Shots in an orchard

[Tbini87]

I agree with Derrel, the first thing I noticed was that the camera was rather close to the subject, making for less appealing portraits.

Thanks Derrel, that is a very clear visual way to understand the concept. Being on a crop frame means that my 35mm won't be quite as bad as a full frame 35mm thought right? I have to multiply 35mm by 1.5 to get my real focal range on a crop sensor?

Not Quite. The 'crop factor' applies more to your field of view. Imagine that you are still getting the same image that a 35mm lens would take on a film camera, but the edges are cut off...giving you the view of a 45/50mm lens.
Actually changing the focal length will change the perspective, which is the issue here.

In other words, just use a longer lens.

Interesting how that works. We will be and are using longer lenses now, relying mostly on our 50mm 1.8 for now. I have been looking around into a 50-200mm zoom which I think we may not buy until our first wedding in Sept simply due to the price tag. I also don't really want to buy an 85mm prime since it wouldn't be as much help during weddings as a 50-200mm zoom. We are trying to make due with what we currently have for as long as possible.

 

[JohnS.]

Interesting how that works. We will be and are using longer lenses now, relying mostly on our 50mm 1.8 for now. I have been looking around into a 50-200mm zoom which I think we may not buy until our first wedding in Sept simply due to the price tag. I also don't really want to buy an 85mm prime since it wouldn't be as much help during weddings as a 50-200mm zoom. We are trying to make due with what we currently have for as long as possible.

Weddings generally have low lighting. It's going to be easier if you get a lens meant for low light, say an f/2.8 lens. I've read the 70-200 f/2.8 and 17-55 f/2.8 are popular choices. But both are not cheap. Or you'll want to incorporate an external flash or both.

Plus, I have the 55-200. The autofocus is slow. Actually really slow IMO. I've been getting so used to shooting with my 50mm and now AF-S 35mm, when going back to the 55-200, the difference is night and day. I think it's going to be important to invest in a fast lens for events such as weddings because there are so many random priceless moments that are sudden and unexpected at weddings.

 

[Derrel]

 

[Big Mike]

Interesting how that works. We will be and are using longer lenses now, relying mostly on our 50mm 1.8 for now. I have been looking around into a 50-200mm zoom which I think we may not buy until our first wedding in Sept simply due to the price tag. I also don't really want to buy an 85mm prime since it wouldn't be as much help during weddings as a 50-200mm zoom. We are trying to make due with what we currently have for as long as possible.

Weddings generally have low lighting. It's going to be easier if you get a lens meant for low light, say an f/2.8 lens. I've read the 70-200 f/2.8 and 17-55 f/2.8 are popular choices. But both are not cheap. Or you'll want to incorporate an external flash or both.

Plus, I have the 55-200. The autofocus is slow. Actually really slow IMO. I've been getting so used to shooting with my 50mm and now AF-S 35mm, when going back to the 55-200, the difference is night and day. I think it's going to be important to invest in a fast lens for events such as weddings because there are so many random priceless moments that are sudden and unexpected at weddings.

:thumbup:

It's definitely a good idea to invest in fast lenses. So F2.8 for zooms.

Of the lenses I have, my favorite for shooting people & weddings is the 70-200mm F2.8.

 

[12sndsgood]

Sorry to threadjack a bit, but reading on what derrel was saying about being to close to the subject, would using aa 35mm for portraites be just bad in general or is it more just the distance you are from the person when you take the shot. sorry if your link answered this derrel i havnt had a chance to view it yet.

 

[JohnS.]

I don't think the distance is the problem, it's the fact that anything under 50mm really is wide angle. So I think it distorts the image.

 

[Tbini87]

Sorry, should have mentioned that we are only looking at zooms with f2.8. We already own the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses but know that the 2.8 will be a must for weddings and events. We will probably be selling our D40 and kit lenses soon anyways since they won't be getting used much as we keep upgrading gear.

Mike, how is it using a 50-200 lens for multiple hours in a row? It seems like that lens would be so big and heavy that I am a little worried about lugging it around all day. Is it as bad as it seems... or is a few lbs more on a lens really not a big deal? I guess I will be finding out either way once we pick one up.

 

[Big Mike]

Sorry to threadjack a bit, but reading on what derrel was saying about being to close to the subject, would using aa 35mm for portraites be just bad in general or is it more just the distance you are from the person when you take the shot. sorry if your link answered this derrel i havnt had a chance to view it yet.

It's sort of both, but if you are using a wider lens and backing up, then you are no longer filling the frame with your subject (if that's what you want), so it's not really the same.

Mike, how is it using a 50-200 lens for multiple hours in a row? It seems like that lens would be so big and heavy that I am a little worried about lugging it around all day. Is it as bad as it seems... or is a few lbs more on a lens really not a big deal? I guess I will be finding out either way once we pick one up.

I don't know about a 50-200mm...are you maybe asking about the 70-200? Nikon's 70-200mm F2.8 VR is similar to what I use, Canon's 70-200mm F2.8 L IS. And yes, it is a beast of a lens to haul around all day. I do like the size & weight of it while shooting, but after 14 hours my wrists do get a little sore.

 

[12sndsgood]

that does make sence guys thanks.

 

[Tbini87]

you are making progress so be excited the great part is you have people who are willing to let you shoot them that is a huge help. To help you "utilize" the flash you need to get it off camera, for that you will need a sync cable and for the D90 as well as D40 you need a hotshoe adapter as the camera does not have a pc port. Get it off camera onto a light stand and get it up and play with directoinality and power, usually 1/4 power is perfect for fill at around 5 or so feet from the subject. If you are trying to compete with the sun you are going to have to step it up to 1/2 or even full power. Best way to learn is to play with it.

We did a shoot yesterday and got the flash off camera and messed around a little. We did not like the fact that we were using the CLS and had to have the pop up flash fire to get the SB-600 to fire though. I don't know how to lower the power of the on-camera flash but will look into it. I started with the flash at 1/4 power from probably 4 feet away but looking back on them it looked like it was too powerful. We were using a diffuser too. I guess we will need a lot more practice and experimentation to find out what works. Thanks for the help so far though.