LED lights have three great strengths; they remain cool, they use little power as compared to incandescent and fluorescents, and their color temperature DOES NOT change when the power output does (like incandescent lights do). You could have a filter to change color temp, or, as at least one manufacturer does, have a unit with both 5000K and 3400K LEDs in it to switch between the two sets, but a given LED remains color constant ben as the power supply (i.e. battery) dwindles.

The problem as compared to xenon flash units is how much light LEDs can put out. I too have a LED flashlight rated at 1200 lumens but even that is not enough to light up, say, a ballroom at a wedding or similar type events. For that matter, using it as fill on a brightly lit beach would not work very well either.

For macro work there are some LED ring lights around and they can be okay, though at the typically small apertures necessary in macro work they would still require slow shutter speeds. When using a flash for macro work, the camera's shutter speed is pretty much unimportant since the duration of a flash will be 1/1000th of a second or less.

Well there are certainly a number of things to consider:

1) how much demand would there be (keeping in mind that the competition will be, as mentioned, everyone from Chinese outsourcers to post production departments of pro labs)

2) How much would customers be willing to pay - and would you give a quote before working on the image? If you assess it to be 3 hours worth, will the customer be willing to fork over $75? If it actually takes you 4 hours, will you eat the difference?

3) Jim and Sharpshooter make good points about most folks looking for this kind of work probably expecting high end prints as a result (otherwise what's the value - viewing on a computer screen makes for a lot of slop)

Perhaps approaching the Pro market with a book of your work and even taking on a couple of jobs gratis to prove your mettle would be the best approach - certainly if you are accepted in their world your reputation will build up and folks from elsewhere will be willing to give you a try.

In any event, you need to write a business plan if you're serious, and in that plan take into account your most realistic (not most optimistic) expectations as to how many hours a week you will need to bill out in order to maintain your lifestyle, and hat that would translate to in terms of work. Next is ascertaining if you need to upgrade your computer gear - calibration monitor? Drobo drive? more RAM? Then it's on to a marketing scheme - how to get the word out - again, offering (initially free) services to local pros might be a way to go. And if they are pleased with your work, then you can start thinking of doing it full time.

In other words, think about all the aspects. If you start an LLC, will you need a lawyer to create whatever forms (like NDAs) you might need? Don't forget about having to pay taxes on your income (as suing you breach that threshold, which of course you hope to do). But then again perhaps you could deduct the room in your home at tax time as it would be for business - unless you plan to open a storefront (and if so then add that cost into your calculations).

Just some things to ponder...

Well, this is not quite true. First of all, the sensor in the camera is very sensitive to IR light (other end of the spectrum) and so has an IR filter (part of the anti-aliasing filter) - if you have you digital camera "converted" to be an in fared camera the technician removes that IR filter. So the UV filter doesn't effect that.

what a UV filter can be useful for is shots, usually landscapes, where there is a lot of distance to the subjects (say, mountains in the distance) - by reducing the UV wavelengths a little more clarity may be had. Of course, this depends on time of day, angle to sun and atmospheric conditions as well.

The reason UV filters have historically been sold as "protection" to those who are instilled with the morbid fear of horrible things happening to the front element of their lens is because filters and accessories like them have the largest profit margin - when you buy that $1000 camera at the local store the shopkeeper makes a pittance; when you then buy the filter she makes 50%.

Well along that line of thinking there are sets of car wheels that cost more than some entire automobiles (see http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/the-most-expensive-car-rims-in-the-world/ for the list) so what is the point in that too?

As already mentioned, part of the question is where are you shopping for filters and how cheap are your lenses? Canon L's are not cheap as far as I know - did you misplace a decimal point?

As any B-school student will tell you, the price of something has to do with what the market will bear more than what the cost of production is, but that said there are genuine differences in how that "flat piece of glass" might be manufactured. The quality and flatness of the glass itself is one factor, the kind and number of anti-glare coatings another. Then the cost of the threaded ring - is it brass or just plastic? And of course, with polarizing filters (or variable ND filters, which are effectively 2 polarizers sandwiched together) there is yet more potential variance.

As for UV filters, the most expensive 77MM diameter ones hover around $200 - if you are of the persuasion that it's important to use a UV to protect your front element then it would be foolish to protect the front of a $300 lens with a $200 filter, but perhaps a $2000+ lens would justify such protection, no?

So just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it doesn't make some sense.

I too have sold poster-sized (24x36 inch) enlargements from my D200 (10MP) - I suggest you investigate software designed to make these kinds of enlargements. Genuine Fractals, which was bought by OnOne software and renamed as the Resize module within their suite, was designed for just this purpose. Of course, you can use resizing in Photoshop and other packages, but if it becomes an extreme enlargement (i.e. - to print 20x30 inches at 300dpi means an image size of 6000 x 9000 pixels) I believe OnOne is superior.

At a given quality level, both brands are generally pretty comparably priced. They both offer high-end professional level lenses and also less costly lenses designed for mere mortals.

In the old days, there was a sizable difference between the "pro" and non-pro lenses in terms of image quality - nowadays, though, while there are some variations to be seen the bigger differences are the maximum aperture (e.g. - most pro level zoom lenses have a constant aperture of f2.8 while their cheaper counterparts are variable f-stop) and the mechanical build quality. Pro lenses are just built tougher to take the daily punishment they are commonly given.

The 3'rd party brands (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) are where you can find lenses that cost less, and they are available for all the major mounts nowadays. And even with those companies, some of their lenses are quite excellent (and priced accordingly) while others are aimed at the more budget-minded buyer.

The "upgrade or wait" question is a common one, and the dilemma of course is that with electronic technology-based stuff like digital cameras the pace of improvements is enough to make one crazy. If you buy the 3100 now and a 3300 comes out in a year, will you be miffed? Or if you wait to save for the 7000 (by which time the 7700 will exist no doubt) will that be a problem?

So the rational answer is to buy new when what you have isn't sufficient. 10MP seems old, but I've sold poster-sized enlargements from my D200 (also 10MP) so unless you plan on doing a log of heavy cropping the sensor count may not be important.

But are you limited by your lenses - you need wider wide angles? Longer telephoto reach? Fisheye effects? Macro shots you can't obtain with your gear? Then considering an upgrade makes sense.

At a given price point, all the major manufacturers' offerings are more similar than different in terms of specifications. The real question is ergonomic - which models feels better in YOUR hands (balances more nicely, fingers fall on controls more naturally, etc.) is far more important than some arcane bit of technical difference.

But if you find the Nikon (what you mention above) to be clumsy feeling in some way, or difficult to control due to control using menus or whatever, you will end up enjoying the act of shooting pictures - and nobody wants that.

So first, decide why it is you feel the need to upgrade. Then you can seek the kit that might better fit your needs.

Most likely they will be - DNG was Adobe's attempt to make a "standard" file format for RAW images; the notion being that in the future if NEF or CR2 or whatever proprietary format is no longer supported DNG wold become the standard. I don't know if that will ever happen, but essentially a DNG is a kind of RAW file.

A couple of points here - first, what computer are you using? With Macs, RAW file interpretation is handled at the OS level; when OSX updates come through they sometimes have the capability of reading new RAW formats. For Windows, you need to have software downloaded for that particular RAW format.

As for "what everyone is talking about", RAW files capture all of the data that was originally captured by the camera's imaging chip (well, there is a bunch of processing done to that, but it is still analogous to a negative). JPEG is a form of the RAW file that the computer in the camera generates (based on how the manufacturer's engineers set that up) - JPEG files are much smaller but a lot of data is thrown away to make the JPEG.

What this means, in essence, is that there is more flexibility in a RAW file for making alterations - bringing up shadow detail, for instance - much like a negative allows of dodging and burning" when making a print. In a way, a JPEG is more like a print - yes, it can be manipulated but within much narrower confines.

So as has been said already, you need to install a program (on a Windows machine, anyway) which is generally packaged with the camera. Or you could go to the manufacturer's site and download it, no doubt.

But what you will see onsreen won't be much different than the JPEG version anyway, as there is no such thing as "viewing" a RAW file itself - whether chomping on your camera or viewing it on your computer the RAW file is being converted to RGB anyway. It's only worthy if you will want to do post processing.

Dabbleshots, there are two things involved here - the number of pixels and also the resolution (or pixels per inch) required.

For printing purposes, resolution is typically 300 dpi (dots per inch) or sometimes 360, depending on the printer. So if what you mean is you want a print that is 12x36 inches (a panoramic shot) it will need to be 3600 pixels tall by 10,800 pixels wide.

Now unless you're using a very exotic large format digital camera, the width of your image is less than 10,800. but that's where image editing programs come in - they can enlarge a smaller-than-required image to the needed size. As @Amehta points out, the proportions of this image are not any kind of standard, so you will need to use no constraint when cropping the final image.

Of course, knowing what program you are using would probably be helpful.

Nobody has mentioned that this entire discussion and any conclusions are predicated on the fact that we are all seeing ONLY digital renderings of the images in question - the film or print was scanned to become a digital file and we are viewing on monitors of widely varying resolution and quality.

Perhaps a more valid comparison would be to see a large print made with both originals, though for completeness printing the film with an enlarger (rather than scanning and printing digitally) would be "more fair".

Of course, if the goal is to merely display on monitors and other electronic screens, then any tonality that film might (and I stress might) offer may well be lost anyway.

My point is that there are so many variables in the entire chain of events between the capturing of an image and the manner in which the viewer sees that image as to make these kinds of comparisons fairly moot.

The article is pretty good (hey, it's Adorama - they know what's what!). The first time I cleaned my sensor I too was a bit hesitant, but it's not all that difficult.

Remember there are three possible stages of cleaning - blowing air, physically brushing off particles the air stream didn't dislodge, and if there's still gunk then Eclipse and swabs. And of course, be sure you have a fully charged battery so the locked-up mirror doesn't sudden drop while you're working.

The blowing is obviously pretty easy - it's non-contact so there's little chance you'd do any damage. Holding the body face down is best, to prevent dust from just falling in with gravity's help.

The brush is also simple enough - the Arctic butterfly has a motor that spins the actual bristle head to cause static electricity to build up; this is meant to attract particles that didn't get clown away. Remember to only swipe one time after "charging" - if you swipe once, put on the lens and tie a test shot and still find dust, spin and swipe again.

The part that may concern you most is the actual touching of the sensor (well, the AA filter on top of the sensor) with a Pec Pad moistened with Eclipse or other solution. Again - one use per pad is the important thing. And obviously don't scrape it like it's ice on a windshield you're trying to dislodge.

Of course, you could use methods 1 and 2 and if they fail to remove the offending grit THEN take it to a shop and pay for someone else to do it.

Oh, and having a sensor loupe of some kind is very important (as mentioned in the article).

Well, I imagine it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

If image quality is not an issue, the super zoom ZSLRs (non-interchangeable 20x or 50x zoom lens) might be worthwhile - certainly one of those would reduce the "schlep" factor in carrying around gear. But the smaller imaging chip means greater DOF at a give aperture/focal length, and lower quality at high ISOs. On the other hand, if your outputting to screens (websites, e-frames, etc., then these might not be noticeable.

Another consideration to "lose weight" is a kit of "EVIL" gear (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) like the Fuji XE-2, Nikon J3 or J3 or offerings from the other major manufacturers. These have larger CCDs which can offer more control over DOF as well as better low light image quality (well, high ISO anyway).

In fact, I'm currently renting the XE-2 and a few lenses in hopes that I will like it enough to get a setup for travel - the D600 and lenses are weighing me down, as it were (especially combined with the ginormous laptop I have to use for work). Sadly, so far I am not finding it appealing - nothing wrong at all with the image quality and all, but the ergonomics are just not right for me. Perhaps that will change with a little time, but my first impression is that it's just too small (I've been shooting Nikon for 40 years) and as nice as the 2MP EVF is, it's still not the same as actual photons going through the lens and getting reflected to my eye.

And this latter issue is something to consider - if you get a camera that "looks good on paper" but turns out to be less enjoyable to use, you will likely use it less over time.

Hello all,

I just learned of this site and it looks like it will be fun and educational, so I figured why not join, right?

My site is http://www.fatelyfoto.com if anyone wants to have a look.