Got a couple new workshop dates for anybody who wants to get together and work on natural light portraits, or workflow. Very simple, core concepts will be covered. Just 5 people, and everyone is welcome to re-attend future workshops of the same kind. (If you’ve already attended one of the previous “Workflowshops” or natural light portrait workshops, and are available on one of the upcoming dates, email me! Re-attendance is also limited to 5 people…

I really believe that the most progress in any endeavor does not come during the course of a 3-hour lecture or photo shoot, but from continued correspondence and mutual learning with friends. That’s how I went from taking terrible photos to making half-decent images, at least.

The natural light portrait workshop is April 11th, and the next “Workflowshop” is April 25th.

/photos.matthewsaville.com/For-photographers/workshops/workshop-info

Side note: Considering the recent flurry of “industry” trash-talking, bashing, and hate mail, I hesitate to shout from the mountain tops “I’m hosting a workshop! Come learn from me!” So you won’t hear very much about these things on my main blog or Twitter, just here on CameraTalk where this stuff belongs. And I certainly have no intention of ever hosting an all-inclusive, high-dollar workshop that covers everything from cameras to branding. Make no mistake, I HAVE attended workshops of that kind, and they are amazingly beneficial; I’m just not that kind of guy. I only *enjoy* chatting about cameras, light, and workflow. Not much else. I do what I gotta do to run a photography business, and if you wanna chat about that you’re welcome to bribe me with lunch at Claim Jumper, or set up a private coaching session, but in general I’m trying to keep things low-key. I’d rather have friends than fans…

Take care,
=Matt=

(Nikon D300, Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AIS, tripod, SB800 fired manually during a 30 sec. exposure. 20-30 mins after sunset.)

Blog • Website • Articles • Workshops • Contact

Been pondering an ultimate system, given semi-limitless funds, for various aspects of photography. (Rest assured, what is considered *ultimate* will DRAMATICALLY differ from one photographic genre to the next.)

I think we are just a few DSLR bodies and lenses away from seeing the *perfect* system from both Nikon and Canon. Yes, image quality and other things will always improve. But that aside, here’s what I think the ultimate wedding photographers’ kits might look like:

(This post will cover NIKON…)

Bodies:

1.) A Nikon D700s

A non-existent camera body that Nikon hasn’t officially made. A D700s would just be a D700 with dual card slots, HD video for those who care, (not critical to me) and MAYBE if we’re lucky the newly re-designed D3s sensor which appears to be another leap ahead in high ISO technology… But, the *CRITICAL* element here is the dual card slots, at least for a wedding photographer. I think image safety is very important for once-in-a-lifetime event photography, and if we’re talking about an *ultimate* system, it’s going to have dual card slots. HD video is, personally, not a major concern. Yes the low-light / shallow depth capability of a full-frame 35mm sensor recording 1080p video is amazing, but if I were to embrace “fusion”, I’d still be hiring someone else to shoot the video. They could use a 5D mk2 for all I care, and they sure as heck ain’t borrowing my lenses if they shoot video on a Nikon.

Anyways the D700 is already one of the best values in DSLR history, especially for professionals who shoot in low light. It is currently the 2nd in command, behind the similar but updated sensor in the D3s, in high ISO capability. The Canon 5D mk2, 1Ds mk3 and 1D mk4 do come close and are totally competitive, but the Nikon FX sensor is still a few % better if you’re a pixel peeper.

But it’s more than that; Nikon simply made a well-rounded machine with the D700. They used near-flagship quality construction and nearly all the features and performance are on-par with the flagship D3. The weather sealing, the functionality, and most notably the autofocus module are all within a few % of the flagship performance. Plain and simple, a few steps above any competition in it’s price range. And, most importantly, nearly everything a wedding photographer would ever need. 5 FPS without a battery grip, or 8 FPS with, although honestly I can’t imagine needing more than ~6 FPS for weddings. *Great* low-light AF performance, and even in my opinion the 12 megapixels is an advantage, for photojournalists. True, when you have a higher megapixel camera you can just turn the resolution down. (at least when you’re shooting Canon you have sRAW modes, but not with Nikon.) However Nikon’s decision to start with a 12 megapixel sensor in the first place is what gave them the high ISO advantage.

All in all it’s a near-perfect camera. For wedding photography at least.

2.) A Nikon D700X(s)

Another mythical camera body, this camera would basically be the current D700, with my wished-for D700s improvements, plus the 24 megapixel D3X sensor instead of the 12 megapixel D3s sensor.

In reality, the ONLY reason I dream of a D700s with 24 megapixels is for those twenty shots on a wedding day where resolution is actually a nice thing. A couple family formals with 10+ people, and the bridal portraits. That’s it. I personally like BIG prints, and once you start printing 30″ or bigger on a regular basis, more than 12 megapixels is nice to have at your disposal. Not mission-critical and I still make great 40″ canvases with 12 megapixels, but this is the *ultimate* system here, remember. Honestly I’d shoot 90% of my wedding photos on a 12 megapixel camera, and just bring out the D700X for the formals etc.

3.) A Nikon D300s.

Finally, a DSLR body that already exists. But what? It’s crop sensor you say? I’d still keep it in my bag. Mostly for reasons outlined HERE in my previous blog post that talks about autofocus points and how they are spread out around the viewfinder.

Also however, and this is going to be a point of debate for most, I prefer the crop sensor system when using zoom lenses. Most notably, I DO NOT like how big and heavy and expensive the full-frame 70-200 2.8 lens is, when compared to my wonderful Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC. (a crop sensor ONLY lens) I’m just spoiled by the smaller size and weight.

So, here’s one of the key aspects of my general philosophy about what would be the ultimate wedding photography kit: Zooms on crop sensor bodies, and primes on full-frame bodies. Almost exclusively.

But before we get into that, I’ll briefly say that the D300s, like the D700 or a mythical D700s, offers a perfect balance of speed, general reliability, and resolution. Although it’s at a slight dis-advantage in low-light compared to the D700, I’ve been shooting with a D300 just fine for three years. (2007-2010) I am different from other photographers in that I actually prefer a little grain in my low-light images, because it harkens back to the days of film when grain was an artistic thing as long as you still had enough image detail and resolution to back it up. I regularly shoot my D300 at ISO 3200, and am very satisfied with the results especially when converted to B&W… Heck I’ll even ADD grain to high ISO B&W prints… Anyway, the D300s is a good camera to have in your bag for when you need your focus points to spread out around the viewfinder a bit more.

NOTE: A D700X, at 24 megapixels, might negate this need since 24 megapixels FX crops to about 11 megapixels DX. If they make a D700X, I might relegate my D300 to backup duty. BUt I’d still keep such a camera around for sure; it’s just a quality tool that I know I can trust. If for example my entire *main* camera bag were to get stolen or damaged, etc. When traveling to weddings for example, I’d put the D700s and D700X into my carry-on bag, (more on that later) …and I’d tuck a D300s (or two) into my checked suitcase with a random old lens or two. Just in case…

Now, let’s get into lens theory 101…

A D300s would be useful to me if I had a Tokina 11-16 2.8 in addition to my Sigma 50-150 2.8. If ultra-wide isn’t your cup of tea and you need mid-range instead, maybe get one of the various 17-50 range 2.8 lenses out there, from either Sigma, Tamron or Tokina. Or the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX if you’re a hardcore Nikon lover and don’t care about money. We are after all building the *ultimate* kit. I owned the Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX for a while and it’s definitely the most rugged lens in it’s range, and also one of the sharpest. Oh and it’s one of the few lenses that has the new autofocus technology, which Tamron and Tokina don’t have yet but Sigma has in a few models. (HSM)

Then, on full-frame, whatever your favorite go-to prime would be. A 35mm 1.4 if you’re an up-close kinda shooter, or a 50mm 1.4, and for the telephoto shooters maybe an 85 1.4 or 105 f/2 or 135 f/2. Personally I’m a bit of a telephoto shooter so I think I’d get 90% of my wedding photos with a prime somewhere in the vicinity of 100mm and as fast as possible without sacrificing focus speed or adding too much weight.

Now, as this relates to Nikon, we have a bit of a problem. Nikon has only just begun to re-vamp it’s fast, pro-grade prime lineup. They just recently made a new 50 1.4 AFS, and a new 24 1.4 AFS still hasn’t even hit the shelves yet at this time of writing. The Nikon 35 f/1.4 is still an old manual focus lens, (although a GEM) as is the Nikon 50mm f/1.2. And there are debates as to whether Nikon can even engineer an autofocus 50 1.2. (Personally I don’t care for f/1.2, it makes the lens a bit too heavy and slow for my tastes…)

EIther way, this is part of the reason why I only say we’re CLOSE to the ultimate setup- every sign and rumor indicates that within the next one or two years, we’ll see a 35 1.4 AFS from Nikon, and if it’s POSSIBLE to engineer a 50 1.2 AFS, they’ll do that too.

In the telephoto department Nikon also hasn’t updated their primes in forever. The 85 1.4 and 85 1.8 are still AFD lenses, with the screwdriver autofocus, and could stand to get upgraded with all the latest lens coatings and AFS autofocus etc… Although personally that’s not mission-critical to me. Beyond 85mm, Nikon’s 105 f/2 and 135 f/2 are also borderline ancient. Luckily, on the more professional grade cameras like the D700 or the D3 etc., these lenses still focus lightning quick. I’d purchase one in a heartbeat. But, we’re talking about the ultimate kit here, so I’ll hope for AFS updates to these lenses soon. Currently the Nikon 105 and 135 primes are “DC”, which you can google, and I personally hope they ditch that old technology (slightly reminiscent of soft focusing, but different) and just go for amazing, buttery soft bokeh characteristics and bristling sharpness wide open. I know Nikon could design these lenses in their sleep.

Beyond 135mm, I’m sure the “big name” pros might use the 200 2.0, and personally I think I might really enjoy such a lens if I had the money some day. Put it on the list of things I’ll purchase if I have a mid life crisis in 15 years. It would certainly be one of the more extravagant pieces in the ultimate system, and definitely goes against my “small and light” philosophy.

Now, I know this setup is slightly controversial. Many shooters will INSIST on using exclusively full-frame cameras for wedding photography, and I respect that. If you must, get yourself the full-frame Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and lug that beast around. Or for the mid-range, the Nikon 24-70 is actually one of the few full-frame zooms I wouldn’t mind having. Or in the wide angle, I know some wedding photojournalists are loving the new and exotic 14-24 2.8, but personally as a landscape shooter I’m a bit addicted to my filter threads and I’d opt for the almost as stellar 17-35 f/2.8… I’m just a clumsy kinda guy who needs protective UV filters on all his lenses.

…But the reason I’d rather have a Tokina 11-16 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8 is simply a matter of shooting style. I wouldn’t use these lenses for my bread and butter, so I see no reason to lug around a couple pounds of extra weight. The Sigma 50-150 2.8 is just so small and light, I’m totally spoiled by it compared to it’s full-frame equivalent. If I had to buy a full-frame 70-200, it would probably be f/4. Which, again, Nikon doesn’t make yet and neither does Sigma. (Canon does, and it’s amazingly sharp, and about the same size / weight as the Sigma 50-150…)

Also, I think in event photography there is a factor you can’t really quantify- being incognito and not intimidating your subjects. Again, I prefer a lens like the Sigma 50-150 2.8 because it’s so small and discrete that I can appear as if I’m just a random wedding guest with a decent camera, as opposed to the hired pro with an obscene, intimidating lens like the 700-200. I just don’t like to get all up in people’s faces with such a big lens. The Sigma 50-150, especially if you take the hood off, looks almost the same as any kit zoom. (Yet it is 100% solidly constructed, probably mostly all metal, and no externally moving parts…) Oh and by the way, I DON’T ever take my lens hoods off, mind you. Again, I’m clumsy and the plastic lens hood does a lot to protect my gear…

So, I understand this is a point of debate and let’s just leave it at that- there are many options in the zoom department. You could shoot a D300s with the Sigma 50-150 2.8, you could shoot a D700(s) with a 70-200 2.8, or you could go light on full-frame and wait for Nikon or Sigma to make a 70-200 f/4… Either way, one of these kits is going to be the ultimate for you.

And if you shoot everything on zooms instead of primes, then by all means skip the whole crop sensor zoom thing and enjoy your 17-35 and 70-200 lenses. It’s all about investing the most into the one or two lenses that yield the most important images for you. I talk about this in my “what lenses to buy for wedding photography” article.

Lastly, let’s talk about flashes. The SB900 is awesome, but again I’m personally all about lightweight and compact. I’d prefer the SB800 90% of the time. In an ultimate kit, I’d say 3-5 SB800′s would be awesome. More than enough firepower to light any portrait or dance floor… And if I had so many SB800′s, I could just leave them in whatever mode I needed, and never have to go into that annoying SET menu. (Which is part of what makes the SB900 so useful; its physical switch for commander / remote modes.) If for some reason the thought of owning five flashes doesn’t excite you, and you’d rather have just one or two flashes, I suppose the SB900 is a better choice.

Ahh, what about macro and other specialty lenses?

Again, a reason for me to keep my D300s around- The crop-sensor fisheye lens is nice and small, and if I’m only ever going to use a fisheye lens once or twice per wedding, if at all, I have no reason to spend the extra space / weight / money on the full-frame version. The Nikon 10.5 DX fisheye is a great choice if you just love that fisheye look.

MACRO is a can of worms. So many users absolutely insist on sticking with Nikon-only, and quite honestly when it comes to macro lenses I see little value in Nikon’s macro lineup. They’re all just a little bit more expensive than the equally sharp, equally rugged alternatives from Sigma / Tamron / Tokina. In the 100mm range, I’d certainly prefer any of the alternatives to the Nikon 105 2.8 VR macro. Because honestly, macro doesn’t need autofocus or stabilization. I shoot all my wedding day macro shots from a tripod with a manual focus Tamron 90mm f/2.5 (a very rare lens, actually)

However, if you plan to use such a lens for other purposes, the Nikon 105 2.8 Macro is a great buy. Stabilized, it’s almost as good as an 85 1.4 and has a bit more reach. If your subject is holding still, you can probably shoot at even slower shutter speeds than an 85 1.4 might allow. Personally though, I’d much rather see Nikon make a 135 f/2 VR, just because I’m a bit of a telephoto shooter. I love what the 85 1.4 does on a crop sensor, which is almost 130mm.

But, we were talking about macro. Again, a reason I keep my crop-sensor D300 around- It gives me a full 12 megapixels at 1.5x crop, so my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 turns out to give me the “reach” of a 135mm. Either way, macro (and any other specialty lenses) are a personal preference item. Suffice it to say that whatever your preference, the ultimate system can be had.

Oh, and why not a D3s / D3X?

A bit overkill for wedding photography. If you’re a hardcore photojournalist, love your vertical grips, and need that last bit of performance edge that a flagship offers, then go for it. Personally however I don’t always shoot with vertical grips, and I think that as a wedding photographer it MIGHT be critical. Specifically, when I fly to an out of town wedding I have to carry-on my camera gear, and I prefer to use a camera bag small enough to fit under an airline seat. I’m paranoid of being the last person onto a full plane and having to check my over-head bag. Which, if it contained $15,000 worth of gear, would be a non-option. So, short story long, I travel without vertical grips so that I can fit TWO cameras into my teeny little Tenba messenger bag. (Another reason I don’t roll with the 70-200 2.8′s. A 70-200 does fit in the Tenba Messenger, but it takes up too much room. I like to be able to pack two bodies, three small/medium lenses and 1-2 flashes into that TINY bag, believe it or not. Also, I like my pop-up flash commanders. A lot. …Ergo, no D3s / D3X for me, even with a limitless budget.

Anyway that, in a nutshell, (cuz I’m definitely nuts) is what I see as the ultimate Nikon wedding kit. Here’s a breakdown of exactly how I’d set things up:

* D700s with my go-to candid / portrait lens, probably an 85 1.4 AFS, 105 f/2 AFS, or 135 f/2 AFS. My personal choice would be a 35 1.4, 85 1.4, and 135 f/2 VR. That’d be the ULTIMATE bread-and-butter kit system
(The currently produced D700, 85 1.4 AFD, 105 f/2 AFD, or 135 f/2 AFD would do just fine…)

* D700x with my preferred formal portrait lens for family formals or bridal portraits. 35 1.4 AFS probably for family formals, (or the Nikon 24-70, if I decided to get that, as a general purpose lens for when 35 isn’t wide enough when there are a ton of people…) OR, I’d use the 35 1.4, 85 1.4 or 135 f/2 when shooting just the bride and groom.

* D300s with 2-3 zooms, currently the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is the reigning champ in wide angle sharpness if you need f/2.8, or maybe the Nikon 12-24 if you need the extra range on the 24mm end, if you can live with f/4) …and the Sigma 50-150 2.8 is my go-to baby in the tele department.
(Or, if your style calls for full-frame zooms, The D700(s) with a 17-35 2.8 AFS and/or 24-70 2.8 AFS, plus the beastly 70-200 2.8. Or the non-existent 70-200 f/4, if you’re me and value weight savings. Either way, that’s the final piece of the ultimate kit.)

A responsible wedding photographer with “near-limitless funds” should always have two, or at least THREE camera bodies with them at a wedding, preferably broken up into more than one camera bag. Hey, it happens, some punk walks in off the street, and as long as they’re dressed nice nobody will question them at least long enough for them to walk over to your rolling camera bag, and slip right back out with it. So, three FX D700-ish bodies, or two FX bodies and a D300s, or if you’re traveling and extremely paranoid, two D700s/x bodies on your person and two D300s bodies plus a couple lenses in your checked luggage. Maybe have an old 50 1.8 laying around, plus your old 2.8 DX zooms, just in case. (Considering that, in my carry-on bag, I’d have two bodies, a 35 1.4 AFS, 85 1.4 AFS, 135 f/2 AFS VR, a flash or two and a laptop…)

Am I forgetting anything? Let me know if I am. And feel free to debate / input to your geeky heart’s content!

Take care,
=Matt=

I last blogged about this in 2008, and unfortunately much hasn’t changed since then. We’ve seen quite a few new DSLR’s released, both professional and amateur, and as I suspected, Both Nikon and Canon (and others) have not yet been able to spread out the AF points in their full-frame DSLR bodies. We have yet to see the Canon 5D mk3, but I’m betting that at most it will have Canon’s new 21 point AF module found in the 7D, which will be the same physical size and therefore SMALLER in the full-frame viewfinder compared to the crop-frame viewfinder. Allow me to demonstrate what Canon’s 1.6x and 1.0x viewfinders look like, with the diamond arrangement AF points in their advanced-amateur & semi-pro camera bodies:

What you are seeing is an outline of how far the focus points spread out in the viewfinder. The Canon 40D / 50D / 7D focus point spread is the larger diamond, and the Canon 5D / 5D mk2 is the smaller diamond.

It’s a similar situation with the Canon 1.0x and 1.3x flagship bodies:

And, it is a similar situation with Nikon’s 1.5x and 1.0x bodies:

Then, just to get REALLY provocative, here’s some fightin’ words: The 5-series Canons versus the 300 series Nikons-

(I just recently twittered a potentially offensive statement- the fact that I notice quite a large majority of images made with 5-series Canons have their subjects placed dead-center. I see this with practically every photographer who owns a 5-series Canon, so don’t think I’m singling YOU out…)

The bottom line (the point I want to make) is that, unfortunately, full-frame sensors are NOT perfection. Despite their huge advantages in low light and familiar angle of view with full-frame lenses, they do have a disadvantage or two. Focus point spread is one of the key issues.

Each time a new full-frame camera comes out, I hope with all my might that either Nikon OR Canon will spread out their AF points, but they haven’t yet. In my blog entry back in 2008, I pondered a few reasons why that might be:

It is a technical limitation caused by the angle at which light hits a full-frame sensor. On full-frame at wider angles, light hits the sensor at quite an angle sometimes, and I guess this kills the autofocus accuracy. The crop-sensor lenses however usually receive light at a better (perpendicular) angle, so they can AF correctly even at the apparent edge of the frame, since it’s not nearly the edge of the true full frame…

This and a few other laws of physics / optics (whatever) are certainly the culprits, otherwise they’d be putting AF sensors right to the very corners of our viewfinders.

…Now, the last bit of discussion is the tough one, the one that nobody wants to talk about. The reason that Chenin Boutwell switched to Nikon recently and now sings the praise of the Nikon D700. Let’s buckle up and open this can of worms!

Basically, on ALL cameras the center AF point is the most powerful, the most accurate, and the one you should always use if you CAN. Of course that’s quite limiting, creatively. Fortunately, there are something called “cross-type focus points”. (I explain this all at my exposure, metering and autofocus workshop) …Your center AF point is always cross-type, and depending on which camera you have there are other cross-type AF points around the viewfinder for you to use and they are quite accurate.

Canon’s 1-series bodies are the best in this respect, the outer rim of AF points is EXTREMELY accurate. Canon’s pro-series AF system has two concentric circles of cross-type AF points, and on the 1.3x crop you can pretty much focus on ANY subject and almost perfectly follow the rule of thirds. (Scroll up and have a look at the diagram)

Nikon’s 51 point AF system is also great, but their cross-type AF points are clumped in the center in three columns of five AF points. That central area is incredibly accurate, and Nikon wins in some tests for low-light accuracy and tracking with the D3 / D3s AF. However, the off-center focus points to the left and right are not cross-type, and are slightly less accurate. Since they’re so close together you can group nine points together to “aide” in focusing, which really works well if your subject isn’t sprinting towards you.

Canon’s advanced amateur 1.6x crop bodies, the 40D and 50D, have all nine cross-type AF points in a diamond pattern. All 21 AF points on the 7D are cross-type, too. Again remember that the center AF point is always the most accurate, but an off-center focus point that is cross-type is your next best bet and if you use good AF technique you can get at least 50% or more of your shots perfectly in focus.

However, last (and possibly least) comes the 5-series Canons. Quite frankly the equivalent of a Sputnik in today’s high-tech world of autofocus. Its design is literally based on the 20D and 30D from 2004 and 2006, with a few extra “secret” AF points added around the center point to help out in low light.

Thus the can of worms discussion. Is a 5-series good enough for a professional to use and trust? Apparently so, because hundreds of thousands of professionals around the world used both the 5D and the 5D mk2 with amazing results. A tougher but still obvious question: Is it *optimal*? Decidedly not. I’ve shot professionally with both the 5D mk1 and mk2, and I can honestly say that using the D300 and D700, my standards have simply been spoiled. I could make do with a 5-series, but I wouldn’t want to. So what do you do about it?

Well first of all, in all honesty the off-center points on the 5D mk2 aren’t that bad if you know how to use them. I’ve used the mk2 many times, and with the proper technique you can get many perfectly focused shots. It just takes a little bit more attention to technique than other cameras might. Which is a good thing; it keeps your skills sharp. There’s nothing worse than having a camera so good that you get sloppy and start cutting corners technically.

Or, you can focus + re-compose. Use the center AF point to focus, and then re-compose before you shoot. This requires a thorough understanding of the different AF modes on your camera and maybe the decision to use the rear AF-ON button. (Wonderful tool for shooting action, by the way. If you ever bump into me and want to know how it works, I’d be happy to show you. Or you can wait for another exposure / metering / autofocus workshop.

Focus + re-compose has it’s limitations, however, and is nearly impossible to do if a subject is moving. Or if you like shallow depth and often find yourself shooting at f/1.4 or f/1.2, you can pretty much count on only ever getting 1-2 shots in focus for every 5-10 that you click. (If you’re shooting standing up at close distances. Again, this is best discussed visually in person…)

Therefore, LOTS of 5-series images end up getting composed with a dead-center subject. This looks cool once every now and then when you’re going for the “rules are meant to be broken” thing. But at the end of the day it’s still a creative limit.

There is HOPE for the future though. All signs point to a forthcoming 5D mk3, and it should AT LEAST have Canon’s new 7D AF module. Even though it will still cover approximately the same area as previous 5-series bodies, it’ll be a dramatic improvement. Or maybe Canon could go all the way and make a semi-pro body that has the 45-point AF system for under $3K. But now we’re definitely getting into wishful thinking territory

While we’re thinking wishfully, HOPEFULLY Canon or Nikon will spread out their AF points on full-frame bodies in general. Whoever does it first doesn’t matter to me, Canon or Nikon, because if one sets the bar then the other will have to rise to that bar sooner or later.

Lastly, I wish Nikon would at least re-arrange their cross-type AF points. This would be awesome; I don’t know if anyone has ever used the D2H or D2X but WOW those off-center cross-type AF points are snappy. Almost as good as the Canon off-center cross-type AF points…

Sadly I don’t know if this will ever happen. We’ll probably be stuck with the current AF point spread and configuration for at least another generation or two. Partly to blame is this whole HD video craze, which is certainly the #1 R&D priority right now. I understand how “fusion” is going to change our industry, and I appreciate the amazing new low-light video capabilities, but I’m sad to think that other matters, more true to traditional photography, are going to take a back burner for a while.

…So, all this to say- such a dramatic difference between crop and full-frame cameras is one of the main reasons I continue to shoot with my Nikon D300. And I will continue to shoot with it even after I eventually add a full-frame D700 to my bag. Unless I need that extra bit of low-light performance, the D300 suits me perfectly.

DISCLAIMER: If you own a 5-series Canon, don’t think I’m insulting your camera OR your work. I’m just a camera geek who loves a good discussion of pros and cons. And if you shoot with a 5-series but DO manage to shoot lots of off-center compositions, and/or get a high number of perfectly focused shots, many kudos to you! I never said it was impossible, I’m just discussing the degree of difficulty.

Take care,
=Matt=