Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 97

Thread: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

  1. #41
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Thanks Hazmee, but I not asking all CSers to dump their cameras and start buying high-end ones. Do so only when you feel there is a need and is within your budget. If I am not shooting professionally I would rather settle for a low-end camera as it is lighter and not so tiring to port around.

    Cheers

  2. #42
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunnomuch
    i beg to differ. i shoot lots of photos of my 19mth-old daughter, and anyone with kids can tell you that trying to shoot a hyperactive kid can be as demanding as sports photography. while i agree to a certain extent that machine gunning is not the way to go for most situations, sometimes it's really cool to have that AI focus feature and still have control over other settings. with my camera i can only put it into sports mode and work with that. out of say 30 shots, maybe 3-4 are keepers. i'm not going to say i will get more keepers with a good pro body, but i have personally encountered moments where i wished i had a higher fps to catch more frames of a funny look.

    yes, it may all boil down to my inadecuacies as a photographer, BUT.. the question put forward was which i would rather have, and i've griped more about my fps than the colour and sharpness of my photos.
    Believe me... the 8 fps doesn't work as you just mentioned. I've over 100 shots continously bursted off a D2X, D2H/S, none of them is usable/keepers. The body is as good as you can control it, once you can control it, it's 8fps will give you what you want.

  3. #43
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    With digital being in the frontline nowadays the ball game have changed. As a full time professional I am still shooting with an amatuerish Nikon D100 and I am upgrading to the D2X which I am pissed that until now there is still non in stock. Not meant to belittle the D100, it is a darn good camera (if you know what you are doing) except that it can be a little slow to work with, and with a lowest ISO of 200 sometimes a nuisance. I have shot with Canon 10D for some of my work too but I just hate the slow start-up time. I heard the 20D is almost instantaneous but have yet to try.

    Why did I say the D100 is slow? Well, I shoot a lot of Board of Director and people shots and I usually do them in NEF (or RAW to other brands) and have my camera teethered to a laptop so the art director could view the pictures before we decide if we can conclude the shoot. I don't mind if the camera takes a long time to transfer the image to laptop but what bothers me is when shooting NEF files the D100 buffer only allows a maximum of 4 shots, too little when shooting people, especially when they are smiling away and you can't shoot until the buffer clears. The D70 or D70s is not any better although it has a higher transfer speed thanks to the USB 2.0 cable but still slow IMHO. It is frustrating not only for me but the people I shoot.
    Just let me say this. You're using a consumer body and you're blaming it for not delivering professional performance? Btw, D70/S is still USB 1.1, only D50 and the D2* bodies are USB 2.0. As for ISO200, I've never had an issue with that across all DSLRs that has base as 200, frankly, even at ISO100 the only difference to me is that 1 stop aperture/shutter speed which isn't very significant to begin with, and also noise, which I don't see much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    The other issue that bothers me is the exposure lattitude. I guess everyone knows that due to the nature of the CCD or cMOS design digital is very proned to washed-out or white-out highlight renditions if you are not careful. A higher end or pro camera usually has a higher exposure lattitude than a lower end one. Although I do plenty of controls on my lighting setup prior to a shoot to balance the light source, there are times when I am shooting outdoors that there is not much that I could have done to control it. A higher end camera would allow better shadow and highlight rendition than a low end camera IMHO.
    Precisely! A pro body would definitely have a better sensor and better control on the image quality & DR. Why do you think pro bodies cost much more! Sensor design, R&D!

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Then we have the file size and resolution issue. Although 6 megapixel is not a lot of difference as compared to a 12.4 megapixel D2X but there are still differences. For some of you who argued that you compose the picture properly in camera and there is no need for cropping I would say good for you, but welcome to the real world of professional photography. In more cases than I can recall, art directors and creative directors always asked for more background space so they can crop to their own liking during post productions to fit the required picture space allocated to them. They might want only a square format out of the vertical picture, or they might even change their mind later and do a long panoramic crop. If you had composed your picture tightly in camera then I can say good luck to you.
    That really depends on which 6MP you're comparing with the 12.4 D2X. If you're comparing D50/70s/100, don't bother. D2X will beat them flat, and there are a lot of differences. DR, details, etc alone on the sensor

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    So after all my long mumbo jumbo I conclude that I would rather have a high-end camera than a high-end lens (although I already have high-end lenses) because in the real world of photographic industry many art and creative directors are not really afficionadoes of the sharpest pictures. It is the way you compose and light a picture and also a picture they can work with that counts.
    If you're using a D2X... the last thing you want to do, is to fix a low quality glass on it, your picture does reflect the glass quality.

  4. #44
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    To espn,

    Well brother, one of the reasons why I seldom log on to CS is because there are plenty of argumentative people like may I say yourself? It is such a shame and showcase the very rude side of Singapore. CS is visited by many people overseas if you know what I mean?

    Just let me say, find me a high-end digital camera by Nikon prior to D2X that produces more than 6 megapixels and you can go on arguing about why I grumble with a D100.

    And in case you missed it, let me say it again, THERE IS NO STOCK FOR D2X!

    Last of all, the questions started by Crazypaladin is that would you choose a low-end camera with pro lens or pro camera with cheap lens. I was just telling him which would be my choice if I were him.

    So, I believe some of my response touches some nerve in you? Well then good for you.

  5. #45
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Well brother, one of the reasons why I seldom log on to CS is because there are plenty of argumentative people like may I say yourself? It is such a shame and showcase the very rude side of Singapore. CS is visited by many people overseas if you know what I mean?
    I was just merely commenting, you mean I shouldn't? Argumentative or not I don't know. I don't think I was arguing, I was just picking on your points. I didn't say you were wrong neither did I want to force you out of a hide for fight or something. Just thought I should clarify that pro bodies != getting the shot. And pro body != consumer body.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Just let me say, find me a high-end digital camera by Nikon prior to D2X that produces more than 6 megapixels and you can go on arguing about why I grumble with a D100.

    And in case you missed it, let me say it again, THERE IS NO STOCK FOR D2X!
    Yes I know there's no stock. But there are some stocks around, only if you want to pay the price. I know I won't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Last of all, the questions started by Crazypaladin is that would you choose a low-end camera with pro lens or pro camera with cheap lens. I was just telling him which would be my choice if I were him.
    Yep... I know... we all have our points. Take my replies/comments in good light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    So, I believe some of my response touches some nerve in you? Well then good for you.
    Nope, didn't scratch even any of my nerves. Just wanted to reply for the sake of replying. If I wanted to come down hard... I won't type so little... and neither would I be polite... Chill... I don't always need to be right... I'm often wrong...

  6. #46

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Will prefer to spend more money on the lens first, less on body initally.

    For a very simple reason, the value of current Digital body depreciate much much faster than a professional lens. And I think the digital body still has some room for improvements. The resolution and speed are quite ok but colour depth and dynamic range could improve in future I think..

    How much does a top of the line Nikon or Canon DSLR body launches 2 to 3 yrs ago cost now? Price depreciation could be scary comparing to a good glass.

  7. #47
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Ok, maybe I was wrong about you but try not to add in the exclaimation mark after you end your sentences, it looks like you are shouting. I do apologise if I was the one who freaked out first. I am cool now.

  8. #48
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kongo
    Will prefer to spend more money on the lens first, less on body initally.

    For a very simple reason, the value of current Digital body depreciate much much faster than a professional lens. And I think the digital body still has some room for improvements. The resolution and speed are quite ok but colour depth and dynamic range could improve in future I think..

    How much does a top of the line Nikon or Canon DSLR body launches 2 to 3 yrs ago cost now? Price depreciation could be scary comparing to a good glass.
    You are right. Like I say, if you are shooting professionally then it is worth buying. If not, a lower end one is good enough. In my case I have no choice.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,922

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    A D2X with a good copy of a Sigma 24-70 shouldnt be that bad right? It looks great on the 300D and I dont think it should pose much problems on any high-end SLR. Oh well, its a matter of preference I guess. Different folks, different strokes.

    Anyway Andy, I hope you get the D2X soon and be happy. Cheers!

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    that's what i'm doing now, L lenses with 300D
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,922

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by djork
    that's what i'm doing now, L lenses with 300D
    Oh my, so I am not alone afterall. Cheers!

  12. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    mine silver! hehe
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    Just let me say this. You're using a consumer body and you're blaming it for not delivering professional performance? Btw, D70/S is still USB 1.1, only D50 and the D2* bodies are USB 2.0. As for ISO200, I've never had an issue with that across all DSLRs that has base as 200, frankly, even at ISO100 the only difference to me is that 1 stop aperture/shutter speed which isn't very significant to begin with, and also noise, which I don't see much.
    Noise is not the issue. It's the flexibility that's important and probably one reason why the top end D2X has ISO100.

  14. #54
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by mpenza
    In today's world, prosumer/third party grade lens and prosumer grade body both perform well enough for most applications though.

    For those who do not have lots of money to spend on photography (either as hobby or work), prosumer/third party grade lens + prosumer grade body will do fine. For me, I use L as much as non-L for the pictures I have taken.
    Don't get me wrong i have nothing against 3rd party glass, in fact i own a few.

    I am talking about bad glass 1st or 3rd party.

  15. #55

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Wah. Let me add to the flame war.

    1. There is no such thing as a pro-body or pro-lens unless it is a Leica.

    2. Only by owning pro-body and pro-lens make you a pro.

    3. There are no pro digital body coz fillm is better.

    Lol. There are enough topics to flame at each other abbout, no point bringing in new ones.
    Personally, i prefer to cheap body + cheap lens + go travelling on the remaining money.

  16. #56

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Not to start a brand war here, but the 300D is a crippled piece of equipment. Startup time? 3secs sleep to wake? 3 sec. Try the D70 or even the old D100 (which is a advance amateur), or 20D or 10D even. D100 came out in 2002 Feb; start up time <0.4 sec, etc

    Also, if you have a 2.8L lens vs a 3.5-4.5 lens, which do you think will focus faster? See the actual review by Phil Askey.
    Yes. i understand where you are coming from, but you have to remember that despite your opinion on the 300D being inadequate, when it first came out, it was, and still is a value for money performer. i bought mine used because this is my first DSLR, and i did not have the budget quite frankly, and since i already have a EOS film camera, it only made sense to go to another EOS system to retain lens interchangeability. my options were the 10D, the 350D and 20D. all of which costed more than i was willing to pay at the time.

    in essence, your recommendation of the 10D or 20D already proves that a better quality body would save some greif when it comes to outright performance.

    thank you for reminding me of my tight budget... hehehehe

  17. #57
    Senior Member jnet6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    not here often anymore
    Posts
    8,169

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    simple question, how much are u willing to "pay" the hobby that u like???

    pro lens and pro cam, gives the "best" image(not the veri best).
    to some ppl. they dun think that way, a PnS will do?
    expensive/cheap lens is still a lens, make the full use of it.(not happy then change to a better 1).......
    *The End*

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by jnet6
    simple question, how much are u willing to "pay" the hobby that u like???

    pro lens and pro cam, gives the "best" image(not the veri best).
    to some ppl. they dun think that way, a PnS will do?
    expensive/cheap lens is still a lens, make the full use of it.(not happy then change to a better 1).......
    *The End*
    yeah man. it's all personal preference.
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  19. #59
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by mpenza
    Noise is not the issue. It's the flexibility that's important and probably one reason why the top end D2X has ISO100.
    I frankly still don't see how flexible ISO100 can get as compared to ISO200. Is the flexibility difference that great? To me it's a one stop difference that's about it, all functional and all other aspects remain the same. It doesn't really make a difference, or at least to me it doesn't.

  20. #60
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Ok, maybe I was wrong about you but try not to add in the exclaimation mark after you end your sentences, it looks like you are shouting. I do apologise if I was the one who freaked out first. I am cool now.
    Yikes, ok, now I see why I've been so 'offensive', yeah net ettiquette. I was using them as a form of emphasis. Apologies.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •