|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
oliver222
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 93
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:17 am
|  |
ajajaja i have only Canon powershoot A630
little devil now, for good shot necessary is master of filings and good eyes and nothing more. |
|
kiwirob
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 366
Location: New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:29 am
| |
| epixx wrote: | | 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 :) |
I second this, buy one of those excellent Zukio lense and maybe an E3 if you want a decent pro spec body on the cheap. |
|
kiwirob
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 366
Location: New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:33 am
| |
| john330 wrote: |
I bought a Canon 40D + 24-70/f2.8L USM. But that is not something you want to carry around whne you're hiking.
|
What utter rubbish, you must be a crippled midget. Drink beer, eat red meat, go to a gym, a 24-70 is not that heavy and neither is a 40D. |
|
jps
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 12094
Location: Denmark
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:40 am
| |
landscapes can be done with teles also.
They will be different than wide angle landscapes, and they might be very interesting and dramatic.
I suggest you buy a d 200 or d 300 and a 18-200 VR nikor.
The you wont even need a tripod.
see http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm#index |
|
hougaard
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Location: South Africa
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:29 am
| |
| kiwirob wrote: | | john330 wrote: |
I bought a Canon 40D + 24-70/f2.8L USM. But that is not something you want to carry around whne you're hiking.
|
What utter rubbish, you must be a crippled midget. Drink beer, eat red meat, go to a gym, a 24-70 is not that heavy and neither is a 40D. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I have to agree. So in your eyes , people with a 1D And a 400mm + lens and a tripod to support the kit are superman or giants? |
|
lilcrazyfuzzy
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 12926
Location: 50°46′31″N 6°4′58″E
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:39 am
| |
| hougaard wrote: | | kiwirob wrote: | | john330 wrote: |
I bought a Canon 40D + 24-70/f2.8L USM. But that is not something you want to carry around whne you're hiking.
|
What utter rubbish, you must be a crippled midget. Drink beer, eat red meat, go to a gym, a 24-70 is not that heavy and neither is a 40D. |
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I have to agree. So in your eyes , people with a 1D And a 400mm + lens and a tripod to support the kit are superman or giants? |
LMAO! |
|
ccaetano
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1476
Location: www.ccaetano.com picsweep.blogspot.com
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:08 am
| |
Since you talked about Pentax, consider the new Pentax K20D body. 14 MP, great build, weatherproof, life view, large 2,7 inch LCD display, "instant raw" button, and the best of all, in body shake reduction system, which means (particularly if you don't want to carry a tripod around) sharp images with every Pentax lenses ever made AF or MF, and all suitable 3rd party brands.
It's about $1.300 at B&H |
|
rcyoung
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 102
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:18 am
| |
Think about going back to film. An XPan I with std 45mm lens or a Hasselblad SWC are both GREAT for landscapes. Use a Nikon 8000/9000 scanner, and with a scanner resolution of 4000 dpi (true resolution) you'll BURY virtually all DSRLs. Plus. If you do landscapes, the film cost won't be too bad since you won't be burning hundreds of shots at a time like you would following soccer or basketball.
Of course, if you are a really DEVOUT landscape shooter, look at a 50 yr old 4x5 or 5x7 and then blow everything that is made today into oblivion. The brother of a friend of mine had an eighty yr old 11x14 and all he had to do was contact print under a 15 watt tungsten bulb hanging from the ceiling! |
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 5639
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:30 pm
| |
A little harsh Rob LOL
However I have always wondered about this... I am a woman and have a 40D and a 70-200 2.8 IS.
I have carried that around for 6 hours and have never felt it is too heavy... yet I see men who complain about the weight.
Could there be differences in the way we hold them... or muscle tension?
| kiwirob wrote: | | john330 wrote: |
I bought a Canon 40D + 24-70/f2.8L USM. But that is not something you want to carry around whne you're hiking.
|
What utter rubbish, you must be a crippled midget. Drink beer, eat red meat, go to a gym, a 24-70 is not that heavy and neither is a 40D. |
|
|
john330
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 148
Location: Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:29 pm
| |
| kiwirob wrote: | | john330 wrote: |
I bought a Canon 40D + 24-70/f2.8L USM. But that is not something you want to carry around whne you're hiking.
|
What utter rubbish, you must be a crippled midget. Drink beer, eat red meat, go to a gym, a 24-70 is not that heavy and neither is a 40D. |
Beside the fact that I think that you are pretty rude, I don't see any reason for you to react like this.
What if I am handicapped? What if I really AM a short person?
You don't know,and you never will, mister happy. So don't say things like this to me, ever!
And I never said that I find it heavy. Just read. I said that it is not really a combination to carry around when you go hiking, is it now.... :? |
|
stasvolik
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 924
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:37 pm
| |
| kiwirob wrote: | ...
I second this, buy one of those excellent Zukio lense and maybe an E3 if you want a decent pro spec body on the cheap. |
It's not that much cheaper than, say D300 (and more expensive than canon 40D), but most importantly, it's not lighter than D300 either. So this camera actually, IMHO, has all the disadvantages of the small sensor size with none of the advantages of the small sensor (i.e. small size/weight of Oly 410).
And, as I pointed out, 2MP can mean significantly higher payouts elsewhere, so with E3 you would carry all the weight around for no monetary gain ;) . |
|
bramalia
Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 161
Location: Buenos Aires
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:36 pm
| |
| hougaard wrote: | 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. |
Wow, how do you manage to achieve that clear focus and image with that lens? where do you point your focus and which apperture do you use? (sorry to ask, you can not answer that question anyway if you don't want;). Your postprocesing is wonderful too!!
Berna. |
|
sharond
Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 846
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:14 pm
| |
| Quote: | hougaard wrote:
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.
|
| Quote: | Wow, how do you manage to achieve that clear focus and image with that lens? where do you point your focus and which apperture do you use? (sorry to ask, you can not answer that question anyway if you don't want;). Your postprocesing is wonderful too!!
Berna. |
I agree! If I ever make enough money at this where I can pay for lessons I'm going to bribe someone who does landscapes like those to teach me how. It's all I would do if I could. |
|
stasvolik
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 924
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:18 pm
| |
| sharond wrote: | ...
I agree! If I ever make enough money at this where I can pay for lessons I'm going to bribe someone who does landscapes like those to teach me how. It's all I would do if I could. |
Let me know who's bribeable, I'll chip in :) |
|
asher
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 53
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:42 pm
| |
I think you should at least consider the Sony A350, especially for landscape. There are some very nice Carl Zeiss wide angle lenses in the works, it is 14 megapixels, liveview, in body stabilisation etc... The CZ 16-80mm has a very good reputation.
Also a full frame camera will be available later this year. |
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
