| Author |
Message |
medveh
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Posts: 1824
Location: Transylvania
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:38 pm
|  |
5D is a little expensive though full frame is a great advantage.
I'd say how about the new 450D with 12 megapixles, small and lightweight body and you could buy some excellent lens too. |
|
hougaard
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Location: South Africa
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:41 pm
| |
Check my gallery out. I did all of that with a canon 400D and the kit 18-55mm lens. I just bought a 40D and sigma 10-20mm and I'm highly impressed with it. You can get the 40D and 10-20mm for under 2k and still afford a decent cokin or lee ND filter set and a proper manfrotto tripod if you're gonna be doing landscapes.
A 5D is a bit out of your budget. the body alone will probably cost you 2k and a 17-40mm lens about 1k or a 16-35mm 1.5k
All canon users know canon is the best( oooooh shit I just started the nikon vs canon revolution didn't I?). But hey. That;s just my opinion. |
|
felix_casio
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: www.felixtm.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:43 pm
| |
just got the 40d as well from my previous 350d. Auto sensor cleaning is a scam though but i'd go with the 40d over the 450d any day. |
|
tvphoto
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 613
Location: Oregon
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:54 pm
| |
Full frame for wide-angle seems best, so I'd say 5D, but I've never used one.
Or buy a Hassey with digital back? :)
More megapixels = more detail with proper lens, etc.
Or better yet, just get a medium format FILM camera, or got 8x10 large format. You can scan the negatives on a flatbed and get Gigapixel images. Be like Ansel Adams and do your own darkroom work?
| hospitalera wrote: | | What is wrong with a Canon 5D? Full frame, great sensor, ideal landscape camera... SY |
|
|
hougaard
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Location: South Africa
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:07 pm
| |
| tvphoto wrote: | Full frame for wide-angle seems best, so I'd say 5D, but I've never used one.
Or buy a Hassey with digital back? :)
More megapixels = more detail with proper lens, etc.
Or better yet, just get a medium format FILM camera, or got 8x10 large format. You can scan the negatives on a flatbed and get Gigapixel images. Be like Ansel Adams and do your own darkroom work?
| hospitalera wrote: | | What is wrong with a Canon 5D? Full frame, great sensor, ideal landscape camera... SY |
|
You completely missed the part wher he said his budget is 2.5k. read |
|
traveler1116
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 603
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:27 pm
| |
5d |
|
epixx
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 327
Location: Samut Prakan, Thailand
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:38 pm
| |
| eppicphotos wrote: | Yes it is true that size and weight are fairly good, but the 2x crop sensor isn't very condusive to wide angle work.
|
Sorry to say, but that is nonsense. The Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 and 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 are two of the best wide-angle lenses available regardless of price.
The opportunity to do wide-angle work has nothing whatsoever to do with sensor size. It's a function of sensor size versus focal length. But then of course: if you need a wider FOV than the 14mm (35mm eqv.) that the 7-14 can give you, you may have a problem, unless you can accept the distortion of the Sigma 12-24mm on full frame, but that would be way over your budget anyway (considering the price of a full frame camera).
I do btw. use Olympus as well as Nikon. The only reasons that I could see going for Nikon, would be the possibility of a shallower DOF and better quality at higher ISO (D300 and D3), but again, your budget will take a beating.
If you are changing just for the sake of changing, have a look at the Pentax K200D and a couple of the Limited primes. Photography doesn't get much better than that :) |
|
rabidbadger
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 53
Location: Nottingham, England
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:41 pm
| |
Hi Eppicphotos
Do you think the 4/3 sensor is hard work? I find that the same quality shots, even on something like a Canon 350D, are so much harder to achieve with the Olympus.
Does anyone else have an opinion?
Chris |
|
therion256
Joined: 07 Aug 2005
Posts: 57
Location: Acton, MA, USA
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:53 pm
| |
Definitely don't go to that outfit...new D200's will still go for around $1300...
| vclements wrote: | | eppicphotos wrote: | | Yeah that's the appeal of the D200. Broadway photo is selling them new for $850.00 with free shipping. |
Be VERY careful with places like Broadway camera.
If it sounds too good to be true - it probably is.
Here is a google on some reviews:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=broadway+photo&as_q=review
There is quite a few of those too good to be true places popping up here and there.
Only buy from a reputable dealer - or if you are not familar with them ask here. |
|
|
gualberto
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 4305
Location: Panama
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:04 pm
| |
With that budget go for the Canon 5D.
Last edited by gualberto on Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
sumo
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 200
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:05 pm
| |
I know you said Canons are not your cup of tea but the 450D would in my opinion be everything you are looking for. 12mp sensor that will generate bigger images that will sell for higher prices elsewhere than here whereas 10mp is on the low end for higher prices. The camera is small and lightweight and if 300D,350D and 400D are anything to go by IQ will be good. Canon has a big selection of high quality lenses and I would reccomend the 17-40mm F4.0L for landscapes (it is great value) and perhaps the 50mm F1.4 as well since image sharpness from it is incredible for the money and very close to the high end 50mm f1.2L.
There is also the new sony cameras, Sony seems to be serious about getting into the game and the alpha 300 and 350 seem to be very capable cameras. The only issue with sony is lack of lenses as it is but that is sure to change in the next years.
I would also suggest that you head down to the next store and try a few out and get a feel for how you like the handling and ergonomics and take a better look at those that you really like. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32270
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:19 pm
| |
For you. Highly reccomend the D300 and a 17 or 24mm prime.Im very picky and am surprized at the quality. you'll be under your 2500 and get something that will be around awhile.It's not how many MP, but how good they are. |
|
mirwin
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:47 pm
| |
get the D80 with the new 16-85mm VR lens that just came out, and pick up a good nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime, that's the best $100 you'll ever spend. i know you can do all that for under 2500. and yes, someone mentioned the D50, i have two of those too, love them, but i really love my D80 and it's 10.2MP unlike the D50's |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32270
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:14 pm
| |
doing landscapes, VR on a tripod will be useless. Pls get primes,Put the money into glass.The 20mm2.8 or the 24 2.8 Both D Glass.Stay away from zooms if it's not 2.8 glass.Thats all I got for ya.Just My opinion because I've used and owned them. |
|
maxfx
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 276
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:51 pm
| |
I use both Canon and Nikon cameras and beyond... and I am seriously thinking about buying this new Pentax K20D... It got 14.6 Megapixel, sensor cleaning system, in camera image stabilization. full body sealing and best of all it just dropped price around 1100 dollars (may be even less than that). You can get at least 2 good lenses for that camera in your budget, probably even 3 lenses.
Cameras are our tools, one doesn't need to be loyal to any brand.
My two cents...
Max |
|
| |
|
Log in
