Like most shooters from the age of film, the realization that I can change my media sensitivity (i.e., ISO) at will to meet the shooting conditions makes me absolutely giddy. Even with earlier digital cameras (D100, D70, D200), I didn't trust anything above 400 except in extreme need, and then I think I only ever went up to ISO 1600. (And I didn't much care for the results.)

I left the business a half dozen years ago, and limped along with with that same gear until I broke down and bought a D800 this summer. And for the first time, photographing my grandson playing football at dusk I tried some higher ISO settings. Amazing! Now I think there are conditions where Auto ISO would be the right way to go. Thanks for the input.

Lens engineering has improved at a steady pace over the past several decades. Computer design has permitted zoom lenses of a quality exceeding prime lenses of a couple of generations ago. This has been accompanied by the use of new materials such as plastics in many of the components of those lenses, including the outer shell, structural components such as the focusing helixes, and replacing glass elements - particularly some of those treasured "rare earth" glass elements - sometimes just to save money, but often to save money and weight AND improve performance! The bottom line is to trust the reputation of the manufacturer and of the lens itself, and how well the lens performs for you, and ignore old prejudices about the materials of construction

It depends on the purpose of the photo. Shooting for other people, keeping in mind who is using them, I tend to be pretty brutal. But I shoot a lot so there's always plenty for them to go through. I also shoot for myself. Such things as scenics, architecture and wildlife where I am striving for something pretty special, and there I'm really brutal, unless I only have a very few of a given subject. But sometimes it's family, and I have a really hard time deleting pictures of my children and their children unless the photo is truly bad.

Funny thing, sometimes my significant other looks over my shoulder and helps edit. She's even more critical than I am on the client stuff and the artsy fartsy stuff for me, but she never wants any family pictures deleted, no matter how bad the focus or the composure!

A decade ago, I wore out two camera shutters - one on a Nikon D100, the other a D70. Cost about $400 to have Nikon replace D100's shutter (replaced D70 with D200.) I don't know how many shutter releases on each but would expect near the "AMTBF" of 100,000.

In your case, when that D60's shutter finally calls it quits, it would be a perfect time to buy new.

I hadn't thought about battery leakage/corrosion in years. Used Sanyo NiMH for several years while shooting sports and events, but since retired found that they wouldn't hold a charge for more than several days, so every time I went to use them, they needed to be recharged. So I've switched back to alkaline with good results. But now I remember those corrosion problems and am taking them out between uses. (Thanks for the reminder!) I just might try Eneloops.

It is possible your camera's exposure meter is set to underexpose! Back in the days of film many camera manufacturers assumed everyone shot negative film (which was very forgiving of overexposure but did not tolerate underexposure) and intentionally set their in-camera meters to overexpose by a stop. A pair of Olympus bodies caused me great consternation when I started to shoot transparencies, until I learned to dial in one stop of exposure compensation.

With digital, which , like slide film, has little tolerance for overexposure, they aim for dead on metering, but it is possible for an individual camera's meter to be off a stop. The exposure compensation setting will take care of it!

Having shot hundreds of team photo's I can tell you it's virtually impossible not to do boring! So your use of the Jungle Gym is inspired - nice work! But now I'll tell you how I believe it could have been stronger. By getting up higher (a ladder provided by the school's maintenance staff) you can a) reduce the problem of the faces towards the back being hidden by those in front, and b) if it's high enough, put all the faces more nearly into the same plane, reducing the apparent size difference.

But, like I said, Nice Job!

ahzwizerd2, are you sure you can't use flash? I shot multiple sports, including basketball, for years. Started with film (ISO 400, occasionally pushed to 1600) and ended up digital, but never had the low light capability of today's digital cameras. Flash was de rigueur! Started out shooting from under the basket, but once I got my 70-200 mm f/2.8, I shot primarily from the corners. (Few gyms have stands on the ends, so you don't have to worry about interfering with the fans.)

Used the top current speedlight on camera, but added a second flash on a stand for improved lighting towards the end. Never had any issues.

Talk to the coach, presumably he was a player and was used to flash. Word of caution: sounds like the gym has an ancient lighting system which will cause your camera to record strange colors where your light doesn't reach, like the far background. Enjoy yourself, photographing youth sports is a great joy.

Here's the general rule followed by most resellers of used equipment: they will pay you about half as much to buy it as they believe they can sell it for. In other words, they intend to mark it up 100%.

First, the regulation cited in this thread pertains only to Federally designated Wilderness Areas, not National Forests, National Parks, or city or state parks. Second, the most Forest Service communications have walked the potential impact of the regulation back as indicated in the Q & A dated July of 2013:

4. “The Proposed Directive makes no changes to the policy on still photography. No permit is
required for most still photography, including still photography in wilderness areas. The
permit requirement for still photography does not turn on whether the proposed activity is
commercial, but rather whether it (a) takes place at a location where members of the public
are generally not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely or (b) uses
models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or
administrative facilities.”

None-the-less, I have submitted my negative comments regarding the proposed regulation.

Jhwii, is it possible that the no name filter was a plain polarizing filter, not a CIRCULAR polarizing filter? That would affect focusing!

After my thirty year career in the corporate world ended, I needed to do something else. I had been in photography since I was a child, and that seemed to be the direction I should take but I was apprehensive about dealing with bridezilla and her mother. But with some experience working for other photographers and being mentored by an exceptional group of pros in Northern New Jersey, I entered the fray and for fifteen years was pretty successful. (Enjoyed it all.)

Over that period, I never once encountered bridezilla! Or her mother!! Most often I ended our collaboration with her as my friend (and usually had a little crush on her). Only once do I remember anybody asking a question about equipment or techniques (though I did tell them up front that while the formal stuff was shot with medium format, I switched to 35 mm for the reception). Moved back to the Midwest so my wife could be near her parents in their final years, so I now only do an occasional pro bono shoot.

I am not certain what sandheimrichc should do, but suggest he sit down with his clients and review the contract and their desires.

And, as to Lowkick’s remark that the contract be “... specific about what you will supply for the job.” Yes – what you photograph, when, time you’re finished, what she gets after the shoot, and the time frame in which you will deliver it! And discuss it all in detail in your preliminary meetings.

I cannot understand MT Shooter’s problem with the disposable camera’s flashing ruining his pictures; was he not using flash, too? Was he controlling off camera flashes with optical slaves (which would fire every time a disposable’s flash went off)? He should have been able to cope. The only time the guests photography ever bothered me was when they got between me and my subject, but they always moved on request.

And I agree with dat2ra’s remark about women wedding photographers sometimes having an advantage. (Watched a pretty good one do my granddaughters wedding up by Yosemite last June).

Thank you for this information. I often don't get to review this blog for a day or two, and had no idea the thread title had been changed. Everything makes much more sense now. My apologies to mwsilvers..

NO! Authorizedusers' request for information on the 180 mm lens was very specific. The question on the comparative value of the 60 mm lens was secondary. 90% of the thread titles in the UG blog give far less pertinent information. (Sorry, I don't usually get into critiquing responses, but felt mwsilvers' critiicsm was unjustified.)

I used a Storm Jacket (www.stormjacket.com) from Vortex Media for many years photographing all the outdoor sports. Football & Soccer generally continue in any weather. (Once had a Soccer match stopped at half-time in a tropical storm, but my Storm Jacket protected my camera with a 70-200 f/2.8 and I had the pictures.)

Storm Jacket protecting my camera and lens, a decent rain jacket and a wide brimmed hat and I could handle any weather!