If you look closely at the pic of the two guys, my impression of an old "Miami Vice" look (yes, I'm old), the gentleman on the left is the pilot from the movie "American Made" with Tom Cruise. Savannah has become the new Hollywood due to tax advantages. Another friend of mine (absolutely gorgeous woman) was an extra on set this week for an upcoming movie with Will Smith, Gemini Man, to be released in late summer, this year.

A number of years ago I upgraded my Nikon d40 to the d5100 (d7000 sensor). I then purchased a 55-300dx and gave the 55-200dx away (part of the kit package). Anyway, it turned out to be one of my favorite lenses and cameras. I took more pics with that lens, from bees, dogs, flowers, wildlife, portraits (talk about a great bokeh) with awesome VR. I typically used a tripod (Induro AT 313 - heavy but a beast, BHL3 ballhead - strong as a bull). My point, rather than trying to get close to the subjects/scaring them away- I used this lens for close up or macro type shots. I found it easier to just zoom, crop and get the desired DOF that I wanted. Outside, plenty of light, piece of cake. Here are some very old shots that were much easier to take than the 100mm macro I have now. Granted, the lighting was key with a slower aperture but you be the judge.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Lovely shot! Any reason you just didn't increase your ISO and increase your ss? Not a criticism, just wondering?

Regarding the 1.4 vrs. 1.8 debate if there really is one. I remember buying my Nikkor 85 1.8 because I didn't want to drop the bucks for the Nikkor 85 1.4. To my eyes, the images on the 85 1.4 were better, regardless of sharpness (way overrated in many cases-imho). What I saw wasn't just a difference in DOF, but the 3-d look of the images and the micro-contrast. They were stunning and if I had my choice, the 1.4 all the way. But, we are photographers. The average client of mine wouldn't notice the difference. They only know they like the shot.

I have the lens and shot in on a d7100 and d750. Awesome lens, microcontrast. I don't do a lot of macro but did it a few times and it performed very well. I went with live view and manually focused on a tripod. Otherwise, did some portraiture with it and like it. Very quick focus acquisition.

different type of images - one at night, 50 1.8

(Download)


(Download)

Someone with a Nikon d850 asked about reasonably priced fast primes. The Nikon 50 1.8 is roughly $216 usd and I have found it to be a great lens, especially strong at focusing in very low light and quicker than my 85 1.8.. More than sharp enough. Pics taken inside and out, at a rooftop bar in Savannah, GA, ambient light only, on a d750.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

I have a d750 and shoot with 3 primes, Nikons 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 100 2.8 (Tokina). they are all good. the Nikon 85 doesn't focus as fast but if you are shooting portraits, its a moot point. I love the 50 1.8 which is very inexpensive. The Tokina is magnificent in many ways and is a macro if you care about that. I will post some pics that I took with the 50 1.8 during a shoot on a rooftop bar for a birthday party.

I do love the d750 - amazing camera for the money and low light performance is very strong. I can shoot at 6400 with virtually very little noise. the d7100 can't match the low light performance, but without an aa filter, its actually a little sharper.

I have had two Induro tripods, which comes from the same mfg'er as Benro. Anyway, check this out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwoO7MkqAQQ Sirui is putting out some pretty good stuff.

As a very general answer, your computer photo software can't read the raw images, only jpeg. Others will know more. However, I believe the Nikon software that came with your camera can read and display a raw image. http://nikonimglib.com/nvnxi/onlinehelp/en/nk013000.html here's a link. you can also edit your images and then save the raw in jpeg which will easily be displayed on your laptop..

You are right about that. The city, river, wildlife - Savannah has it all.

All the answers were good. it will kind of depend upon how much work and study you wish to do. All the cameras whether Nikon, Sony, Canon are all good. Even the Panasonics if you wish to add video. But, bottom line IMHO, learn how to read light, add an external flash and spend as much time as you can in that area. Learn to use Lightroom or Photoshop really well. I did learn one thing though that helped me when I shot
weddings and events without flash. A camera that handles low light well ie can shoot high ISO without a lot of noise. Then, fast glass ie 1.8 to 2.8 (or lower) on constant aperture. So, you can buy anything you want and get some great images 9 times out of 10. It's when you stress the situation that the better sensor and glass seems to make a difference. I bought used glass in some cases. I do shoot with a Nikon d750 which is a low light animal in many ways. Just know it had issues with shutter replacement but I had it fixed for free. There are others out there that are strong with high ISO shooting too. Others on this site will have great advice. Regardless you can't lose with the quality of today's cameras.

Living in Savannah. Originally from Philadelphia. First camera 1976 Canon AE-1. Currently use Nikon crop and full frame (d7100, d750) with pretty good glass. Shoot mostly events and a lot of low light without strobe but prefer street photography. Have pretty much shot everything from landscape to head shots and everything in between. Name is Rich