[wim]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282833960' post='2223']

'll have plenty of time to get used to my gear and I'll take the time and one of the things I am wondering is of course how to approach what you call the digital work flow! Apart from the manual, which I am sure is long and heavy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> , is there good information in the manual on how to get started simply, and then progress? Frankly, I am not worried about the photography part, but the adjustment part before you get there concerns me <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

I'd suggest you shoot both Raw and jpeg to start with, adjust th esettigns for contrast, saturation, colour and sharpness so that you are happy with the jpegs that come out straight away. This provides you with a good reference point, to start working on the Raw files. Furthermore you will also have something to hand out quickly this way, if the need arises.



Next steps can be several. Get a good intro book on Raw processing and/or Photoshop or whatever PP software you will be using, to provide you with the basic steps needed. Alternatively you can look on the internet, although you will likely find specific subjects rather than a complete overview. Several sites that come to mind are the following (note: for some of these you may have to pay):

[url="http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/tutorials-pdf.htm"]http://www.thelights...torials-pdf.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.outbackphoto.com/booklets/dop3002/DOP3002.html"]http://www.outbackph...02/DOP3002.html[/url]

[url="http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/photoshop_cs5_by_juza.htm"]http://www.juzaphoto...cs5_by_juza.htm[/url] (all articles: [url="http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles.htm"]http://www.juzaphoto...ng/articles.htm[/url])

[url="http://photography.about.com/od/?once=true"]http://photography.a...m/od/?once=true[/url]&

[url="http://www.jaycjayc.com/photoshop-tutorial-simple-photoborder-frame-2/"]http://www.jaycjayc....border-frame-2/[/url]

There are actually 100s of pages with information out there. If you want a few more, let me know, I'll gladly help; I sorted through some of the rubbish already, which may save time <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.



After a good read and some experiments I would seriously consider some good tools to enhance Photoshop or whatever you use. If you are used to darkroom work, I highly recommend Nik Software. Not cheap, but very, very good and easy to work with: [url="http://www.niksoftware.com/index/en/entry.php?skontaktid=314152&skontaktkey=nCfdqMb6YxMZHnNU4pzaQAesu7pOfC"]http://www.niksoftwa...U4pzaQAesu7pOfC[/url]. Works with Photoshop, Lightroom, and Nikon software, on Mac and PC. All the stuff you would want to do the long winded way in PS, are integrated here in a simple to use tool, in a way that is fairly natural to those who have worked in a darkroom to develop and print photographs. Just more extensive. There also is Topaz Labs software, but that works always on the whole photograph, and you have to be careful not to overdo it: [url="http://www.topazlabs.com/"]http://www.topazlabs.com/[/url].



Regarding to use/techniques, there is so much available that I won't even try to create a list here, but since you also asked about flash, have a look here at the possibilities:

[url="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html"]http://strobist.blog...ghting-101.html[/url]



Anyway, there is plenty more, so just list your direct needs <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I think I stored some 2000 links so far on photography related stuff on my PC; I might just be able to still find something reasonably fast. Do note that I do have only very few Nikon-related links however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



HTH, kind regards, Wim

[Steinar1]

Thank you Wim, it looks a little overwhelming, but I will start in the small and simple and let the camera do the work in the beginning. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' /> I'll talk to you in a year or so, when I have gotten familiar with the PP <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> If you hear nothing, it means I cropped myself away. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> If I choose a Nikon, I at least will have no other choice then to really get to know the camera. Kindly

[wim]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I do hope it'll only take you a year <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I only started to become really happy with my output after I got Nik software to add to my bag of tricks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.



Getting to know the camera you need to do anyway, processing the pictures is more or less the same for each camera; the workflow is similar, the amount of adjustments just vary between cameras and lenses, although the mood and visualisation of the photographer probably have a bigger impact <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Steinar1]

I'm finally getting closer to a decision. What do you all recommend for a transstandard zoom? In the case of the D300S I am hesitating between the NIKON 16-85 and the SIGMA 17-50 F2,8. In the case of the Canon 7d, I would hesitate between the CANON 15-85 and the same Sigma lens or of course the Canon 17-55 which is not quite as expensive as the Nikkon issue. All advice is welcome <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

All are extremly good lenses. VEry sharp etc. You should try them all and see for yourself whether you need the extended focal length or the brighter aperture. There is really no better advice I can give you. It maybe good to go for more FL if you dont have or intend to buy a tele zoom. for travel it is also more convenient not to have to change lenses all the time. But then, a larger aperture is better for isolating subjects from the background and for low light action. You decide. When I was shooting aps-c I had both, a Canon 17-85 and a tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Horses for causes.

[Steinar1]

OK! Good advice for which I thank you. Then the second lens I buy will be a prime, but which? I sort of tend towards a longish macro, somewhere between 70 and 105 with lots of opening. Then I will learn the camera completely with those two lenses before I buy any more glass.

You seem to have moved from APC-S to FF. Do you really see that much of a difference and should I maybe buy the D700 or the 5dMkII right away? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I would then only buy one lens right away! What should it be? Prime or transstandard? Thanks in advance for good advice from you all. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

For the lens: if you take macro shots the canon 100mm 2.8 for 500 Euros/dollars is great. for an additional 200 Euro you can get it with IS. Nikon has a 105mm macro lens with IS. These lenses make good outdoor portrait lenses, too, but they are a little long, especially indoors. I suggest you get a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 in addition for indoor portraits. If you dont need macro just get one lens: Canon/Nikon 85mm 1.8



Well, full frame or not is a highly subjective decision. Basically full frame has three advantages:

1. more background blur with shorter focal length: If you like photos with shallow depth of field, this is awesome (The main reason I went fullframe)

2. large aperture wide angle primes. There are no wide angle lenses brighter than f/2.8 for aps-c but lots for fullframe

3. Much Larger (but not brighter) viewfinder (Great!)

4. Better noise performance. Somewhat overrated, I believe. Generally, you get about 1 stop in practice compared to aps-c. Not enough for me to warrant the cost of full frame (the gain is greater with Nikon d3s)



cons against fullframe:

1. expensive

2. lenses, especially walk around zooms are more expensive, larger and heavier than the equivalent lenses for aps-c. If you dont need the most shallow depth of field and the slight advantage in noise performacne, Aps-c is more convenient then full frame

3. if you photograph wildlife you have to carry extremly large and expensive telephoto lenses while with aps-c you may get away with a 100-400 zoom.

[Guest]

btw if you go fullframe and can only buy one lens I'd go for Canons 24-105 f/4 or Nikons new 24-120 F/4

If you really need large aperture the 24-70mm lenes are good options too, but less versatile without IS and shorter focal range.

[Steinar1]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1283158614' post='2331']

For the lens: if you take macro shots the canon 100mm 2.8 for 500 Euros/dollars is great. for an additional 200 Euro you can get it with IS. Nikon has a 105mm macro lens with IS. These lenses make good outdoor portrait lenses, too, but they are a little long, especially indoors. I suggest you get a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 in addition for indoor portraits. If you dont need macro just get one lens: Canon/Nikon 85mm 1.8



Well, full frame or not is a highly subjective decision. Basically full frame has three advantages:

1. more background blur with shorter focal length: If you like photos with shallow depth of field, this is awesome (The main reason I went fullframe)

2. large aperture wide angle primes. There are no wide angle lenses brighter than f/2.8 for aps-c but lots for fullframe

3. Much Larger (but not brighter) viewfinder (Great!)

4. Better noise performance. Somewhat overrated, I believe. Generally, you get about 1 stop in practice compared to aps-c. Not enough for me to warrant the cost of full frame (the gain is greater with Nikon d3s)



cons against fullframe:

1. expensive

2. lenses, especially walk around zooms are more expensive, larger and heavier than the equivalent lenses for aps-c. If you dont need the most shallow depth of field and the slight advantage in noise performacne, Aps-c is more convenient then full frame

3. if you photograph wildlife you have to carry extremly large and expensive telephoto lenses while with aps-c you may get away with a 100-400 zoom.

[/quote]

Thank you Jenbenn for well organized ideas! I want macro, but I also want the large aperture more, so I may end up with a Sigma 50mm 1,4 to start with.

With respect to FF, I think that will have to come later, maybe as a second body, because the advantages don't seem important enough for me at the time being to justify the large cost difference. I can do with a WA zoom that is not that fast. For me that will be mostly for landscapes and architecture and I believe I can get good enough results with a D300s or a 7d, maybe with a prime WA.

Then I think I will go with a 17-50 F2,8, so as to be able to use the shallow DoF and a prime for low light work to start with. In a while, I will buy a 70-200 or the new 70-300 and a WA zoom. Wish me luck- I still have not decided between the 7d and the D300s <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> If it had not been for the 70-200 F4 IS USM, I would already have owned the Nikon. I am trying to find a good replacement in Nikon land <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Have you got a good suggestion (apart from the Nikon 70-200 which is too expensive)?

[Guest]

No, sorry canons 70-200 f/4 lenses are certainly a treat and one of the main reasons I went Canon. For Nikon you may go with a Sigma 50-150 2.8 which is small size and good optical quality, but Aps-c only and then, I wouldnt trust the AF of SIgma.

As to Sigma 50mm 1.4, I'd keep my hands of it. Sure its better build then the Canon and presumably has better optically quality. But all this is of no use when the image is out of fokus. Read the photozone review. The lens front fokusses at one distance and back focusses at other distances. You cant calibrate this behaviour with AF micro adjust. Check out the lens review at amazon.com, many people are disappointed.

HAving had lots of AF troubles with a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, I never mess with these lenses again. Especially large aperture lenses like 50mm 1.4 need to be focussed extremly accuratly. Unless you intend to manually fokus your 50mm lens, buy original canon or nikon glass!