How could I take pictures of her if I sold the camera gear? :)

(She is a true natural as a model :) ).

D

A couple of thoughts ...

You should figure out a target market for your work. For instance, my work consists of party pictures and butterfly and bird shots. So logically I want to market to party guests and fans of birds and butterflies.

Your work would probably most interest people who have visited the places you photograph. If you post, say, travel reviews on travel forums, make sure you have a link at the end of your posts (often called a signature) to the pictures that are of the destination you're referring to.

It might also pull better to use an aggregation site like 500px.com instead of your own site. Using 500px, people can search your photos and there's a system where people can purchase them. I have no idea whether it works or not, but I suspect more people would find your photos than at a standalone site.

I think a big problem is that people don't have a good idea of the quality of your prints unless they view them in person. I personally would never buy art online unless it was an artist I'd seen before and knew I wanted. So I might buy a David Hockney print online because I'd already seen his art and had a good idea of what the final product would be like. A print from someone I haven't heard of is a much tougher sell.

And of course trying to sell prints to your fellow photographers would be just about impossible ... we don't have the wall space for all of our own stuff, let alone other peoples' :).

David

I have an ulterior motive.

There is a girl I'm wooing who also exhibits at the same shows.

When she found out I'd sold photos, she hopped up and down in delight and gave me that big bright smile I love so much.

That was worth all the effort I put into shooting the photos, buying the equipment and selling them! :).

D

I notice the original poster wasn't as concerned about price as the respondents are, so we should also mention a company called Really Right Stuff. They are super-expensive - around $1,200 - but reviewers that I respect say they are the best in the business. They are also entirely made in the USA, "down to the last screw".

http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?code=TripodsRRS&key=cat

Note that they have a super-light tripod and a medium weight tripod, and both are very close in price. When I talked to them, they recommended the medium weight for my equipment.

I considered Really Right Stuff, but couldn't pull the trigger on so much money. Worse yet, ballheads, which is all they sell, are not designed for video, and video was a major reason I wanted a tripod in the first place.

In the end, I bought Induro legs and a Manfrotto video head. The MVH502AH head is big and slightly heavy, but rock-solid. The legs are light, easy to fold and unfold and also rock solid. I have used this combination with my Nikon D4 with 70-200 f/2.8 lens and have been very satisfied with how sturdy and easily controllable it is. It was not all that light, but fairly light compared to cheaper tripods. The total was a bit over $600.

However, most of my photography is done in dynamic situations where the flexibility of hand holding wins all the time. I have gotten some cool tripod mounted shots, but it's not essential or even terribly useful for my core photography.

I have enclosed an image showing a two second time exposure of LED hula hooping that was shot on this tripod.

D

It's actually pretty hard to gauge manual focus, especially when you are trying for shallow depth of field. The kit lenses, such as what you have, tend to be focus by wire, which means there is no direct connection between the focus ring and the actual movement of elements in the lens. This makes manual focus difficult and is likely to be at least part of your problem in the second image.

I found that I could not manually focus well until I bought into Nikon's professional lens line, but I'm going to make the reasonable assumption that you don't want to spend $1,800+ for the 24-70 f/2.8 pro lens.

So how do you fix this problem inexpensively? The best way is to understand the workings of your autofocus system. You probably want to look in your camera's manual and read the section on autofocus carefully. There is probably a way you can display and move the auto focus points within the viewfinder. Move the autofocus point to where you want your camera to focus and then press down the shutter to focus and take the picture.

If you don't have that feature, you can probably set it so the focus point is in the center of the picture. In that case, make sure the center of the frame is where you want to focus on and see if that works.

Hope that helps.

David

Well, one person says $25 per 4x6 and other people say 3x the cost of paper and ink.

This is a little confusing since a 4x6 only costs about $0.19 to print. So on paper, if we multiply that by 5 we get about $1 per 4x6 print, which I think we can all admit is too low. Admittedly we have extra cost for the paper but that doesn't change things too much.

For details, see:
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro9000-pro9500.html

I have exhibited my art in two places, both of which are essentially more or less random art venues. I started by charging $15 for an 8x10 or $30 for a framed 8x10. The 8x10 costs about $2 ($1 in ink + $1 per sheet of paper). The 4x6 costs about $0.19 plus I'm not sure how much for the paper but probably insignificant.

What i found out was the buyers I had were exceedingly cheap. None of the people I talked to wanted 8x10s thanks to cost. So when I did another art show, I added 4x6 prints for $5. I promptly sold five of those, making gross revenues of $25. This roughly paid for the cost of fuel to get to the show and back. However, I was told attendance at the show was exceptionally poor and I would do better next time. We shall see.

However, I discovered another thing. Some friends of mine saw the images on Facebook and they typically bought 8x10s at a discounted price of $10 each. (Because they were my friends I felt like giving them a discount was my best policy). They have become regular customers and I suspect they will occasionally buy $10 prints for many months or years to come.

Now, this is pretty discouraging considering the $10k+ I have in equipment and assorted costs. But I've had a lot of fun and I have genuinely enjoyed getting sales. It's no fun setting up a booth and working hard just to go home with no sales at the end of the day. I've seen a lot of photographers at these shows who gripe about selling nothing. Trouble is, low price really seems to be the secret to actually move merchandise. Most people in this recessionary economy just plain don't have money.

Frankly, I wish I could be less discouraging in terms of the actual worth of our work. It's possible that my subjects are wrong, or that my technique is not up to snuff. But the reactions of buyers and potential buyers have been overwhelmingly positive. People are attracted like a moth to a flame to my setup. Then they look, find out that I'm charging more than $0 and leave. But when I get to the $5 level, people have a hard time leaving without a print. Two of the three customers I had at the show bought two prints for $10.

My best-selling image, the Happy Alligator

Thom points out that a lot of people who shoot with these lenses have subjects consistently in the center and not the corners, and so the vignetting is not as important as you might think.

Hope I haven't spoiled your enjoyment of your lens. The new one doesn't have as much of a telephoto reach at close distances, so you might still prefer it.

I have the new one and I'm really happy with it, but it certainly was expensive.

D

here's my source:
http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm

DPReview's review of the two lenses said the same thing.


David

You want the VR II if you are using, or planning to move to, a camera with a FX (full frame) sensor. The VR I does not properly cover the full frame, so there are nasty vignetting problems.

If you're sticking to DX (non-full frame), the VR I might actually serve your purposes better since it is a stronger telephoto at close focus distances.

Hope that helps.

D

I'll bet! I would love to hear one as long as I'm safe on the other side of the boardwalk :)

David

I was in a similar position about a year ago when I replaced my Nikon D300 with a D4. I've shot over 140,000 pictures with the D4 and consider the change a major success.

The main problem with full frame is that you are going to have to get a new lens or lenses, all of which are significantly more expensive than what you have now.

You cannot use the 18-200 lens on the D600 - well, you can, but it's not a full-frame lens and will only give you crop sensor sized pictures.

The 28-300, which roughly replicates the zoom range of your 18-200, is a bit under $1,000. It is a highly controversial lens. You can get great shots with it, but it's not as ultimately sharp as the legendary 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 f/4 is an intriguing option since it's just as sharp as the f/2.8, but it's also 2/3 the price and so I'm not sure if I'd want to save that little to not have the option of f/2.8. I recently bought the 70-200 f/2.8 and am extremely happy with it.

If you want to get the absolute best pictures, you probably need the latter two and unless you are a fanatic like me, you will not be happy at what you have to spend. To be specific, you will spent a shade over $4,000 buying those two lenses.

The bottom line is that compared to the D300 and D7100, you should get somewhat better results with the D600 and 28-300, and much better results with the D600 and 24-70 + 70-200.

However, they will require more photographic skill to get.

Full frame is significantly more sensitive to imperfections in focus than crop sensors are. So if you find focus tricky and get focus issues, things will get worse on the D600.

Another way of thinking about this is that if you like shallow depth of field effects (where the subject is in focus but the background is not), they will be stronger on the D600 and you will like that. If you want more of your subject in focus, stick with the D7100.

I switched from the D300 to the D4, and am very happy with my purchase, but until I understood the above I had problems getting sharp subjects. With practice and better lenses, I now have much sharper photos than I used to with the D300.

Other than overall image quality, the most important advantage of full frame sensors is significantly better performance in low light. If you are always trying to take pictures where there is no light to shoot them, you want a full frame camera and at least one high light sensitivity lens such as a prime or the 24-70 f/2.8 zoom (about $1,800). However, note that performance of the D7100 in low light is said to be very good, definitely much better than your D300. It might be worth getting the D7100 and the 24-70. I bought the 24-70 for my D300 before I got the D4, and I was really happy with the improvement in image quality and light sensitivity it gave me.

Your D300 has professional build quality like the D800 or D700. The D600 and D7100 have consumer build quality like the less expensive Nikons. So you should bear in mind that in terms of product quality you will be taking a step down with either the D600 or D7100. This is why a lot of people are recommending the D700 even though it's functionally obsolete. Unless you have an urgent need to switch now, you may want to wait for the much-rumored D400 which will have an updated sensor like the D7100 but have build quality and design more like the D300.

If you want to maintain product quality and buy a camera now, you could get a D800 (or D800E) or a D4. I have the D4; it's super big, heavy and rugged, but certainly provides by far the highest quality in low light. Unfortunately, it's $6,000 price makes it a non-starter for most. It would be more practical to consider the D800, which I've seen in the $2,700 range. The main drawback of the D800 is slightly slower shooting speed and extremely big images which will tax your computer and its software to the utmost.

So full frame is significantly more expensive than crop sensor, and only you can figure out whether you'll get your money's worth. If you don't want to make the stretch towards becoming a professional photographer (as I did), I think you'd be happier (and definitely richer) sticking with DX and the D7100.

Hope that helps.

D

(Enclosed are a couple of D4 shots with the 70-200 lens to show the level of quality we are talking about with full-frame and top-quality glass.)

Great looking shots, Woot! :)

David

The D3200 is known as an excellent entry level digital SLR.

More expensive cameras have controls that are better for professionals and use higher quality, more ruggedized construction. In image quality, differences are relatively small.

If you have an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, and you want to fill it with a single 300 dpi image, you would need roughly 3850 x 2975, which is roughly 12mp. So you really don't need the extra pixels to produce a print quality image.

So with a 24 mp image you can crop about half of it and still have a print quality image.

Modern sensors are significantly improved in quality from older ones, so even if you don't need 24mp, you're still better off with the 24mp camera.

D

LOL, your Cardinal looks like the original Angry Bird!

David

Love the composition and mood of the shots.

I prefer color but that's just my personal taste :).

David