Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by tim11 View Post
    YES. He even has a Canon!
    I still have my Canon A610, I now only use it when I've been kayaking or on water. I still remember it's controls well enough such that I helped a coworker with her S100 a couple of days ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post

    not sure what you would mean by that. and where do you draw the line ?
    In my case, given the choice of buying a couple of pro lenses and going on a vacation for a few weeks, I'd go on the vacation and use what I currently have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    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.
    It seems to me the dSLR, Coolpix and Nikon 1 divisions of Nikon don't seem to be well integrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    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.
    I agree with what you are saying. One of my issues however with these camera companies is that they are marketing these cameras very narrowly. If they want to show the strengths of their products, they should, for example, do family pictures in low light situations, or show action pictures that our iPhones or whatever point-and-shoot struggle to capture. Or having one of these slim Fuji X100s or Coolpix A cameras being pulled out of a girl's purse to capture quality pictures of her and her friends in a clubbing environment.

    What ads do I most frequently see? dSLRs being used in bright daylight where the dSLR wouldn't make that great of difference.

    (We know Nikon is capable of making brilliant ads like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Npf9-70J9Q)
    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

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    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 !
    The nice thing is that it is a hobby that can pay for itself. I have made back most of what I have invested, and am looking to move forward. Part of that challenge is improving the equipment. The D7000 (and the D70 before it) have served me well, but the current short zooms have some limitations, especially contrast below f/5.6, so instead of buying another camera I'm going to invest that money in the 24-70 f/2.8. For longer shots the 55-200 VR works fine for me, and a minor part of my normal FL requirement, so the f/2.8 version is not a priority.

    That is why I made that decision. Not for the "new toy" factor.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconest174 View Post
    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.
    Pro vs. Consumer glass... It means being able to go out on a shoot on a rainy day without worrying about ruining your lens (done that). It means resolution that can better match a 16-36MP sensor, so that you get the best performance possible. It means smoother bokeh. It means better contrast below f/5.6.

    Like I said before, my consumer lenses have served me well. Since 80% of my photos are in the 24-70 range, It is simply the next step. If and when I move to FX, I'll have a decent lens to transition with.
    Last edited by D70FAN; 06-25-2013 at 03:34 PM.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    +1 we are so spoilt for choice right now.


    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 !

    What they really need is in-body RF flash! LMAO

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by D70FAN View Post
    Since 80% of my photos are in the 24-70 range, It is simply the next step.
    If you are determined to go that way I would be very carefully looking at the 24-120 f4 as an option unless you absolutely need f2.8.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by tim11 View Post
    YES. He even has a Canon!
    lol right tool for the job !!!
    if the rx100 was around a couple of years back, there would be a sony P&S rather than a canon in that pic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Screenclutter View Post
    In my case, given the choice of buying a couple of pro lenses and going on a vacation for a few weeks, I'd go on the vacation and use what I currently have.
    sure, and thats a perfectly logical decision. but its no more logical or validated than somone choosing to sacrifice the holiday for the pro glass if they are so inclined.

    What ads do I most frequently see? dSLRs being used in bright daylight where the dSLR wouldn't make that great of difference.
    lol a very good point but here's the rub...who is shooting at night, apart from the comparatively tiny market of enthusiasts and pros ? i'll tell you who...people who go out, parties, night on the town, dinner etc. you dont see many camera bags at night do you ? it would be a bloody hard sell to be marketing a big bulky dslr to tke out with you to a party and pull it out of a backpack when you're girls in heels and you're in a suit. thats indeed where the smaller camera come into their own and are far more relevant.
    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

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    who is shooting at night, apart from the comparatively tiny market of enthusiasts and pros ? i'll tell you who...people who go out, parties, night on the town, dinner etc. you dont see many camera bags at night do you ?
    Your kids must still be too young to have at restaurants and similar places at night. There is an epidemic of (usually but not always grand fathers) who turn up to family gatherings in restaurants with DSLRs and multiple lenses. You seem to see as many Lowepro bags in some restaurants as you used to see those byo wine cooler bags.

    Once you get to the disco or pub scene I think the camera phone rules supreme.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    if the rx100 was around a couple of years back, there would be a sony P&S rather than a canon in that pic.
    If the RX100 had a hot shoe or a built in Pocket Wizard trigger I would have one instead of the Fuji X-E1.
    _______________
    Nikon D3, D300, F-100, 10.5 Fisheye, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, 105 f/2.5, 200 f/4 Micro, 200 f/2 VR, 300 f/2.8 AF-S II, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, SU-800, SB-900, 4xSB-800, 1.4x and 1.7x TC
    (2) Profoto Acute 2400 packs w/4 heads, Chimera Boxes

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    rx200 here we come ! lol
    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

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,929
    If a Leica M had auto focus and had a LCD screen that was not 6 years out of date and took photos at higher than 400 iso and was priced cheaper than a Fuji I might have considered buying one.

Posting Permissions

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