What's new

Is my camera holding me back?

I would say it is your lenses that are holding you back, for outside portraits a 70-200F2.8 would be good


Im looking at the 90mm 2.8 Tamron...

But I really dont need it too much if i already have the tamron 28-75mm 2.8, and lock it around 75mm? Is it a prime that makes the difference?

Macros are slow focus, 70-200 then you can shoot from a distance un-noticed so the kids can behave naturally
 
No no no, the D5100 will not autofocus with some lenses like the nifty fifty. Food for thought there. Honestly I don't think the body is holding you back. Most of the time you would be shooting in day time correct? Full sun daylight outside your body should be sufficient. If I were you I would get some better lenses. Forget buying the 85 1.4 honestly the 1.8 is a great lens as well for a fraction of the cost. Its got a solid body and can take a bit of a beating and its great for portraits. I use flash outdoors on just about everyshoot these days even for just a fill. If I have someone to hold the reflector then I get them to do that instead. Invest in a lighting course if you have one near you. Take some of the frustration out of the mystery of flash.

ugh i wish i could get the 85mm 1.8 but its not compatible with my camera body :(

It will work just fine except it will not autofocus.


Thats bloody **** a top portrait lens and it will not auto focus what where Nikon thinking of
 
ugh i wish i could get the 85mm 1.8 but its not compatible with my camera body :(

It will work just fine except it will not autofocus.


Thats bloody **** a top portrait lens and it will not auto focus what where Nikon thinking of

I'm confused by this one. 85 f1.8 a top portrait lens?

At least all their lens will actually mount to every camera they've made besides the few invasive fisheyes lens.
 
It will work just fine except it will not autofocus.


Thats bloody **** a top portrait lens and it will not auto focus what where Nikon thinking of

I'm confused by this one. 85 f1.8 a top portrait lens?

At least all their lens will actually mount to every camera they've made besides the few invasive fisheyes lens.


Yes it should have been made to auto focus
 
Thats bloody **** a top portrait lens and it will not auto focus what where Nikon thinking of

I'm confused by this one. 85 f1.8 a top portrait lens?

At least all their lens will actually mount to every camera they've made besides the few invasive fisheyes lens.


Yes it should have been made to auto focus

You mean they should have put a focus motor in the d5000 body right?
 
Unless you're where the pros were 15 years ago, it's not the camera that's limiting you.
 
I'd say your camera limits you in a sense of lens choice but like someone said above the 85 1.8 is an amazing piece of glass. It might not be a bad challenge to yourself learning manual focus on the fly. If you're into this photography gig for the long haul, it's time to start investing in good stuff: 24-70, 70-200 and a good prime for portraits. It's a hit to the wallet, for sure, but it'll pay for itself with the better image quality it produces thus bringing in more clients.
 
WOW....nice shots, schwetty! I love your diversity with the focus points!!!
 
Wait.. so some of you said the D5100 and the D7000 have the same sensor?? I was thinking of getting the d7000 but if the d5100 is the equivalent ill just get that!

No no no, the D5100 will not autofocus with some lenses like the nifty fifty. Food for thought there. Honestly I don't think the body is holding you back. Most of the time you would be shooting in day time correct? Full sun daylight outside your body should be sufficient. If I were you I would get some better lenses. Forget buying the 85 1.4 honestly the 1.8 is a great lens as well for a fraction of the cost. Its got a solid body and can take a bit of a beating and its great for portraits. I use flash outdoors on just about everyshoot these days even for just a fill. If I have someone to hold the reflector then I get them to do that instead. Invest in a lighting course if you have one near you. Take some of the frustration out of the mystery of flash.

Adding to the differences on the D5100 and the D7000. It's the same sensor, but that is where the likenesses end. First and foremost there are 39 focus points in the D7000. 11 in the D5100. Obviously the auto focus motor in the body is a BIG bonus. It also has a much better battery life, shoots faster frames per second (6vs4); the viewfinder is much brighter and better; it's weather sealed to take more hard core use; has double memory card slots; less shutter delay; D7000 has the top LCE to show your working settings all of the time; commands speedlites off camera... The D7000 is set up more for the serious to professional user. The D5100 is set up with the new to DSLR entry level in mind-complete with the in camera editing and the assisted/teaching module.
I definite wouldn't upgrade from an entry level to an entry level camera. It's just not worth dropping that much more on an entry level camera.
 
MLeeK said:
Adding to the differences on the D5100 and the D7000. It's the same sensor, but that is where the likenesses end. First and foremost there are 39 focus points in the D7000. 11 in the D5100. Obviously the auto focus motor in the body is a BIG bonus. It also has a much better battery life, shoots faster frames per second (6vs4); the viewfinder is much brighter and better; it's weather sealed to take more hard core use; has double memory card slots; less shutter delay; D7000 has the top LCE to show your working settings all of the time; commands speedlites off camera... The D7000 is set up more for the serious to professional user. The D5100 is set up with the new to DSLR entry level in mind-complete with the in camera editing and the assisted/teaching module.
I definite wouldn't upgrade from an entry level to an entry level camera. It's just not worth dropping that much more on an entry level camera.

I agree! I bought the 5100 on impulse and regret it. I had the money for the d700 but - oh well. I'll upgrade next year. Anyways the viewfinder in the d7000 is amazing compared to the 5100. It's big and bright. It has dedicated controls for everything! My camera is such a PIA to change settings in manual. If you are going to upgrade definitely go with the d7000 over the d5100.
 
Upgrade bodies and then get the 85 1.4
I most certainly would say that your camera body is holding you back only because of the limited number of lenses you can use on it in autofocus mode.

Get a used D90 and an 85 1.8, sell your D5100
 
If you are serious about progressing as a professional, and your intention is to have a sucessful buisiness, then I think just about any investment toward that goal is worth it. Just be careful to weigh your cost of doing buisiness against the money you're putting into it. Most "up and coming" photographers are actually loosing money. Depending on your business situation, it may even be something you can write off as a business expense. Personally, if I was in your situation, I would probably just save up my personal savings until I could pay for it outside of my buisiness costs, because I would look at a new camera body, that is helping me to continue actually learning to be a professional photographer...as sort of a half buisiness half personal expense, and a "start up" investment for my goals. (Just like any lighting, insurance costs, web development, marketing, etc.... would be when starting a new buisiness.)

Anyway, take it from somebody who has been using the D5000 and the nifty 50 pretty much exclusively since I started on this venture... It's a decent little camera, and it can take you a long way. But I will admit to being "held back" on many occasions due to its limitations, and I think a full frame camera, with commander mode, high ISO capabilities, internal motor, among many other bonuses would be invaluable. Granted, there are plenty of other things that are JUST AS invaluable, here's a short list:

-good knowledge and practice of "seeing" light. You can utilize this in so many creative ways with outdoor "natural" lighting. It's trickier, and will often limit the locations you choose to shoot in..But it will also make you more creative, and purposeful with your photography.

-Any off camera flash, and a good knowledge of how to use it. Yes, I know...I love working with natural light only..But I have learned that in those situations where it's so dark that you're wishing for a higher ISO camera, it's more likely that an OCF would give you a better result than bumping the ISO on any camera body. You can make the "grain" work to your advantage on any camera that you've raised the ISO on, when you're using good natural light in the right way. Maybe you've seen some of the beautiful black and white conversions on pictures with all natural light, with lots of grain...it gives it sort of a nostalgic feel. But if you have a high ISO performance camera, you're wayyyy more likely to just say "ah what the heck..I"ll just raise the ISO" in situations where you *could* have used the light much more wisely and gotten a much better shot with a lower ISO. I could definitely see that being a trap to fall into if a photographer's first solution to "being held back by low light situations" is to get a camera that will shoot at higher ISO's.

Also..along the lines of using flash...it really can look natural, especially in those low light situations. It doesn't have to be overpowering, it can be subtle. It can fill with just that extra bit of light that you need to expose the scene. I have taken some shots using my "pop up flash" because it was all I had. I would just hold a card up to the base of the flash, and angle it so my light would bounce off in the right direction, and create some soft, extra ambient light, so I could still get the look I wanted. You could probably get even more creative and precise with the use of a good OCF, or just a nice speed light and bounce card.

These are some older shots from last year....but they show what I mean about bouncing my pop up flash with a card, and still looking like natural light. These were taken in a DARK room. I mean pitch black dark. There were only a couple of candles on the wall, at night in an old schoolhouse...so the "natural" light in that scene would have needed to be shot at about ISO 3500 minimum, and the candle light would have cast odd shadows on my subject.

This was the pop up flash result:

1169464977_Nf5WF-L.jpg


1169400120_kdR3J-L.jpg


I'm not showing these to say LOOK I'm soooo awesome by any means LOL. These are older pictures, and I know they have issues. (Red lobster skin on the groom much? haha). But, to me, they show that even a basic pop up flash can create soft, directional lighting that mimics the effect that I love about using natural light. And it didn't cost me 2,000+ ;)

Anyway..I guess what I'm saying..is that if you feel like a better camera would help your business, and it doesn't hurt your business to make the investment, you should go for it. But just don't overlook the other, more simple and less expensive, alternatives before you make the plunge. I really believe that it's worth it to come to the point where you feel that you've mastered the simple things I listed above, before you look for new equipment to solve your problems.

P.S. I would probably have personally taken the plunge and bought a D700 several months ago...but I ended up choosing between a new camera or a violin bow that wasn't well...broken in half lol. The violin bow was a bit more of an urgency ;)
 
Last edited:
I wonder about this nomenclature. Natural light to me is what is provided by the universe, so atmospheric light. I have never thought of any flash as a natual light. I have thought of it as man-made light.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom