Would you sacrifice a good camera for more lenses?

[catchlights]

:lovegrin:


thanks for all the input everyone!

well for me i guess it's just the idea of new equipment taking over my mind. especially after i tried out the D3 ! I'm in this because as a Mass Communication student who was majoring in journ, i got to dabble in photojournalism. It was actually more photography than photojourn because we were allowed to mock up (photo documentary, to be precise).

And now I'm very sure I want to venture into this for real, BUT, as a hobbyist (too!), the sound that the D3 makes when you click on the shutter, the feel, it's just too sexy to resist. I know this sounds SUPER illogical, but it happens.

Well at least I'm logical enough to think it through before really buying. It was a "heat of the moment" kinda thing. :sweatsm:


For now I have a 70-300, 16-85mm and a 50mm 1.8F, which I cannot AF because Im using D40x. Well that's my only gripe about the D40x. '


Apart from that, my set of equipment is really more than enough for what I have been doing currently! It's what I hope to do in the near future, that I might need upgrading for.

But I'm not there yet, so I'll wait!


But SERIOUSLY? I really want to try some macro shots, partially for hobbying, and partially for profession.

as a professional, you need to get the right tools for you to do the job right, you spend your capital on getting anything that more than what you need now, or near future, it is a very bad move, very unwise investment.

 

[azzurri]

:lovegrin:


thanks for all the input everyone!

well for me i guess it's just the idea of new equipment taking over my mind. especially after i tried out the D3 ! I'm in this because as a Mass Communication student who was majoring in journ, i got to dabble in photojournalism. It was actually more photography than photojourn because we were allowed to mock up (photo documentary, to be precise).

And now I'm very sure I want to venture into this for real, BUT, as a hobbyist (too!), the sound that the D3 makes when you click on the shutter, the feel, it's just too sexy to resist. I know this sounds SUPER illogical, but it happens.

Well at least I'm logical enough to think it through before really buying. It was a "heat of the moment" kinda thing. :sweatsm:


For now I have a 70-300, 16-85mm and a 50mm 1.8F, which I cannot AF because Im using D40x. Well that's my only gripe about the D40x. '


Apart from that, my set of equipment is really more than enough for what I have been doing currently! It's what I hope to do in the near future, that I might need upgrading for.

But I'm not there yet, so I'll wait!


But SERIOUSLY? I really want to try some macro shots, partially for hobbying, and partially for profession.

Not surprised that you fell in love with the D3, but if it's any comfort, there are plenty of pretty decent professional photographers out there who use cameras like the D200 and D300. It doesn't mean that if you turn pro, you'll definitely need a pro camera. The pro camera will brilliant does have it's draw backs too and one of them is definitely it's weight.

Maybe now you're still in the "heat of the moment" to turn pro, considering that you've just gone through such courses. But if that "heat" still remains, by all means do turn pro. Mean while, just enjoy your equipment. It's pretty decent and should be able to garner some great shots.

Anyway, as some other people have said earlier, if you can't shoot to save your own life, it doesn't matter even if you have the best equipment this world can offer ;p

 

[pokky]

Well I can't say that I shoot SUPERBLY because I don't, I'm still learning. But it's okay, as in, I'm doing fine with my current lens and camera!


And while I recently went to try out the D300 coupled with a Tamron macro lens, I know that I'll be fine with what I have at the moment. [I thought the Tamron 90mm Macro was pretty decent, previously I never thought much of third party lenses partially due to the influence of lens "purists"] Till there are developments, or advancements that tell me I really do need a new body then I'll go ahead with the change !

Still it has been interesting to see what everybody's opinion is, and I'm quite aware of the fact that this is a rather old topic/issue.


I'm not exactly a "gear-whore", and to be honest, I'm not so great with tech, specs whatever you call it. I believe that a good pictures come from the heart, and a good picture has soul, not 20.1 megapixels yada yada.


I was rather annoyed when some camera promoters were debating with my boyf (he promotes laptops) about cameras. He was just sharing with them some knowledge, which he knew by, well, experiencing some shoots with me. And they kept putting him down, just because they knew more about the technical specifications of their product.

 

[fabianaino]

. And they kept putting him down, just because they knew more about the technical specifications of their product.

it alright ! ...it just shows that they know how to read the brochure and nothing else !! Ahahaha ... geezz I got that line from somewhere ... =)

 

[chanjyj]

Not surprised that you fell in love with the D3, but if it's any comfort, there are plenty of pretty decent professional photographers out there who use cameras like the D200 and D300. It doesn't mean that if you turn pro, you'll definitely need a pro camera. The pro camera will brilliant does have it's draw backs too and one of them is definitely it's weight.

Maybe now you're still in the "heat of the moment" to turn pro, considering that you've just gone through such courses. But if that "heat" still remains, by all means do turn pro. Mean while, just enjoy your equipment. It's pretty decent and should be able to garner some great shots.

Anyway, as some other people have said earlier, if you can't shoot to save your own life, it doesn't matter even if you have the best equipment this world can offer ;p

Aiyah. I once shot a Leica D & D with a D40 with SB 400 and sometimes I use a D80. Not often do I pull out the D2h/x series.

 

[lsisaxon]

hehehe, so that can catch up to your number of post... :bsmilie:

Then just need to post more comments, help, opinions, questions etc lor.. ;p

 

[iguoh]

Aiyah. I once shot a Leica D & D with a D40 with SB 400 and sometimes I use a D80. Not often do I pull out the D2h/x series.

You shot a Leica event with a Nikon camera? :bigeyes: Didn't the organizers have something to say about that? ;p

 

[blive]

You shot a Leica event with a Nikon camera? :bigeyes: Didn't the organizers have something to say about that? ;p

Organizers: "wished I could shoot with a Nikon too...sigh!" :bsmilie:

 

[YSLee]

D300 is an okay camera? :sweat:

- QFT.

 

[lsisaxon]

as a professional, you need to get the right tools for you to do the job right, you spend your capital on getting anything that more than what you need now, or near future, it is a very bad move, very unwise investment.

Is the D60 a right tool for my 1-yr old baby? ;p

EXIF intact. (Nice meeting you, catchlights!)

But I was wondering, would you rather save the money for a couple of lens, and get a rather good camera (lusting after the D3!), or get an okay camera, like the D300 and get more lens? I know D300 and D3 are two complete different things because the latter is a full frame.

Catchlights shot my baby this morning with just the D300 and the 17-55/2.8. Would a D3 with 24-70/2.8 in have done a better job? Maybe, but the D300 probably give him a higher return on investment. He needed more tools than just his camera to make my baby laugh to get his shots.

You need to know what you mean by full frame. If you started with 135 format film, and you talk about full frame then it's justified. If you started with DX, then you can stick with DX because DX is full frame to you. There is no end if you wanted a larger sensor size. First, you go full 135 frame.. then what? You'll spend more money on lenses.. then what? How about full frame 645 digital? ;p Phase-One? IMO, 135-format full frame only makes sense for people like my dad who already have a collection of lenses since F3 days.

 

[Zichar]

Catchlights shot my baby this morning with just the D300 and the 17-55/2.8. Would a D3 with 24-70/2.8 in have done a better job? Maybe, but the D300 probably give him a higher return on investment. He needed more tools than just his camera to make my baby laugh to get his shots.

Love the expression! Am wondering what catchlights did to get your kid to have that look hehe...

 

[lsisaxon]

Love the expression! Am wondering what catchlights did to get your kid to have that look hehe...

Oops.. OT liao..

Hahaha... Book a session with him lor.. ;p He did many things to try to get my baby to open up but my baby is just shy. He wasn't so quiet when I was shooting him myself a month ago..

Anyway, I think it's just a spontaneous reaction from my baby and he's fast enough to have caught that.

A month ago. I shot this with D300 + 17-55/2.8 also but my lighting setup wasn't as good as catchlights'.
EXIF intact.

 

[catchlights]

thanks lsisaxon, your son is so handsome and adorable..

yes, I'm just using an "ok" camera, and a not so sharp lens with very bad distortion (as in comments by some CSers about this lens) , anyway, it is good enough to produce large wall portrait, more than what most of my customers asking for.

lighting wise, I like to keep it simple.