Question: On certain cameras, (in this case the Nikon D700) …images seem to look nice and bright on the back of the camera, but then when they are on a computer screen they look much darker and under-exposed. What’s up? This hasn’t been noticeable on previous cameras…

My Ramblings:

Yes, the Nikon D700 is just the same as any other camera, although it doesn’t have auto-brightness LCD options however I dislike those anyways. (Some Canon DSLRs have that option, and you can try it and see if you like it if you own a Canon, but I don’t recommend it)

I set the camera LCD brightness to be +1 or +2 in extremely bright sunlight, and -1 or -2 in extremely dark conditions.

However other than that, I simply rely FAR more heavily on my histogram and my “blinking highlight warning” than the LCD itself. Never trust the LCD, especially if you find yourself shooting in dark conditions often like I do. (Wedding receptions, milky way in the middle of nowhere, etc….) The bottom line is that your LCD lies to you. There is absolutely no correlation between LCD brightness and a proper exposure, within reason of course. What I mean is, I’ve seen images that look “good enough” on the camera but are actually 2-3 stops under-exposed when you check the histogram.

Unfortunately, calibrating your monitor will usually do very little other than correct the colors. Even a calibrated monitor can still “throw you off” if the brightness settings are wrong, actually.

However I don’t think this is the problem in most cases, because 99% of the time people have their computer screen too bright, not too dark, for accurate tonal adjustments. That, and you really really really ought to get an IPS display with a 178 degree VERTICAL (not just horizontal) viewing angle. This will make a world of difference when gauging your shadow detail brightness on your computer. You know how on your laptop usually, you bob your head up and down and the brightness of shadows changes dramatically? Yeah, that’s what you want to avoid like the plague.

Anyways, I think that’s the main problem here, the camera LCD brightness, NOT the display. So start using your histogram and highlight warnings more!

Of course if you have an un-calibrated monitor it is good to get it calibrated at least once, especially if it’s a PC display. If you don’t want to invest in a Spyder etc. device, you can usually rent them from a local shop for $5. Unless your display is on at full brightness ALL the time, you really only need to calibrate every few months or so. And honestly your monitor probably shouldn’t be at maximum brightness for proper color correction, anyways. But follow the instructions for monitor brightness and contrast for whatever calibration device you rent.

Last but not least, just know that your in-camera settings are never going to match what Adobe gives you. The bottom line is that Adobe’s default RAW processing is disgusting. It’s flat, dark, and un-exciting. However that is what presets and advanced RAW processing are for. It is unfortunate that our RAW images look bland compared to the vibrant beauty of the in-camera processing, but then again if our images were THAT perfect in-camera, we’d just shoot JPG anyways right? (And hey, some do!)

Ever since Nikon made the SB900 to replace the SB800, every professional or experienced photographer (note that the two aren’t always connected, but I won’t go there today LOL!) …every professional or experienced photographer seems to have forgotten about the SB800, and now the new SB700 which seems to be deemed only acceptable for amateurs. So, this is a question I see ALL the time: “Should I buy the SB900, or the SB910?” Or, every now and then, someone actually considers the SB700 as well, but the bottom line is that most everybody else who is giving recommendations out there seems to always recommend the SB910 and nothing else.

My Ramblings:

Yes, the SB900 has issues with shutting down due to the overheat protection feature, and yes if you turn off the overheat protection feature you may have zero issues….or you may explode your flash. So if someone put a gun to my head and made me decide between the 900 and the 910, I’d pick the 910. But I’d like to know, who is that “someone” who keeps putting guns to peoples’ heads and making them decide absurdly random stuff? That’s not the real world.

In the real world, if I could choose any Nikon on-camera flash on the market, for me it would be the SB700 hands-down. It is every bit as functional as the SB900 / SB910, but it’s a fraction of the cost. And for some this is even more important- it is also way, way smaller and lighter! I hated how top-heavy the SB900 was, I stopped using it the day I got an SB700 as a backup actually. The SB700 is that good.

Sure, the SB700 is slightly less powerful than the SB910, however I’ve just never had a problem with that I guess because I also rely heavily on wireless flash for my job, which is wedding photography. In my opinion, if you’re trying to bounce off ceilings that are so high that you can’t use an SB700 and you absolutely MUST have the slightly greater 1/1 flash power of an SB910, …well then you’re doing something wrong!

BTW, I have another jag about flashes- Never, ever waste money on buying a brand new one. There is almost nothing under the sun that could go wrong with a flash that doesn’t void your warranty. Really the only thing that ever goes wrong with flashes is either you drop them, or you explode them. In either case, Nikon will just laugh at you when you try and ask for free repair under warranty. This is why I have been buying used flashes since, oh, 2006? (I have purchased 6 Nikon SB flashes in that time, and innumerable generic brand flashes for testing at SLR Lounge…)

Just about the only reason I would consider buying a new flash is, if I were also going to get the third-party warranty, the “drops and spills” warranty. Because 90% of the time, the Nikon warranty is worthless.

So, if you see a Nikon pro out there with the SB910, you can just snicker at them a little bit. Not only because that pro simply doesn’t know how awesome the SB700 is, but also because the SB900 / 910 has been known to be SO top-heavy, that it can cause connection (misfire, or no-fire) errors with certain DSLR bodies! (Most notably the D700 BTW) It is a serious issue that very few people actually know about; they always just dwell on the fact that the SB900 was so horrible because of overheating, and they just assume that the SB910 is the only professional choice. Well, I am here to tell you that it is not, in fact for anyone who has to use a flash on their camera for 8-12+ hours per day on a regular basis, such as wedding photography, I highly recommend, no I ONLY recommend, the SB700.

I’ve been using Nikon SB flashes since the days of the SB80DX, and SB800 / SB600, and I gotta say the SB700 is by far my favorite out of every single one I’ve ever used. Maybe if you have a Spare SB800 laying around you can stick with that. Mine served me very well for many years. And if you can find a used one for under $250 that might be awesome. But other than that, buy a used SB700, or if you buy it new get the extra “drops and spills” warranty.

Take care, and feel free to let me know if you have any other questions!
=Matt=

PS: Support my addiction to giving free advice – Donate via Paypal, or by shopping at B&H.

Found on a Facebook group – what should I buy, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G or the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G?

My Ramblings:

Photographers always seem to break into two camps – 50mm lovers, and the 85+35 or 85+28 lovers.

Honestly? In my opinion 50mm just gets boring after a while. I like having two primes, a wide and a long. 85mm is incredibly more useful than 50mm during things like ceremonies and toasts, while 28mm or 35mm is just gorgeous for close-quarters type candid stuff.

Yes, I do own a 50mm, but I barely use it compared to the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G and 85mm f/1.8 G. Those two babies are just nuts-sharp, and the perfect combo for general photojournalism and portraiture.

Even if you shoot a lot of medium sized family group photos or something, where 50mm is a great focal length, I don’t really even recommend the f/1.4 G because the new f/1.8 G is so flippin’ awesome! It is just as incredibly sharp as the 28 and the 85, in fact I like the flatness of the focal plane for large group photos more on the 50 f/1.8 G than the f/1.4 G. Bottom line, the new 1.8 G is not your grandpa’s “plastic fantasitc” disposable 50mm f/1.8 lens it even has a weather gasket around the mount, and overall solid construction.

You have to be absolutely obsessed with 50mm in order to go for the f/1.4, and even then in my opinion anyone who is obsessed with only 50mm simply hasn’t “seen the light” yet.

So there you have it. Start with the 85mm, if you shoot portraits on a full-frame camera. (Of course the whole discussion goes out the window, if you shoot on a crop sensor camera and you plan ot do so for a while to come. In this case, buy the 50mm f/1.4 G and be thrilled with its approximate similarity to the 85mm f/1.8 on full-frame!

Then someone asks: But aren’t the Nikon 85mm’s kinda slow?

My Ramblings:

It depends on which 85mm you get. The f/1.4′s are slower than the f/1.8′s, and unfortunately, the G’s are slightly slower than the D’s. However the G’s are insanely accurate and consistent in low light, and in my experience on a semi-pro body such as the D700 the 85 1.8 G is incredibly snappy and trustworthy, even for stuff like aisle processionals and dance floor craziness. Although when autofocus conditions get truly abysmal, I must admit I opt for my 24-70 or my 50mm f/1.8, because those two lenses are just like laser beams with low-light focus.

The reason for all this is that “D” and “G” lenses have different types of autofocus motors in them. The AF-D lenses are an older, “clunky but fast” type of autofocus and the AFS-G lenses are the newer, “slower but laser-accurate” type of autofocus. (Silent Wave Motor, AKA SWM much like Canon’s USM, if you’re interested)

Basically, there is no reason to buy an AF-D lens unless you are on an extreme budget, or you have some very weird shooting demands for which the AF-D lenses are actually superior.

Even on a budget, I would rather have a 50mm f/1.8 G than a 50mm f/1.4 D. The same goes for 85mm.

Bottom line- having shot in all sorts of ridiculous light, from pitch-black to absurdly bright flares, I prefer the G lenses by a long shot, and the f/1.8′s suit my style very well- I prioritize focus speed and snappiness a little bit more than DOF. However if you’re mainly a portrait photographer and your subjects hold relatively still, then f/1.4 is the way to go.

Personally, I just love these primes so much I wouldn’t mind owning both a set of 1.4′s and 1.8′s, …and just using whichever suited my fancy for the day.

The 1.8′s are lighter and smaller, which is nice for general around-the-town type shooting. For example the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G is just about the ULTIMATE “trip to Disneyland” lens… http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-28mm-f1-8-afs-g-n-lens-review

Either way, you need to pick the lens that defines your style as a photographer, and invest the most in that lens first.

BTW, right now both of these Nikon lenses have $100 instant rebates, but you gotta buy a camera body with them. Click HERE. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G comes out to be $397, and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G comes out to be $369.

Thanks for reading and take care,
=Matt=

PS: Support my addiction to giving free advice – Donate via Paypal, or by shopping at B&H.

I found a question in a Facebook community regarding using a Nikon D3100 and a 50mm f/1.8 for a large group / family portrait. The concern of course is whether or not this is the appropriate lens for such a task…

My Ramblings:

Yep, while the D3100 will do a great job of delivering killer images as long as you shoot sharp and keep your ISO down, I would recommend renting something like a Nikon 24-70 for this.

Nikon also makes a 17-55 f/2.8 which is great for crop sensor shooting in tight spaces, however the 17-55 can be prone to severe field curvature which means even though the lens may be ultra-sharp, it may not be able to get a flat line of people all in focus at once if you zoom out too far. The plane of focus may curve forward towards the camera and stopping down may not save the day.

So you could go down to your local pro shop and see if the rental lenses have good off-center sharpness, but in general the safest bet is the Nikon 24-70. That thing is just wicked-sharp from corner to corner on a crop sensor, and as long as you have enough space to backup then 24mm will be more than enough to fit everybody in…

Shooting 50mm on a crop sensor is fantastic if you have the room, (I’ve shot entire bridal parties on an 85mm on a crop!) …however it is just un-advisable to go into a job with ONLY that focal length, considering it equals about 75mm on full-frame. This is why I think renting or borrowing a 24-70 is the best thing to do. Don’t worry too much about distortion at 24mm on a crop sensor, even if you put a medium weight person at the very edge of the frame at 24mm, (actually, leave a little bit of room for a 8×10 crop!!!) …you’ll still be doing quite well considering that the focal length equivalent is just 35mm. For larger groups, that angle of view is still quite modest…

Take care,
=Matt=

PS: Support my addiction to giving free advice – Donate via Paypal, or by shopping at B&H.

A friend recently asked about full-frame versus crop-sensor with respect to real estate photography. The cameras in question- The Nikon D800 with the Nikon 18-35 G, versus the Nikon D7000 with the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

My Ramblings:

Honestly if you use a tripod and stay at ISO 100-400, the D7000 and Tokina 11-16 ought to work out amazingly well. The D7000 still has the greatest dynamic range of any crop-sensor camera ever made, including newer models, and the D800 is only a minimal improvement. Once you get on a tripod and stop worrying about high ISO’s for hand-holding, dynamic range and overall color quality is in my opinion the number one factor in real-estate photography. Any camera with 12-16 megapixels or more is enough for general work, and even publication if you don’t crop your images and shoot sharply enough.

Of course the D800 is double the resolution, but honestly even if you’re going to do print ads quite frequently the D7000 should be more than enough when shot right. Seriously if I had to choose between the D800 + 18-35 and the D7000 + 11-16, which is a ~$2-3K upgrade, …I’d stick with the D7000 and spend that money on myself, (lol) or just save it…

If 18-35mm or 11-16mm aren’t wide enough for you, you could also consider the Sigma 8-16 for crop sensors or the Sigma 12-24 for full-frame sensors, but these can have pretty significant field curvature that requires careful use. The Tokina 11-16 on the other hand has a very flat plane of focus, which is great.

I would try doing the first few shoots with the Tokina 11-16 on a D7000, just emphasizing the use of a solid tripod and maybe doing 2-sec timer or using a cable / remote release so that you can get the ultimate sharpness at like f/8 or f/11. That would give you amazing results. If you don’t yet have a solid tripod, I can make a couple recommendations…

Most of the time, the lighting and overall conditions are much more important than other aspects of camera quality. You might want to play around with using strobes to light different areas of the room, shooting multiple images and then blending them in Photoshop later.

Take care,
=Matt=

PS: Support my addiction to giving free advice – Donate via Paypal, or by shopping at B&H.