D90 help

I looked into the 28-80, and I see what you mean, if the images are sharp, it seems good for the price. However, I think I might want something a bit fast.

So I thought about the 16-85? I bit pricey, and I have read that the sharpness of the photos is not incredibly better then the 18-55, but I am still learning and wondering if it is a good lens to have because of the quality and versatility?

My other thought is, keep the 18-55 and pick up the 50 1.8 like I had planned, but also get a used 10.5 fisheye for some interesting shots?

Finally is it worth it to buy a flash?
 
Every photographer should have at least one flash in their bag. A single flash expands the amount of control you have over the lighting in a photo infinitely- if you're creative with it, you can use a single flash to make the middle of the night look like morning, evening, mid-day, or the middle of the night, but that's not what you'd use it for- most often, you'll have ambient lighting, but you might want an accent on something, or a better fill on your subject, or even blast out sun spots in the woods.

Buy yourself an old SB-26 or 28 -- they are amazing units. I've got an SB-26 and use it a lot. It's got a good full manual mode, keeps a constant color between shots, head zooms from 18-85, has a built in bounce card, a grid, up/down and swivel motion, and most usefully, an optical trigger built right in. Pretty much everything you'll ever need in a flash, for super cheap. The trouble is finding one- you'll have to buy it used, and not many people want to part with them.
 
cool, I'll look at them. they would fit with a d90 right? How hard is it to teach yourself about how to use a flash, and to make it so it actually improves your shots.

Also I looked at your photos on flickr. They are amazing. I especially like the mtb ones.
 
Yeah, the SB-26 and 28 would fit on the D90. General rule of thumb, if Nikon makes it, it's safe to put on your Nikon camera. If not, don't.

With flashes and hot shoes, different brands may have different voltages. If you use the wrong flash with your camera, it could fry your body, your flash, or both. Most likely, just your body.

The other thing about flash photography is that it seldom looks really good when used on the camera's hot shoe. Sure, you'll look like a professional with a big towering flash above your camera, but the photos will be unlikely to look all that great.

Most of the time, you'll want to use off-axis lighting. This means your flash is not on your camera. There are many ways to trigger an off-camera flash, ranging from free to expensive.

The SBs have built-in optical triggers. This means that when it sees another flash, it'll fire. You can stop down the flash built in to your D90 by putting it to manual and choosing power, i.e. M, 1/2, 1/4... etc. If you choose the correct number, it'll trigger your SB without affecting your photo much at all.

Other ways to do it range from PC cords, for which you'll need the right plugs (which are infinitely more complicated than they have to be). Most often, it's the most financially practical option. The SBs have a Female PC connection, so you'll need a cable with the male connection on that end. As for the camera end, some cameras have the hole for a PC cord, and others don't. If it doesn't, you can buy an adapter that goes onto the hot shoe and does its job.

Sync cords are incredibly reliable, because there is a physical connection from the camera to the flash, but they are limited in their range. Not to mention that PC cords are expensive, for wires with bits of metal on the end, and like all other cables, they are prone to breaking.

Some manufacturers have begun switching to standard Audio jacks, which are a whole lot easier to find, cheap. If you look hard you can find them for $1 for 25 feet. It's nutz. To use a 3.5mm Audio cord you'll need the right adapters- one for your camera, one for your flash. It's the better way to go, and I, like many others, am waiting patiently until it is a standard hole on every camera and every flash.

The more expensive way to trigger your flash is a wireless trigger- most reliably in the form of the Pocketwizard. I don't have radio triggers, but they range from the super-cheap, made-in-china sold-on-ebay type (often, they work for a bit then die, or end up being unreliable. Hence the name "newb tax", because everyone who doesn't get wonderful guidance like this spends money on them before getting something good) to the expensive, reliable, and long-lasting ones. Paul C Buff Cybersyncs are a good middle option- they're relatively cheap, reliable, and built pretty well.

As you go up in price, you'll be able to change your flash's settings from your camera, which is useful if your flashes are, say, hundreds of feet away. That said, your flash won't work hundreds of feet away unless you've put down the money for a good trigger with a nice, long range.

All of this information, and considerably more, is available on www.strobist.com. Strobist is a blog regarding the use of flashes (or strobes) in photography.

Start with Lighting 101 and work your way through. Soon enough, you'll be making posts like these on Newschoolers.

 
I've got another question for you guys. according to nikonrumors.com, Nikon is going to set a conference to most likely release some new cameras on August 17-19. I was hoping to be able to get my new setup before then, because I am going away on vacation to Martha's Vineyard in the last week of august.

Seeing as I will prob still have my d60 for the trip, I am thinking of renting a couple of lenses from Calumet Photo in Boston. What lenses do I want to shoot with on the island. Will mostly be shooting during the say with good natural light. All outside. Lots of landscapes and then pictures of boats ect. Should I get the 70-200 ($105 for the week) or the 80-200 ($90 for the week). I also thought the 10.5 fisheye would take some cool shots on the beach? (not sure about that one) and then finally should I spend another $90 to rent the 28-70 or 12-24?
 
haha I was kinda feeling that, but thought I might get some cool photos. But for the money I would spend renting it, I will prob get less then a handful of cool shots with it.
 
None of those.

Remember that unless you are trying to count the pores on an angry/dangerous animal, you can get essentially the same shot by moving closer or further from your subject. obviously you will end up with different perspectives, (or very different perspectives when talking superwide vs. superlong) but the point I'm trying to make is that there's no point to spending money on renting a lens that you could put away to spend on BUYING a lens.

I shoot mostly primes. You really don't need every step of the focal length. The only zoom I own right now is the shit/awesome 28-80, because it's light. I plan on buying the 80-200 as soon as I have the funds for versatility, and i can see a 14-24 in my future. besides that, primes are cheaper, and as long as you have legs longer lenses don't need to zoom in and out.

If I could recommend something, it would be to take a single prime with a wide range of apertures with you. Don't worry about changing around lenses, just worry about using what you have, and trying to see shots wherever you are. In fact, get an old film camera from a thrift store with a 50mm and a couple rolls of film and shoot all of them while taking notes to compare later. I promise you will learn a lot.
 
should I rule out buying the 18-200?

should I just get the 50 1.8 and the body and keep my 18-55 and my 55-200?
 
Since I've got a Nikkor 35-135 f/3.5-5.6 I'll just go with that, and I'll get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I'll get a 50 or 35 later, if I find that I need it.
 
not only have i already read it, I was the first comment on that posting... no big deal haha. but I was so excited for that, but it is sounding like nikon is either going to merge the d300s w. d90 or that is not a d90 replacement. I hope I am wrong though.
 
oh shit my bad, today was my first time on that site and I thought it sounded somewhat legit

If they merge the d90 with the d300s Im going to be so pissed

all I want is a D400 thats = to or greater than the 7D

the d90 is a great camera and it should stay that way, with an upgrade :)
 
the 18-200 isn't a bad lens. if you are looking for a do-everything dx lens, go for it.
 
yeah, basically what I'm looking for. It would replace my 18-55 and 55-200 then. And would compliment the 50mm and eventually maybe the fisheye. So Would the 50 be enough for all lowlight situations or could i get by with the 18-200 some of the time?
 
Yeah its a pretty sweet site except im now addicting to checking it and hoping stuff happens soon. Haha, but I agree. I think that the d90 should stay as more of a consumer camera and d300s needs a more serious upgrade. Maybe FX.
 
That said, it's always nice to open up for more bokeh or a shutter speed bump. You could get by with a pinhole projector, but that wouldn't be the most convenient thing to use.

From 3.5 to 2.8 isn't huge, but if you get a constant 2.8 throughout the zoom, the jump from 5.6 to 2.8 is huge, and it makes a big difference. Will it kill you not to have it? No. Is it nice? Yes. Is it expensive? Yes. Is it worth it? That is for you to decide--- have you felt limited by the aperture on the lenses you've already got? If not, it's fine, if you want to be able to open wider, decide how much it's worth TO YOU.
 
I just spent 20 minutes looking for this thread so that I could thank you for the advice— I ordered a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 last night, and it should be arriving October 27th. :)
 
decided to wait for the d7000 and sold my lenses.

so now my setup is

d7000

18-200 vrII

50 1.8

200-500

and probably a wide angle at christmas or a fisheye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top