----- Original Message ----- From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Fairygirl ramblings...
> Bill said: > > "No. I set up an action in Photoshop to do the rotation." > > Yeah, but it is still a PITA as I still need to do each one individually as > they vary so much from portrait to landscape etc throughout the shoot. I > can't just run all of the proofs as a batch or all of my landscape shots > will then be rotated as well. When there is like 3-400 proofs to work > through, it is taking me FOREVER.... Any suggestions would be great...! I read that you solved this dilemma > > " It's still about the lenses. Do you really want to use Nikkor or Canon > glass?" > > No, and even less do I want to go out and buy all new flash guns, cable > releases and other accessories, but geez the specs on that Nikon D70, well, > they can't be challenged by the *istD can they? Pricing aside, the Nikon > with its high buffering, high flash sync, immediate power up (VERY important > for PJ wedding photography!), 1/8000 shutter speed, automatic ISO setting (i > think this is very cool!), inclusion of its rechargeable battery pack etc > wins me straight away. Add to this the below US$1000 and I am extremely > impressed. Two of my favourite lenses are Tamron adaptalls, so all I would > need is a Nikon lens mount, one good AF zoom, a TTL flash gun and bam! I > would be shooting for around the same price as the *istD, and with some very > impressive "extras"... Are you sure about that with the Tamrons? Nikon isn't Pentax, they have some major compatability issues that make the moaning here sound pretty childish. I really doubt that your Adaptalls will work at all on a low end Nikon Digital. Those Tamrons will most likely be paperweights with anything other than the top tier Nikons. Look at what features are actually important, IE: what does one camera do that another won't do that actually means something to your work. A feature is meaningless if it doesn't get used. Handle both cameras, actually go out and take pictures with them. Compare viewfinders. Is one easier to see through than the other? How about ease of operation? Which one is more natural in the hand? Which one do you think you will enjoy using in the long haul? What about quality of build? Which one feels more solid? The Pentax is more expensive for a reason. It's a solid little camera, made with real metal. Do you really need to be able to shoot more than 5 pictures in rapid succession? Or is that just seeing who can write their name the biggest by pissing in the snow? Do you have any idea how annoying an SLR pounding away at several frames per second for several seconds is at a wedding ceremony? > > As far as lenses go, like I said, it would totally suck to have to buy all > new glass and flash guns, but OTOH, in the long run, I need to give my > clients the best quality shots that I can afford, and the Canon and Nikkor > lenses aren't exactly lacking in the quality stakes... Or are they? I went to Pentax from Nikon for a reason, and it sure the hell wasn't the camera bodies. I gave up an F3, an FE, and an FM2 to go Pentax. I happen to think the Pentax glass makes nicer pictures than Nikon glass. > > All I can say is that Pentax had better come out with something EXTREMELY > mind-blowing very soon, or they may have lost me as well... > > I think I will always keep my Pentax lenses and one of my Pentax bodies for > sentimental reasons and just for "fun", but on a professional level, I am > keeping my options open and right now they don't look to be headed toward > Pentax... > > What do you other "Pros" think? I think that if you are changing camera brands is going to improve your photography, you had better make sure that you are getting better lenses than what you are using now. Otherwise, you are just going to be shooting crap at a higher fram rate. William Robb
