Digital cameras

[Singlestack Wonder]

Canon is the "top tier" of digital camera's. Nikon is the DPMS version. Just kidding! Both are great lines.

[JohnnyC]

I'm about to pick up a 5D Mark III and trying to decide which of the lenses I have I'm going to replace with L-glass.


Expensive decisions......

[SteyrAUG]

My cell phone sucks, so Nikon D5100 for pics.

[Honu]

I just dumped 6 of my L glass
its simple you buy the 16-35 70-200 for sure and the 24-70 if you like that range
the 24,35,85,135 for best quality in primes but realize the 85 is dog slow focusing and the 85 1.8 is much quicker and more useable if you take things that move a lot
unless you are shooting for a living ? L glass is not needed the 70-200 is amazing though

I'm about to pick up a 5D Mark III and trying to decide which of the lenses I have I'm going to replace with L-glass.


Expensive decisions......

[Honu]

Ironic canon has better flash units now something Nikon used to claim
Ironic nikon has better sensors now something Canon used to claim
they have swapped things and will keep bouncing back and forth

actually some of the 3rd party flashes these days have really changed things up the Cheetah lights as a good example some of the trigger setups now etc.. are also so good these days for cheap some of the 3rd party are catching canons flash setups not quite there yet but catching

cameras like the Fuji or E-M1 and GH4 with high quality lens are replacing some of the FF setups these days for certain things
lens like the Oly 75 1.8 and Panny/Leica 42.5 Fujis 56 are better than FF options for sharpness wide open contrast etc...

Canon is the "top tier" of digital camera's. Nikon is the DPMS version. Just kidding! Both are great lines.

[Palmguy]

I just dumped 6 of my L glass
its simple you buy the 16-35 70-200 for sure and the 24-70 if you like that range
the 24,35,85,135 for best quality in primes but realize the 85 is dog slow focusing and the 85 1.8 is much quicker and more useable if you take things that move a lot
unless you are shooting for a living ? L glass is not needed the 70-200 is amazing though

The Sigma 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 are both excellent and less expensive than their Canon & Nikon counterparts.
The Canon/Nikon 85 f/1.8 are both very good as well and, especially in the case of the Nikon, provide almost all of the performance of the 85L & 85/1.4G for a fraction of the price.


To your other post, yeah, the Olympus 75/1.8 is incredible; it almost makes me want to pick up a micro 4/3 body again just to have it available.

Mirrorless cameras are getting to be fantastic. I'm about to add the Sony a6000 and a few Zeiss lenses (16-70 f/4, 32 f/1.8, maybe 24 f/1.8) for a travel kit.

[Honu]

yeah the sigma art series is amazing and IMHO doing better than canikon these days

I dumped my 85 1.2 and got the 85 1.8 for canon a long time ago when I was canon on the noon side I used the 85 1.4 and the 1.8 kept the 1.8 which I use now
I have other fast glass if I need it

I am loving the OMD stuff just so fun to shoot and the IBIS is amazing
for weddings I replaced my 70-200 2.8 with the 75 and I miss the range of the zoom a bit ? but the 75 is so awesome and in churches its so quiet and the 1.8 is awesome and I am ok with a bit more DOF in this case it works for me

saw that zeiss touit E mount 32mm and 12mm deal both of those for $999 great deal

the A600 is proving to be amazing little camera Sony is doing some cool stuff a bit leary of sony cause they bounce all over
but I am waiting for the new A7 series ? no idea when but when it comes out I am going to jump on that and put some CV glass on it
I am getting out of weddings and going more into portraits these days so the manual focus won't be a issue

IMHO and you might agree unless you are a pro or have a real real real solid reason to buy FF most people should be looking at cameras like the A600 or the M4/3 options as the better choices for people who just want to take great photos

I carry the OMD all the time and my FF gear only comes out for certain work
in super dark receptions I prefer the handling of FF
using the nikon D4 or the E-m1 I prefer my E-M1 hahaahahah that says something

The Sigma 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 are both excellent and less expensive than their Canon & Nikon counterparts.
The Canon/Nikon 85 f/1.8 are both very good as well and, especially in the case of the Nikon, provide almost all of the performance of the 85L & 85/1.4G for a fraction of the price.


To your other post, yeah, the Olympus 75/1.8 is incredible; it almost makes me want to pick up a micro 4/3 body again just to have it available.

Mirrorless cameras are getting to be fantastic. I'm about to add the Sony a6000 and a few Zeiss lenses (16-70 f/4, 32 f/1.8, maybe 24 f/1.8) for a travel kit.

[C4IGrant]

I know that most of us these days take pictures with our cell phone cameras. I've got an old (by today's technology standards) HP Photosmart that I've been using for around 7 years or so. It has 6.0 megapixels. I was browsing the local Wal-Mart today and noticed that they carry basic digital cameras in the $20-40 range with 14 megapixels.

Kinda made me notice how much camera technology is advancing. Anyone else stuck in the past with me or does everyone just use their cell phones nowadays?

I bought the new Sony RX100 II. I am blown away at its capabilities (and have high end SLR's).


C4

[GH41]

I bought the new Sony RX100 II. I am blown away at its capabilities (and have high end SLR's).


C4

Question is... how old are your high end DSLRS?? I am looking at a new camera that has a built in phone! 20 MP, 4500 ISO, stops down to 2.0, CZ glass and big sensor. All for $99 with a contract! It is not a D5 but is a hell of a phone camera. There is a well respected photographer down here that gets 5K an hour for his shoots. A few years ago he got the contract to shoot fashion week again. His critics complained that he wasn't shit without his high end gear and editing staff. He shot the event with an I-Phone on a dare and got paid his full price. More than anything the Indian is more important than the arrows in photography! GH

[Talon167]

Pixel count is pretty much meaningless at this point. It takes a lot more than megapixels to make a good camera.

Yes. I was going to post something similar.

Megapixels seem to be the standard by which most measure how good a camera is. All megapixels really designates is how big it can take a picture... the dimensions in pixels basically.

The sensors, lenses, etc are what make the quality of the photos better. Take a photo with a phone and a Nikon D800, compare them side by side, and you'll see.