The Nutcracker - Pas De Deux

Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
edited December 13, 2011 in People
My daughter was in a local production of The Nutcracker (Or as her brother refers to it, "The Ballbreaker") this weekend. I rented the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II for a week just for the occasion. Boy, am I ever gonna be sad to ship that bad-boy back tomorrow!

This if from a scene just before the end called the Pas De Deux.

6496738589_02a0ff4b0a_o.jpg
The Nutcracker - Pas De Deux by Bryce Wilson, on Flickr

Comments

  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2011
    That's great. IMO, being able to get shots like that of your own children makes owning a 70-200/2.8 worth it. Assuming you wanted a little c&c, I'd say that's slightly over-exposed. I like to shoot dance in manual, and expose for the dancers, not the whole scene. Otherwise, great capture and composition.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • D3SshooterD3Sshooter Registered Users Posts: 1,188 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2011
    I wish I could see the picture.. There seens something not working.
    A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2011
    D3Sshooter wrote: »
    I wish I could see the picture.. There seens something not working.

    Well, it's on Flickr. That's something wrong in itself. :-P
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • novicesnappernovicesnapper Registered Users Posts: 445 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2011
    Lol, lovely girl Bryce. I see what they mean, it displays ok for me, Linux and firefox. I wondered what it would look like with the pillar on the left cropped out and when I saved and opened the image locally, I was surprised to see a more rich, darker vignetted image. I would say Flicker isn't doing this justice. Oh, imo, maybe run a lens correction on this, to correct the left pillar.
    http://retroimages.zenfolio.com/
  • D3SshooterD3Sshooter Registered Users Posts: 1,188 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2011
    Wow flickr works again (just joking). Difficult `pictures ' to take. But well done.
    So you rented a 70-200 VRII. I have the 70-200 VRI since two years. I need to say that I was not and still not pleased with it.
    The 70-200 VRI , although a great lens is suffering from vignetting on a full frame D700 /D3S. So, if you have a full frame , do not buy the VRI. I was told that the VR-II is much better.
    At the time when I bought the VR-I, the VR-II was about to come out. However Nikon was not releasing that information nor did they admitted that the VR-I was not suitable for the newer Full Frames. I will always hold this against Nikon.
    A Nikonian can have a love and hate relationship right ?
    A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
  • Bryce WilsonBryce Wilson Registered Users Posts: 1,586 Major grins
    edited December 13, 2011
    jmphotocraft wrote: »
    That's great. IMO, being able to get shots like that of your own children makes owning a 70-200/2.8 worth it. Assuming you wanted a little c&c, I'd say that's slightly over-exposed. I like to shoot dance in manual, and expose for the dancers, not the whole scene. Otherwise, great capture and composition.
    Thanks for your input! Unfortunately, I don't own the lens. For the two to three times a year I really need it, it seems to be more practical to rent.

    I considered shooting manual, but discovered that depending on what area of the stage the action was taking place, the lighting varied up to 3 stops. Ad to the the occasional use of a spot and I decided to shoot shutter priority so I could match the speed to the action taking place and not miss anything.
    novicesnapper wrote: »
    Lol, lovely girl Bryce. I see what they mean, it displays ok for me, Linux and firefox. I wondered what it would look like with the pillar on the left cropped out and when I saved and opened the image locally, I was surprised to see a more rich, darker vignetted image. I would say Flicker isn't doing this justice. Oh, imo, maybe run a lens correction on this, to correct the left pillar.

    Thanks for the nice comments. I'm thinking the pillar problem is with the hanging of the background itself and not lens abbr. But I'll certainly give it a shot!
    D3Sshooter wrote: »
    Wow flickr works again (just joking). Difficult `pictures ' to take. But well done.
    So you rented a 70-200 VRII. I have the 70-200 VRI since two years. I need to say that I was not and still not pleased with it.
    The 70-200 VRI , although a great lens is suffering from vignetting on a full frame D700 /D3S. So, if you have a full frame , do not buy the VRI. I was told that the VR-II is much better.
    At the time when I bought the VR-I, the VR-II was about to come out. However Nikon was not releasing that information nor did they admitted that the VR-I was not suitable for the newer Full Frames. I will always hold this against Nikon.
    A Nikonian can have a love and hate relationship right ?
    Especially a hate relationship when special ordering an item. It takes FOREVER!

    I didn't notice excessive vignetting with this lens (VR II) on the D700. I did some shots at a local ice rink during a hockey game the night before this event to get used to the lens, (They're posted in the sports section) and the images looked pretty clean all the way to the edge at all focal lengths.
Sign In or Register to comment.