|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
mcaryphoto
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 660
Location: http://mcaryphotoart.blogspot.com/
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:52 pm
|  |
Stretch your budget just a little to $2600 and get the 5D+EF 28mm 1.8. Then lens will keep most of its value so you can sell it in a year or two for a 24 1.4 L or a 16-35L.
Mike |
|
daleemt
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 107
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:00 pm
| |
Check my gallery for samples of D-2oo shots. I still use the D2H for action. but static pics the 200 is hard to beat. good luck |
|
builttospill
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Utah http://www.wix.com/derekm/photo
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:46 pm
| |
I agree with what's been said here, but it depends on your choice and your budget. If you can afford it go with Nikon or Canon (even though you said you weren't considering Canon). If you don't want to spend a lot of money on a camera go with the K20D instead of the K200. I have recently started using the K10D (some of the newest pictures in my port. like the mom and baby) and love it. With the K20 you can use any Pentax lens ever made on your camera, plus in-camera shake reduction and sensor cleaning. My favorite lens I use with my K10D is the 43mm 1.9 Limited. |
|
dtphoto
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 580
Location: Austin, Texas
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:12 pm
| |
| sholderfield wrote: | | dtphoto wrote: | Zooms are simply not as "crisp" because of the extra lens elements in a zoom. From that I mean it may lack a bit of snap, or contrast. Although, some Nikon zooms have *great* contrast... and a good prime, like the 85, will cost more than a zoom.
A good example, most DPs in motion pictures shoot only with primes, occasionally, and only if they can't get the same effect without it, does a DP use a zoom.
With prime lenses, you're feet become the zoom... |
Thanks... Laurin? I'm asking about noticeable difference. I get the crisp quality dtphoto is talking about. I get that crisp look at times it seems with my zooms, but not always. I thought it was just exposure. I mean we are talking about $2,000.00 lenses here. I really am interested. Thanks. |
My absolute favorite prime is a Nikon Series "E" 10omm, bought on ebay for... $75.00
Manual focus, but Oh!! Lovely contrast, great for headshots. With the DSLR crop factor, it's more like a 145ish. Hard as hell to focus a DSLR with it, but with my F2... with proper focusing screen... |
|
tvphoto
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 613
Location: Oregon
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:22 pm
| |
No.. I was joking about the expensive equipment. (I hope that was obvious!!!)
But the 5D and a Prime lens should be doable...
| hougaard wrote: | | 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 |
|
|
ricardo
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:51 pm
| |
I was torn between going back to Canon, as I had in the old days, or going Nikon. I too wanted lots of glass and a high enough body. It was between the D80 and the 200 but side by side I chose the 80. It is a tad lighter to carry, about a full kilo with lens. I still carry my 5700 when I feel lazy. I have a good 50 mm, 28-200, 70-300, I got a good nikon flash and am gettign some kenko extension tubes. Stay away from the too good to be true places. They will want to sell you other over priced stuff, or not have what you want in stock. |
|
kiwirob
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 366
Location: New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:44 am
| |
| john330 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. |
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.... :? |
You may not have stated that it was heavy but it was implied.
You appear a touch sensitive.
Last edited by kiwirob on Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
kiwirob
Joined: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 366
Location: New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:48 am
| |
| Susan wrote: | 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. |
|
If a man has a problem hiking with a 40D and 24-70 for you to do the same with a 70-200 must make you extraordinary in his eyes. I would be embarrassed if I was that man. |
|
holgs
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 93
Location: South America
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:56 am
| |
| stasvolik wrote: | | 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 ;) . |
Actually it has other advantages for those who are not obsessed about pixel peeping for noise. The fact that it is available with the weather sealed 12-60 lens and is an extremely solid design makes it ideal for harsh environments. For those who do a lot of telephoto and macro work the 2x crop is actually a big advantage.
The point of optical quality of the Zuiko lenses is also often missed - yes they do cost more, but they are also in many respects better than comparable systems. |
|
holgs
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 93
Location: South America
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 4:20 am
| |
| kiwirob wrote: | | Susan wrote: | 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. |
|
If a man has a problem hiking with a 40D and 24-70 for you to do the same with a 70-200 must make you extraordinary in his eyes. I would be embarrassed if I was that man. |
I think you guys are being harsh - weight is a big factor for me when choosing lenses and cameras also - not because I'm in some way weak, but because I do a lot of traveling, climbing, hiking etc. While the difference may not be significant for isolated trips, try lugging around the extra gear on a daily basis for 12 months - I'd do it, but not unless there is a significant saving in terms of image quality (and by that I don't mean noise).
When it comes turn to upgrade, I'll again consider weight as a factor - not the weight of the camera alone, but the weight of the whole system, which for me is a quality wide angle zoom, a dedicated macro lens, a decent telephoto, flash and tripod. |
|
cptbiscuit
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 16
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:32 am
| |
Adorama has refurbed Canon 30D bodies for $650...a great deal. I just got a 40D, and it's wonderful.
On another note Epicphoto, your port is great. I really love your pix. |
|
catalindm
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 15
Location: Bucharest, Romania
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:19 am
| |
d80 and some good lens, the perfect combination for me, and the quality is excellent for the price.
or d300, is exceptional |
|
stasvolik
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 924
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:27 am
| |
| holgs wrote: | | stasvolik wrote: | ...
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 ;) . |
Actually it has other advantages for those who are not obsessed about pixel peeping for noise. The fact that it is available with the weather sealed 12-60 lens and is an extremely solid design makes it ideal for harsh environments. For those who do a lot of telephoto and macro work the 2x crop is actually a big advantage.
The point of optical quality of the Zuiko lenses is also often missed - yes they do cost more, but they are also in many respects better than comparable systems. |
You completely missed my points (which, unfortunately, happens all too often in my experience when talking to 4/3 fans ;) ). Where was I talking about noise in my post? The cold hard fact is that 12MP may bring way more money for microstock submitters than 10MP.
And, another point. E3 with 12-60F2.8-4 lens weighs 1345g and costs $2600 at B&H. D300 with weather-sealed 17-55F2.8 lens weighs 1579g and costs $2979. Extra 234g and $379 buy you constant bright F2.8 aperture, the most sophisticated at present AF system, the most sophisticated flash system, way wider selection of lenses, way easier shopping experience (try buying Leica superzoom for 4/3 cameras ;) ) etc. And if one is willing to get an optical analog of 12-60 Zuiko (16-85 Nikkor, for example), the weight drops to 1310g and the costs drops to $2478 (so Nikon system becomes lighter and cheaper).
And, parenthetically, if you really think that you can shoot any weather sealed camera in harsh environment without protection, read, what a small rain did to weather sealed bodies and lenses here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml .
Finally, if Zuiko lenses have better MTF characteristics, that's not because Olympus wants to make the best lenses in business, it's because they need to make better lenses to compensate for the sensor size. I've not seen yet any test that shows that Olympus system (camera+lens) achieves HIGHER resolution than competition. Yes, they do match it, and Olympus does make very nice cameras and very nice lenses. But, IMHO, for microstock work there are better alternatives that will give the owner better bang for the buck spent/gram carried ;)
Sincerely,
Stas. |
|
Susan
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 5639
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:28 am
| |
Good points. I don't carry that lens on a daily basis. Nor do I have to lug around my entire kit as well as travel gear.
:) My intent was not to be critical. Just to let the a few who are considering these len's know that we are all different. And to raise a few questions as to why we may be perceiving things differently.
The topic has come up before with other lens and with folks who don't travel extensively and I have always hesitated to respond for the very reason that I did not want it to come off in a way that could be perceived as a negative.
We all have different needs and considerations!
| holgs wrote: | | kiwirob wrote: | | Susan wrote: | 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. |
|
If a man has a problem hiking with a 40D and 24-70 for you to do the same with a 70-200 must make you extraordinary in his eyes. I would be embarrassed if I was that man. |
I think you guys are being harsh - weight is a big factor for me when choosing lenses and cameras also - not because I'm in some way weak, but because I do a lot of traveling, climbing, hiking etc. While the difference may not be significant for isolated trips, try lugging around the extra gear on a daily basis for 12 months - I'd do it, but not unless there is a significant saving in terms of image quality (and by that I don't mean noise).
When it comes turn to upgrade, I'll again consider weight as a factor - not the weight of the camera alone, but the weight of the whole system, which for me is a quality wide angle zoom, a dedicated macro lens, a decent telephoto, flash and tripod. |
|
|
bichon
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 11329
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:10 am
| |
| eppicphotos wrote: | | Ah good point. Yeah Broadway Photo does have a bit of a checkered past. A D200 still though is a serious consideration for me. |
go and PM JPS... he's got a almost new d200 and has been very tempted to upgrade to a d300.
offer him some beer ... he may offer you a good price
;) |
|
| |
|
Shutterstock Forum for Contributors
|
