Embarassing times - D100 beaten by a p&s camera

[BKKSW]

Since the wedding is partially "for the benefit of" the friends of
the bride and groom in the audience, it is fully expected that they
might take photographs or videos. Not all of the audience are in
the position of receiving the pro's photographic prints.

This is one mindset. But if you ask the couple getting married and who are paying for the wedding.. well.. they'll often have a different view on things.

I do make sure everyone has access to the pictures however, and I let the guests know in the program. What I do.. After the bride/groom has approved the set of images they want distributed, I'll make a slide show that will play on any computer or home DVD player. If tasked with the distribution I'll have a mailing list from the wedding planner and I'll make packages to send out to the guests. Often the couple will ask me to include ordering information in the mailer and on the disk so the guests can order prints directly from me vs. the couple shouldering the costs themselves.

All of this will be planned prior to the wedding, and I'll include small inserts for the wedding invitations explaining the details of the pictures so no one is left worrying if they will have access to the images, or feel the need to do the job themselves. The program guide will list which events are no flash/no standing events. I've yet to have anyone ignore such requests, save for a few very old ladies who were just.. kinda characters I suppose.

It seem to me that a professional photographer should be able to
properly cope with amateurs taking images or videos at the wedding

• this should be part of the working wedding photographers skill

set. One local fellow, as he is setting up the bride and groom on
the spiral stair case, simply tells the amateurs to not take
pictures until he is finished - in the vast majority of cases, the
request is honoured.

You have your ideas, but I don't find they work in practice. Professionals have enough to cope with so they try to eliminate as many distractions as possible. And I don't use my assistant(s) to tell people anything. It's already agreed upon before the wedding, the guests notified, and the wedding planner/coordinator takes care of anyone who might be a problem. It's very important to work closely with the coordinator, not only do you get better cooperation, but you'll also get valuable recommendations.

In the final analysis, the professional's images should (on the
whole) be much better than any of the amateurs and thus the amateur
does not present any competition to the pro.

This isn't about competition. Your totally missing the point if this is a concern for you. This is kinda like keeping the local hot-rods off the Indy 500 track so the drivers can safely navigate the track at the highest speed possible without anyone slowing them down or getting in the way. And Indiy driver wouldn't be worried about local hot-rods being able to drive faster than him..

BKKSW

tony

 

[BKKSW]

This can be a problem.. and it's one of the reasons why I use radio slaves..

I've taken to using battery packs for my lights so I don't have to have ugly extension cords, etc. and I have a more creative way to place my lights. And there is only X amount of flashes in the paks.. So the radio slaves are the way to go.

BKKSW

BKKSW wrote:
The last thing a professional photographer needs is a handful of
P&S's clicking away with the flashes distracting the subjects he's
trying to shoot.

Another thing to mention is some photographers use off-camera
flashes that are triggered by the on-camera flash, and with
everyone taking snapshots with flash it can cause the photographers
flash units to go off and drain their batteries at a faster rate
(not to mention ruin their photos).

 

[BKKSW]

All is fair at the reception right?

Pretty much yes. I'm mostly worried about the church and portrait areas. The cake cutting, toasts, etc, is often pretty much a free for all..

I agree with you BKKSW, that the hired photog should be free to
pose and shoot the couple without interruption.
I don't see how you are going to stop the other people from
snapping a shot here or there.

It's not a problem if addressed before the wedding and the requests are put into the programs. It's actually pretty rare to have anyone ignore these requests, and if they do a polite work from the wedding coordinator always takes care of the situation.

Weddings are difficult. One reason I'm not considering that field
of work.

Yup.. Absolutely..

 

[BKKSW]

While I have (as most do) a no compete clause in my contract
stating that other photographers can not shoot while I'm working,
attempting to INSIST that NO other person at the wedding will have
a camera is like yelling at the rain...pointless.

Not at all. If handled properly this isn't a problem at all.

Well, not really, at least during the ceremony. Guests sitting in

their seats are hardly in the way . As the photography one can
move around a bit.

If no effort is made to educate the guests on what's expected you'll often get people leaving their seats and distracting everyone.. Especially amatuers. The ceremony is the only real problem area, and it becomes a non-problem with proper coordination.

I have found that in churches were flash is prohibited, guests use
flash anyway. LIkely they don't even know the church has a no flash
policy. In my experience about a third of the churches do not allow
flash once the ceremony has started. About 100% of the time, that
rule is ignored by one or more guests.

None of this matters. The church is rented, bought and paid for, by the wedding party. It's part of the coordination that's done prior to the wedding. Whether flash is used or not is a matter of taste and expectations and something covered during the consults. Sometimes the church has enough natural light to produce quality images without flash and the client will want to take advantage of this. Every part of the event is planned out weeks/months in advance so things like this aren't a problem.

It would be fun to watch you and a videographer with your attitude
work together. Since neither of you own the church, or reception
hall, I don't see how you can enforce this attitude.

It's not my job to enforce anything. That's the job of the wedding coordinator. The "attitude" is a product of the guests and is rarely a problem. No one is thick enough to try to force what they think is right/wrong on the wedding couple at the last minute. Most everyone respects the wishes of the party getting married and that is that. It would take someone incredibly immature and self centred to argue any of this at the time of the event.. which is why it just doesn't happen.

I tell the couple up front that I want control of the photography.
I generally allow others to shoot during formals, but ask them to
wait until I've shot. As I use umbrellas, this is important as
their cameras will trigger my slaves. I also do not wait on the
guest photographers, and change setups as fast as possible.

I'm glad your style works for you.

At a wedding being gracious and making the couple happy is job #1.
Running around attempting to tell guests (who are often relatives)
that they can not use their cameras is a very bad idea. Try telling
the Brides father (who just paid 20K) that he can not have a camera
at his daughters wedding...

Producing quality images is job #1. And like I said, running around telling people about their cameras, or even needing to do so, is the sign of an amatuer running the show. This just doesn't happen. And a brides Father having paid for the wedding normally would be the last person to start interfering with the photograher.. People are keenly aware of what they pay for and just arent' likely to devalue that because of some inane need to pretend to be a photographer.

Most professionals are not worried about camera's at weddings as
long as they are not disruptive.

And you know this because? We must know an entirely different set of "mosts professionals.."

I would have walked out of every wedding job I've ever done had I
left every time a camera other than mine was present....

Too bad.. I coordinate things up front and rarely have a problem.

You make is sound like taking a camera to a wedding is bad

judgement. In fact, most couples encourage guests to bring cameras
even if they hire a provessional. PnS disposables are present at
50% of the weddings I've done in the past decade, provided by the
couple.

It is bad judgement to take a camera to a wedding when a professional is already covering the event. And NO COUPLE I've worked for has ever encouraged an amatuer to distract me while I work.. Maybe we're doing sifferent types of weddings for a different sort of clientle?

BKKSW

 

[Gabriele Sartori]

Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago.

It is plenty of fantastic photos done with the D100, the S2, the 10D. If you are no good, learn first. On your pbase site I just see lame photos done with a P&S, none with the D100. Do you really own one or are you just a troll?

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

 

[Lee H]

1) Do NOT blow out the whites! See #2 Blocked blacks are BETTER
then blown out whites. So if you can't get it right, error on the
side of less exposure.

2) USE that histogram. Use it often if light is changing, and if
it's not!

3) FLASH! FLASH! Purchase a good flash! While that tiny thing
mounted on top the D100 MAY get you by, having a good flash is
invaluable. An SB24/25/26 works great on ANY Nikon SLR if $$$ is
an issue. In fact that would force you into A, or M mode which IMO
may not be a bad thing.

4) Fill if possible, or pump up the flash! .... If the light is
good, then -2 or even -3 fill is great. If the lighting is poor,
i.e., to dark to handhold, then pump up that flash and overpower
the available light if necessary. While some may argue with this
(myself included) flash can save otherwise ruined images. If you
are not great at balancing flash with daylight, then pump up the
flash, and adjust the camera settings to match.

5) Don't rely on Program mode and TTL. I'd shoot aperture or
shutter mode, and check exposure often. I generally shoot in
manual mode at weddings...but that may be too much to think about
if you are not used to it.

Use exposure compensation to make adjustments when necessary. TTL
is over rated. White dresses fool meters. I've found that aperture
priority or manual on the flash works best. But what ever you do,
check that histogram, and be ready to adjust that flash when
necessary. In A or M mode, one just bumps it up/down a bit. In TTL,
use the exposure compensation on the flash. Not sure about the on
camera D100 flash.

6) Preview. Look at your shots every chance you get.

7) Check camera/flash settings often!

8) Bonus..use a diffuser. If this is something you think you can
swing, do it. Little flash units produce harsh light. Diffusion is
going to hep.

One does not want to jump into deep water if one is unsure of one's
swimming ability. Likewise if you MUST get good photographs at a
once in a lifetime event, you BETTER have your skills down. One
reason that I strongly suggest hiriing a professional if results
are required.

Sounds like you need some work in the backend as well. Do you print
your stuff, or have someone else do it? Those Fuji digital stations
do a good job if you do NOT have a printer. I noticed them at Wolf,
and I hear some Costco's have them.

One thing many do not seem to realize is that taking a shot from
camera to print is not automatic. In digital many just email, web,
or post. But printing is a big part of the workflow if one expects
to present work.

Ron

I am taking pictures of my sisters wedding next week with my D100.
Lucky for me it is an out door wedding. I keep taking practice pics
and then compare with our little canon elf point and shoot. My wife
keeps telling me the point and shoot pics look great. I keep
telling her I have to do post process work on the D100. she does
not understand. In any case I hope i can learn enough to get good
pics for the wedding. I would be grateful for any tips.

--
Lee

 

[Forrest41926]

One of these days I am going to go nuts right there and then and
just tell all those getting-in-the-way's to go to hell!

I'm sure you'll get a lot of jobs after that.

Gad knows how many times the most critical shot got messed up
because some idiot stood up at the last second 5 yards downwind
from me. Only thing I can do is scream for her to sit down, but
that would just mess up "the moment" even worse, won't it?

And how many times have I been two minutes late to work because some moron wants to ride in the exit-only lane until we get to the exit, and then tie up traffic until someone lets him into the other lane ... or wants to turn left on a perfectly good green light? How many times have we had to redo computer work because the machine crashes?

It's called "life," and you can't control every minute aspect of it.

 

[Forrest41926]

Thanks for the many replies. As I said above, I am perfectly happy
to accept that it may well be me that is at fault - after all I
have only 25 years experience of taking photos. I am also amazed at

In other words, you've been around the block once or twice, so it's inconceivable that you could have made a mistake. Right?

By that logic, though, Nikon has been making photo gear three times as long as you've been making photos, so it's also inconceivable that they could have made a mistake, and put out a dud D100. So what gives?

 

[Akkers]

Point taken. I appreciate your feedback.

I was just wondering if you were planning on deleting your
signature line about DSLR's being junk? No offense meant - just
curious after reading all the posts in this thread. I know this
has been said earlier, but leaving that signature intact will
automatically give you zero credibility in all of the forums.

 

[Akkers]

This is a good point. In fact DOF was one of the reasons why I went for the D100 because it was somewhat lacking on the Sony. However, when the focus is not quite right, that shallow DOF is not much use.

I have not seen any discussion about one of the biggest claims to
fame of the DSLR: DEPTH OF FIELD CONTROL!!!!! Point and shoots
are great for colors and contrast but don't have any ability to
control depth of field. For me, this was the main reason for
buying a DSLR. When you compare wedding shots from a point-n-shoot
and a DSLR with someone who knows how to use an aperture, the DSLR
wins hands down every time.

 

[Akkers]

Gabriele

Dont take it personally. The photos on pbase are test pics from Sony 717 and U20 in the days when there was discussions going on about these cameras. I have not much time or many good photos from D100 to post up there.

Regards.

Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago.

It is plenty of fantastic photos done with the D100, the S2, the
10D. If you are no good, learn first. On your pbase site I just see
lame photos done with a P&S, none with the D100. Do you really own
one or are you just a troll?

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori

--
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR]
Sony 717, Sony U20

 

[DoF]

Akkers,

Your posting history is quite interesting!

Since you purchased a D100 (June 2003) Forum members have asked you to post bad D100 photos and there are ALWAYS excuses why you can’t post bad photos:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5721124

You didn’t seem too disappointed here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5448938

Your Sony pics look amateurish (no fill flash; bad composition):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5437706

Here you didn’t know how to focus the D100 and [insert cheap lens here]:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5703384

Here you clearly acknowledge that with proper post-processing the D100 can produce great shots:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5386283

Icing on the cake here – where you bash the Sony P&S in favour of DSLRs from Nikon and Canon:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5380422

This is laughable!

I was a at a wedding of a family friend two weeks ago. I took along
my D100 to keep myself busy. I took about 100 pics of the wedding
but found it very hard to get things right (shooting outside in the
shade).

When I checked the pics on the pc, 95% of them were out of focus;
some actuley out of focus other not quite there. Colours were
totally dead. However, I did PS on them and tiodied up some of the
acceptable shots to show to the couple.

I took my laptop and showed them the pics. They were not exactly
happy - they had been hoping that I would have some maginificant
photos to show them, especially with that expensive beast that I
had in my hand. After they saw my pics, they showed me some prints
that their neighbour had done for them on a Konica p&s digital
camera. They were absolutely great; in the face focus and amazing
colours. All I could manage was an embarrasing smile.

It was just as well that it was not a paid job otherwise I would
have been hung. Mybe its just me.

--
Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago. Look after your money - spend it on something else - you
will feel better.
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR] unfortuntely
Sony 717, Sony U20

 

[Akkers]

DoF

I applaude your efforts to go through all the postings to find incriminating evidence. But unfortunately, your efforts are amateurish. Misquoting and quotiing people out of context is neither honest nor professional.

btw if you have not realised, I am an amateur photographer. And since most of my pics are of people, I have problems posting them here because of privacy issues. You may have a problem understanding this but different cultures have different values.

Regards.

Your posting history is quite interesting!

Since you purchased a D100 (June 2003) Forum members have asked you
to post bad D100 photos and there are ALWAYS excuses why you can’t
post bad photos:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5721124

You didn’t seem too disappointed here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5448938

Your Sony pics look amateurish (no fill flash; bad composition):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5437706

Here you didn’t know how to focus the D100 and [insert cheap lens
here]:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5703384

Here you clearly acknowledge that with proper post-processing the
D100 can produce great shots:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5386283

Icing on the cake here – where you bash the Sony P&S in favour of
DSLRs from Nikon and Canon:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5380422

This is laughable!

I was a at a wedding of a family friend two weeks ago. I took along
my D100 to keep myself busy. I took about 100 pics of the wedding
but found it very hard to get things right (shooting outside in the
shade).

When I checked the pics on the pc, 95% of them were out of focus;
some actuley out of focus other not quite there. Colours were
totally dead. However, I did PS on them and tiodied up some of the
acceptable shots to show to the couple.

I took my laptop and showed them the pics. They were not exactly
happy - they had been hoping that I would have some maginificant
photos to show them, especially with that expensive beast that I
had in my hand. After they saw my pics, they showed me some prints
that their neighbour had done for them on a Konica p&s digital
camera. They were absolutely great; in the face focus and amazing
colours. All I could manage was an embarrasing smile.

It was just as well that it was not a paid job otherwise I would
have been hung. Mybe its just me.

--
Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago. Look after your money - spend it on something else - you
will feel better.
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR] unfortuntely
Sony 717, Sony U20

--
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR]
Sony 717, Sony U20

 

[DoF]

Maybe you should run along back to the Sony Talk forum. Good bye.

I applaude your efforts to go through all the postings to find
incriminating evidence. But unfortunately, your efforts are
amateurish. Misquoting and quotiing people out of context is
neither honest nor professional.

btw if you have not realised, I am an amateur photographer. And
since most of my pics are of people, I have problems posting them
here because of privacy issues. You may have a problem
understanding this but different cultures have different values.

Regards.

Your posting history is quite interesting!

Since you purchased a D100 (June 2003) Forum members have asked you
to post bad D100 photos and there are ALWAYS excuses why you can’t
post bad photos:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5721124

You didn’t seem too disappointed here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5448938

Your Sony pics look amateurish (no fill flash; bad composition):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5437706

Here you didn’t know how to focus the D100 and [insert cheap lens
here]:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5703384

Here you clearly acknowledge that with proper post-processing the
D100 can produce great shots:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5386283

Icing on the cake here – where you bash the Sony P&S in favour of
DSLRs from Nikon and Canon:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5380422

This is laughable!

I was a at a wedding of a family friend two weeks ago. I took along
my D100 to keep myself busy. I took about 100 pics of the wedding
but found it very hard to get things right (shooting outside in the
shade).

When I checked the pics on the pc, 95% of them were out of focus;
some actuley out of focus other not quite there. Colours were
totally dead. However, I did PS on them and tiodied up some of the
acceptable shots to show to the couple.

I took my laptop and showed them the pics. They were not exactly
happy - they had been hoping that I would have some maginificant
photos to show them, especially with that expensive beast that I
had in my hand. After they saw my pics, they showed me some prints
that their neighbour had done for them on a Konica p&s digital
camera. They were absolutely great; in the face focus and amazing
colours. All I could manage was an embarrasing smile.

It was just as well that it was not a paid job otherwise I would
have been hung. Mybe its just me.

--
Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago. Look after your money - spend it on something else - you
will feel better.
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR] unfortuntely
Sony 717, Sony U20

--
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR]
Sony 717, Sony U20

 

[James Riley]

Did you bother to read the post properly?

It said anybody getting in our way get to pay us $1000, with their house or D100 put up as collateral (if they cannot pay).

--
JR

 

[Akkers]

DoF

You are being dishonest. Lets, for example, take the post about the lenses where you had written "Here you didn’t know how to focus the D100 and [insert cheap lens here]". This is total misrepesntation on your part. The thread you are referring to is about the focusing problems I was having with the Tamron 28-300XR and the Nikkor 24-85. I did not say that I did not know how to focus but was having problems with these lenses - may well have been technical faults. Trust you to dishonestly quote and misrepresent the thread!

I think you have taken all this personally and stepped over the lines of civlised discussion.

btw I have no allegiances to Nikons, Cannons or Sonys of this world. They are all after our money.

Regards.

I applaude your efforts to go through all the postings to find
incriminating evidence. But unfortunately, your efforts are
amateurish. Misquoting and quotiing people out of context is
neither honest nor professional.

btw if you have not realised, I am an amateur photographer. And
since most of my pics are of people, I have problems posting them
here because of privacy issues. You may have a problem
understanding this but different cultures have different values.

Regards.

Your posting history is quite interesting!

Since you purchased a D100 (June 2003) Forum members have asked you
to post bad D100 photos and there are ALWAYS excuses why you can’t
post bad photos:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5721124

You didn’t seem too disappointed here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5448938

Your Sony pics look amateurish (no fill flash; bad composition):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5437706

Here you didn’t know how to focus the D100 and [insert cheap lens
here]:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=5703384

Here you clearly acknowledge that with proper post-processing the
D100 can produce great shots:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5386283

Icing on the cake here – where you bash the Sony P&S in favour of
DSLRs from Nikon and Canon:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=5380422

This is laughable!

I was a at a wedding of a family friend two weeks ago. I took along
my D100 to keep myself busy. I took about 100 pics of the wedding
but found it very hard to get things right (shooting outside in the
shade).

When I checked the pics on the pc, 95% of them were out of focus;
some actuley out of focus other not quite there. Colours were
totally dead. However, I did PS on them and tiodied up some of the
acceptable shots to show to the couple.

I took my laptop and showed them the pics. They were not exactly
happy - they had been hoping that I would have some maginificant
photos to show them, especially with that expensive beast that I
had in my hand. After they saw my pics, they showed me some prints
that their neighbour had done for them on a Konica p&s digital
camera. They were absolutely great; in the face focus and amazing
colours. All I could manage was an embarrasing smile.

It was just as well that it was not a paid job otherwise I would
have been hung. Mybe its just me.

--
Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago. Look after your money - spend it on something else - you
will feel better.
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR] unfortuntely
Sony 717, Sony U20

--
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR]
Sony 717, Sony U20

--
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR]
Sony 717, Sony U20

 

[James Riley]

Yes, that is why there is a clause in the contract that says no one else at the ceremony can use a camera.

Now, let see you get LEGAL rights to use the road all by yourselves on your way to work.



--
JR

 

[NeilCam]

Akkers you've been caught out as the troll you are, so you're 100% right dishonesy IS being used as a weapon - BY YOU!!!

I begin to wonder if you own any of the gear you complain about so fervently and frequently.

Neil
--
http://www.motifwebs.com/gallery/

 

[Akkers]

Neil

Maybe your allegiance to a camera has blinded you to accept the DoF carefully sampled quotes.

As for owning the equipment, I do not have to justify or prove anything to anyone. You are free to comment on this thread as you like. If I am a troll, then the best policy would be to ignore this thread. Dont you think so?

btw I also own a Ferrari, a private jet and a Lamborghni Countach - NOT.

Akkers you've been caught out as the troll you are, so you're 100%
right dishonesy IS being used as a weapon - BY YOU!!!

I begin to wonder if you own any of the gear you complain about so
fervently and frequently.

Neil
--
http://www.motifwebs.com/gallery/

--
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR]
Sony 717, Sony U20

 

[DrMark]

I know you have not taken the time to learn it just from the fact of your tag line and complaining, The D100 does take clean clear pictures of what you want, after you learn how to shoot them. I am not a professional, but get pretty good pictures from my camera. Oh, btw the bear is sharp enough even blown up to 20x30, as is the following picture. Use a CRT not a laptop to view your pictures, one thing you will find is that computer monitors do not do a just service to many pictures. If your camera was a turkey, did you send it back to the dealer? Why not shoot a few shots and post them here of trees, your home etc. Then we can do a better judgement on the camera.

http: > >

So what makes you think that I do not have the requisite skills to
charge money? Do you know anything about me? Do you know the
quality of my work?

You live up to your name, sir.
Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago. Look after your money - spend it on something else - you
will feel better.
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR] unfortuntely
Sony 717, Sony U20

--
Beware - Digital SLRs are a con. I wasted £2000 on a piece of
plastic that takes worse photos than a normal film camera I had 20
years ago. Look after your money - spend it on something else - you
will feel better.
[Nikon D100, Nikkor 24-85 AFS G, Tamron 28-300 XR] unfortuntely
Sony 717, Sony U20