Well I could complain about the weather.. cold enough to make you think twice abt walking the dog, snowy enough to make you think about driving anywhere. But I have a big coat and a car with AWD that makes mincemeat of the 'hill of skidding death' outside our house
I could complain about a $188 Wholefoods bill - but then we got lots of nice stuff, munched our way around the store and (at this moment in time) aren't really short of cash for groceries (though we know how quickly THAT can change)
I could complain that Slumdog Millionaire still isn't showing in Ann Arbor - but them we have two art cinemas within walking distance, a dollar cinema in the mall and a decent multiplex less than 10 mins away.
I could complain that my camera isn't the latest, greatest or really the best for what it s I'm starting to enjoy doing. But then I've spent much of the day looking at replacements and deciding against all but three possibles (Canon 50d, Nikon D90, Pentax K20 / K2000)
So I'll not complain at all.
Until tomorrow anyway
7 comments:
Just my two cents: I loved my pentax (K100d) and I think it's true that pentax has some amazing cameras that are much cheaper becausee it does not say canon/nikon on them. Of course I got so hung up on shooting full frame that, well, I joined the club because pentax did not have a full frame at the time.
Don't know anything about the other ones you mentioned.
Why not go for the Nikon D700? You're ultimately going to upgrade to something like that anyway. Might as well do it now. Just a thought.
Well you already know my preference for the D700, full-frame, weather sealed, proper Auto ISO (fucking Canon STILL haven't got that) Nikon metering, AF and flash control are the best, and some nice touches like 'closest subject focus' which is great for discreet street work.
But Nikon glass is very expensive, and 'tis all in the glass. Nevertheless, face it, it's going to take 3 years to build a decent system, so buy a camera you'll want for at least 3 years, and build a lens/flash/accessory collection around it. (I've spent £150 just on things to attach to flashguns in the last 2 months alone...) Any of the cameras you've mentioned will take a good pic - but once you've used a proper professional lens - you will never never want to go back.
But for your purposes, consider Pentax - especially if you want somethimn small and discreet. But also really consider Sony. Brilliant lenses, at least as good as Nikon and Canon, and you can get a 24Mp full frame A900 for 1/3rd the price of the D3x - which has the same sensor. You'd have to get into the habit of shooting RAW cos their jpeg engine is rubbish, but you should be doing that anyway.
They've finally added a top-lcd plate and gone back to some of the features that made the Minoltas so great before Sony bought them out.
And you want a low-light camera. Sony have on-board anti-shake, so you don't need all the lenses to be the image-stabilised version. I think it works far far better than Canon's shitty lens system.
Downsides - The build quality isn't as good, and they're ugly, but they work. AF isn't as good as Nikon or the best Canons, but pro AF is for... well pros. People who get one chance to get the shot they absolutely must have. If you're snapping buildings or models in the studio - it's totally unnecessary.
You MUST go to a shop and play with them though. They all handle very differently. Weirdly the latest Canon's now have menus more like Minolta than Sony's version. I like dials, not menus, which is why i want a Nikon now... but Canon's rear control dial is very nice.
And as for strap snobbery, unless it says Leica, (or Minolta now they've gone) it ain't cool ;p
Mmm.... Leeeeeeeica.... mmmmm
Or are you considering this...
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/
Tis a fascinating piece of kit. Shame the 4/3rds sensor is shit, but there's some lovely lovely lenses, it's small and discreet and near silent so great for the street. And as a talking point - it's unbeatable.
I fancy a go on one!
Scratch that - i didn't realise that half the lenses available (and all the good ones) won't AF with the G1
But if they fix the firmware, that might change... keep an eye on it
I looked at the Panasonic... lovely bit of kit but felt a lot like a toy in my hand...
The Pentax is tempting - but it's really heavy and then you start to wonder whether the 20 is really worth that much more than the 200 and whether if you're going to compromise you shouldn't just get a 2000 and have done with it
Sony I'm liking more and more. The 350 may be an easy way in - and there are some starter lens kits that don' look half bad.
May well start there and see how I go.
Canon - I'm with you, been there; done that.
Nikon - lovely pics but lots of compromises and expensive glass.
Olympus - just a little too wacky
Hmmmm - Sony....
Olympus are bonkers aren't they? And 4/3rds was not a good way to go - like APS film cameras... they may be smaller, but they're not as good.
If I have one piece of advice you must take, DON'T buy a kit lens.
Seriously, it's a false economy, you'll get frustrated, buy a new lens anyway, and then the kit lens will sit in your bag with no re-sale value. Good lenses can always be resold on ebay for 80-85% of their original value if you keep the box. So you can try them for 6 months, then change up when you feel like it. I owned my Minolta gear for a year, then sold the lot for MORE than i bought it for.
And Sony's great strength is it's lenses. You can get a fantastic Carl Zeiss like this http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1017255
It's miles better than the 18-70 and you'll really appreciate those extra 12mm phnarr!
And that's a far better crop frame zoom than anything Canon or Nikon has. And it's not expensive, it's worth it. (The 24-70 2.8 costs £1200 ;p, the 16-80 is cheap!)And look... if you buy it in a bundle... http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1023022
You could get an A700 + that lens for the same as the A350 - surely they do the same bundle in the States? If I was buying a Sony and couldn't afford the A900, that's what I'd get, even if I had to pimp the dog :D
I know the temptation is to get the dual kit with the 55-200, cos you're used to the long zoom - but keep the Panasonic in your bag for that. I know 2 people who bought Sigma's version of that lens and they never use it, it's rubbish. You have to let your photography adapt to the equipment you have, learn one focal length at a time. You're going to start appreciating different things.
Sony lenses are expensive too it must be said, even more so than Nikons, but The Zeiss branded ones and the one's with the G designation (which are made by the old Minolta G factory) are the best in the world apart from (real) Leicas and maybe Nikons 2 flagships.
One way to expand quickly, get on ebay and start looking for 2nd hand Minolta lenses. Some of them are fantastic. You can pick up a 50mm f1.7 for probably less than $100 and it's better than a Canon 50mm f1.4. (the Minolta f1.4 is only infintisimally better but costs 2-3 times as much)
Another way is to look at good Sigma lenses. The 30mm f1.4 is fantastic. If you have a crop frame camera you should own one, if only for taking to dark bars. Sigma would be another choice for standard zoom. This Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens - Sony/Minolta Fit is going to be a lot better than a kit lens. It won't be as sharp or as milky and 3D as the Zeiss, but it's a constant 2.8 and very solidly built. Perfect for model work. If you want more zoom see if you can pick up a Sigma 50-150 f2.8. They seem to have stopped making them, they never took off, which is a shame cos they're absolutely fantastic. Like a 70-200 on a full frame, but half the size and weight.
Etc... this is now longer than your last 5 months blogging. Speak sooooon
Post a Comment