Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    We really need to have a shoot out, dog gone it. The "high-priced glass follies" and see what happens. Just using system glass ... and see who's system performs, if you want justification. God knows, I've shot some real crap in my day ... and I also have shot the "good stuff."

    Wait until we arm up with the current crop and then, say in December ... we shoot Christmas decorations. All sorts of scenarios ... and see what comes of it.

    The investment in glass will be outrageous, no matter what system is chosen. Ring this list up!

    The current SONY A900 Group:
    A900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2999
    CZ 17-35/2.8 . . . . . . . $1799
    80-400/4-5.6 G SSM . . $1499
    70-200/2.8 G SSM . . . . $1799
    CZ 24-70/2.8 . . . . . . . .$1749
    CZ 135/1.8 . . . . . . . . . $1399
    CZ 85/1.4 . . . . . . . . . . $1299
    Edit: VG-C70AM . . . . . . . . .$350

    Yeah ... hot stuff, huh? SONY System total: $12,893(<- Editted total)

    Sets a whole new level of fun, doesn't it, guys?

    Let's use Canon's premiere Full Frame, the EOS 1Ds Mk III
    EOS 1Ds Mk III . . . . . . . . . . . .$7999
    EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM . . . . $1450
    EF 100-400/f4.5-5.6L IS USM . . $1420
    EF 70-200/f/2.8L IS USM . . . . . $1650
    EF 24-70/2.8L USM . . . . . . . . . $1190
    EF 135/2L USM . . . . . . . . . . . .$1000
    EF 85/1.2L II USM . . . . . . . . . .$1870

    Canon System total: $16,579

    Nikon's King of the Dance, the D3
    D3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4999.95
    EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1349.95
    AF VR Zoom- NIKKOR 80-400/4.5-5.6D ED. . . . . . $1429.95
    AF-S VR Zoom- NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED. . $1629.95
    AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70/2.8G ED. . . . . . . . . . . .$1695.95
    AF DC-NIKKOR 135/2D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1069.95
    AF Nikkor 85/1.4D IF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1024.95

    Nikon System total: $13,200.65

    My word, that SONY sure does look expensive ... and imagine, anti-shake thrown in for free. Go ahead and tell me all about the price of a camera system, dudes. The numbers readily speak for themselves and half the Canon and Nikon lenses ... well, they sh-sh-shake ... and so does the body they are riding on.
    first of all you need to compare the 5d and the d700 NOT the fully pro D3 and mk1ds. you are AGAIN being intentionally deceptive and bordering on being a complete liar.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    The camparisons are being done with the EOS 1Ds MkIII ... and the D3 ... so just get onboard and believe. I don't have time to address this petty contrary nonsense, Rooz. By the way, where's your A900 pre-order?
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Somerset, England
    Posts
    718
    Actually, I think the thread it talking about the lenses not the bodies. So, with the bodies removed from that equation...Sony doesn't come out as well!



    CZ 17-35/2.8 . . . . . . . $1799
    80-400/4-5.6 G SSM . . $1499
    70-200/2.8 G SSM . . . . $1799
    CZ 24-70/2.8 . . . . . . . .$1749
    CZ 135/1.8 . . . . . . . . . $1399
    CZ 85/1.4 . . . . . . . . . . $1299
    Edit: VG-C70AM . . . . . . . . .$350

    SONY System total: $9,894(<- Editted total)



    EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM . . . . $1450
    EF 100-400/f4.5-5.6L IS USM . . $1420
    EF 70-200/f/2.8L IS USM . . . . . $1650
    EF 24-70/2.8L USM . . . . . . . . . $1190
    EF 135/2L USM . . . . . . . . . . . .$1000
    EF 85/1.2L II USM . . . . . . . . . .$1870

    Canon System total: $8,580


    EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1349.95
    AF VR Zoom- NIKKOR 80-400/4.5-5.6D ED. . . . . . $1429.95
    AF-S VR Zoom- NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED. . $1629.95
    AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70/2.8G ED. . . . . . . . . . . .$1695.95
    AF DC-NIKKOR 135/2D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1069.95
    AF Nikkor 85/1.4D IF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1024.95

    Nikon System total: $8,201.60
    Gear List:
    Canon 40D + Sigma 18-50mm + Canon 55-250mm

    My Gallery

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    You cannot shoot Pro FF without the Pro Full Frame camera ... so in the beginning, it is truly a system approach. All things being fair. I was extremely fair in matching all lenses, as best I could, from available inventories ... and many of them are very close in price, besides.

    So ... whip out that checkbook and get to scribing some big numbers. Professional/Prosumer FF is definitely not for the feint of heart.

    Oh, and thanks for using my research in your argument. BTW: You can lop out the extra $350 for the "Vertical Grip", since the requirement of having a Pro FF camera doesn't seem to matter any more. Obviously, someone missed the point of the exercise. Perhaps it was me ... all I know is that you have to have a FF camera to get the ball rolling shooting FF. Try as I might, I could buy every last one of the lenses ... and I still cannot get the A700 to shoot anything other than APS-C size images, no matter which of the lenses I place on it.

    It's just so weird, I tell ya.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-09-2008 at 11:21 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    you are comparing a fully professional d3/1D to an a700 with a FF sensor. how does that make sense ? the comparisons to be drawn should be with the d700/5d which is also FF in an apsc body.

    you only need a $150 for a verical grip on a d700 aswell...then you can shoot at 8fps aswell.

    so your research is bogus. (not to mention the 16-35 L is not a nikon mount.)
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Sorry, for the Nikon "typo", 'Rooz' ... I know how offensive that can be ... although the lens was priced to low. I will make the correction. It makes for a better case, anyway, being a $150 more. Thanks for pointing it out ... now, go save some real money, buy a SONY-based system and quit your complaining already. You have your answer ... in black and white. "I say COLOR your world, mate!" It is the ONLY way.

    Name:  SuperSteadyShot-3-dimensional.jpg
Views: 212
Size:  136.9 KB
    Reference to DPReview for the image

    Also, check out THIS review. It has an pretty neat Flash explanation of IS.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 09-10-2008 at 09:30 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    i'm not complaining. i'm quite happy about this.
    but objectivity should not be lost either...
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    You are in the SONY forum ... and as such, the tendancy is to support the product we use ... and admittedly, there are some relatively high costing lenses in this world. There also is quite a collection of reasonably priced and older Minolta glass, out there, that works pretty effectively, too ... so you do have something to fall back on as you collect your sheckels for big-time glass.

    Not every photographer is going to need every lens ever made (of course, I do not speak for myself, here ). You pick the ones that do the job you need (or perceive you need) and just make do.

    I perceive that I need a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ... to improve my chosen shots. Do I REALLY need that lens ... because, as we all know, I already have a crapload of other glass that pretty well covers that range, too? I have to say, "Sure!" You may ask, "Why Don?"

    I have to toss it back to you, by asking, "Why not?" My creativity suggests that I "need" the lens for that particular focal range and aperture. In fact, I've been complaining about it for the past year or so, since my debacle with the SONY AF 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM ($1799), back in November. I am currently interested in giving the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO a shot ($699) because, for one thing, it is a hell of a lot cheaper than the SONY "G" lens. Do I expect "G" results from the lens? Nah. I have the CZ 135mm f/1.8 and the TAMRON 90mm f/2.8 for the real sharp shots. I can make the changes.

    While there is nothing wrong with plunking down $1800 for a lens when you are using it to support yourself ... I've decided to compromise a bit, for the time being, and get the A900 and the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 ... and live inside the hobbiest budget.

    "Objectivity" you say? Sorry, you lost me at hello.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    It's been fun reading this thread but it's pretty irrelevent because most of us won't be buying these overpriced (opinion) lenses, not that we wouldn't like to of course. I'd like a Ferrari as well!

    Would I like a CZ 17-35mm f2.8 to fill in my bottom end (no unsavory cracks); yes please, but probably not.

    Would I like an A900 body; yes please but only when the price drops and probably second hand.

    Personally, I'll stick my wonderful 28-135 Minolta glass onto my wonderful (I hope) A700 body and reap a lot of pleasure trying for wonderful (shake free) images.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    you are comparing a fully professional d3/1D to an a700 with a FF sensor. how does that make sense ? the comparisons to be drawn should be with the d700/5d which is also FF in an apsc body.

    you only need a $150 for a verical grip on a d700 aswell...then you can shoot at 8fps aswell.

    so your research is bogus. (not to mention the 16-35 L is not a nikon mount.)
    Just one little correction to this silly, childish, and mostly pointless, argument. There is no such thing as an APS C body. If so, then I was fully deceived all those years I shot film. A body is just a body. The sensor size determines if the camera is APS-C (DX for Nikon) or Full Frame (FX for Nikon), or something else, as has been the case for several Canon models and the Leica M-8. I'm out...
    Eric Lund
    Nikon D200
    Nikkors: 17-55mm f2.8, 18-200mm f3.5-f4.5 VR, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 55mm f2.8 AI-S micro, 105mm f2.8 VR micro
    Other Lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD macro
    Stuff: Nikon SB800, Nikon MBD200, Gitzo 1327 Tripod w/RRS BH-55LR Ballhead, Sekonic L-358 meter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •