How to pick a dSLR - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/17/2006 10:13:07 AM · #51

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Fortunately not as proprietary as Apple's computer system, but then not as open as MS's.

I have to disagree, MS is about the most closed system ever. If you want open, you need to go linux/unix. Have you ever seen the source code available for Windows, Office, IE or any MS product? Of course not,unless you work for MS and are working on it. If you don't work there, you probably never will see that source code. The source code for linux is freely available for one and all to modify and use for their own needs as they see fit, as is the source code for many linux/unix applications.

Now, Apple isn't giving away the source for OS X either, but to refer to them as closed and MS as open is ridiculous.

I mispoke - PC is perhaps the better term rather than MS. If you want to make hardware for a PC or OS plugins, etc the info is there to do so. Not so for apple. IBM invented teh PC, but most of the development in the past 10 years has had nothing to do with IBM (PCI/PCIExpress, USB/USB2, etc).

Spork99

OM System OM-1

03/17/2006 11:16:16 AM · #52

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Fortunately not as proprietary as Apple's computer system, but then not as open as MS's.

I have to disagree, MS is about the most closed system ever. If you want open, you need to go linux/unix. Have you ever seen the source code available for Windows, Office, IE or any MS product? Of course not,unless you work for MS and are working on it. If you don't work there, you probably never will see that source code. The source code for linux is freely available for one and all to modify and use for their own needs as they see fit, as is the source code for many linux/unix applications.

Now, Apple isn't giving away the source for OS X either, but to refer to them as closed and MS as open is ridiculous.

I mispoke - PC is perhaps the better term rather than MS. If you want to make hardware for a PC or OS plugins, etc the info is there to do so. Not so for apple. IBM invented teh PC, but most of the development in the past 10 years has had nothing to do with IBM (PCI/PCIExpress, USB/USB2, etc).

With the exception of a few hardware components like graphics cards and motherboards Macs can use all of the hardware PC's can, they just make it much easier to do so. My Mac has USB/USB2, Firewire, PCI etc. In fact, I just moved my PCI USB expansion card from my PC to my Mac. I can use the same hard drive in my Mac that I can in my PC. I can even put the HD from my PC in my mac and read/write to it, but not the other way around.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say OS plugins. There are thousands of pieces of software that modify or adapt the way OS X works. I haven't counted, but I certainly have not found that capability lacking in OS X. I can even switch seamlessly between a Unix/X-windows environment and OS X without restarting or running an emulator.

I'm not sure I see any validity to your argument about PC's being more open than Macs. Different? Sure. More open? Not really.

03/17/2006 11:42:09 AM · #53

Crayon, you make a great point about Sony's behavior with acquired businesses. It would be moronic for them to ignore the quality of the Konica Minolta's lens line-up, which is easily a match for Canon or Nikon's. A lot of their lenses are made by the Germans who are world-renowned for serious engineering and quality. The Japanese do a really nice job too, but there's a reason that a Benz is a Benz and a Porsche is a Porsche, but an Acura is an Acura. If you know what I mean.

Truth be known, Japanese technology (sony) mixed with German quality (Minolta) is still a force to be reckoned with in the Digital Photography world and only time will tell what the Giant Sony will do with it.

Sony isn't going out of business any time soon and it's truly in their best interests to continue the KM mount, even if the rest of the technology falls by the wayside. Of course that probably won't happen because the KM sensor was made by Sony anyways (90% sure, don't be surprised if I get corrected on that).

I have absolutely no problems with faith in the future for KM myself and I recommend it more highly than the Nikon brand and slightly lower than the Canon brand simply on the bang-for-the-buck argument.

There's truth in the statement that you don't need 90 lenses to choose from, you only need a few lenses to use that are good and not ridiculously priced.

That's still available for the KM mount without a shadow of a doubt and will very likely still be available for at least a few more years.

03/17/2006 01:05:12 PM · #54

Originally posted by eschelar:

There's truth in the statement that you don't need 90 lenses to choose from, you only need a few lenses to use that are good and not ridiculously priced.

You only need the lens you need to get the shot you need to get. If you can get that lens at a price and optical quality that works for you, great. If not...then you don't get the shot you need to get.

03/17/2006 02:34:11 PM · #55

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

It was once said the best camera is the one you have now - cause you can't take photos with one you don't have.

Now I like that

03/17/2006 02:46:26 PM · #56

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by eschelar:

There's truth in the statement that you don't need 90 lenses to choose from, you only need a few lenses to use that are good and not ridiculously priced.

You only need the lens you need to get the shot you need to get. If you can get that lens at a price and optical quality that works for you, great. If not...then you don't get the shot you need to get.

Right, but as mentioned before, that's more of a function of your overall budget and how much that "need" is really a need.

If it's for a job, fine. If you don't have access to that 7000 dollar lens you need, well hey, it's already been mentioned that 300mm+ lenses with f/2.8 or better are going to set you back thousands of US dollars regardless of which system you are going with.

On the other hand, there's the fact that IF you CAN have access to a rental agency, these guys usually only carry the big two, Can/Nik. (there are NO lens rental agencies available in Taipei, regardless of the brand you use)

Kirbic already posted a link to a 300mm slower manual focus lens that WOULD get the job done on an olympus for only like 450 Yankee Bucks.

That would technically allow the shooter to get the shot she needed with the system she has.

As far as only "needing" a few good lenses that are not ridiculously priced, sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but I was referring to the context of the validity of a "system" for most average users.

For a mount type to be useful, it only really needs to have a moderate number of good choices to allow the "typical user" to go out and buy some good lenses that are not ridiculously overpriced. Once said lenses are purchased, providing they are actually good lenses, there's nothing more to worry about. If you can get the shots you want, you are pretty much ok.

As you said before, if there is a specific job you have and a specific lens you need, then you go out there and get what you know you need. A thread like this is no use to such an individual.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

03/17/2006 03:00:30 PM · #57

Originally posted by eschelar:

As you said before, if there is a specific job you have and a specific lens you need, then you go out there and get what you know you need. A thread like this is no use to such an individual.

True, but then we here at DPC are not your average camera users either. My wife, everyone at work - those are the average camera users. The camera comes out for the holidays, vacations, birthdays, that sort of thing. they aren't competing (on the web or elsewhere), they generally don't know an fstop from an aperture, and buy things based on 'megapixel count' as much as brand or sale price.

We here are hobbyists. Enthusiasts.

I don't golf, so i bet my score will be the same with $100 clubs or $1000 clubs. For tiger woods it makes a difference. For the guy that golfs every weekend and wednesdays too, it might make a difference as well.

same with cameras IMO. If you shoot a lot the camera (system) you choose will have an impact on what you do or can do, or how well/easy it is to do.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

03/17/2006 03:06:38 PM · #58

Funny how this kind of question can be so similar to my world in the auto repair business.

Kinda' like buying a set of wrenches.

What are you going to be doing with them?
Making a living everyday or just as a hobbiest?
What is the budget allowed for them, and included with it, is if it is a need vs. want.
Buy a whole set, probably never needing to use 1/3 of them really, or get them individually.
Warranty issues? what happens if I break a wrench? Is it warrantied for life? Is it a toss in the trash and buy another one?
Where can I get service/warranty problems solved?
How does it feel in my hands?
Will a technician look novice if using a Craftsman wrench?
If a mobile tool truck comes by the shop one a week and can warranty broken tools so the technician is not hindered from making a living is worth far more than the cost of the tool at times.
Buying large dollar items on credit? Who will do it with no interest?
If a technician buys Craftsman tools and there isn't a Sears within 100 miles, what good is a warranty while he sitting there unable to get a job done with a broken tool.
Maybe a Husky brand tool from Home Depot down the street would be a good choice, with a lifetime warranty and close by for service/replacement.

Then there is always some tools "have to" be had for their status symbol as a way of saying they are professional. You know - the 64 layers of Unobtanium triple-dipped chrome with polished edges and laquered handles.

There is never,nor will ever be a one-size fits all answer to cameras or wrenches.

03/17/2006 03:09:42 PM · #59

??

I was just paraphrasing your statement in the original post here. It's not my original thought.

I know who uses DPC.

My view of "reasonable" prices on lenses has a line drawn in the sand somewhere near the region of 1000-1500 dollars... I'd say that most serious hobbyists here are OK with spending 1000-1500 US dollars on a cornerstone lens.

I'd say that VERY few of our hobbyists here are willing to spend 2000+ and fewer still are willing to spend 6000+.

Leave that to the pro's, or the guys who are getting paid a certain budget for a specific job or the guys who are just plain wealthy.

Most camera systems (as you have observed) tend to have a healthy selection of lenses under 1500 bucks.

Olympus has a somewhat sparse selection compared.

Oly still has a bit of a spread to cover the hobbyists wants. The hobbyist doesn't definitively have any photographic "needs".

The shooter just might have to work a little harder at it is all.

03/17/2006 03:26:10 PM · #60

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

If you're spending thousands upon thousands of dollars for a hobby then more power to ya lol. I see this is a hobby myself but I don't need to buying state of the art eqpt to do that. Yes, I am also doing something with my work, but I also know what my budget can afford. And honestly my challenge entries are a poor example of what I can do and how far I've come. I may not have a Canon or Nikon, but I can still do portraits if I want. In fact I have 2 senior portrait jobs lined about and portraits for some family friends.
So in reality it can be done. I'm not the type to fork out a ton of money on just a hobby or something I was enthusiastic about. If that were the case I'd have a 5k mt bike sitting downstairs. Even in my racing days I didn't buy the most expensive, greatest bike on the market. I went with something simple, lightweight, and worked for me. Same goes for my camera.

03/17/2006 03:51:51 PM · #61

Why spend the big bucks? (on pro equipment, like 1D and L glass?)

When your livelyhood depends on getting the shot.
when you need equipment than can take this -

//www.mackstyle.net/minitrekker.mov

And you thought you needed a bigger backpack? Nah!

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

03/17/2006 04:06:52 PM · #62

Your link didn't work

and I never said I wanted a bigger backpack.

I don't even have a backpack. I want a pack that I can sling over my shoulder instead of the bag I now.

And my livelyhood does not depend on this. I'm married, I'm a stay at home mom and my lively hood goes into raising my daughter and being a wife, not into my camera. If I was childless and didn't have a daughter to raise or her college to plan for then sure, I'd be out spending thousands.

To me this is a hobby, to me you don't need to spend all that money for something that is just a hobby. Livelyhood yes, hobby no.

MQuinn

Olympus OM-D E-M1

03/17/2006 04:16:18 PM · #63

Originally posted by BradP:

There is never,nor will ever be a one-size fits all answer to cameras or wrenches.

Sounds Familier, What scan tool should I get, and which ones the best. :P

03/17/2006 06:36:07 PM · #64

Originally posted by missinseattle:

Since you didn't watch the video you didn't get the joke about the backpack - you have to see it - it's a quicktime movie, so you need the quicktime plugin to see it. it a pro that unpacks his bag to show what fits in there - and as he does it literally tossed the gear onto the table- you can hear it clunk as it lands. IN the minitrekker he has - 550 flash and these lenses: 17-40, 50 1.4, 35 2.0, 135 2.0, 24-70, 70-20, 300 2.8, a teleconverter, 3 pocketwizards, lightmeter, a 10D body, 2 1D bodies and spare batteries for everything. How it all fits i have no clue, and how it all remains undamaged is a mystery to me as well. It jsut shows one reason pros spend the big bucks on equipment - it is expected to work all the time, every time, and not be babied in between.

I have a friend, whose wife works, he has a job and 2 kids. Photography is his hobby. His camera equipment cost more than all of mine, yours and my car, my wifes car, and probably my computer too. he estimates he has $15,000 in his gear. For fun.

You spend what you can afford and on what is important to you. I drive a 13 year old car i bought for $600. I could forgo camera equipment and get my dream car and the $400+ monthly payment, but that is $4800 a year I don't have/choose to spend on a car - but perhaps some of that will be spent on my hobby. I don't have a cell phone either, or a gym membership or lots of other things some people can't live without. I do have some camera gear, and with a bit of luck will get more. Making money with it helps pay for it and certainly helps justify it.

One can certainly say it's the photogapher, not the tools. Same for a surgeon, but in case of emergency surgery I might take a lesser surgeon in a top hospital over the best surgeon in the middle of the woods with only a pocket knife.

03/17/2006 06:47:43 PM · #65

Originally posted by eschelar:

My view of "reasonable" prices on lenses has a line drawn in the sand somewhere near the region of 1000-1500 dollars... I'd say that most serious hobbyists here are OK with spending 1000-1500 US dollars on a cornerstone lens.

I'd say that VERY few of our hobbyists here are willing to spend 2000+ and fewer still are willing to spend 6000+.

To me $1000 is a lot for a lens. $1500 is not outlandsh for a body, but cresting 2 grand is - it's all relative to your income and passion/commitment to your hobby. Here on DPC we have 146 folks with 1Ds as their camera and 117 more with the Canon 5D as their camera. Thats a lot of dollars spent on bodies, and to them it's worth it. Not in my budget at this time.

We;ve got 13 owners of hte canon 300 2.8, and 24 of the 300 f4, 14 of the 500 F4 lens ($4500-5400 range). No one admits to a 600 f4 ($8000).

So some here take things very seriously. Check over at FM.com - there are some real L glass colelctors there. I have no idea where they get the money. For many of them it's a hobby. Perhaps they can afford a lexus but drive a chevy and spend the diff on camera equipment, perhaps they're all just rich as sin LOL

If money were no object, what would you own for a camera and lenses?

03/17/2006 07:20:11 PM · #66

If money were no object I'd probably have a Nikon D200 or something similar.

So maybe in a few years lol.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/18/2006 02:05:35 AM · #67

If money were no object, I'd have a Konica Minolta 7D with a Bigma (walk-around), and I'd have a Canon 1D Mk II (n or not) with a 70-200 F/2.8 IS for mid-range stuff and a Tamron 28-75 for more mid-range. I could also use it with my Canon 30D with a 10-22mm EF-S lens and a 100mm Macro (ok, if I was going nuts, I'd probably get the D2X and the Nikkor 100mm Macro VR). I'd also mount the 7000 dollar 600mm f/4.0L IS on there. I'd probably toss a couple of mid-wide primes and a fish in there too. Just for fun, I'd probably have the 650-1300mm by Phoenix... you know, just to get that Papparazzi look and feel... Ok, just kidding on the last one.

I'd also have a Panasonic FZ20 with 4 extra batteries and a set of filters for it.

I'd also have a high quality reflective telescope on a SKOOKUM tripod. Probably something with a 12 inch mirror.

Suffice to say that even if money was no object, I'd still not be tossing it into a backpack :).

Oh and back to your reply Prof, my point is that most people draw a line in the sand for lens prices around 1000-1500 dollars... When you say that that sounds like A LOT to pay for a lens, that's exactly what I mean. You MIGHT pay that much for a keystone lens for your collection, but not for every lens in your collection.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/18/2006 03:27:10 AM · #68

If money were no object I'd be using the Hasselblad with the digital back. No question about it.

Robt.