Read the manual. Then go out and shoot photos of everything. Try slow shutter speeds, as well as fast shutter speeds. Try to use all the different shooting modes.

Then if you have a computer, download these to the computer and look at the images you have captured.

What we all find is certain techniques work better than others. The only way to learn this is by shooting a lot of photos and making a lot of mistakes....

hi i purchased my l310 just a week a go and in researching it i came across your form, i wonder if you could give some tips and tricks

Thank you for sharing this I am also a wedding photographer and want to upgrade my camera thank you for your review and suggestion.

About 'looking the part' - yes this is very important indeed.
I even have customers (mostly big companies) perusing my equipment and having questions and opinions about it - knowledgeable and interested people. You MUST have good stuff or they won't take you seriously.
A grip on any camera that doesn't have an integrated grip is a necessity here.
Dress the part, act the part, look the part, have the right stuff in your hand.
Don't even THINK of turning up for a shoot with just a small camera (even a Leica), no matter how cool you think it is.

Sure the D4 is a great camera - made for specific situations. And the D800 is a great camera made for specific situations. But both do very well in all situations.

I've even used a D800 for action (Triathlon World Cup for instance) and it did a fantastic job. Only thing missing is high FPS, but that's about it.

I've heard this nonsense about how the D800 is only suitable for landscape photography. A really tired old story. In fact it is a marvellous walkaround that can handle anything.
Why do you think the D800 scores the highest in DxO tests of any camera ever tested? Because it's that good.

Sure, the D4 is bloody marvellous and if you're a pro you're bound to have one. I wish I could afford both.

Thanks for all the feedback. Unfortunately I was "encouraged" not to take any pictures as the Venue made money from selling the pictures on the night. They had one main guy with 3 assistants and those brought/flashed somewhat serious gear were politely asked to limit their shots to their individual tables and no group shots with the lucky couple. But I do appreciate all the feedback, and learnt that even the groom asks you to shoot for them, one need to check with the venue principles as it is their money earner after all.

Another Robert DeNiro movie has a Nikon in it! Plus it has Al Pacino too.

Heat is a great heist movie and has a F4 with what seems to be a motor drive on it, used by a police officer.

This is in the scene where the cops are trying to figure out what the robbers are trying to steal and get pictures taken back.

When DeNiro shoots back, he seems to be using a Nikon too, with a reflex mirror lens too. He has some weird microphone on the hotshoe though.

Very well said elvishefer. Best post yet.

I try to take as much pleasure as I can from shooting. If I can take some pics to help someone out, I'll do it. If someone tries to pay me for it, I'll take the cash. I'm thrilled if other people like my photos. Sitting here at my computer and looking at the prints on the walls, I'd say that ultimately I do it for the selfish pleasure of looking at my photos and reflecting on some of the best moments of my life. Photography is a technical skill that can't be perfected, but I'll pursue it to the grave. I love it.

Another idea is leave the heavy lifting photography to the main shooter and just do general candids. (table group shots, wedding cake, dancing, etc) Bring the D7k, the 20 and the 35. That will work for most everything. You wanted to go light, that's LIGHT.

Leave the heavy lifting of portraiture to the main shooter. You can work the crowd while the main shooter is busy with the wedding party just after the ceremony.

Remember to say, "Hello everyone!" when approaching a table and try not to get them eating. Nobody looks good in a pic when they are scarfing down dinner or wedding cake. The beginning of the reception when people are just seated is a great time to float from table to table and group to group before they get situated.

Since you are not the "top dog" and he or she is likely to resent your presence because they fear you will take money out of their pocket if the couple don't buy some of their photos since the couple will have yours, I suggest you will not be given "good positions" from which to shoot. Each good shot you take is one the pro may not sell. You may sort of have to grab what you can get from where you are in order to get a shot of what is happening at the time. Thus, I suggest reach and fast glass will be most important. Hence, take the 85mm f1.8 and the 35-37 f2.8 with the D7000 body or if you are taking two bodies put the 85 on the D200 and the 35-70 on the D7000. The reason is simply to give you the best chance for framing from wherever you have to shoot from, which I expect will be from some distance away.

Hmmm hard choice out of your lenses...personally I would probably go with your zoom for a single lens option. If multiples is an option I would go for the 14-24 and 85 F1.4.

If it were me I would shoot my 17-55 or equivalent since I am not the main photog and would let me use just one lens.

Really just depends on which focal length you think you are going to be using most...the speed of the lens will be negligible as you will have to just get the ISO up for the right shutter speeds (if shooting available light). My two lens suggestion will give you a little more flexibility in a zoom and fast prime.

sevencrossing said:
I am the only person who fits a battery back for this very reason ?

there are times when I want to be a fly on the wall
but sometimes it is important to "look the part"

No you're not alone, and very much correct. When the brides father (normally) is being asked to part with a 4 figure sum for the photographer, he doesn't want to see the guy or gal turn up with a camera that cost a quarter of his fee. I have been itching to try and shoot a wedding with a couple of Fuji xpro-1's, as I'm sure they would do a pretty good job, and weigh about 100 lbs less than my current set up :-) but have concerns about their perception in this regard. Also with regard to having two different camera body's when shooting in a high stress environment like a wedding, when I finally change my D3s/D700 combo, I will DEFINATELY buy two of the same, as I find switching between the two slows me down currently, in spite of doing my best to exactly duplicate the controls on both the best I can.

msmoto said:
Gee whiz... as a paparazzi camera, the D4 is a sweet camera...and I will be trying it on a wedding soon... my youngest son's...They will let me do some candid shots after the ceremony.

And, no question, the D4 does about everything....I think I have posted some candid architectural shots which demonstrate this. But, one can have two D800's or one D4....and in shooting weddings, I have seen enough examples to clearly demonstrate the D800 is excellent and with two bodies, it is so much easier to do the assignment than if one has to change lenses on one body.

So, if money has anything to do with it...maybe two D800s trump one D4. On the other hand, If there is no money issue, two D4's would certainly be nice.... Or as a few of our members have...one of each.

Plus 1 msmoto. Your describing my future dilemma.

Consider also a D600; if the size, build and weight are good for you. You can save $1,000 and the DxOMark scores are only one point apart. I cannot imagine any client wanting a print larger than the D600 can produce at top notch quality. Don't need the additional 12mp the D800 provides. Put a battery grip on for vertical shutter release and a more professional look.

I mainly do wedding photography and use D700 for last few years.I can't complain I'm very happy from my D700, maybe in the future I will keep it as a back up and buy D 800 but need to wait for more tests and opinions if its worth that price.

are you going as a second photographer or as a guest?

if you are a guest, just take the two zooms

Here are several threads on wedding shoots... I also changed the name of your thread to make it a "new" topic.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2198

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=7476

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2386

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1631

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2843

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1292

And, in contrast to what R8R has suggested, I would use the 35mm f/1.8 on the D200 and the 85mm f/1.4 on the D7000. Shooting available light is apparently what you are doing as you have not mentioned any flash or other lighting equipment.

Just my opinion here - I would take the two zooms and the 85. Don't bring all the primes, weddings go by too fast to constantly change lenses. Keep the 35-70 on most, the 12-24 for tight indoor shots and groups, and the 85 for portraits.

Make sure to do a custom WB on a grey card from the start.

If you do get the D600, bring the D7000 with the 35mm stuck to it as backup.

I am attending a wedding over the weekend and will take pictures as backup (there is an official venue photographer). I would like to travel light and as I just upgraded to a D 7000 from a D200, I need your advice on the subject.

I have the following lenses:
AF-D 20 mm f/2.8, AF-D 35-70 mm f/2.8, AF-S 14-24 mm f/2.8, AF-S 35 mm f/1.8 DX, AF-D 85 mm f/1.4 IF.

The wedding is at night in an indoor Venue with florescent lighting. I am also fighting an urge to stop buying recently released D600 ;-)

Thanks in advance for all your comments

Cheers

Umit

Quote:

"I wouldn't even try to separate shooting from processing.

I would try to master both.

My best,

Mike"

+1......

Some of us on the forum grew up with film and were also privileged to process the film, and then produce in the darkroom what we thought we saw when we shot the image. This to many of us is photography. Very rarely, I will have an image in the computer I am fully satisfied with. I am always looking at what is in front of me and then seeing what might be done to improve it.

And, I see my self as a "snapshot" photographer. I like available light and in particular those situations where the venue is difficult and challenging. But in the field, I am always thinking about how this may be processed in the "darkroom". In the days of film, I shot Plus-X at ASA 80 and short processed in D-76 1:1, printed on #3 contrast paper. It was a complete process from start to finish. Today is no different except my "darkroom" is in my computer.

My goal in every photo is to make it look like anyone could do it. Yet, to have a high level of technical quality present. I did this for money many years ago...today...a different situation as I explained above. But, each photo is looked at as art in my book.

I agree, but is this prosess the craft or art of photography? I say it falls into the craft folder. Its not untill you do this sort of stuff does it become art. http://maggietaylor.com/

earthsea said:
Is it not an art-photograph only when the photo taken is manipulated in some way ie; In software programmes or in the darkroom?
Lets say I take a picture of a really amazing sunset for example, or capture an athlete in an expressive pose, blow it up and print it on canvas without any software enhancements, are these then works of art? Are they not just captured moments in time regardless of how they look? They might look really cool images but I don't think it is art. If they are works of art then that surely makes the really amazing sunset or athlete in the expressive pose a work of art not the photograph. I think 'Art' is an over cooked term used to often these days.
If however the photographer has applied his or her interpretation by enhancing or manipulating the image in some way and the photograph is different from the subject, only then I think it can be put in the art folder.
Lets say I created a painting, a work of art, then I photographed it and had prints made on canvas for sale of the painting with no software adjustments. Are the prints works of art too, or is this for money?
Does not a photograph only enter the art folder when it has had software manipulation and not when it has been shot? If the image is sold after the manipulation prosess then it goes in the art/money folder.

Hi,

I'm not sure you're for it or against it, but either way, the darkroom process (digital or otherwise from Ansel to today) has _always_ been a part of making a photograph.

I wouldn't even try to separate shooting from processing.

I would try to master both.

My best,

Mike

Is it not an art-photograph only when the photo taken is manipulated in some way ie; In software programmes or in the darkroom?
Lets say I take a picture of a really amazing sunset for example, or capture an athlete in an expressive pose, blow it up and print it on canvas without any software enhancements, are these then works of art? Are they not just captured moments in time regardless of how they look? They might look really cool images but I don't think it is art. If they are works of art then that surely makes the really amazing sunset or athlete in the expressive pose a work of art not the photograph. I think 'Art' is an over cooked term used to often these days.
If however the photographer has applied his or her interpretation by enhancing or manipulating the image in some way and the photograph is different from the subject, only then I think it can be put in the art folder.
Lets say I created a painting, a work of art, then I photographed it and had prints made on canvas for sale of the painting with no software adjustments. Are the prints works of art too, or is this for money?
Does not a photograph only enter the art folder when it has had software manipulation and not when it has been shot? If the image is sold after the manipulation prosess then it goes in the art/money folder.

Well, I would hesitate before I called my photography 'Art' but I do enjoy Landscape. Often it is just being out there pre sunrise and witnessing the beautiful light on the land or water, or seeing an animal at a time it least expects to see a human. I feel like for a fleeting few moments I am privaliged to be allowed into its world.
So, my photography is for fun, but at 54 I am thinking there is more to life than working and it is time I got out and saw the world with my camera, all I need is to figure out a way to earn a crust. Ahhhh dream on.......