Wedding Photography by Nikon system

[lsisaxon]

yeah I was thinking of doing that. it's a Punjabi wedding. and since I'm related to the boys side I was thinking of tagging along with him, like covering the stuff you don't usually see. I just wish I had a little more money to spare now, cause I'm saving up for a D3 and I would hate to dig into that pocket for a new lens now. LOL.

Ah okie. I think it should be ok to invest in lenses and shoot first because by the time you have saved up for the D3, a replacement model becomes closer. If you really need full frame and do not need the capabilities of the D3, you may consider the D700 also. You can reuse your MB-D10 with it. I really find it pointless to blow money on expensive digital bodies now considering that I don't shoot for a living. The value depreciate too quickly.

 

[lsisaxon]

the D3 is good enough for anything

you wont need upgrading for even a few years, i daresay 4-5

With the D3, you will need to blow more money on lenses anyway. ;p So, why not get the lenses first.

 

[screambitch]

Ah okie. I think it should be ok to invest in lenses and shoot first because by the time you have saved up for the D3, a replacement model becomes closer. If you really need full frame and do not need the capabilities of the D3, you may consider the D700 also. You can reuse your MB-D10 with it. I really find it pointless to blow money on expensive digital bodies now considering that I don't shoot for a living. The value depreciate too quickly.

i just find the high ISO levels mind blasting. 3200 ISO near zero noise. WAH cannot tahan man. going full frame may also remove the need for a speedlight. oh and i'll be keeping my D300 so the MB-D10 will stay with it.

 

[Lomographer]

actually, iso 3200 is ok on FX,

infact 6400 is still ok

why don't wanna go FX?

 

[screambitch]

actually, iso 3200 is ok on FX,

infact 6400 is still ok

why don't wanna go FX?

i want to go FX, just need to save enough for the D3.

 

[Lomographer]

i find the D700 honestly as good or a little lousier then the D3

personally i find it a chore with the grip...

so the D700 gives me a choice

but i never use the grip too anw.

but the true reason i went ff is because i have all FX lenses...

like 28-105, 17-35, 105mm f/2.5 some MF and AF lenses

so it'll be wasted on DX hence the decision to go FX

 

[Lumiere]

Dear all

I think you guys are missing the point to what I'm trying to put across the floor.

Equipments are only there to help you achieve better images. Not create good images.

Don't let it consume you that you must have FX and fast primes to do wat I do. When I was shooting with D300 I shot a lot with the sigma 30mm f1.4 + 50mm f.1.8. Well its not FX isn't it

 

[screambitch]

Dear all

I think you guys are missing the point to what I'm trying to put across the floor.

Equipments are only there to help you achieve better images. Not create good images.

Don't let it consume you that you must have FX and fast primes to do wat I do. When I was shooting with D300 I shot a lot with the sigma 30mm f1.4 + 50mm f.1.8. Well its not FX isn't it

sorry for the OT mate.

 

[reanimator]

yeah I was thinking of doing that. it's a Punjabi wedding. and since I'm related to the boys side I was thinking of tagging along with him, like covering the stuff you don't usually see. I just wish I had a little more money to spare now, cause I'm saving up for a D3 and I would hate to dig into that pocket for a new lens now. LOL.

Doesnt make sense...
You're getting a D3 first, while sticking your 17-50mm f2.8 lens on it?
Defeats the purpose of getting a FX body, if you're still going to use DX lenses on it...

Dear all

I think you guys are missing the point to what I'm trying to put across the floor.

Equipments are only there to help you achieve better images. Not create good images.

Don't let it consume you that you must have FX and fast primes to do wat I do. When I was shooting with D300 I shot a lot with the sigma 30mm f1.4 + 50mm f.1.8. Well its not FX isn't it

:thumbsup:

 

[lsisaxon]

i find the D700 honestly as good or a little lousier then the D3

personally i find it a chore with the grip...

so the D700 gives me a choice

but i never use the grip too anw.

but the true reason i went ff is because i have all FX lenses...

like 28-105, 17-35, 105mm f/2.5 some MF and AF lenses

so it'll be wasted on DX hence the decision to go FX

I guess it's more of a want rather than a need. I'm mostly happy with D300 and D90. D3 is with my dad. Many of the film lenses he has are a bit soft at the corners on FX unless stopped down. With DX, I get sharp corner to corner at wide open with many lenses, so I don't really miss out on the clean high ISO because it really negates itself when I have to use a couple of stop smaller aperture to get the corner sharpness. But having said that, it really depends on what I'm shooting, so at times, I do use the D3 as well.

 

[lsisaxon]

i just find the high ISO levels mind blasting. 3200 ISO near zero noise. WAH cannot tahan man. going full frame may also remove the need for a speedlight. oh and i'll be keeping my D300 so the MB-D10 will stay with it.

And like what reanimator mentioned, do you have any lenses for it yet?

 

[screambitch]

Doesnt make sense...
You're getting a D3 first, while sticking your 17-50mm f2.8 lens on it?
Defeats the purpose of getting a FX body, if you're still going to use DX lenses on it...





:thumbsup:

I was planning on getting a 50mm f/1.4G with my D3 in Dec.
Then continue to save for a 24-70 f/2.8. Either that or convince my Dad into loaning me the cash for a 24-70 f/2.8 when i get my D3.

 

[snoopy73]

I was planning on getting a 50mm f/1.4G with my D3 in Dec.
Then continue to save for a 24-70 f/2.8. Either that or convince my Dad into loaning me the cash for a 24-70 f/2.8 when i get my D3.

What's the real advatage of getting the 50mm f/1.4G over the cheaper f/1.4D?
Can use the delta to help top up for 24-70 f/2.8 ma..
Or wait till maybe the 24-70 f/2.8 VR version come out then the price will come down..

 

[Lumiere]

What's the real advatage of getting the 50mm f/1.4G over the cheaper f/1.4D?
Can use the delta to help top up for 24-70 f/2.8 ma..
Or wait till maybe the 24-70 f/2.8 VR version come out then the price will come down..

If you ask me. I really love this lens. The colors, sharpness, accuracy and bokeh justified my upgrade from D to G.

 

[snoopy73]

If you ask me. I really love this lens. The colors, sharpness, accuracy and bokeh justified my upgrade from D to G.

oic.. I'm considering getting a 50mm f/1.4 AIS version..
Any comments on it being compared with the 1.4D then?

 

[lsisaxon]

oic.. I'm considering getting a 50mm f/1.4 AIS version..
Any comments on it being compared with the 1.4D then?

Then you might want to consider the ZF 50/1.4 also. The optical formula for AiS is supposed to be the same as the AF/AF-D version. Multicoating might be slightly improved on the AF-D version. The AF-S is slighty improved optical design.

Another option is the AiS 50/1.2. I think there is no advantage in the AiS 50/1.4.

 

[archon75]

Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF-S has very similiar optical performance (slight improvement at best) with AF-D version. But AF speed is faster and AF accuracy is higher esp at tricky situation.

 

[noob777]

If you ask me. I really love this lens. The colors, sharpness, accuracy and bokeh justified my upgrade from D to G.

Any difference in AF speed?

 

[Zohan]

Any difference in AF speed?

Yes, the AFS is slower than the AF-D when it goes through the entire AF range.

But it's not noticeable when it's doing minor AF changes. The lack of vignetting and CA in the AFS version is well worth the price.

Z

 

[wenbin0215]

I was planning on getting a 50mm f/1.4G with my D3 in Dec.
Then continue to save for a 24-70 f/2.8. Either that or convince my Dad into loaning me the cash for a 24-70 f/2.8 when i get my D3.

are u a working adult already?

if u are, then u shouldn't depend on other people for ur hobby..