Its weird to think 7000 dollars for any kind of camera is a deal....but there you have it.
www.chase.smugmug.com
I just press the button and the camera goes CLICK. :dunno
Canon: gripped 20d and 30d, 10-22 3.5-4.5, 17-55 IS, 50mm f1.8, 70-200L IS, 85mm f1.8, 420ex
sigma: 10-20 4-5.6 (for sale), 24-70 2.8 (for sale), 120-300 2.8
0
Options
John MuellerRegistered UsersPosts: 2,555Major grins
Its weird to think 7000 dollars for any kind of camera is a deal....but there you have it.
Years ago, when I was working in the IS/IT department for my employer, one of the managers convinced upper management to buy a Kodak DSC460, a Nikon based digitized SLR. It was really just a Nikon SLR and a few extra circuits and a 6MP imager. It cost over $16,000 in 1995 dollars. (What would that be today?) Lenses were extra, of course, and the manager neglected to mention that they were extra, so they only got two: a 28mm and a 60(something)mm macro.
We still have that camera, and it's what I used for a while when I became the photographer, again, in Nov 2003.
It cost so dang much to purchase, they couldn't give it up. I finally convinced them that I could do a better, and faster, job using a Sony F828 digicam, which I purchased for less than $1000, which included a pretty good lens.
I gave them enough improvement, they use my stuff for principal photography for brochures and glossy's, etc.
Could I have used the Kodak? Yeah, it still works some of the time. It still has pretty good images. The Sony F828 allows me to work so much faster and, given the appropriate lighting, roughly equivalent image quality (PF and all, heh).
Lighting is paramount with any digicam. A lot of people forget that.
A good dSLR is still worth its weight in gold at low-light levels, but you still need good glass. Good glass is the other side of the quality coin.
I'm sure you, Chase, are aware of these issues, so this diatribe is really directed towards other readers.
$7000 for a fantastic quality dSLR? You bet! If I had the money, I'd go for it.
For right now, I'm pretty happy with a dRebel XT, the 50mm f1.8, the 24-85 USM and an old Soligor 28mm f2.8 (adapted and manual), and the kit lens for the occasional wide shot (until I can afford better.) I also have a Minolta A2 that gets a lot of use.
Heck, I still shoot film every once in a while. Go figure?
Comments
I just press the button and the camera goes CLICK. :dunno
Canon: gripped 20d and 30d, 10-22 3.5-4.5, 17-55 IS, 50mm f1.8, 70-200L IS, 85mm f1.8, 420ex
sigma: 10-20 4-5.6 (for sale), 24-70 2.8 (for sale), 120-300 2.8
Cincinnati Smug Leader
We still have that camera, and it's what I used for a while when I became the photographer, again, in Nov 2003.
It cost so dang much to purchase, they couldn't give it up. I finally convinced them that I could do a better, and faster, job using a Sony F828 digicam, which I purchased for less than $1000, which included a pretty good lens.
I gave them enough improvement, they use my stuff for principal photography for brochures and glossy's, etc.
Could I have used the Kodak? Yeah, it still works some of the time. It still has pretty good images. The Sony F828 allows me to work so much faster and, given the appropriate lighting, roughly equivalent image quality (PF and all, heh).
Lighting is paramount with any digicam. A lot of people forget that.
A good dSLR is still worth its weight in gold at low-light levels, but you still need good glass. Good glass is the other side of the quality coin.
I'm sure you, Chase, are aware of these issues, so this diatribe is really directed towards other readers.
$7000 for a fantastic quality dSLR? You bet! If I had the money, I'd go for it.
For right now, I'm pretty happy with a dRebel XT, the 50mm f1.8, the 24-85 USM and an old Soligor 28mm f2.8 (adapted and manual), and the kit lens for the occasional wide shot (until I can afford better.) I also have a Minolta A2 that gets a lot of use.
Heck, I still shoot film every once in a while. Go figure?
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums