Brian

Lighting, I usually recommend the Paul C Buff Einstein 640 instead of an Alien Bee to start with. The lights that I drool over are Profoto Lights. They run about $2100...each. Since you have a larger budget and like high-end stuff, if I had $4200 laying around, I'd buy this kit: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1049889-REG

Only one AF 135mm f/2.0D. This lens is an old, but excellent, and one that is in dire-need of an update. No, nothing on the horizon. You have the only 135mm lens that's available and can purchase new.

We, if you are into primes, then a 24mm 1.4 is a good lens. That said, you are shooting sports, and 24mm isn't used a whole lot. Well, for area / environmental shots to put things in context. Most of the time, you are too busy zooming in. A prime, is a prime. You zoom with your feet. At 24mm, you'd take a few shots and then switch over to your 70-200. Don't get so caught up with f/1.4. You have a friggin' D4. Set the thing to 12800 ISO and use a 24-70. Oh, I don't think you are going to use a 24mm f/1.4 as much with newborns, due to the distortion that you get with wide angle. Don't think you have to fill the frame constantly, because when you go to print, stuff is going to get chopped off if you don't leave enough wiggle-room on the sides. I really think you should consider the 24-70, but that's your call.

Gym Lighting is one of the WORST kinds of light you can shoot in. There are really only two solutions, crank the ISO to compensate, or off camera strobes to illuminate the space. Since it's a volunteer kind of thing, I'm not sure how they would feel if you brought a four AB 1600 (or four Einstein 640) strobes with 60" umbrellas. (complete with sandbags and stands.) So unless you have an assistant to help keep an eye on things, you are cranking that ISO, probably above 6400 to help get your shutter speed up. Lenses, you actually have most of the lenses I was going to recommend. What I think you need to add is: Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4G ($1496.95) Nikon AF-S 105 VR Macro ($796.95) Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ($1696.95) Currently, those lenses are on sale, so if you are going to purchase one, do it before April 1st. I think the lens only rebates end April 2nd, but I'm not 100% sure. Traditionally, Nikon always does this every year as a way to boost sales before they end their fiscal year. The total for those three lenses is $3990.85. So call it $4000. That still leaves you with $2500 to purchase lighting or to take a class. Most newborn workshops will run you around $1800-ish. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Plus the cost of possible hotel, rental car and airfare if they aren't local. Which lens first? Well, as far as primes, I'd get the 85mm f/1.4G if you do plan on shooting newborns. The 105VR Macro Lens is great for close-ups and baby toes, stuff like that. So those two should be on your short-list. You already have the 35mm f/1.4G and 58mm f/1.4G, both lenses are excellent choices. The 24-70 f/2.8G is the 70-200's counter part. I just purchased one myself, in preparation to switch to FX. If you really want wider, there is the legendary 14-24mm f/2.8G and the awesome 16-35mm f/4. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The 14-24mm...it's so good that Canon users rent it and use the adapter to mount on their canon bodies. The downside is, it doesn't take filters and it's a big lens. At 14mm, you really need to be close to the action in order to fill the frame. Plus, you really need to take time to learn how to shoot with that lens. It's not one you can just mount and immediately run-and-gun with, expecting the best results. The 16-35mm f/4. It's the 14-24 counter-part. It's smaller, and takes filters (circular polarizer, ND filters, etc.) I've read that this lens ends up being used more than the 14-24, due to convenience, the downside is...f/4. You lose a stop of light. For me personally, I plan on getting a 14-24 eventually, since I tend to shoot really wide on a lot of occasions. Plus I'd like to get into Astrophotography. That said, the 16-35 is on my short list. Who knows, I might get that one over the 14-24. You could also go with a 24mm f/1.4G, or even a 20mm. But if it were me, the 85/105 combo or the 85 1.4 and 24-70 would be the next choices, unless you get all three. Oh, there is a newer 24-70, the AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G VR. It's a little more expensive and larger than the standard 24-70. I've received mixed reviews on the newer lens. So say it's sharper overall, others, not-so-much. Some say if you like getting close to your subject for portraits, as I do, then it's not as sharp as the older 24-70. Then you'll have the Photography rockSTARS who will rave about the lens, but of course they are Nikon Ambassadors, who have to tow the company line. Since I've shot with the original 24-70 on occasion for about 6+ years, I know the lens and what it can and can't do. That's why I bought one. (Plus, $1700 was a easier pill to swallow. :D)

I'd say JPEG level 4 is causing more harm than good. You really want to be higher. "10" is fine, of course you could go a little lower if you wanted to for web usage.

Another thought. How about a 200-400 f/4 or investing in a 1.4 Teleconverter to get some extra reach with the sports stuff? I've also heard of very good things with the new 300mm f/4 lens. Now that I think of it, you are at a crossroads. The gear that you'll choose depends on what path you truly want to follow. If you want to be a newborn and baby photographer, I have a few recommendations. Of course, there are TONS of Cutesyname Photography Businesses who shoot babies and newborns. Not so many that shoot little-league games who have a D4 at their disposal. Something to think about.

If you aren't using your 135, you probably won't use the 200mm f/2.0. Do you realize on just how LARGE the 200mm f/2.0 is? It's just under 6.5 pounds all by itself and the lens is 4.9 inches wide by about 8 inches long. That's roughly the size of a large 100-pack of blank DVDs. (The large cylinder of blank DVDs, I'm sure you have seen what I'm talking about.) What does your lens setup look like now? You have a 70-200 f/2.8 now. How committed are you to shooting sports? How committed are you to shooting newborns? Because with newborn photography, if you want to stand out, it needs an investment of time and resources; t's not something you can casually pick up. Believe me, I see A LOT of "Newborn Photographers" that really shouldn't be. Also an investment in lighting should be considered. Don't give me that BS in "specializing" in natural light. LOL! As between the D4 and D5...here is the thing, what are you missing from your D4? I'd kill to have one. I'm still shooting with a D300s and making things work. What doesn't the D4 do that you think it should? Do you know every square inch of that D4 and what ALL the settings and menu choices do? I'm asking from the viewpoint of why throw away $6500? Of course, you could sell the D4 and get a D5, but if all you do is click the button and not utilize any of the flagship features that make a D4 a D4 or D4s or D5... why bother? You aren't going to suddenly get better just by having a D5. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say I purchase a brand-new shiny guitar. I went as far as picking the wood from the tree and all of the features. In fact, there was enough wood for another guitar that Eric Clapton ended up buying. Our two guitars are identical, except for the one digit difference between the two guitars' serial numbers. Who do you think will sound better onstage? Me or him? Of course, I do agree with you in purchasing the best equipment that one can afford. But you already have top-of-the-line-stuff. If it were me, I'd take the $6500 you are going to spend and put it towards education or even a trip to help change your perspective. Or maybe get a set of nice Profoto Lights and Modifiers in preparation for newborns. Heck, rent a nice studio for a year. You'd be surprised in just how much a PITA it is to shoot at home, especially if you don't have a large room to work with (with high-ceilings.) So let's talk lenses. What do you have now?

At this point, you could send your lens in to have it cleaned / serviced. It's possible that some bits of the shattered filter got inside the lens, or more realistically, the AF mechanisms might be a little off. But from the images that we've been shown, there isn't a reason to be worried. Perhaps you are looking for problems now since the accident?

I'm really not seeing noise. Prime lenses tend to perform better the zoom lenses. The original Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is notorious for being soft, but your lens doesn't seem to be that bad. Honestly, you reaction is pretty much the same from others who went from a prime to a zoom. Not all lenses are created equal. Some lenses perform better than others when it comes to skin. This all boils down to learning your gear.

Since I shoot Nikon, I use Nikon's free viewer program, ViewNX. I can cull pretty quickly, and then import directly into ACR. Of course, Adove's Bridge pretty much does the same thing. If you shoot Canon, just use Bridge.

Well, get the CC first, then get back to me.

I have a talent for spending other people's money. I will answer this either tonight when I get home or over the weekend. What kind of realistic budget do you have in mind?

What camera body? What lens? Could you post some sample photos with the settings used?

I don't like the 6D personally. The main reason is that the ONLY reliable AF point is the center one. On the 6D that's the only "Cross Type" AF Point. Also, the Canon 6D, like the Nikon D610 is a "Entry Level" Full Frame body. I'm not going to spend $1400 on a "Entry-Level" anything. That's why I don't recommend the Nikon D600/D610 either. No sense buying a FX "Digital Rebel." Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would tell me that I'm wrong and of course, they would be correct. The 6D will definitely perform better in the High ISO dept. compared to your Canon 7D. But in reality, each time I "settled" for _________ camera body, due to lack of funds, I was ultimately unhappy and had buyer's remorse for my purchase. I hate wasting money on this sh*t. If you want the 5D Mark III and have your heart set on it, then get the 5D Mark III. No sense in blowing $1400 and being unhappy. Believe me, I feel your pain. I'm trying to get enough money to buy a used D3s in good shape. Speaking of used, here is a couple of used 5D Mark III on Keh.com: https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-22-3-megapixel-digital-slr-camera-body-only-black.html You could save a little by getting a used body in EX or EX+ shape. Now, before we take the Full Frame Plunge, let's talk lenses. If you have a bunch of EF-S lenses, they will cripple your 5D Mark III. EF-S lenses are really only meant to be used with crop bodies. With Canon, you want to use the EF lenses with a Full Frame body. So list what you have. Keep in mind, the average cost to upgrade to Full Frame will run you between $4000-$4500. Why? Because crop shooters have a bunch of crop body only lenses and don't realize it. So chances are, you will be buying a lens along with your FF body. Edit: I just re-read your thread and you indicated that you have your lenses lined up. So disregard the last portion of this comment box. Unless you want to.

Alright, I'm looking at the manual. Let's start with setting your camera to Aperture Priority, the "A" Mode. It's important to note that if you switch between the auto modes, the AF selection settings reset. So if you go from the Flower to the Face on the dial, (Macro to Portrait - Auto Mode) this will affect your focus settings. I'd honestly stick with Aperture Priority and learn it. Or just shoot in full Manual mode. You will be looking at pages 33-38 in the D5200 Manual. Starting on Page 33, you want to be in AF-C (Continuous Servo AF). Page 36. Set your camera to Select Single Point AF. Now try focusing and see what happens. Then choose AF-S. (Single Servo AF). Take a few test shots. Then flip it back to AF-C and choose Dynamic Area AF (21 Points) and then Dynamic Area AF (39 Points.) I know with a lot of Nikon bodies, the 21 Point AF Dynamic Mode is the strongest setting. So say Nikon's Engineers who told Moose Peterson. Whatever you do, make sure you are NOT on 3D tracking or Auto-area AF. Either of those settings will override what you choose. If it were me, I'd choose AF-C and Single Point AF. (The very first box in the list.) OK, now go fiddle and report back.

Two things you need to look for in a monitor: 1. Make sure the screen is IPS based. This is extremely important. 2. Make sure it is either a Matte Screen or has a Matte coating. That's it. Dell, HP, NEC and Eizo make great monitors. I'd avoid Samsungs. While their displays are decent, they are a real pain in the arse to get calibrated. Like you'll need Tequila and a bottle of aspirin after trying to calibrate a Samsung. Last year's models are fine. (The ones on Damien's list.) You might just have to hunt for them. This is the problem with What to Buy lists, they need to be maintained.

Before you send it out, what focus mode are you set to? Refresh my memory. Try setting it to Single AF and have it set to you picking the AF point. There are a few settings that will allow you to pick the point, but if the camera finds something easier to lock on, it will override your choices. You need to tell your camera to not do that in the settings menu.

Here is the current model and seems to be the "Bee's Knees." Dell UP2716D 27" Widescreen It's meant to be in dual-monitor setups and is 100% Adobe RGB and sRGB color-spaces. IPS screen too. It also has a built in KVM, so one monitor could be hooked up to two computers. The Dell 2713H has been discontinued.

Oh, it's also a good idea to keep an eye on your free HD space. With Macs, once you hit about 75% full, things like Scratch Disks and Bridge's Cache start to complain and get cranky.

You are really between a rock-and-a-hard place. I know you want the benefits with FX, but your lenses are holding you back, in my humble opinion. It's because of the stupid resolution of today's sensors. We start at 24MP, and that's for consumer models! So you really need to get glass first, before body. That hasn't changed. The first lens I would replace is the 70-300. Get either the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II or it's little brother, the 70-200 f/4. Both are great lenses. I have a love-affair with my 70-200 f/2.8. Her name is Bertha and she gets sh*t done.

If you have the cash, and feel like upgrading lenses, then a D810 is in your future. Plan on a budget of $6000 or so. Maybe more. To use your current lenses, and slowly upgrade them, then the D500 is your best bet. Or possibly a D750. That body is still on the table. My advice: Pickup a D750 and play around with it, before committing. The D500 is the D300/D300s replacement, so that falls in line with what you currently have.

For a comparison, my FX lens line up is: Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II Nikon 85mm f/1.8G Nikon 60mm f/2.8D Macro Nikon 50mm f/1.8D I really don't use the 60mm Macro that much. In fact, I'm tempted to sell it. The 50mm f/1.8D...I got that lens years ago, when it was $110 new. I really don't use that lens that much and actually use my 35mm f/1.8G DX lens A LOT MORE. I HEART that little Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. If you shoot DX and don't have that lens, I'm questioning your sanity. It's that good. Only downside is it's a DX body lens only. So if i were to upgrade my 50mm f/1.8D, I would purchase the 58mm f/1.4G, and that lens is on sale for $1496.95. (Whatever you do, SKIP the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G. I hate that lens. That stupid lens caused so many threads in the old Ask Brian. It tends to either miss focus, or will back-focus, especially on a D700. On a D810...bwahahahaha!! Don't even bother. Nikon themselves doesn't recommend that lens for use on a D800/800E or D810 body.) See a theme here? I've rounded off the prices for my FX kit, and I've spent $5200+ so far, and don't have the FX body yet!! Switching to FX is expensive. I'm not trying to humble-brag, but this stuff costs money. So choose wisely.

Ugh. The only one on that list that will work well on the D810 is the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G. The 50mm f/1.8G isn't "bad" either. 20mm f/2.8D...not sure how well it will perform. Not looking that good. The 24-120...is that the VR version? Or the older "D" version? The 70-300...if it's not the VR version, don't bother. In fact, the Non-VR 70-300 lens is one of Nikon's worst performers. The camera stores can't give them away. For example, the 70-300 f/4-5.6 Non-VR is $169.95 @ B&H. That's a new lens. The VR version is MUCH BETTER and that is $496.95. If anyone is reading this and saying, "Oooh!! A 70-300 lens for $170!!! I'm gonna get one!" DON'T. If you want to waste $170, send it my way...I take donations and will put it to good use. Again, do not buy a Non-VR Nikon 70-300. Period. Anyhoo... In reality, I'm not liking your lens setup. The reason has to do with the DX sensor. Since it's physically smaller, it's only using the center-most portion of the lens. So you don't see any flaws with them. You are using the "Sweet Spot" of the lens, where it's supposed to perform its best optically. You will be surprised on just how soft the 24-120 is in the corners, or how bad the Non-VR 70-300 truly is. If you go with a D810, you will be upgrading lenses, for that I'm certain. I know Nikon Marketing has been pushing FX for the last few years, since that's all they had new, technology-wise. They have pushed FX as "Pro" or "Better" and DX as "Consumer" or "Amateur." Now the marketing machine is reversing course, and has released a Pro-Level DX body again, the D500. Keep in mind, the average cost to switch to FX will run you around $4000-$4500, conversationally speaking. That's why I've been acquiring lenses over the last 5 years and I've spent plenty on this sh*t. $2500 here, $1700 there...$500 here, etc. It all adds up. Since the D800E and D810 are very similar IQ-wise, here is the list of recommended lenses for use with the D800E / D810. For a comparison, here is a list from Thom Hogan: Thom's recommended lenses. As you can see, both lists are very similar. Thom really likes the D810 and highly recommends it. But as I've said before, you really need to have your lenses and computer / hard drives / accessories lined up in order to support the D810. So now we are right back to where we started. Which body? As of right now, unless you drop some serious coin on new lenses, the D500 is looking to be your best bet. I think it will be released around the $1999 price-point.

The D500 looks interesting. The controls and setup are very much like a D5. It really is the true D300/D300s replacement. So before we go further, what does your lens setup look like? If you do get a D810, you really NEED to use the best lenses with it. Those 36MP need to be fed, unfortunately, those lenses usually end up being the $2000 lenses.

Well, it's because you are crunching data from 36.1 Million Pixels. Which really puts it at the limit of what the EXPEED4 Processor can handle. If you want 9-11fps, you need to have less pixels. This is why the D4/D4s/D5 are below 20MP. That's why I say the D810 is like a Bomber. It goes in, does its job really well, than leaves. It's not like a Fighter Jet, which does a lot of things quickly, but it's not a true air to surface bomber. KWIM? Most of the things that I noticed with the D700 coming from a D300s, is that the D700 is a tad bit "slower." It's more like a D810 than I realized. The problem today is people are looking for a "Forever Camera." They want to get back to the days of inheriting Grandpa's F2 and a bunch of prime lenses, which gets a person through college and some time beyond. They want a body that is going to last 10+ years. Or longer. The problem is today's cameras are computers that think they are cameras. Bodies only last 4-5 years on average, then they start getting quirky. Take my D300s, the rubber that wraps around the body, the glue is breaking down and it needs to be re-glued and re-wrapped. Sometimes it locks up on me and I have to pull the battery out for a few seconds. Weird thing like that. Which puts me in the market sooner than later.