I have found it to be as sharp as the Sony 24-70 in the center, but a little soft out on the edges. The edge doesn't matter to me, though, since I mostly shoot portraits.

(Download)

In all fairness to MSNBC, they are correct about the foreign emoluments clause in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. It really is open to a certain amount of interpretation, and China really did grant Trump 38 trademarks in March of 2017. There are at least three lawsuits in the courts to determine if these gifts violate the Constitution, so MSNBC is correct that the matter is "up to the courts to decide". Trump is literally betting his career on winning those lawsuits.

In all fairness to you, I really like the bird photos on your Flickr account. I like the ospreys and the eagles the best, but the pictures of the pelicans are also interesting and eye-catching.

I suspect there was no mishandling of Kushner's e-mails either. The whole idea that a government-run server is inherently superior to a private-run server is unproven.

I had a whole rant about how corrupt Kushner is, but I deleted it because I keep getting off the subject of photography.

But yes, I will turn down paid photography work from people that still support Trump. It is not a difference in politics, it is a difference in morals.

One of the things most people don't realize is that several Trump officials have used private e-mail servers to conduct White House business. When Democrats requested documents to review the practice, the White House simply refused. The e-mails remain secret, and the White House has said they will not ever release them.

It has been two years since this was discovered, and the White House has produced exactly zero documents. This is literally the exact same thing that they still believe Hilary should be locked up for.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/jared-kushner-private-email-white-house-243071

The difference (to me) appears minor. But when I go look at someone's film work, I know that they put some thought into getting the light just the way they wanted, they took a limited number of shots, and the image they took actually existed in the real world.

It is like mountain-climbing in that respect. You could get to the top of the mountain faster with a helicopter, but no one is going to say: "Wow, how did you do that?"

I am a little older than average. (To paraphrase Douglas Adams, If you were to pick a number at random, I would be a little older than that...) I also have a heart condition, and arthritis in my neck right where the camera strap goes.

I found that working out with weights not only helped me carry the camera for longer periods, but made my muscles more stable when I was shooting any focal length over 75mm. I also switched to decaf just so I could reduce the motion blur.

I am not saying that everyone should do this, but it is something to consider. People who are pros, and even people who are just dedicated hobbyists, go to a lot greater lengths than that to take good photos.

I like the look that big lenses can provide, but I am getting older, and considering moving down to MFT or smaller. I notice that the low-light noise from (for example) a GH5 is slightly higher than my A9, but in good light, the photos are almost identical

You might want to explain the Astrotracer feature. Most people here are not familiar with it, and I have not ever used it, (just heard from other people who have.)

I would also add remember to turn off the image stabilization. Stabilization can actually "create" a wobble just by turning on and turning back off.

It looks like a good pose and a good angle. Wallen and others have already suggested some great post-processing tips.

This is a good picture to demonstrate the fact that raising the exposure in post-processing is roughly the same thing as increasing the ISO: It multiplies the "sensitivity" of the sensor. So if you take an underexposed picture at ISO 1600 (or so), it is roughly the same thing as a properly exposed picture at ISO 3200 (or so)

I have no idea about John Sh's comment on shutter speed. That is something I will hve to experiment with on my own.

If you where happy with the Nikon D200, then look at the Nikon D610. You can buy it used for about $600, the IR conversion is very similar to the D200, the focusing will work with most IR conversions, and will work better than most in extremely low light. Also, you can use the crop part of the sensor to get files similar to what you were getting, or you can use the full frame sensor to get some very detailed files.

I don't own the D610, but I know people who continue to use it, and have no interest in the newest greatest whatever that comes out every week.

I just did a quick check of indoor lighting the other night. With a single 60 watt bulb in a 10' by 10' room, at 1/80 second and F2.2, I ended up at ISO 6400.

My camera has pretty good noise control, so as long as I don't blow the photos up past 6" by 9", they would be usable. Anything bigger, though, or with a crop, the photos look amateurish.

In my opinion, I would look first at the Sigma 30mm F2.8. It is an inexpensive lens, (less than $200), and it is very sharp, and has very good color. It is not image stabilized, and cannot go as far down into low light as the Sony 35mm F1.8, but as long as you have a good light source, you will be happy with F2.8.

On the Sony camera, the Sigma 30mm will have a field of view of about 50mm, while the Sony 35mm F1.8 will work out to about 60 mm. It is up to you which you prefer, but the 50mm is a little more standard.

There are some people who hate the little Sigma lens it because it "feels" cheap, but if it takes good pictures, that is usually more important than whether it feels cheap.

To capture the image properly using your wide lens at F3.4, and 1/60, you will most likely need ISO 12,800 or higher. If you use a tripod, and get people to sit really still, you can move the shutter speed down to 1/30, which will bring your ISO down to (about) 6400, which is still pretty high, but usable.

But remember that every assignment is an opportunity to buy a new lens. The key to shooting by candlelight is fast glass, and in this case, the Nikon 35mm F1.8 DX is less than $200, and will allow you to (roughly) cut those ISO numbers in half.

I recommend buying the lens and bringing also the SB-800 flash just in case. You can always crank the power down, and point the flash at the ceiling. It is better to have a few photos come out that don't emphasize the candles than to have no pictures come out at all.

I also recommend that you spend a few hours ahead of time testing the different settings, in full manual, so you know what you are getting. If the restaurant won't let you test, then set up a bunch of candles at home and test there. Under no circumstances should you be testing out the settings once the dinner has started.

If you take a normal .jpg file from a 20 megapixel camera, and resize it to 50" by 60", that will give you about 75 dpi. This is just my opinion, but anything higher than about 50 pixels per inch might actually be too many.

A blanket with a thread count of 200 usually means they have 50 double-ply threads by 50 double-ply threads. so the "weave" of the blanket is only about 50 pixels per inch. There are a lot of tricks they can do to make the blanket accept a print better, but unless the thread count is over 500 or so, it is not likely that you will be able to detect any print smaller than 50 pixels per inch.