# Is my camera holding me back?



## SabrinaO (Oct 25, 2011)

I want to venture more in natural light photography, but I don't think I could do this with my camera because I can't bump up my ISO. I have the d5000. :meh: I know there are cameras that are able to handle a high ISO without noise/grain at all! Anyone have any recomendations on a Nikon camera body that can handle a high ISO? I just want to be able to shoot any time, any place and not have to worry about the lighting restrictions.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 25, 2011)

The D300s or D700 would be your choices for high IQ/high ISO bodies, BUT why?????  If you're shooting portraits, you want to keep your ISO down.  If you need to shoot a portrait at ISO 1600, it means to me that you need to improve your knowledge of lighting (which, as has been alluded to, is progressing).  Remember that all light is natural, whether generated by sun, stars, moon, or strobe.  A photon is a photon is a photon, and AFAIK, they haven't come up with a way to synthesize them yet.

Why would you rather increase your ISO than add light?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Oct 25, 2011)

tirediron said:


> Why would you rather increase your ISO than add light?



Cuz learning to use flash is hard.


----------



## Overread (Oct 25, 2011)

With only two lenses, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 and 35mm 1.8, I would also seriously look to expanding your lens range as well as your lighting long before considering changing camera bodies.


----------



## KmH (Oct 25, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you rather increase your ISO than add light?
> ...


Doing ambient light only is harder to learn, more gear intensive, requires more assistants, and significantly dimimishes a photographers options regarding lighting styles, locations, and time of day they can shoot.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 25, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> ........ I just want to be able to shoot any time, any place and not have to worry about the lighting restrictions.


We're all held to the same restrictions to some degree or another. Learning how to use available light, add additional lighting, modifying & sculpting light and most importantly......... seeing the light would be a far more useful skillset than another body. 

AFAIK, the D5000 is quite capable. The photos you've posted lately are proof enough.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Oct 25, 2011)

The D5000 is pretty decent in upper iso range from what I've seen, better than my Rebel and I'm comfortable with 1600 and even 3200 in the right circumstances with it.  From what I've seen you seem to be progressing nicely with using your flash so I don't see any reason to retreat from the path you're on.  If you're finding yourself in situations where you can't use a flash I would lean more towards some variety in the fast lens dept.  From what I've seen of your work I would think you're just dying to get an 85 1.8.


----------



## MTVision (Oct 25, 2011)

I don't think your camera is holding you back in any way! Get some new glass instead of a new body!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 25, 2011)

It doesnt show Sabrina.  You could win the Rookie of the year if there was such a thing onTPF lol.  My usual CC on your posts were mostly lens selection, but you know that already.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 25, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> I want to venture more in natural light photography, but I don't think I could do this with my camera because I can't bump up my ISO. I have the d5000. :meh: I know there are cameras that are able to handle a high ISO without noise/grain at all! Anyone have any recomendations on a Nikon camera body that can handle a high ISO? I just want to be able to shoot any time, any place and not have to worry about the lighting restrictions.



The Nikon D3s is currently the undisputed champion of High-ISO photography. The difference between it and the baby Nikons is quite substantial. It's definitely NOT a low-cost option, but it is the single best body on the market for High-ISO work, bar none, at this date in time.

The D700 and the *original* D3 share the same sensor; the D3s does significantly better at ridiculous ISO values. Still, the D5000 is handily beaten by even the D7000, or the D700, or the original D3. Not sure how much money you want to devote to state of the art equipment, or if the price of a D700 or even a D7000 is more than you want to spend. Neither the glass nor the lens is "more important than the other"...both play a huge part in making an image--a HUGE part.


----------



## mrpink (Oct 25, 2011)

Agreed with above.  Look for a good used 85mm 1.4 (Nikon or Sigma, I am a bit of a brand snob so my nod would be toward the Nikkor)

If you are determined to get a new body, bite the bullet and get a D700.





p!nK


----------



## pixilstudio (Oct 25, 2011)

what do you mean by natural light photography. why not just get a tripod and slow down? are your subjects moving?


----------



## MTVision (Oct 25, 2011)

Derrel said:
			
		

> The Nikon D3s is currently the undisputed champion of High-ISO photography. The difference between it and the baby Nikons is quite substantial. It's definitely NOT a low-cost option, but it is the single best body on the market for High-ISO work, bar none, at this date in time.
> 
> The D700 and the *original* D3 share the same sensor; the D3s does significantly better at ridiculous ISO values. Still, the D5000 is handily beaten by even the D7000, or the D700, or the original D3. Not sure how much money you want to devote to state of the art equipment, or if the price of a D700 or even a D7000 is more than you want to spend. Neither the glass nor the lens is "more important than the other"...both play a huge part in making an image--a HUGE part.



The d5100 should handle noise as well as the d7000 since they have the same sensor but...not much of an upgrade from the d5000.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Oct 25, 2011)

You'd be surprised how much of difference it is. Going from the D90 to the D7000 was great... Just as it would be to go from the D5k to the D5100.... But then again, I shoot 95% macro


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 25, 2011)

zYou can't boost ISO on any camera unless you know how to expose for it. You can boost the ISO on your camera if you expose for high ISO's. 
NEVER NEVER NEVER underexpose an image in order to use a lower ISO. You will increase noise if you do that. When  you boost exposure in post processing you create a bigger noise problem. 
If you are using a high ISO you are better off to go to the NEXT HIGHER ISO and SLIGHTLY overexpose the image. I don't mean blow things out. but push the exposure up to the point that you would have an unacceptable blow out. Usually it's the point just before the skin blows one color. Turn the highlight warnings on. It will flash at you on the spot that is blowing out all of one color channel. Reduce in post processing and  you will watch the noise improve. Post with the newest version of Lightroom or ACR will allow you to very effectively eliminate any additional noise problem you may have. 
Practice with it! You'll discover all new possibilities with your camera. It's not going to handle like a full frame camera, but you will be able to use it all of the way throughout it's range.


----------



## AMOMENT (Oct 25, 2011)

for what it's worth....i just visited your site and was very impressed!!!  How long have you been at this?


----------



## manaheim (Oct 25, 2011)

MTVision said:


> I don't think your camera is holding you back in any way! Get some new glass instead of a new body!



That gets you at most 2-3 stops of light.  Generally not enough in awkward lighting conditions to avoid high ISO requirements.


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

tirediron said:


> The D300s or D700 would be your choices for high IQ/high ISO bodies, BUT why?????  If you're shooting portraits, you want to keep your ISO down.  If you need to shoot a portrait at ISO 1600, it means to me that you need to i*mprove your knowledge of lighting* (which, as has been alluded to, is progressing).  Remember that all light is natural, whether generated by sun, stars, moon, or strobe.  A photon is a photon is a photon, and AFAIK, they haven't come up with a way to synthesize them yet.
> 
> Why would you rather increase your ISO than add light?



Well that's the thing. I have a problem in using flash outdoors. It just doesn't look natural and you can tell flash was used. Its also a hassle chasing around kids and adjusting not only the exposure but the flash exposure also. Even TTL doesnt give me any desired results. Plus using the flash will mean I have to either bounce it off something and there is not always *something* I could use. I could use a reflector but its just too much equipment and I don't have an assistant.  With outdoor shoots id like to shoot right on the go, and not have to "stage" every shot. 

Anyways ive been through this guys site http://www.neilvn.com and he uses flash outdoors. His photos are amazing and natural looking, so im reading a lot of his articles. I also want to sign up for one of his workshop. But anyways he also uses a high ISO (800-1600) for his low light portraits and they look crystal clear. Does he have an anti noise software or something, or is it his camera that can handle it?


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

Overread said:


> With only two lenses, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 and 35mm 1.8, I would also seriously look to expanding your lens range as well as your lighting long before considering changing camera bodies.



I also have the tamron 28-75 2.8. Even with my 1.8 its not enough light sometimes. What lens do you suggest i get? I think the only way is getting a better body...


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

pixilstudio said:


> what do you mean by natural light photography. why not just get a tripod and slow down? are your subjects moving?



I mainly shoot children a slow shutter is not possible..lol.


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

AMOMENT said:


> for what it's worth....i just visited your site and was very impressed!!!  How long have you been at this?



Thanks! It will be a year in December


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

Wait.. so some of you said the D5100 and the D7000 have the same sensor?? I was thinking of getting the d7000 but if the d5100 is the equivalent ill just get that!


----------



## jake337 (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > With only two lenses, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 and 35mm 1.8, I would also seriously look to expanding your lens range as well as your lighting long before considering changing camera bodies.
> ...



Or continue learning and practicing off camera lighting techniques.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The D300s or D700 would be your choices for high IQ/high ISO bodies, BUT why????? If you're shooting portraits, you want to keep your ISO down. If you need to shoot a portrait at ISO 1600, it means to me that you need to i*mprove your knowledge of lighting* (which, as has been alluded to, is progressing). Remember that all light is natural, whether generated by sun, stars, moon, or strobe. A photon is a photon is a photon, and AFAIK, they haven't come up with a way to synthesize them yet.
> ...



It doesn't look natural because your new to it and not proficient at it yet.  Don't worry, I would say every beginner sucks at off camera lighting at first.  I definitely suck at it!

Your obviously learning to use your camera pretty quickly, but lighting will, most likely, take a bit more time to understand fully.

At the same time, I had a d5000 and swapped it for a d90 within a week just for the in-body motor ability to control off camera flash with its comander mode.  Not to mention the difference in durability between the two bodies.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The D300s or D700 would be your choices for high IQ/high ISO bodies, BUT why?????  If you're shooting portraits, you want to keep your ISO down.  If you need to shoot a portrait at ISO 1600, it means to me that you need to i*mprove your knowledge of lighting* (which, as has been alluded to, is progressing).  Remember that all light is natural, whether generated by sun, stars, moon, or strobe.  A photon is a photon is a photon, and AFAIK, they haven't come up with a way to synthesize them yet.
> ...



Shooting portraits outside without a flash or reflector is going to make  your shots look like every other beginner, not very interesting, if  flash is used well outside you can hardly tell


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Well that's the thing. I have a problem in using flash outdoors.


 


Bitter Jeweler said:


> Cuz learning to use flash is hard.



.


----------



## mwcfarms (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Wait.. so some of you said the D5100 and the D7000 have the same sensor?? I was thinking of getting the d7000 but if the d5100 is the equivalent ill just get that!



No no no, the D5100 will not autofocus with some lenses like the nifty fifty. Food for thought there. Honestly I don't think the body is holding you back. Most of the time you would be shooting in day time correct? Full sun daylight outside your body should be sufficient. If I were you I would get some better lenses. Forget buying the 85 1.4 honestly the 1.8 is a great lens as well for a fraction of the cost. Its got a solid body and can take a bit of a beating and its great for portraits. I use flash outdoors on just about everyshoot these days even for just a fill. If I have someone to hold the reflector then I get them to do that instead. Invest in a lighting course if you have one near you. Take some of the frustration out of the mystery of flash.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 26, 2011)

gsgary said:


> Shooting portraits outside without a flash or reflector is going to make  your shots look like every other beginner, not very interesting, if  flash is used well outside you can hardly tell



I respectfully disagree gary.  Sometimes the light is just right (diffused sun form behind you and blue sky behind the subject) and I rather shoot without flash.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 26, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> I respectfully disagree gary.


I respectfully disagree with your disagreement.

It's always better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.  If you carry your lighting with you, you can always try shots both ways.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting portraits outside without a flash or reflector is going to make  your shots look like every other beginner, not very interesting, if  flash is used well outside you can hardly tell
> ...




I'm sorry but i'm never wrong


----------



## mwcfarms (Oct 26, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Shooting portraits outside without a flash or reflector is going to make  your shots look like every other beginner, not very interesting, if  flash is used well outside you can hardly tell
> ...



But for arguments sake Robin would flash give that extra pop to make the image go from great to stellar? I know it take extra time to move stands and umbrellas around but a flash and reflector puts the extra sparkle in peoples eyes that 99 times out of 100 make an image that much better.


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Well that's the thing. I have a problem in using flash outdoors.
> ...



feel better now pointing that out???


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

mwcfarms said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Wait.. so some of you said the D5100 and the D7000 have the same sensor?? I was thinking of getting the d7000 but if the d5100 is the equivalent ill just get that!
> ...



ugh i wish i could get the 85mm 1.8 but its not compatible with my camera body


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

mwcfarms said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



I agree, but I know this amazing local photographer that uses nothing but natural light, no flash and her images are just beautiful. » My Four Hens Photography and Photoshop Actions


----------



## mwcfarms (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> mwcfarms said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



But does she use a reflector? Sometimes thats all you need. but if you don't have a stand holder or its bloody windy flash can mimic that reflector. Besides you want to stand out not be just like her. I haven't seen her stuff but need to check it out. Your images are consistently getting better. What ever you been doing has been working thus far. Keep at it and I highly recommend a lighting course.

Ok I did check her out and while I think she is good. I don't think she is amazing. She has a gimmicky website with lots of colors, fun songs,  and interesting compostions which make her stand out a bit I guess. I guess if you really like her style you could try her online mentorship. Shrug I dunno, I prefer more fine art images and that type of portfolio. And I looked and saw catch lights in a bunch of her images especially the backlit ones so I bet she uses a reflector.


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

mwcfarms said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > mwcfarms said:
> ...



Oh of course...she has to use a reflector. Maybe thats all it takes? I don't want to be like her, I just love her skills lol. Anyways  I would love to sign up with Neil Van Nierkerk who is great at flash but he might not have another course until 2012. So ill find somewhere local and soon.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 26, 2011)

I agree with you.  I always have them.  My last family session for example, I didnt use flash at all.
USAGANI PHOTOGRAPHY: Soesilo Family - Boulder, CO
I dont think you were disagreeing with me because you said there are times when you dont need it  .



kundalini said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > I respectfully disagree gary.
> ...


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> I agree with you.  I always have them.  My last family session for example, I didnt use flash at all.
> USAGANI PHOTOGRAPHY: Soesilo Family - Boulder, CO
> I dont think you were disagreeing with me because you said there are times when you dont need it  .
> 
> ...



Gorgeous photos! I see you have the Tamron 90... hmmmmm. How do you like it?


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> mwcfarms said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...




I wouldn't say they are amazing


----------



## jake337 (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> mwcfarms said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...



It will work just fine except it will not autofocus.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2011)

I would say it is your lenses that are holding you back, for outside portraits a 70-200F2.8 would be good


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

jake337 said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > mwcfarms said:
> ...



haha.. not possible with kids


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

gsgary said:


> I would say it is your lenses that are holding you back, for outside portraits a 70-200F2.8 would be good




Im looking at the 90mm 2.8 Tamron... 

But I really dont need it too much if i already have the tamron 28-75mm 2.8, and lock it around 75mm? Is it a prime that makes the difference?


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 26, 2011)

gsgary said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > mwcfarms said:
> ...



To each their own!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 26, 2011)

tamron 90 f 2.8 is a macro lens.  While It takes good portrait photos as well, you just cant compare it with 85 f/1.8 or f/1.4.   Using macro lens for portrait is quite common though.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I would say it is your lenses that are holding you back, for outside portraits a 70-200F2.8 would be good
> ...



Macros are slow focus, 70-200 then you can shoot from a distance un-noticed so the kids can behave naturally


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2011)

jake337 said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > mwcfarms said:
> ...




Thats bloody **** a top portrait lens and it will not auto focus what where Nikon thinking of


----------



## jake337 (Oct 26, 2011)

gsgary said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...



I'm confused by this one.  85 f1.8 a top portrait lens?

 At least all their lens will actually mount to every camera they've made besides the few invasive fisheyes lens.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 26, 2011)

jake337 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...




Yes it should have been made to auto focus


----------



## jake337 (Oct 26, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...



I manual focus 95% with my son and all the neices and nephews just fine.  Takes practice is all.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 26, 2011)

gsgary said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



You mean they should have put a focus motor in the d5000 body right?


----------



## unpopular (Oct 26, 2011)

Unless you're where the pros were 15 years ago, it's not the camera that's limiting you.


----------



## Tee (Oct 26, 2011)

I'd say your camera limits you in a sense of lens choice but like someone said above the 85 1.8 is an amazing piece of glass.  It might not be a bad challenge to yourself learning manual focus on the fly.  If you're into this photography gig for the long haul, it's time to start investing in good stuff: 24-70, 70-200 and a good prime for portraits.  It's a hit to the wallet, for sure, but it'll pay for itself with the better image quality it produces thus bringing in more clients.


----------



## AMOMENT (Oct 26, 2011)

WOW....nice shots, schwetty!  I love your diversity with the focus points!!!


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 26, 2011)

mwcfarms said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > Wait.. so some of you said the D5100 and the D7000 have the same sensor?? I was thinking of getting the d7000 but if the d5100 is the equivalent ill just get that!
> ...



Adding to the differences on the D5100 and the D7000. It's the same sensor, but that is where the likenesses end. First and foremost there are 39 focus points in the D7000. 11 in the D5100. Obviously the auto focus motor in the body is a BIG bonus. It also has a much better battery life, shoots faster frames per second (6vs4); the viewfinder is much brighter and better; it's weather sealed to take more hard core use; has double memory card slots; less shutter delay; D7000 has the top LCE to show your working settings all of the time; commands speedlites off camera... The D7000 is set up more for the serious to professional user. The D5100 is set up with the new to DSLR entry level in mind-complete with the in camera editing and the assisted/teaching module. 
I definite wouldn't upgrade from an entry level to an entry level camera. It's just not worth dropping that much more on an entry  level camera.


----------



## MTVision (Oct 26, 2011)

MLeeK said:
			
		

> Adding to the differences on the D5100 and the D7000. It's the same sensor, but that is where the likenesses end. First and foremost there are 39 focus points in the D7000. 11 in the D5100. Obviously the auto focus motor in the body is a BIG bonus. It also has a much better battery life, shoots faster frames per second (6vs4); the viewfinder is much brighter and better; it's weather sealed to take more hard core use; has double memory card slots; less shutter delay; D7000 has the top LCE to show your working settings all of the time; commands speedlites off camera... The D7000 is set up more for the serious to professional user. The D5100 is set up with the new to DSLR entry level in mind-complete with the in camera editing and the assisted/teaching module.
> I definite wouldn't upgrade from an entry level to an entry level camera. It's just not worth dropping that much more on an entry  level camera.



I agree! I bought the 5100 on impulse and regret it. I had the money for the d700 but - oh well. I'll upgrade next year. Anyways the viewfinder in the d7000 is amazing compared to the 5100. It's big and bright. It has dedicated controls for everything! My camera is such a PIA to change settings in manual. If you are going to upgrade definitely go with the d7000 over the d5100.


----------



## ababysean (Oct 27, 2011)

Upgrade bodies and then get the 85 1.4
I most certainly would say that your camera body is holding you back only because of the limited number of lenses you can use on it in autofocus mode.

Get a used D90 and an 85 1.8, sell your D5100


----------



## Aayria (Oct 27, 2011)

If you are serious about progressing as a professional, and your intention is to have a sucessful buisiness, then I think just about any investment toward that goal is worth it.  Just be careful to weigh your cost of doing buisiness against the money you're putting into it.  Most "up and coming" photographers are actually loosing money.  Depending on your business situation, it may even be something you can write off as a business expense.  Personally, if I was in your situation, I would probably just save up my personal savings until I could pay for it outside of my buisiness costs, because I would look at a new camera body, that is helping me to continue actually learning to be a professional photographer...as sort of a half buisiness half personal expense, and a "start up" investment for my goals. (Just like any lighting, insurance costs, web development, marketing, etc.... would be when starting a new buisiness.)

  Anyway, take it from somebody who has been using the D5000 and the nifty 50 pretty  much exclusively since I started on this venture... It's a decent little camera, and it can take you a long way.  But I will admit to being "held back" on many occasions due to its limitations, and I think a full frame camera, with commander mode, high ISO capabilities, internal motor, among many other bonuses would be invaluable.  Granted, there are plenty of other things that are JUST AS invaluable, here's a short list:

-good knowledge and practice of "seeing" light. You can utilize this in so many creative ways with outdoor "natural" lighting. It's trickier, and will often limit the locations you choose to shoot in..But it will also make you more creative, and purposeful with your photography.

-Any off camera flash, and a good knowledge of how to use it.  Yes, I know...I love working with natural light only..But I have learned that in those situations where it's so dark that you're wishing for a higher ISO camera, it's more likely that an OCF would give you a better result than bumping the ISO on any camera body.  You can make the "grain" work to your advantage on any camera that you've raised the ISO on, when you're using good natural light in the right way. Maybe you've seen some of the beautiful black and white conversions on pictures with all natural light, with lots of grain...it gives it sort of a nostalgic feel.  But if you have a high ISO performance camera, you're wayyyy more likely to just say "ah what the heck..I"ll just raise the ISO" in situations where you *could* have used the light much more wisely and gotten a much better shot with a lower ISO.  I could definitely see that being a trap to fall into if a photographer's first solution to "being held back by low light situations" is to get a camera that will shoot at higher ISO's.

Also..along the lines of using flash...it really can look natural, especially in those low light situations.  It doesn't have to be overpowering, it can be subtle. It can fill with just that extra bit of light that you need to expose the scene. I have taken some shots using my "pop up flash" because it was all I had.  I would just hold a card up to the base of the flash, and angle it so my light would bounce off in the right direction, and create some soft, extra ambient light, so I could still get the look I wanted. You could probably get even more creative and precise with the use of a good OCF, or just a nice speed light and bounce card.

   These are some older shots from last year....but they show what I mean about bouncing my pop up flash with a card, and still looking like natural light.  These were taken in a DARK room. I mean pitch black dark. There were only a couple of candles on the wall, at night in an old schoolhouse...so the "natural" light in that scene would have needed to be shot at about ISO 3500 minimum, and the candle light would have cast odd shadows on my subject.

  This was the pop up flash result:  












 I'm not showing these to say LOOK I'm soooo awesome by any means LOL.  These are older pictures, and I know they have issues. (Red lobster skin on the groom much? haha). But, to me, they show that even a basic pop up flash can create soft, directional lighting that mimics the effect that I love about using natural light.  And it didn't cost me 2,000+  

  Anyway..I guess what I'm saying..is that if you feel like a better camera would help your business, and it doesn't hurt your business to make the investment, you should go for it. But just don't overlook the other, more simple and less expensive, alternatives before you make the plunge. I really believe that it's worth it to come to the point where you feel that you've mastered the simple things I listed above, before you look for new equipment to solve your problems.

P.S.  I would probably have personally taken the plunge and bought a D700 several months ago...but I ended up choosing between a new camera or a violin bow that wasn't well...broken in half lol.  The violin bow was a bit more of an urgency


----------



## vtf (Oct 27, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > SabrinaO said:
> ...



Point me to where it says she's a natural light photographer. I am one too, flash is 100% natural, it's a play on words if she says that.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Oct 27, 2011)

I wonder about this nomenclature. Natural light to me is what is provided by the universe, so atmospheric light. I have never thought of any flash as a natual light. I have thought of it as man-made light.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Oct 27, 2011)

I think what is meant correctly, is ambient light. 

But it's really being nit picky. :meh:


----------



## Derrel (Oct 27, 2011)

FOr over 30 years, Nikon's "advanced amateur" camera bodies have found there way into the hands of professionals in all fields that used small, 35mm-style cameras. THe Nikon FM, FE, FM-2,FE-2, N8008, N90s,and F100, as well as the D100 and D90, and D200 and D300, and now the D7000, have ALL had capabilities that were advanced enough to satisfy both serious amateur and professional photographers. The D5000 and D5100 are entry-level cameras. They lack some capabilities that more-costly cameras have. It's pretty simple...either the photographer needs to "work around the camera's limitations", or the camera is so capable that the photographer never has an excuse except himself.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Oct 28, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I think what is meant correctly, is ambient light.
> 
> But it's really being nit picky. :meh:



There are a fair amount of photgraphers who use the term Natual Light. 'I am a natural light photographer'...And I have seen here on more than one ocassion others insist that flash is natural light as well. Picking it further though, ambient light can mean natural light, but it can include other forms of lighting that are man made as well and in addtion to.

My curiousity has been why there an insistence that flash is natural lighting, unless the terminology for Natural Lighting is not very strict.


----------



## vtf (Oct 28, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > I think what is meant correctly, is ambient light.
> ...




I'm not really one to fight the "flash is natural light" fight, really don't care, I use flash and withourt it I think it makes life harder in certain situations. But I read quite alot of this person's blog and website and couldn't find a reference to natural light so I wondered where Sabrina got that she was, I may have missed it.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Oct 28, 2011)

GG, I agree with you. I dunno if this has become forum specific, this "but flash IS natural" thing. It's kinda silly to me.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 28, 2011)

Electronic flash as natural light...yeah I agree with that...so, lemme see, we take a small glass cylinder, run some wires through it, suck out all the air and then fill it with gas, seal the ends and all the gas inside the flash tube, then run very brief itsy-bitsy bits of 800 volt current, stored inside of one to six capacitors, through the wires that run inside the gas-filled tube...the gas becomes "excited" and lets off photons!!! Yeah, sure that's pretty much a naturally-occurring way that intense yet incredibly brief flashes of light happen, all the time, in nature. Why in fact last week I was watching the sunrise and thought to myself, "Hey, this is just like a Vivitar flash...well, like ten billion of 'em, all going off in sequence,over and over and over and over and over."


----------



## KmH (Oct 28, 2011)

'Natural', or sunlight, is made at the center of the Sun when 4 hydrogen atoms fuse into helium atoms (the proton-proton chain). The density in the core of the Sun is about 150 times more dense than water, though hydrogen and helium are gases. The temperature at the core of the Sun is about 15 million degrees. The high temperature allows the protons to overcome their Coulomb Repulsion threshold so fusion can take place.

In the process of nuclear fusion photons are made. Photons are the basic unit of _all_ light - light made by the Sun, a flash unit, an incandescent lamp, a match, an LED, a candle - _all light_.

The photons made at the core of the Sun then begin a journey from the Sun's core to it's surface. That journey has been estimated to take from 10,000 to 170,000 years, plus an additional 8.3 minutes to travel at approximately 186,282 miles per second the average 93,000,000 miles the Sun is from Earth.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 28, 2011)

Natural light comes from the sun...

Artificial light is created by things like incandescent lights, electronic flash units, quartz-halogen bulbs,etc.

Just as animals that roam across the countryside are "wild" animals, and animals that live in concrete and steel enclosures are "captive" animals.

If one wants to be a dick about it, he can call electronic flash "natural light". We can all smile, and pat him on the head, and snicker behind his back...


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 29, 2011)

Aayria said:


> If you are serious about progressing as a professional, and your intention is to have a sucessful buisiness, then I think just about any investment toward that goal is worth it.  Just be careful to weigh your cost of doing buisiness against the money you're putting into it.  Most "up and coming" photographers are actually loosing money.  Depending on your business situation, it may even be something you can write off as a business expense.  Personally, if I was in your situation, I would probably just save up my personal savings until I could pay for it outside of my buisiness costs, because I would look at a new camera body, that is helping me to continue actually learning to be a professional photographer...as sort of a half buisiness half personal expense, and a "start up" investment for my goals. (Just like any lighting, insurance costs, web development, marketing, etc.... would be when starting a new buisiness.)
> 
> Anyway, take it from somebody who has been using the D5000 and the nifty 50 pretty  much exclusively since I started on this venture... It's a decent little camera, and it can take you a long way.  But I will admit to being "held back" on many occasions due to its limitations, and I think a full frame camera, with commander mode, high ISO capabilities, internal motor, among many other bonuses would be invaluable.  Granted, there are plenty of other things that are JUST AS invaluable, here's a short list:
> 
> ...




Thank you so much for this post! You've given me a lot to think about... which is good! I think i'm going just going to try to perfect my flash photography before just running out and buying a high ISO camera. Those are beautiful photos btw. I would have never guessed you used flash.. especially a pop up!


----------



## SabrinaO (Oct 29, 2011)

vtf said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Because I know her. You are also free to ask her on her fanpage if you would really like to know. 

Also... why do you consider flash as natural light??


----------



## Derrel (Oct 29, 2011)

Flash is natural light because it requires 1) electricity held in a capacitor and 2) a gas-filled, sealed flashtube and 3) small wires or leads that can distribute 800 to over 900 volts of electricity for a couple of milliseconds to the gas sealed inside the flashbtube, in order to create a brief, intense, "explosion" of photons that are sent through a diffusion material, a Fresnel lens, or some other type of plastic or glass substance...

So, that's why electronic or bulb flash is "natural light". You know, like the wild hamburgers that roam the streets of New York City, or the natural, free-range burritos of Los Angeles, and the strangely exotic and beautiful native-spawning deep dish pizzas of old Chicago.

lolz


----------



## kundalini (Oct 29, 2011)

Light is light regardless of its source, but has color characteristics depending on its temperature in degrees Kelvin.  Natural or not, it is still light.  Capturing and controlling it is our job as photographers.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 29, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Light is light regardless of its source, but has color characteristics depending on its temperature in degrees Kelvin.  Natural or not, it is still light.  Capturing and controlling it is our job as photographers.



_Yes. While remaining at, or below, each individual camera's maximum X-synchronization speed when using flash as all, or part of the exposure, so as to expose the entire frame, and not leave a big, broad, black band across part of the frame._


----------



## bentcountershaft (Oct 29, 2011)

From here on out I'm only going to shoot in light provided either by lightning or by the fire that is started by the lightning.  The sun and flashes can suck it.


----------



## kundalini (Oct 29, 2011)

Are you shouting at me Derrel?  If one has a broad black band across their image, then one and possibly two things have occured.  1) They have not controlled the light and 2) they have not RTFM.


----------



## Aayria (Oct 29, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> Thank you so much for this post! You've given me a lot to think about... which is good! I think i'm going just going to try to perfect my flash photography before just running out and buying a high ISO camera. Those are beautiful photos btw. I would have never guessed you used flash.. especially a pop up!



   Thanks, will look forward to seeing the work you come up with as you learn =)   Oh- and as for the pop up flash, it's pretty hilarious.... I'll shoot a wedding, completely with my D5000 and 50mm...pop up flash when needed...And there will be guests there taking horrible pictures with their D700's and 70-200mm lenses (I'm not kidding, I've had two weddings now with guests who had amazing gear lol.) I've had guests approach me and ask what the heck I'm doing to my camera, because it looks to them like I'm trying to block my own flash or something. I'll just hold a buisiness card up to the flash and angle the light to the surface I want to bounce from.  Now...if I was doing this professionally and charging, I think looking professional goes a long way. So I would at the very least invest in a speedlight instead of pop up flash haha.


----------



## tevo (Oct 29, 2011)

Well, I have a D7000 and it handles ISO pretty well. I'm not sure I have any experience in what you are interested in, but I do know that the D7000 doesnt start getting noticeable grain until like 4500.. at night.


----------

