Team-BHP - The DSLR Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by R2D2 (Post 3757998)

I have gone back to my copy of PS 6 Extended and LR 5 :) The ever evolving PS CC is seriously overkill for me. That said, PS CC wont disappoint you in terms of performance and features.

I don't see a need to use LR yet, given that I am not yet serious about tagging and classifying photos.

PS replaces GIMP. I miss the lack of a default border options in PS, like in GIMP plugins.

Capture NX2 stays as long as I use D7100. With a newer camera, workflow will change.

BTW, the latest version of Adobe Camera RAW has improved a lot. Almost the same as CNX2 RAW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nilanjanray (Post 3758883)

I
Yes I know LR has border options, just trying out to figure out how to simplify the workflow.

My simplified work flow is:

RAW In -> Canon DPP TIFF (Optional) -> LR5 (Aperture earlier) -> JPG

Initially I used to be in DPP for RAW -> TIFF. Now I have done away with that. LR5 direct input seems OK. I dont edit too much. I do use third party filters (Topaz/Nik). If fact in the last one year, my third party plugin usage has also come down quite dramatically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay (Post 3758964)

Photography bundle (50 per month) includes both PS and LR. Vast majority of processing can be done in LR. In my experience, only thing missing from LR is layers. That is is the only thing I switch to PS for.

Agreed. Some how I still have not used layers. I do understand its power. But some how still living on ignorance ! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeroen (Post 3761666)

I dont think LR is for amateurs. I know two international renowned professional photgraphers, one here in India who use LR as well as PS. It really depends on what needs doing.

LR is definitely not for 'amateurs', whatever that means :) Many pros use LR.

What is the definition of a pro anyway? I would give more weightage to skill level/ the end output than pro (earns majority of income through photography) vs amateur. There are too many people in this world who take fantastic photos for free. And the level - especially in genres such as wildlife and landscape - just increases every year.

OT rant:
In India, unless one is into wedding or fashion, photography doesn't really pay. The opportunity cost is too high in genres such as wildlife. If one is wealthy, or has a very supportive wife who is ok with that lifestyle, or is a single guy, then ok. A big sigh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nilanjanray (Post 3764082)

Agree, amateur versus pro is becoming a bit of a grey area. and I dont think you can qualify any equipment as pro or amateur. As long as you have the money it gets bought and used by both.

I really dont know much about the real professional photographers life other then what I hear from my two friends. My Indian friend who has done countless covers for international and Indian fashion magazine tells me that part of the job doesnt pay all that well, but it does keep you name current so to speak.

He has a number of clients that he has been working with/for for many years. Most of those seem to be in and around advertising. So he spends a fair amount of his time flying all over the world to exotic locations to do a photoshoot for commercial campaigns for some products/company etc.

Had a long chat with him the other day how going from traditional film to digital has changed his work. These days on a modern photoshoot with digital cameras and computers present the photographer gets a lot of immediate feedback/comments from his client (representative).

In the days of film that was not possible. It was the photographer and the photographer alone who ruled on the photo shoot location. Now a lot more people around who can say, yeah this is good enough, it will do just fine. Artists dont like that! They want to decide when they're done.

Its more or less the same with my Dutch photographer friend. He is always on commercial projects, shooting for internal and or external communication/commercials for companies.

Jeroen

While the pros continue to shower their experiences on the thread, I am finding myself a little naive to search relevant information on more than 900 pages of this thread.

I am stuck between Canon 7D Mk II, Canon 70D and Nikon D7200. Sony A6000 is a dark horse in case nothing else clicks for me. Since this will be my first DSLR, I am a little apprehensive if 7D Mk II will be an overkill.

To start with, I will be in portaits first and my immediate buy will be prime lenses in addition to kit lens, should I go for bundled package instead of body alone. I will not be utilizing the camera to capture videos. So this is not a must have feature for me.

Any help is appreciated if someone can point to me to relevant page(s) or post(s).

OT: Since I am in US, any pointer to a good deal is also welcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by headbanger (Post 3767710)

As you are starting with DSLR, keep in mind a few things :

. Lenses are what matter most. They will last you a decade or more. Bodies keep getting updated every couple of years. So do some research on what type of lenses you are interested in. That will decide which manufacturer - Canon, Nikon or Sony you will patronize. At present only Nikon and Canon have lenses which span the whole range of focal lengths and price points.

. Once you acquire a few lenses, unless you are making a lot of money through photography, you will rarely change the brand.

. Apart from body and lenses, you will need external flash, lens filters and a sturdy tripod. Buy the best tripod you can afford, as that is another piece of equipment which you buy only once (if done properly).

I am a Nikon user, so would recommend Nikon. For portraits Nikon D3300 with 85mm F1.8G will be more than enough. The D3300 has all the basics that the higher models D5xxx and D7xxx have. What it lacks is the extra dedicated buttons, Swivel Screen (D5xxx), Dual card slots and robust build (D7xxx). So if you want a light kit with excellent battery, it is D3300. If you need the extras then only the higher models make sense.

One advantage of getting the D3300 with its kit lens is that it is so inexpensive (about 28K-29K on the net). In case you realize that DSLR is not your cup of tea, your loss will be minimal. Once you have used the camera for six months or more and get an idea of what DSLR entails, you can decide on what direction to take - D7200, D750 or D810.

Canon has some drool worthy glass for portraits, but they are horribly expensive (so are the Nikon F1.4G glass)

If along with portraits you want to shoot landscapes, then an FX sensor is better buy, as the wide angle shots will be wider and the higher ISO (for shooting in low light) better. Nikon D750 is the most VFM FX body.

With D7xxx and FX bodies, you have a motor in the body, so a lot of "D" glass will AF. The D3xxx and the D5xxx will not. Again with with these bodies you can meter the older AIS MF lenses. For Landscape and Macro there are a lot of excellent AIS glass available, a few are still manufactured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by headbanger (Post 3767710)

You'll get a full-frame canon 6D cheaper than the 7D 2 - check prices on amazon or bhpphoto. Full frames are better for portraits.

The US canon store was recently selling refurb'd 6D bodies for $1100 - as good as new, don't know if the offer is still available.

You may get a discount as part of the Canon loyalty program available in the US if you have a old canon.