Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Lastsoul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
2,187
Location
Finland
Car(s)
MX5, 406 Coup?, 106 Rallye, Porsche 924, X300 Six
I accidentally found a Canon A-1 system for sale and decided to go for it. It's been over two years since I shot film last time, and then using my fathers sweet Minox 35GT. With the A-1 I got FD 50/1.4, 35-70/4 and 80-200/4 lenses and some accessories. Everything I need in, in theory at least. Such a shame that FD is not compatible with EOS, the 50/1.4 would've been great addition to my EOS system.

Anyway, a roll of Tri-X found its way inside and now I'm just trying to get over the "should I take a picture or not?" phase and start enjoying some lovely black and white tones.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
Tough question, that's a lot of price variation between options. What are used D7000s going for? A used D300 goes for $550-$650 these days, which is a damn steal for a last-gen professional body. The D7000 is a nice camera but I'd take a D300 over it for most situations. FX is nice, the D700 is a great camera, but as you mentioned you're going to have to shell out for a wide zoom to replace your 16-85. Maybe a used 24-85 VR? I'll also reiterate my love for the Tokina 16-28/2.8 at ~$700. IMO it will be some time (years) before D600s are $1600 used, FX bodies tend to hold their value remarkably well, unless Nikon starts accelerating their update schedule, which I think is unlikely.

You can find a refurb'd D7000 for $750 on KEH.com, a used one in EX condition can be found for similar coin. I understand that the D300 has more features but which features immediately stick out at you to prefer it over a D7000? Doesn't the D7000 have a better sensor?

I think I've convinced myself out of FX for now due to the lack of a lens at the wide end. Although the 24-85 VR maybe the one I should look at, even though I'd rather have something like 16-35 VR or the 17-35. If I could find either for just under a grand used, I'd jump on it.
 

BerserkerCatSplat

Hormone Induced
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
9,633
Location
Alberta, Canada
Car(s)
The Jeep of Theseus, Angry Wagon
D7000 has a bit better high ISO performance than the D300, yep. The D300 has significantly better AF (faster, more points), faster shooting (8FPS with grip), lots of on-body controls rather than in-menu, etc. It was designed to be a sports shooter's second body with a D3, and it performs extremely well unless you're shooting in the dark. If you're using ISO higher than 800 on a regular basis and printing large enough for it to matter, the D300 won't be as sharp as the D7000.

The 16-35 and 17-35 are nice, but I'd honestly have the Tokina 16-28 over either of them (it's sharper and built like a tank) unless you need to use filters. Also keep in mind that those are really wide on FX - the 24-85 is a better approximation of your existing DX wideangle.
 

edkwon

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
6,528
Location
The OC
Car(s)
2020 Kia Telluride, 2015 911 Turbo, Tesla Model Y
Re: Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

HALP!

Ok guys I need some thoughts...

Currently my setup consists of the following items:

Nikon D50

80-200 f/2.8 AF-D
16-85 VR
50 f/1.8 AF-D

SB-800
SU-800

I'm debating about finally upgrading my D50. D7000 prices are starting to look real good in the used and refurb'd market (my D50 is a refurb'd model an it has been an absolute gem since I bought it back in '08). But then I let my mind wander and I began looking up the used market for a D700 and noticed that those prices aren't so bad either if I save a bit more. Problem is I don't have any lens on the wide end in FX.

So question is, do I:

a) Go full frame now and get pick up a D700
b) Pick up a D7000 + new lens
c) Get nicer FX wide angle lens and wait until used D600s start popping up at the ~$1600 range...

Shoot for the moon and spend a little extra on a used Nikon D700, they are built like tanks, will teach you to appreciate the controls on a pro body camera, will force you to use only high quality glass and make you ditch your cheaper crop body lenses, and is a great way to move into full frame photography at a reasonable affordable price. I sold my D700 body for $1600 so you can definitely get them at a good price.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,004
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
BerserkerCatSplat said:
D7000 has a bit better high ISO performance than the D300, yep. The D300 has significantly better AF (faster, more points), faster shooting (8FPS with grip), lots of on-body controls rather than in-menu, etc. It was designed to be a sports shooter's second body with a D3, and it performs extremely well unless you're shooting in the dark. If you're using ISO higher than 800 on a regular basis and printing large enough for it to matter, the D300 won't be as sharp as the D7000.

The 16-35 and 17-35 are nice, but I'd honestly have the Tokina 16-28 over either of them (it's sharper and built like a tank) unless you need to use filters. Also keep in mind that those are really wide on FX - the 24-85 is a better approximation of your existing DX wideangle.

That's good advice and I think you have me convinced. I really want an FX camera down the line and I think in the mean time, a D300 on the cheap is probably the best idea for now. Especially since I could use the money saved on a wide FX lens, like the Tokina that you mention. Looking into that lens, it looks to be an awesome value. Bummer that it can't use filters, a CP would be nice to have on the wide end.

Shoot for the moon and spend a little extra on a used Nikon D700, they are built like tanks, will teach you to appreciate the controls on a pro body camera, will force you to use only high quality glass and make you ditch your cheaper crop body lenses, and is a great way to move into full frame photography at a reasonable affordable price. I sold my D700 body for $1600 so you can definitely get them at a good price.

If I go that route, I'll ditch my 16-85 VR and my D50. Then I'd have a D700 with the 50 f/1.8 and the 80-200. Not that I couldn't make this work but it would be limiting. The reality is, between the D300, D7000, and D700, any of them will be a major upgrade over my D50. I feel like no matter the direction I go, I'll be happy. The question is do I want pour more money into a body or into glass or a balance of both?
 
Last edited:

Davetouch

is un-Stoppable
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
8,552
Location
Longbridge, Birminghamland
Car(s)
'00 9-3 2.0 Turbo Vert, Various MGs, '99 Ringoo
Been having a random thought while looking back through my Blips...



What is causing the pattern in the far headlight? Its as if its multiple photos layered, but it was one single shot as the car drove past. Is it something like the refresh rate of the sensor/camera's computer?
 

Labcoatguy

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
13,893
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Car(s)
#Jaguar #XKR, #Saab #9-3, #Toyota #MR2 #Spyder
Do you remember what car that might've been? Considering only part of the headlight beam has that pattern, it could be an LED refreshing, as you might see in some Top Gear slo-mo clips.
 

thomas

Grouchy Beemer Owner
STAFF MEMBER
DONOR
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Messages
5,993
Location
Freiburg - De, or Texas when possible
Car(s)
'00 M539, '94 Cadillac Fleetwood, '19 Focus Wagon
Can't get the urge to get a 7d out of my head. Not before texas, not since. The 1000d is a great entrylevel camera, but 1.5 raw-fps just doesn't do the trick at a track, or at all, and the ISO-noise is just bad as soon as you hit 800, sometimes even 400.

So... I just put up my 1000d-Set for sale for what I think would be a fair price for me on a few sites. If it sells, 7d it is, if not, good.

On a sidenote: I got myself the always-on 18-135 STM just before my trip to texas, and I was more than happy with it. The image quality is really good for "just" a 400eur crop-lens, throughout the full range. The range is exactly what I was hoping to have and get to use coming from the 17-85, didn't miss the 1mm on the short end. Had my 50mm with me, never used it. Next lens-buy is probably a 70-200 of some kind, but when I get the 7d-body, that'll have to wait a bit.
 

Smurfen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,895
Location
The United State Of Norway
Car(s)
06' BMW 118D E87
yay, got some moneis for christmas, buying the D7000 with 18-105mm kit lens this week! tried to save up for it for a year to no avail :p

slight upgrade from my Olympus e-510 and my girlfriends d3000 :p
 
Last edited:

marcos_eirik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2004
Messages
3,609
Location
Oslo, Norway
Car(s)
Mostly my feet, occasionally a Tesla
This may be a surprise to some, but the E-M5 was just voted "Best camera of 2012" on DPReview. I don't want to read too much into that, however it is clear that the E-M5 has significantly changed how people view mFT, it is now a truly viable alternative to APS-C dSLRs... It's also funny to read some of the desperate trolling from those who are displeased with the result... :p
 

Psirus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
592
Location
Berlin, Germany
GAS - Gear Acquisation Syndrome
Edit: Damn, that's what you get for loading all the topics in tabs, and then going away for a couple of minutes, and not reloading on return. <_<
 
Last edited:

Buktu

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
2,371
Location
Denmark
Car(s)
Suzuki Swift 1.3 2006
Well, I've only just gotten my Canon SLR, so I'm really itching to get some proper lenses. Only sporting the kit 18-55mm right now :) I've got three lenses on my wishlist for the moment, the 70-200mm 4L, the 100mm Macro 2.8 and the 50mm 1.8.

I keep checking if there's any used lenses for sale around here. Any good tips on what to look out for in that respect? :)
 
Top