| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2004 10:07:06 PM · #26 |
1 - resolution (went from Nikon 990 at 3.2 to D100 at 6.1)
2 - speed - I hated the shutter button delay with any point and shoot
3 - lens - I already owned Nikon lens and have been waiting for a digital body!!!!
4 - feel - it actually feels like I am shooting with a camera again!
I wouldn't go back for anything..... |
|
|
|
03/02/2004 11:05:21 PM · #27 |
I am going to upgrade in the near future to (hopefully) a Dimage A1.
1. Greater resolution
2. Complete seperate manual controls for all functions.
3. lower price than a DSLR (I'm not worried about interchangable lenses yet, I'm still learning).
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 08:21:50 AM · #28 |
Lens envy..........I feel so inadequate........;)
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 08:47:31 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by rcrawford:
The real reason I ditched my E-20 for the D70:
|
????? Where and when did you get yours?
They're not out in Japan until the 19th. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 09:15:39 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
[case in point, a DPC'er was physically kept from being close to the action at a sporting event by another 'pro' photographer who didn't consider the DPC'er a serious photographer with his 300D..and the 'pro' held the same press status as said DPC'er] |
It isn't a serious sports camera - but neither is a 10D or a D60. Just because Canon seem to want to mislead their customers through their advertising, doesn't make it so. Not to say that you can't take good and interesting sports shots with one, or that you can't take good sports shots with a box brownie - but if you need reliable, consistent results, they are the wrong tools for the job.
But more on topic, the reasons I upgraded:
Wanted more immediate shutter response
Wanted to be able to print images beyond 8x10 with decent quality
Wanted DoF control
None of which my Canon G2 was giving me.
Now I want to upgrade to something that actually supports decent wide angle lenses and has a good focus system for sports and wildlife, along with a large and fast image buffer.
The D60 is a great camera but the lack of focus points and relatively slow buffering make it not the best in the world for fast action shooting.
For landscape work the lack of viable wide angle options is also a point of frustration but for a lot of other photography it is great.
I'd also now like to be able to get reliable 20x30s and up to 40x60 prints so may end up forced to upgrade again, having started to feel constrained by the limitations of the D60.
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 09:28:17. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:35:04 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
Wanted to look more badass.
This helped. |
Jacko - Thanks for the early morning chuckle! That was great.
BTW - With that setup -- you do look badass! |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 10:40:11 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Now I want to upgrade to something that actually supports decent wide angle lenses and has a good focus system for sports and wildlife, along with a large and fast image buffer.
The D60 is a great camera but the lack of focus points and relatively slow buffering make it not the best in the world for fast action shooting.
For landscape work the lack of viable wide angle options is also a point of frustration but for a lot of other photography it is great.
I'd also now like to be able to get reliable 20x30s and up to 40x60 prints so may end up forced to upgrade again, having started to feel constrained by the limitations of the D60. |
To get real WA, with a SLR camera, in digital format, you really need a full frame DSLR i.e Canon D1s or Kodak 14N. If you are willing to shoot film and have it scanned, your options are wider. In addition to shooting a 35mm slr, there is the Hasselblad X-pan, you could look for a 6x17cm camera, or you could use something like a widelux camera that captures a true panorama (I think some will do 360 degrees). You can also get into view cameras, but getting good WA setups that way isn't cheap.
For sports and fast action, most of the pros shoot digital (at least for the NFL from what I've seen), and use either the Canon D1 or the Nikon D1H or D2H. Canon has really set the bar high with the D1 mkII with its 8MP and 8fps although I dunno if the pros will want (or need) the full 8MP res. Again, a more economic option (from an equipment investment POV) would be to go to film an get an EOS 1v HS (costs ~ $2K) which will blast through a 36 exposure roll (or about $17) in under 4 seconds on high speed (10 fps).
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 11:51:20 AM · #33 |
| I'm seriously considering getting an x-pan II for many of the reasons you mentioned - though if I was going to do that, I might as well get a 1D mk II instead - would cost about the same. Not sure yet - but the 1D is quite tempting for now. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:15:16 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't a serious sports camera - but neither is a 10D or a D60. Just because Canon seem to want to mislead their customers through their advertising, doesn't make it so. Not to say that you can't take good and interesting sports shots with one, or that you can't take good sports shots with a box brownie - but if you need reliable, consistent results, they are the wrong tools for the job.
|
This we all know, but it's no other photographer's business to step up to the plate and take it apon his/herself to physically intrude in someone else's business. If there is anyone on here who would do that, I would certainly love to hear their reasoning why and I'd love to personally cyber-slap them. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 12:33:30 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm seriously considering getting an x-pan II for many of the reasons you mentioned - though if I was going to do that, I might as well get a 1D mk II instead - would cost about the same. Not sure yet - but the 1D is quite tempting for now. |
Personally, I would opt for one of the 6x17 cm cameras over the Xpan, the aspect ratios are about the same 2.8:1 for the 6x17 vs 2.7:1 for the Xpan, but the 6x17cm neg has over 5x the area that the 24x65mm neg from the Xpan does. Granted, the 6x17 cameras are about twice the price of the Xpan, but if you want to print really large (40"x110" or so), the difference will show.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:11:02 PM · #36 |
| I dropped and broke my other camera.... |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:17:12 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
I dropped and broke my other camera.... |
Mmmmmmm. I wonder would my wife go for that one?
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:56:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Personally, I would opt for one of the 6x17 cm cameras over the Xpan, the aspect ratios are about the same 2.8:1 for the 6x17 vs 2.7:1 for the Xpan, but the 6x17cm neg has over 5x the area that the 24x65mm neg from the Xpan does. Granted, the 6x17 cameras are about twice the price of the Xpan, but if you want to print really large (40"x110" or so), the difference will show. |
The switchable format of the xpan is pretty compelling, along with being able to use standard 35mm film as a normal rangefinder along with the panoramas. More hassle for processing and scanning either way anyway. I'll probably get a new digital before I get an xpan though - hard to justify the cost for what would be quite limited use. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 01:58:52 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't a serious sports camera - but neither is a 10D or a D60. Just because Canon seem to want to mislead their customers through their advertising, doesn't make it so. Not to say that you can't take good and interesting sports shots with one, or that you can't take good sports shots with a box brownie - but if you need reliable, consistent results, they are the wrong tools for the job.
|
This we all know, but it's no other photographer's business to step up to the plate and take it apon his/herself to physically intrude in someone else's business. If there is anyone on here who would do that, I would certainly love to hear their reasoning why and I'd love to personally cyber-slap them. |
You can find a whole website of people at //www.sportsshooter.com who will no doubt be happy to tell you that you have no business being there. They'll also probably refuse you membership to the site... |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 02:19:36 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
Originally posted by rcrawford:
The real reason I ditched my E-20 for the D70:
|
????? Where and when did you get yours?
They're not out in Japan until the 19th. |
I don't have it yet. I pre-ordered from Ritzcamera.com, hope to get it by the end of the month. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 02:49:16 PM · #41 |
Just out from PC Magazine:
21 Cameras reviewed:
//www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1538516,00.asp
24 Software and services reviewed:
//www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1538517,00.asp
And, from the intro to the printing services review:
The Results
We were surprised at how drastic some of the differences among these sites were. Our favorite service overall is Shutterfly. It is extremely easy to navigate and offers convenient single-click actions for common tasks, such as rotating images. Ofoto offers equally handy tools and is quite easy to use. The service also produces very good prints. Still, Shutterfly, with its impressive image enhancement feature and a slightly easier-to-use Web site, edges out Ofoto for our Editors' Choice.
Most of ez prints' business comes from partnered Web services that offer photo sharing and other similar tools. For sheer print quality, ez prints is the best.... |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 03:02:11 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Just out from PC Magazine:
21 Cameras reviewed:
//www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1538516,00.asp
24 Software and services reviewed:
//www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1538517,00.asp
And, from the intro to the printing services review:
The Results
We were surprised at how drastic some of the differences among these sites were. Our favorite service overall is Shutterfly. It is extremely easy to navigate and offers convenient single-click actions for common tasks, such as rotating images. Ofoto offers equally handy tools and is quite easy to use. The service also produces very good prints. Still, Shutterfly, with its impressive image enhancement feature and a slightly easier-to-use Web site, edges out Ofoto for our Editors' Choice.
Most of ez prints' business comes from partnered Web services that offer photo sharing and other similar tools. For sheer print quality, ez prints is the best.... |
Anyone seen a review of any of the higher end print places ? I've been pretty universally dissappointed by shutterfly, ofoto et al |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 03:08:24 PM · #43 |
I think you'll have to check the more serious photography magazines ... this is targeted at consumers with some extra bucks and only moderate expertise.
Notice they're reviewing online solutions for image modification, not even real image-editing programs.
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 15:08:41. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 03:19:07 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
This we all know, but it's no other photographer's business to step up to the plate and take it apon his/herself to physically intrude in someone else's business. If there is anyone on here who would do that, I would certainly love to hear their reasoning why and I'd love to personally cyber-slap them.
You can find a whole website of people at //www.sportsshooter.com who will no doubt be happy to tell you that you have no business being there. They'll also probably refuse you membership to the site... |
Now imagine they let you join the site [even with your camera], encouraged you to participate but then disqualified you on the same grounds as they initially accepted you.. That's essentially what I'm talking about. When photographers aren't in control of a shoot, like at a public sporting event, and they're not in control of who receives press passes, and they still get involved - it's seriously out of line and immature.
Message edited by author 2004-03-03 15:19:24. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 03:20:34 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
I dropped and broke my other camera.... |
I'm a clutz and this is my everyday concern....there'd be no new camera.. :-( |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 04:20:47 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by Gordon:
It isn't a serious sports camera - but neither is a 10D or a D60. Just because Canon seem to want to mislead their customers through their advertising, doesn't make it so. Not to say that you can't take good and interesting sports shots with one, or that you can't take good sports shots with a box brownie - but if you need reliable, consistent results, they are the wrong tools for the job.
|
This we all know, but it's no other photographer's business to step up to the plate and take it apon his/herself to physically intrude in someone else's business. If there is anyone on here who would do that, I would certainly love to hear their reasoning why and I'd love to personally cyber-slap them. |
They're probably doing it because they can and the amateur lets them.
At many events, there is a lot of jostling between photographers all trying to get "the" shot. If you don't hold your ground, you will get walked on. Sorry if you don't like it, it's the way it is sometimes. As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Personally, I would have knocked the pro on his butt had he pulled that on me. I'm not condoning the actions of the pro, but I understand them.
All in all, shooting fast moving sports with a camera like a 10D, 300D or similar is really like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It's just not quite the right tool for the job. It can be done, just not as effectively. You can also use a screwdriver to pound nails.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 05:07:07 PM · #47 |
It's funny...for MY purposes, the 10D is a very acceptable sports camera, and I wouldn't need too much more. Sure, the autofocus is lacking somewhat and you don't have anything faster than 1/4000th or 3fps, I have been able to capture some stunning images with it. Sure, I'll upgrade to a 1D eventually (the new 1D looks to be truly the ultimate, never-need-anything-else camera) but the 10D is suiting my purposes just fine.
It's all relative, of course. If you gave a 10D to a photojournalist in the 70s and told them that it wasn't a great sports camera, I'm sure they'd keel over. Yet, people still took great sports photos in the 70s. Our expectations are forever increasing along with the technology. To compete with the other guys, though, you've gotta do what they're doing. If you're just out to cover an event, well, you can get by with less. |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 05:18:21 PM · #48 |
I upgraded because of the limitations of my previous cameras. Yeh they took good pictures and were compact (well one was), but i became more and more frustrated with their limitations.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2004 05:44:43 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's all relative, of course. If you gave a 10D to a photojournalist in the 70s and told them that it wasn't a great sports camera, I'm sure they'd keel over. Yet, people still took great sports photos in the 70s. Our expectations are forever increasing along with the technology. To compete with the other guys, though, you've gotta do what they're doing. If you're just out to cover an event, well, you can get by with less. |
They'd probably find it less than adequate too - it isn't very manual or follow focus friendly :) |
|
|
|
03/03/2004 06:15:38 PM · #50 |
I upgraded because I was having trouble swinging and tilting the lens;P
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/12/2025 10:37:54 AM EDT.
