Anything you buy is good enough - discuss !!!

[ColinB]

So your threshold is printing A3...

Let's see some scenarios. Let's condider 400D / D60. If we add good glass (pro zoom, or even a cheap prime), use necessary filters, software, etc, we can easily get a great landscape print. D100 - no thank you, I'd rather try my luck with film.
Can 400D / D60 take a picture of a cyclist winning a race? A football match at night? Not a chance!
Can 400D take wedding dance photos in the darkness? We'd need f/1.4 or 1.2 lens, and probalby a flash. D3s can do that much easier.

Is it all done and discovered? Maybe for uncle Joe, not for me.

Why can't a D60 take a picture of a cyclist winning a race? What did people use to take these pictures before the advent of D3's and the like? I think you are underestimating the ability of the photographer.

 

[AliB]

Tell you what then, I'll go dig out the Hassy and a couple of Olympus OM10's and go and shoot tomorrow's wedding with those shall I?

How about one of those old plate cameras and a great trench full of magnesium powder?

OK, OK I'm taking the proverbial but there is a point I'm making (not too subtly) that it's called progress and what might seem like baby steps now between models is the pace of progress. It might seem like small shifts but looked at over longer time and added together one after the other there has been a heck of a lot of progress.

If your pics are for your own pleasure then I absolutley 100% agree with all the sentiments. If you are earning your living using them then sorry to disagree but I WILL use the best I can get my hands on simply because I should be able to do a better job at the edges of what the technology will do.

Consider high ISO?
Last year I could just about push it to ISO1600 and yes I managed but there were limitations on where/what I could shoot. I bought D700 and now I can easily shoot up to 6400. But it's what that extra ISO allows me to do that is the important but. At ISO1600 f2 I might just about get 1/60 at a wedding (actual figures from one shot last year) and yes I just about got away with it with some good timing but it was right on the edge of what was possible.

With those extra 2 stops I don't need to shoot at 1/60, I can shoot at 1/100 so I stand more chance of getting a sharp image with no subject movement.

So while you may say that an extra 2 stops is not worth paying for, dimly lit weddings with no flash mean that it is certainly a lot simpler to get the images I want and so I am more relaxed about shooting. So yes, there are times where I think the extra expense is justified.

That said, I still shoot film, I still use a compact when out with the family and I'll quite happily take pics with a box with a hole in it. So I can see both sides of this one but as someone else said "I'm the limiting factor, not the kit"

 

[purpleclouds]

Tell you what then, I'll go dig out the Hassy and a couple of Olympus OM10's and go and shoot tomorrow's wedding with those shall I?

How about one of those old plate cameras and a great trench full of magnesium powder?

OK, OK I'm taking the proverbial but there is a point I'm making (not too subtly) that it's called progress and what might seem like baby steps now between models is the pace of progress. It might seem like small shifts but looked at over longer time and added together one after the other there has been a heck of a lot of progress.

If your pics are for your own pleasure then I absolutley 100% agree with all the sentiments. If you are earning your living using them then sorry to disagree but I WILL use the best I can get my hands on simply because I should be able to do a better job at the edges of what the technology will do.

Consider high ISO?
Last year I could just about push it to ISO1600 and yes I managed but there were limitations on where/what I could shoot. I bought D700 and now I can easily shoot up to 6400. But it's what that extra ISO allows me to do that is the important but. At ISO1600 f2 I might just about get 1/60 at a wedding (actual figures from one shot last year) and yes I just about got away with it with some good timing but it was right on the edge of what was possible.

With those extra 2 stops I don't need to shoot at 1/60, I can shoot at 1/100 so I stand more chance of getting a sharp image with no subject movement.

So while you may say that an extra 2 stops is not worth paying for, dimly lit weddings with no flash mean that it is certainly a lot simpler to get the images I want and so I am more relaxed about shooting. So yes, there are times where I think the extra expense is justified.

That said, I still shoot film, I still use a compact when out with the family and I'll quite happily take pics with a box with a hole in it. So I can see both sides of this one but as someone else said "I'm the limiting factor, not the kit"

It's not a question about the big improvements.. it's about people who have to have the latest gear each and every release. Will you be upgrading to the D700 successor, or skipping a generation - or even two?

High ISO hasn't improved over the scale you set in as little as a year.. good quality 6400 has been around for a few now.. and good 12800 is probably more than another year/generation away. A bad example in my opinion

 

[Starastin]

people have changed, the same as life rhythm etc. you can't compare candid style photography in weddings with old style no breathing for a minute and not blinking. It's like saying that the race horse for 300k is no good as the wauxhall corsa can beet it from 0-60 .

35mm/dslr etc for fast agile shooting, 8x10 when you have time and want to make impression.

well, actually daguerreotypes are the way to go :nuts: , nothing can beat that.

 

[AliB]

It's my experience Phil, hence I used it as an example.

And yes I've already skipped a generation by not buying a D3s (I can get two D700's for that!)

 

[purpleclouds]

It's my experience Phil, hence I used it as an example.

And yes I've already skipped a generation by not buying a D3s (I can get two D700's for that!)

I know this, but it just made it sound like the technology has advanced that much in the spare of a year/one generation

A D3s is the same-ish generation as the D700, just a level up if you will D4 or a D800 to replace your D700s?

 

[harrisp]

Every hobby has the people who are going to say you cant do well without the best kit, for example I entered a shooting competition (HFT to those in the know) with a £200 rifle although I did have good glass on top and a bloke with a £2000+ hand made Ripley told me I would struggle with my rifle, I ended up with a much higher score than him.

If someone wants to buy a 5d etc to take snapshots of their kids then why not, and if someone wants to use a 10d (me ) then why not?
Good gear doesn't make a good photographer, although it can help .
Even older "lower spec/starter dslr" (I hate those phrases) can be used to produce amazing shots.

 

[AliB]

I know this, but it just made it sound like the technology has advanced that much in the spare of a year/one generation

A D3s is the same-ish generation as the D700, just a level up if you will D4 or a D800 to replace your D700s?

oops, not my intention! I suppose one generation WAS quite a leap, D2x to D3 was a bit of a milestone. But I didn't wish to convey that it all happened overnight, it has beena few years. When you get to my age they just GO faster Phil

I have used a D3x, will probably be shooting with one tomorrow but I'm honestly not hugely tempted at the price point but we did do some interesting maths the other day. Bear with me

we compared a 5DII @£2K with an expected shutter life of 100,000 (someone elses figure and I've not checked it)

and a D3s @ £3,500 with an expected shutter life of 300,000

so at a rate of 1000 shots a wedding being conservative then:-

the 5D would shoot 100 weddings and cost £20 a wedding
the D3s would shoot 300 weddings and cost £11.66 a wedding

So it's cheaper if you shoot a lot of weddings to buy a D3s

 

[purpleclouds]

oops, not my intention! I suppose one generation WAS quite a leap, D2x to D3 was a bit of a milestone. But I didn't wish to convey that it all happened overnight, it has beena few years. When you get to my age they just GO faster Phil

I have used a D3x, will probably be shooting with one tomorrow but I'm honestly not hugely tempted at the price point but we did do some interesting maths the other day. Bear with me

we compared a 5DII @£2K with an expected shutter life of 100,000 (someone elses figure and I've not checked it)

and a D3s @ £3,500 with an expected shutter life of 300,000

so at a rate of 1000 shots a wedding being conservative then:-

the 5D would shoot 100 weddings and cost £20 a wedding
the D3s would shoot 300 weddings and cost £11.66 a wedding

So it's cheaper if you shoot a lot of weddings to buy a D3s

Or just like the machine gun mode

 

[goldenlight]

oops, not my intention! I suppose one generation WAS quite a leap, D2x to D3 was a bit of a milestone. But I didn't wish to convey that it all happened overnight, it has beena few years. When you get to my age they just GO faster Phil

I have used a D3x, will probably be shooting with one tomorrow but I'm honestly not hugely tempted at the price point but we did do some interesting maths the other day. Bear with me

we compared a 5DII @£2K with an expected shutter life of 100,000 (someone elses figure and I've not checked it)

and a D3s @ £3,500 with an expected shutter life of 300,000

so at a rate of 1000 shots a wedding being conservative then:-

the 5D would shoot 100 weddings and cost £20 a wedding
the D3s would shoot 300 weddings and cost £11.66 a wedding

So it's cheaper if you shoot a lot of weddings to buy a D3s

But these figures only hold true until the D4 comes out, which is sooooo good you simply have to have one - despite the D3s shutter count only being 100,000.

 

[DiddyDave]

But these figures only hold true until the D4 comes out, which is sooooo good you simply have to have one - despite the D3s shutter count only being 100,000.

I certainly know a few who will And by the D5 we'll hear people talk about the D3 being 'crap' :bonk:

DD

 

[goldenlight]

I certainly know a few who will And by the D5 we'll hear people talk about the D3 being 'crap' :bonk:

DD

I suppose my E-3 has got no chance then?

 

[Starastin]

I certainly know a few who will And by the D5 we'll hear people talk about the D3 being 'crap' :bonk:

DD

I hope that day comes soon as I would love to grab one for less :nuts: and I won't mind that there is a D5 with GPS, navigation, facebook checker, video, mirror, satellite tv, power generator and a small printer. oh! and a bloging station
, they must have that !!!

 

[Nikon Ken]

I think you're spot on Dave.

It's present in society in general:

- the latest TV, even though the old one did the job but the new one has gizmos we think we need but not likely to use.

- the latest model of a car. As long as a car gets us from A to B it's OK.

- the latest waterproof mountain jacket made from Goretex so we can look good walking down the pub.

- v6.6 of some software because it's the latest but the v1.1 we have does the job needed.

I could go on.

It used to be called "keeping up with the Jone's". Now I think it's got out of hand.

I think buying the highest quality you can easily afford makes sense, but constantly updating to the latest without a specific need is pointless.

Ken

 

[gingerweasel]

you're 100% correct of course ... and I'm going to stop wasting my money on cameras after my next one

 

[DiddyDave]

I think buying the highest quality you can easily afford makes sense, but constantly updating to the latest without a specific need is pointless.

Ken

Proverbial nail on t' head

(OT - see you soon on the Dales Trip I believe? )

DD

 

[trencheel303]

I haven't tried a lot of dslr's but - am I a weirdo to say that I prefer the old look better ? before super duper anti aliasing filters, video, built in hdr's etc, etc :nuts:

that's one of the reasons I bought an original 1Ds. Heavier than a house brick and almost as big, but it's like owning a classic car or a 486 from the 90s... just gives you that nice feeling inside, despite all its flaws and quirks.

And it was a cheap way into the world of full frame.

 

[Nikon Ken]

(OT - see you soon on the Dales Trip I believe? )

DD

Yes, looking forward to it. Watch out though, I'm cooking the cottage pie

Got two weeks in Devon first, so hope to get some good shooting in before the Dales w/end.

Ken

 

[Starastin]

that's one of the reasons I bought an original 1Ds. Heavier than a house brick and almost as big, but it's like owning a classic car or a 486 from the 90s... just gives you that nice feeling inside, despite all its flaws and quirks.

And it was a cheap way into the world of full frame.

true . I have an eye for a 5d mk1 and 1ds mk1 as well, although I've never had Canon before. it's just the FF, all I need. the heck I even looked at the kodak DCS pro and it was advised that you don't go over iso160 with it
sounds good to me as 160 used to be the proper sensitivity for portraits. the max on that kodak is 400 and a lot of landscapers still use the camera

 

[trencheel303]

unless you need/want the weather sealing, 45 point AF and awesomely rugged body, go for the 5D mark I. The 1Ds is very heavy, has a maximum of ISO 1250, and slow.

 

[Richard King]

I made this point about the D100 a few weeks ago and took greief for it

A professional chooses the gear he thinks is suitable for the job. People generally only offer an elitist opinion from thier own POV.. my answer to these people is whay are you not shooting with one of these: http://www.hasselblad.com/promotions/h4d-launch.aspx I mean - you need the best and highest spec camera for the job dont you?

 

[Richard King]

popping my tounge back from my cheek

If I could afford one, I would get one of the smaller Hassys - it would have 3 results - slow the work down, and produce better results, and would be a marketing dream

 

[eos1]

yup ! totally agree.
that's why I have super cheap minolta film cameras and some normal lenses and I know that it's just up to me whether I can make a stunning shot from it or not.

Absolutely agree, its always down to the photographer, although decent gear does sometimes help.

 

[Arkady]

But these figures only hold true until the D4 comes out, which is sooooo good you simply have to have one - despite the D3s shutter count only being 100,000.

I no longer think that's the case - I can see an argument for upgrading from D2x to D3/D3s as the low-noise issue was effectively solved for all practical purposes.
The D3s added a couple of stops (of arguable usefulness to any but a very few) and video (same as...).

For the first time since the introduction of digital imaging we now have cameras available where the next generation will produce little or no increase in IQ at the most-used settings.
A D100 from the same period as the D1x produced horrible images as regards colour balance - I'd never use one for anything other than hard news - any social portraiture imagery needs to look better than those old cameras are capable of producing...
They were good enough then as that was all that was available - but you'd be an idiot to use one now that something better is available.

I can see the differences between my images taken on D1 and D1x; from the D1x to D2x and from D2x to D3.
I cannot tell the difference between images taken on my D3 and D3x (apart from the file size).

The only reason I would have to 'upgrade' to a D3s now is if I suddenly find I need two extra stops at the high end (very unlikely) or video - (very very unlikley).

I cannot imagine any advance in technology that would make me change to a D4 on it's introduction next year or the year after.
If my cameras either break or wear out (in four or five years time), then I'll upgrade (or just purchase the equivalent Pro-body - it's not an upgrade as such), but not just for the sake of having the 'latest' thing, as there's no reason to do so - whereas in the past there has been - the images produced by the 'latest thing' three years ago were visibly better that their predecessors...

 

[goldenlight]

unless you need/want the weather sealing, 45 point AF and awesomely rugged body, go for the 5D mark I. The 1Ds is very heavy, has a maximum of ISO 1250, and slow.

But if it does everything you want and you like it, it's still a good camera.

 

[grahamsewelluk]

DD,

I think you have just saved me £300ish on my next lens - I was dithering between the Canon 15-85mm and 18-135mm based on better IQ on the 15-85mm but more usable focal length range on the 18-135mm

Looking at some reviews, it seems the IQ difference is marginal at best and I don't really need USM or FTM for the shots I anticipate taking with it.

 

[Starastin]

lenses are a bit different story. but probably your existing lens is good enough.

 

[DiddyDave]

DD,

I think you have just saved me £300ish on my next lens - I was dithering between the Canon 15-85mm and 18-135mm based on better IQ on the 15-85mm but more usable focal length range on the 18-135mm

Looking at some reviews, it seems the IQ difference is marginal at best and I don't really need USM or FTM for the shots I anticipate taking with it.

See that little voice of reason in your head can win through sometimes

I just wish I'd applied the same to my own purchase a few years ago of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR over non-VR equivalent - a difference in price of about £600 at the time That said, I was newish to shooting in churches and thought the VR was a MUST - sadly no - many tests have proven I'm as still with as without VR engaged, and as a result VR is very very rarely used

Still I learnt from it and am applying the 'appropriate' term more & more to any gear/other life purchases

DD

 

[goldenlight]

I no longer think that's the case - I can see an argument for upgrading from D2x to D3/D3s as the low-noise issue was effectively solved for all practical purposes.
The D3s added a couple of stops (of arguable usefulness to any but a very few) and video (same as...).

For the first time since the introduction of digital imaging we now have cameras available where the next generation will produce little or no increase in IQ at the most-used settings.
A D100 from the same period as the D1x produced horrible images as regards colour balance - I'd never use one for anything other than hard news - any social portraiture imagery needs to look better than those old cameras are capable of producing...
They were good enough then as that was all that was available - but you'd be an idiot to use one now that something better is available.

I can see the differences between my images taken on D1 and D1x; from the D1x to D2x and from D2x to D3.
I cannot tell the difference between images taken on my D3 and D3x (apart from the file size).

The only reason I would have to 'upgrade' to a D3s now is if I suddenly find I need two extra stops at the high end (very unlikely) or video - (very very unlikley).

I cannot imagine any advance in technology that would make me change to a D4 on it's introduction next year or the year after.
If my cameras either break or wear out (in four or five years time), then I'll upgrade (or just purchase the equivalent Pro-body - it's not an upgrade as such), but not just for the sake of having the 'latest' thing, as there's no reason to do so - whereas in the past there has been - the images produced by the 'latest thing' three years ago were visibly better that their predecessors...

What you say is absolutely correct and a common sense approach, Rob, but I can guarantee that there will be some who do upgrade on the basis that they simply must have the latest. This is more likely to be amateurs with too much money (or too high credit card limits) than pros who cost out kit in terms of what extra business it is likely to generate or what long term savings it will make. Some, unfortunately, especially relatively inexperienced photographers, perceive that there is a kudos in owning the very latest kit and believe it is a measure of therir worth as a photographer or a demonstration of their "seriousness" and committment. If it gives them pleasure there is nothing wrong with that, of course, and it's perfectly harmless as long as it doesn't eventually entrap people into financial difficulties.

Now I'm off to worry about how I can possibly afford the forthcomming E-5, even though I don't need it and my E-3 serves me perfectly well.

 

[goldenlight]

See that little voice of reason in your head can win through sometimes

I just wish I'd applied the same to my own purchase a few years ago of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR over non-VR equivalent - a difference in price of about £600 at the time That said, I was newish to shooting in churches and thought the VR was a MUST - sadly no - many tests have proven I'm as still with as without VR engaged, and as a result VR is very very rarely used

Still I learnt from it and am applying the 'appropriate' term more & more to any gear/other life purchases

DD

I think we've all been there and done that, if we're honest.

 

[Starastin]

I only hope tha canikon sony comes to senses and makes a cheap FF which is basic but with amazing IQ . although from sony there is a a850/a900 but they have been there for some time, so I would predict that the next model is going to have a video.

just look where the mobile phone market has gone ?! I don't want this to happen to cameras

 

[TheTimeChamber]

Sigmas's 10-20 is FAB on a D40 for private use

this is so true, the 10-20 seems to fit perfectly with the D40. And I agree with this thread, I only take photos for fun and my little D40 is perfect for the job, sure a higher spec one would be nice, but I cannot justify it, and I don't need it...and I can easily print photos off at A3 and there is little to show it is only 6MP.

I don't need anything else, until I break this one, or feel it has finally limited what I can do.

 

[Ste Manns]

As some will know (I bang on about it often enough) I shoot mainly with old manual focus lenses - not even the best quality stuff still available if I'm honest. I would never dream of trying to use them for a paid job but for the time being they suit my needs and I'm happy to use them. Some of the best shots I've ever done have been with a £3 lens I picked up at a market stall.

I've done BIF shots, portraits and wildlife stuff with my ancient lenses and whereas I'm not suggesting the shots are fantastic I've been very pleased with the results and they have impressed many. The way I view it these lenses were once pro spec lenses or near enough, and they were good enough back when they were new. There is often a lot of snobbery about kit and I get a kick from dispelling myths (I was told 'you can't do wildlife photography with those old lenses')

Camera bodies I suppose are a slightly different kettle of fish, but I think only to an extent. Better high ISO performance is good to have but if you can't afford the very best latest camera body and all you have is a lower end camera then you do what you can with that, simple really. I know I can't afford a better camera or lenses right now so I will continue doing what I can with what I have until such time I have the spare dosh to upgrade. It doesn't stop me trying whatever I want to do right now though.

 

[madhouse]

I'm not sure that 'anything you buy is good enough' as it depends on what you're using it for but I definitely get the sentiment. It's not all about the kit.

The photographer is the one that has the image in their mind's eye and sets about capturing that image for eternity, dialling in the right settings, getting into the right position at the right time before pressing the shutter. I'll agree that kit will be a facilitator but it's not the end of the world if you don't have the pro gear.

We are told by the marketing men and some peers that what we need is the latest, greatest and most expensive kit, as amateurs / hobbyists we don't need the top kit, we want it, things are different for those that earn their living from photography.

Some amazing pictures have been captured on the lowliest of equipment, what we're using today is streets ahead of what our predecessors were using and they managed without high ISO's and 8fps.
I recently looked at my parents wedding photos, they got married on the shortest day of the year and it was cloudy and wet, but the photographer did a great job. That was 36 years ago and I can guarantee they didn't pay a fortune so the guy probably didn't even have the 'best' kit.

I'm not telling anyone how to live their photographer life, but I'm saying that there can be a point where it is the level of knowledge that is the limiting factor and not the kit, no-one should be frowned upon because of their kit, if you must judge then do it based on images rather than brand or model of equipment.

 

[trencheel303]

But if it does everything you want and you like it, it's still a good camera.

of course.

 

[HoppyUK]

Those good gentlefolk who upgrade for no particularly good reason, are keeping camera manufacturers in profitable business. It is amateur photographers, perhaps with more money than sense, that buy the overwhelming majority of pro-spec cameras they don't need, and unnecessary L grade lenses. They outnumber the pros by dozens to one.

Without them, the pros that actually need this level of kit would be paying £10k for a basic body, £5k for a regular lens. See Hassleblad, Leica etc.

 

[existent]

I like the discussion going on this thread.. It shows the more sensible side of us

I read a post somewhere on this forum (and I thought it was this thread actually but couldn't see the post):

The difference between a professional tog and an amateur/hobbyist is that, professional togs usually have to justify the cost of a new body against the extra income it might bring, whereas an amateur can spend the money on a new body without as much hesitation...

When its your hobby, you can spend much more money on something without worrying... and of course we (other than some exceptions) all have that new gear lust

 

[DiddyDave]

Those good gentlefolk who upgrade for no particularly good reason, are keeping camera manufacturers in profitable business. It is amateur photographers, perhaps with more money than sense, that buy the overwhelming majority of pro-spec cameras they don't need, and unnecessary L grade lenses. They outnumber the pros by dozens to one.

Without them, the pros that actually need this level of kit would be paying £10k for a basic body, £5k for a regular lens. See Hassleblad, Leica etc.

So what you're saying there Hoppy is that we need to encourage amateurs to understand that they do in fact 'need' such cameras for our own purchases to become much cheaper - like it

Okay everyone - totally changed my opinion now - you ALL need to go buy Blads



DD

 

[ColinB]

Those good gentlefolk who upgrade for no particularly good reason, are keeping camera manufacturers in profitable business. It is amateur photographers, perhaps with more money than sense, that buy the overwhelming majority of pro-spec cameras they don't need, and unnecessary L grade lenses. They outnumber the pros by dozens to one.
.

Have you got the stats for that?

Why would an amateur have more money than sense just because they aren't 'professional' - do you have anything to actually back that up?

 

[Arkady]

Have you got the stats for that?

Why would an amateur have more money than sense just because they aren't 'professional' - do you have anything to actually back that up?

Whether there are solid facts to back it up or not, it's a fact that the only real justification a pure amateur has for buying any photographic equipment is that he/she wants it.

Camera equipment is a luxury item for those not using it commercially.

A professional (mostly) buys the equipment they need.
An amateur buys the equipment they want.

Purchases made by professionals are weighed against the amount of use and the amount of money that kit will generate. Any purchases made in error, i.e stuff that either isn't fit for purpose or not used enough to justify it being kept, are sold-on fairly quickly to fund other equipment purchases.