more flashes so I can use some off-camera light.
Quote:

Originally Posted by meat01 /img/forum/go_quote.gif OverlordXenu, Please tell me where I said film was better!

"Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras."

I took that to mean that film bodies are not as "great" as digital bodies. (I suppose that's correct, they're not as technologically advanced.) I did overreact, and I'm sorry for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevin gilmore /img/forum/go_quote.gif warning: large http://gilmore.chem.northwestern.edu/squirrel.jpg D3, 400mm f5.6 VR iso 800 Shot thru a glass door from 35 feet away handheld (next time tripod for sure) None of my film cameras would have a chance at doing this.

A chance at doing what, exactly? Auto-focusing on the wrong subject and taking a mediocre snapshot?

I hand-hold 50 ISO film (and slower) in NYC and do mostly street photography.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif A chance at doing what, exactly? Auto-focusing on the wrong subject and taking a mediocre snapshot?

That's what had me perplexed. I couldn't see anything special about it. Maybe he was talking about the built in light meter in the camera??? No idea. Let us know Kevin what you meant by that. I'm very interested.

 

[WhatMACHI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The typical pro wedding setup is one camera with a 70-200 F/2.8, and another camera with a 24-70mm F/2.8. That's typical.

If this is the case, i may lean towards the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 since i will only really be using this pre and post ceremony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif but you might need something longer for the ceremony itself. They usually stick you up in the choir loft if you're packing.

I wont be shooting during the ceremony so that reduces my need for any significant zoom, it just seems that a little zoom is convenient to save me moving around, and allows me to grab some middle range candid shots.

I've got an SB-600 which im still getting used to but im fairly certain for the ametuer shots ill be taking that it should be fine.

Final thoughts to replace my 18-135:

NO: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Maybe better for weddings, but definately not enough zoom for my everyday walking.

MAYBE: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Better for event shooting than the 18-200VR

MAYBE: Nik 18-200VR slower, but more versatile...

Bah, why cant things be easy.

 

[bigshot]

The way I've handled it is in my main digital kit, I have the 18-200 VR, the Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for portraits and close up, and on order I have the new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ultra wide zoom for landscape. Aside from a fast telephoto for sports, this should cover most everything. My bag full of fixed length lenses sits with my 35mm body in a bag.

See ya
Steve

 

[kevin gilmore]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's what had me perplexed. I couldn't see anything special about it. Maybe he was talking about the built in light meter in the camera??? No idea. Let us know Kevin what you meant by that. I'm very interested.

Yeah next time the focus will be in the right place.
Combined weight of camera and lens well over 10 lbs.
hand held getting the focus right and no jitter at the
same time, not so easy when you are my age.
Even on a heavy duty tripod just hitting the shutter button
at 400mm causes jitter. Shooting thru a glass door does
not help with the autofocus.

If i did the same thing with the F5, the whole thing would
have been out of focus due to jitter. Probably not a fair
comparison as the F5 came before the VR stuff. But many
i have talked to say the F6 still does not do as well when
compared to the digital.

The next time i need to get serious, i'll take my 50 lb tripod, rent
a mamiya medium format camera with the kodak 40mp back and
take hours and get it right. Don't think i will be doing that again
for a while.

 

[stuartr]

You realize that VR works on the F5 and F6 as well, don't you? I have an F6 and the VR seems to work the same on it as it does on digital.