| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2005 03:05:16 PM · #1 |
Canon 350D Thread
Judging from this the 350D will be announced Monday Feb. 14. I was going to buy the 300D but now I will wait. Maybe get the 300D for cheaper.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 01:54:59 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by rscorp:
I could have used you about a day before the python I used to own attacked me. |
Not a bad idea to keep a bucket of very warm water on hand when you are handling one of those, makes them let go, most of the time. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 12:57:20 PM · #3 |
I could have used you about a day before the python I used to own attacked me.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 12:30:55 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Just curious, nsbca7...what do you do for a living? |
I work in game management. I contract with large landowners to remove or relocate beavers, wild hogs and aligators. I bring my camera along when I am at work.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 12:21:58 PM · #5 |
Just curious, nsbca7...what do you do for a living?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 12:19:43 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
The point here is that you don't have to buy a © B 747-400 to be a good pilot.You will just kill more people by flying that.
I was talking about regular (buget) lens coverage with memory cards and EX 550 flash will run you up to $4000 with the cheapest DSLR. |
I still don't see where you get a number like $4000. A complete Nikon or Canon system will cost you well over 100K not counting computer, printer and software. At the other end someone can get by quite easily for about $1200.
300D..................................$700
1gig CF card...........................$70
Prime lens.............................$70
Good zoom.............................$300
Spare battery..........................$20
Good camera bag........................$70
Total................................$1230
Owning your first DSLR...........Priceless
As far as needing a EX 550 flash I have over 25K wrapped up in my EOS system and don't own a shoe mount flash. If your shooting style does demand you have a flash Sigma makes some great dedicated shoe mount flash units that sell for under $200.
It all depends on what one considers enough, or complete.
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 12:24:28.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:49:11 AM · #7 |
...to start off, at least.
I have a kit lens with rebel and a beautiful tripod (3021bpro with 322rc2 head). I'm buying the 50mm1.8 mk I today. I want to get a flash as well. That would put me at about $2000 for a great starter setup.
The lighting system, L glass and new computer with software will cost me much more over the years of course, but I'm happy with my setup right now.
Oh, and nsbca7...you're an acquired taste, just like a few others around here (like me, I think). You've got tons of great stuff to say and your directness is refreshing to me.
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 11:50:59.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:44:16 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
The point here is that you don't have to buy a © B 747-400 to be a good pilot.You will just kill more people by flying that.
I was talking about regular (buget) lens coverage with memory cards and EX 550 flash will run you up to $4000 with the cheapest DSLR. |
Well that is not quite what you said, you did not say "up to $4000" you said "up over $4000", which I think we all took to mean somewhere past $4000. You have a valid point to an extent that it is best to have a buget for the extras, like lenes, but the $4000 number seems higher then is needed for many people. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:42:11 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have a knack for that. So what? |
You might want to try something like this. |
Maybe I should just stop listening to stuff like this! |
Kathy isn't right and Kathy's on the roof are the best songs on that album! I still have mine kicking around here somewhere...
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:39:06 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
The point here is that you don't have to buy a © B 747-400 to be a good pilot.You will just kill more people by flying that.
I was talking about regular (buget) lens coverage with memory cards and EX 550 flash will run you up to $4000 with the cheapest DSLR. |
Is that all? You're swimming up the cheap creek. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:26:51 AM · #11 |
The point here is that you don't have to buy a © B 747-400 to be a good pilot.You will just kill more people by flying that.
I was talking about regular (buget) lens coverage with memory cards and EX 550 flash will run you up to $4000 with the cheapest DSLR. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:26:43 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by colda:
I think that there undercurrent that on this thread is case of simple respect, you upset people by suggesting that $4000 was being cheap, and naturally us 'cheapies' defended ourselves.
|
If you all haven't seen enough of my posts on this site to know that most of my replies are tongue in cheek and that I rarely ever use the LOL or ;) to state that you probably never will. The statement was not meant to be disrespectful in any way and was in no way a personal attack on anyone, quite unlike the two personal attacks on my work that followed. I walked around for years with nothing more then a $100 K1000 and a Spotmatic with very inexpensive K and screw mount lenses and never felt the set-up was cheap. The poster was stating how much it was possible to spend on a complete system and I replied that $4000 dollars was cheap compared to what one could spend.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:23:03 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have a knack for that. So what? |
You might want to try something like this. |
Maybe I should just stop listening to stuff like this! |
FWIW, I think you have some good information and make some valid points, unfortunately the valid content of your message is almost totally obscured by your abrasive manner of communicating it. Sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek comments generally don't transfer well to the written word.
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 11:29:39.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:16:01 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Try blowing them up to 20x30 and see what you have.
There is no subsitute for good glass. |
The point is, however, that most of us little people don't typically have a need or a desire to blow up a shot to 20x30. You need to for your work, so of course, get what you need. I'm glad you have the means to do so. The rest of us, however, shouldn't be chided for not having "good glass" or even a point and shoot with a spotting scope. |
The point is, however, that those of us who live in cabins in the woods and don't drive expensive cars because we sacrificed such things to put our money into good glass should not be made to sound foolish for having spent so much on a piece of glass or have others who do not wish to or can not make those sacrifices insinuate that the people who have are trying to somehow compensate for lack of talent by spending so much.
I'm also glad I have the means to do so. |
In looking at the post people seem to be jumping on nsbca7 for things that he did not really say. It was not him that said you had to buy high priced lenses if you were going to own a DSLR, that was someone else. All nsbca7 said was that he was had paid way over $000 for lenses, nothing wrong with that at all.
Yes you can take great photos without a $4000 lens but that does not mean the lens will not allow you to take even more photos.
BTW I only have low cost lenses, sigh.
Scott |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:12:44 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Try blowing them up to 20x30 and see what you have.
There is no subsitute for good glass. |
The point is, however, that most of us little people don't typically have a need or a desire to blow up a shot to 20x30. You need to for your work, so of course, get what you need. I'm glad you have the means to do so. The rest of us, however, shouldn't be chided for not having "good glass" or even a point and shoot with a spotting scope. |
The point is, however, that those of us who live in cabins in the woods and don't drive expensive cars because we sacrificed such things to put our money into good glass should not be made to sound foolish for having spent so much on a piece of glass or have others who do not wish to or can not make those sacrifices insinuate that the people who have are trying to somehow compensate for lack of talent by spending so much.
I'm also glad I have the means to do so. |
I think that there undercurrent that on this thread is case of simple respect, you upset people by suggesting that $4000 was being cheap, and naturally us 'cheapies' defended ourselves.
I'm in agreement with you, if you have the means and justification for anything then why be denied of it? It's all a question of scale, for some the purchase of a 50mm 1.8 may involve a strict saving of $10 per month that will mean going hungry in order to afford the purchase. Nobody should be using individuals circumstances and priorities against them (I do now regret using the 'on planet earth' line in my reply).
Incidentally, I'm someone else who has taken a step back from the rat race and live in an old mill on the outskirts of a small village in Switzerland, we have plenty of land and no TV :)
Each of us must find and appreciate our own paths
Cheers
Darren
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:03:21 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Try blowing them up to 20x30 and see what you have.
There is no subsitute for good glass. |
The point is, however, that most of us little people don't typically have a need or a desire to blow up a shot to 20x30. You need to for your work, so of course, get what you need. I'm glad you have the means to do so. The rest of us, however, shouldn't be chided for not having "good glass" or even a point and shoot with a spotting scope. |
The point is, however, that those of us who live in cabins in the woods and don't drive expensive cars because we sacrificed such things to put our money into good glass should not be made to sound foolish for having spent so much on a piece of glass or have others who do not wish to or can not make those sacrifices insinuate that the people who have are trying to somehow compensate for lack of talent by spending so much.
I'm also glad I have the means to do so.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:02:51 AM · #17 |
I see no problem in getting the good glass if you can afford/justify it. I know nothing about wildlife photography (despite living in a great location) and there is no way that I would pay that kinda money unless a) I had it and b) I would be able to earn enough to cover it within 6 months.
I took this pic using a Panasonic FZ2 with an Olympus TCON17 (giving 714mm @ 35mm eq).
I think that on planet earth a budget of $4000 would get an excellent set-up and I for one would certainly not consider it to be 'cheap'.
Having good equipment is only a very small part of things, the most important asset a photographer can have is a good eye. We have all seen so many excellent images taken on very inexpensive equipment. As for definition 5mp is plenty enough for nearly every purpose. I think that I'm safe in saying that there have been many images taken on a Nikon D2H (4mp) that have ended up on large format posters.
Darren
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:54:00 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Using an expensive lens or wading into a swamp doesn't necessarily make for a better photo but the effort and expense will cloud the photographer's objectivity in judging the quality of the results. |
I disagree. I would have been, and actually was before I got that lens, wading through swamps with heavy, awkward and archaic $150 lenses mounted on old srew mount MF Pentax cameras trying to capture the same images. I got an awful lot of good images that way, but I lost as many good shots because of aperture restictions, and the sharpness was nowhere near as crisp.
As far as effort, what are you talking about? I'm in the swamp at least several days a week year round anyway. This for me entails no more effort then walking down the street does for most people.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:43:43 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Try blowing them up to 20x30 and see what you have.
There is no subsitute for good glass. |
The point is, however, that most of us little people don't typically have a need or a desire to blow up a shot to 20x30. You need to for your work, so of course, get what you need. I'm glad you have the means to do so. The rest of us, however, shouldn't be chided for not having "good glass" or even a point and shoot with a spotting scope.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:36:58 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have a knack for that. So what? |
You might want to try something like this. |
Maybe I should just stop listening to stuff like this!
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:33:30 AM · #21 |
Try blowing them up to 20x30 and see what you have.
I was over 150 feet away with many of the shots I took. Some were shot in extremly low low light. The images were croped in some instances and expanded. You can't do that with a coolpix and a spotting scope.
There is no subsitute for good glass.
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 10:34:16.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:31:09 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Looking at these on the web does them no justice. Blown up at high res to 18x18 or 20x30 is the intended end use for these images. I should sell a few prints during the symposium and I expect the college will make at least a partial collection purchase afterwards. I intend to move part of the collection to a gallery in Pensacola after the show. staring price for the lower priced un-framed mounted prints will be $125. I have a few of my wildlife prints taken with this lens in a gallery in Mobile at the momment.
With lenses, for the most part, you get what you pay for. I never could have gotten most the shots I did without that lens or one very similar to it. |
This is not a dis but rather an observation from my point of view.
It is pretty universally accepted around here that the photographer's skills are as important, or more important, than the equipment used.
Another notion not so openly talked about but equally obvious to a reader of these forums is that people are very enthusiastic about the products they own be it cameras, lenses or programs. It almost seems that the more an item costs the more defensive owners are when the things they have invested in are critiqued.
Using an expensive lens or wading into a swamp doesn't necessarily make for a better photo but the effort and expense will cloud the photographer's objectivity in judging the quality of the results.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 10:22:52 AM · #23 |
A cheeper way to save $6000.00 is to buy a cheep coolpix and nice spotting scope and shoot through it. Like these :)
   
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 09:51:21 AM · #24 |
| FYI- the 20D with kit lens is $1399 with free 2nd day shipping at zipzoomfly.com. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 09:11:10 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have a knack for that. So what? |
You might want to try something like this.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 09:29:22 PM EDT.
