Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931

    Getting the camera choice debate away from POTD

    Pick my daily ride.

    Camera 1: 12MP, 8 fps, 12-24 f4 lens, only good to about 1600 iso at best, 1.95 kg (4.3lb).
    Camera 2: 16MP, 6 fps, 23mm f2.0 lens, more than usable to iso 6400, oh and 490gm (1.08lb).




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,428
    Each has its time and place... Personally, I prefer the larger one but the smaller one will be with me most of the time.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY USA
    Posts
    839
    Part of my choice in going to the smaller sensor is money. I simply don't have the resources to buy FX sensor cameras. The other reason is physiological, I have very small hands and the larger cameras are too big for me, with the weight also being a factor. It was the reason that years ago I went to the Olympus cameras as opposed to the Nikons or Canons available at the time. (late 60s to mid 70s). The only real advantage that I see for the so-called 'Pro' bodies is better performance in extreme conditions of lighting and weather. How often, however, does anyone shoot using ISO 2400 or higher? Or need the FPS rates that some pro cameras provide. I have observed photogs at a local baseball game ripping off a long sequence of shots because it was easier to do that than time the shots to get the high point in the first 2-3 frames. I have tried that as well with less than stellar results with both the D7000 and 7100. Timing is better than shooting and hoping.
    What does anyone actually mean by the phrase 'consumer glass'? Most of us, I imagine buy that best we can afford. A slower lens in my bag that gets a shot is better than the high-end lens still on the shelf in the store, left there because I didn't want to by cheaper 'non-pro' stuff.
    Falconest174
    Seeing the picture starts the process
    D7100, Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro, Tamron 70-300 Macro, Sigma 17-70 F2.8 Macro,
    Tamron 70-300 Di VC USD 60Th Anniv. ,SB700, Vivitar 383, Manfrotto t-pod, monopod
    Facebook:
    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/rmProvost

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    667
    Right now, people may choose the Fuji X100s more often, but this was not an option in 2007 when the D300 came out.

    These days, at the price of the Fuji X100s, one could get a D3200, an 18-105, 35mm f/1.8 and an SB-400 (or even the SB-700). This is where the choice becomes harder.
    Nikon D40|Nikon D5100|AF-S 50mm f/1.4|AF-S 18-105mm DX|SB 900|SB 400|AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX|AF-S 10-24mm DX

    Canon A610

    Flickr

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Screenclutter View Post
    Right now, people may choose the Fuji X100s more often, but this was not an option in 2007 when the D300 came out.
    Granted but the whole concept behind my original post in POTD was to consider what to buy going forward not what was available 6 years ago. Before blindly investing in "pro glass" with it's associated cost and weight in 2013 people should have a good think about what their photography involves and whether "pro glass" is in fact the correct route.

    Quote Originally Posted by Screenclutter View Post
    These days, at the price of the Fuji X100s, one could get a D3200, an 18-105, 35mm f/1.8 and an SB-400 (or even the SB-700). This is where the choice becomes harder.
    And you know what. For me I would still take the Fuji based on size, weight, convenience and image quality (compared to the two lenses mentioned). Try carrying a D3200, two lenses and a SB in one coat pocket.
    Others will talk about focal lengths and zooms and "missing the shot" but for me and I can only speak for me 23mm (35mm equiv) is by far the most used focal length on my non sports related shots so I simply don't want or need the zoom or the second lens most of the time. This comes back to my comment above. Consider what you buy and why you are buying it. There are now options other than DSLRs that may be more than acceptable.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    667
    Pro glass I would say makes sense if it can be written off as a business expense. Outside of that, buying such lenses would be similar to any expensive hobby.

    Would you consider the Nikon Coolpix A? It is just a bit slimmer at the cost of one stop. And you can stick the SB-400 in some outer coat pocket.

    Something I am beginning to see a lot more are the Nikon 1 cameras.

    Most well lit non-action pictures we know do not need more than a decent point-and-shoot. Us on these forums can easily make the right decision (dSLR or not) as to what more specialized camera system to buy. What I do think is a problem is that these camera companies are creating a target camera for a mass consumer market that doesn't really know or understand what they are looking for or why, and this does impact on us to a certain extent.
    Nikon D40|Nikon D5100|AF-S 50mm f/1.4|AF-S 18-105mm DX|SB 900|SB 400|AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX|AF-S 10-24mm DX

    Canon A610

    Flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by K1W1 View Post
    Granted but the whole concept behind my original post in POTD was to consider what to buy going forward not what was available 6 years ago. Before blindly investing in "pro glass" with it's associated cost and weight in 2013 people should have a good think about what their photography involves and whether "pro glass" is in fact the correct route.
    +1 we are so spoilt for choice right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Screenclutter View Post
    Pro glass I would say makes sense if it can be written off as a business expense. Outside of that, buying such lenses would be similar to an expensive hobby.
    not sure what you would mean by that. and where do you draw the line ? why not just stick to a cheap powerzoom or even an iphone ? pro glass typically = better image quality. its that simple really. if you want the best images you can capture, buy the best you can afford. it also goes without saying that photography is an expensive hobby !

    Would you consider the Nikon Coolpix A? It is just a bit slimmer at the cost of one stop. And you can stick the SB-400 in some outer coat pocket.
    at half the price...absolutely. its a very interesting little thing. but is apparently plagued by AF issues. why they didn't use the 1 series AF into this baffles the mind.

    Most well lit non-action pictures we know do not need more than a decent point-and-shoot. Us on these forums can easily make the right decision (dSLR or not) as to what more specialized camera system to buy. What I do think is a problem is that these camera companies are creating a target camera for a mass consumer market that doesn't really know or understand what they are looking for or why, and this does impact on us to a certain extent.
    for me, this is a glass half full approach. what the camera companies are doing is appealing to as many particular segments as possible to differentiate their product and get people to buy into their system. fierce competition !! as a consumer, that can only be a GOOD thing. looking back now, what a horrendous period of utilitarianism the dslr period was. the only choice we genuinely had was brand of dslr and they KNEW it. then sony came along, many of us heralded this as a big step for us as customers and this came to pass. the nex system was a catalyst to the mass market, as opposed to the original and pretty ordinary niche 4/3 system, for a myriad of mirrorless and thoroughly competent options and the steepest improvement curve in camera equipment we have ever seen. that's glass half full stuff for me !
    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. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424

    Import 1 by .Chris.K, on Flickr


    Import 1 by .Chris.K, on Flickr


    Import 1 by .Chris.K, on Flickr


    Import 1 by .Chris.K, on Flickr


    Import 1 by .Chris.K, on Flickr
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    I have to say Rooz that your morals are rather loose when it comes to camera brand ownership. You had better be careful you might get a reputation as they say.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,428
    Quote Originally Posted by K1W1 View Post
    I have to say Rooz that your morals are rather loose when it comes to camera brand ownership. You had better be careful you might get a reputation as they say.
    YES. He even has a Canon!
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

Posting Permissions

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