People who put expensive lenses on "lesser" cameras

In article ,
Michael Johnson wrote:

Rita also appears to possibly be a professional -- and there are tax
breaks for professionals that might make all this even better.

Then she should qualify her statements accordingly.

But she's a big tease -- look at some of the photos she's shot,
especially of the ladies of the night with the Nikkor Noct or whatever
it was.

Ray Macey wrote:
[]
I would also argue that the difference between image quality on
different bodies is greater than that produced by better glass.
[]
Ray

Don't Canon have a reputation for relatively poor lenses except for their
L-series?

David

On Jul 12, 4:12 pm, "David J Taylor"
Don't Canon have a reputation for relatively poor lenses except for their
L-series?

David

Not that I'm aware of. I know their kit lenses are pretty shocking
compared to other manufacturers kit lenses, but other than that I
haven't heard of any such reputation. I don't have first hand
experience with many canon lenses though, so I'm operating purely on
hearsay

Ray

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Michael Johnson wrote:

I am self employed and use computers extensively for CAD work on civil
engineering plans. My computers are far from bleeding edge technology
and having the latest dual-core processors with 4GB of RAM, 10,000 rpm
hard drives, $500 video cards etc. makes no discernible difference in
the quality of my finished products or the time it takes me to deliver
them.

This only means that you aren't buying the proper equipment for the task
at
hand. Dual Xeon processors on a Supermicro MB and SCSI drives are
mandatory
for a decent workhorse workstation.






Rita


Your positions, with their sweeping generalizations in favor of the latest
technological releases (which btw are always obsolete regarding current R&D)
lean heavily in the direction of image over suitability to task. Most
professionals and certainly hobbyists are better served by suitability to
task. It is almost never financially prudent or remotely beneficial to
purchase technology upon initial availability as it's obviously the wrong
part of the curve for both reliability and resale value purposes.

I qualified it with almost never because there are obvious cases of new
technologies bringing previously unattainable or less attractive goals into
the proper window of opportunity.

joe

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote:

I am self employed and use computers extensively for CAD work on civil
engineering plans. My computers are far from bleeding edge technology
and having the latest dual-core processors with 4GB of RAM, 10,000 rpm
hard drives, $500 video cards etc. makes no discernible difference in
the quality of my finished products or the time it takes me to deliver
them.

This only means that you aren't buying the proper equipment for the task at
hand. Dual Xeon processors on a Supermicro MB and SCSI drives are
mandatory
for a decent workhorse workstation.

I'm glad you're not making my business decisions. You evidently don't
run Autocad much for civil engineering applications.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote:

Nope, you seem to be looking at this in a totally contorted view
that you were taught in school. Throw conventional wisdom out the
window for a moment and think the whole problem through and you will
see how quickly you save thousands of dollars by following the
18-month rule and get to use the latest and greatest equipment for
pennies. Just think it through before you say it is not feasible.

Let's take the 5D and 30D for arguments sake and analyze your logic.
Say I bought a 30D the week it was released at a VERY inflated price
(like all new releases are priced initially). I keep it 18 months
during which time the street price for that model drops substantially.

This makes absolutely no sense at all! Why would someone want to
overpay in
the first place? The smart way to do this is to buy into the dSLR at the
lowest possible price point. Yes, there are deals and ways for the smart
shopper to get the very best price if they research their purchase. An
example of this is with Nikon's 187-200mm VR. I bought this lens through
Ritz Camera being on their wait list for $750 delivered. I also was on a
few other wait lists for the same price as well. While all the fools were
buying these things for $900+, I was waiting for mine to be delivered. I
got it and several others that I sold on eBay for $900+. The profit I made
from selling the others offsets the price of justifying keeping the one
piece of crap I kept enough that it was almost free. Once I get sick of
that lens I can sell it on eBay for a substantial profit. It's like Nikon
is paying me $750 to use that lens for two years.

Now you are qualifying your previous statements. If you're advocating
using bleeding edge technology but then put yourself on a waiting list
to get a lower price you aren't following your own advice. Look at all
that time you spent NOT having all that wonderful new technology at your
disposal.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...

Only way I buy into "bleeding edge" is if I can get it at a substantial
savings to offset the depreciation curve. I use this strategy for IT
equipment as well. Rita


This was most certainly not indicated by your choice of wording in this
thread that's morphed into a conversation concerning your "Use By date". In
fact, it took someone finally saying "I think Rita wouldn't..." to get you
to state it clearly. Had you qualified your position this distinctly in the
first place the thread might have come to a conclusion days ago.

joe

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:

Now you have
to start out on the bottom again. But, like you said if it is the
only camera body you are ever going to buy then it really doesn't
matter.

I never said that. I said I will continue to use it as long as it
keeps producing the photos that I bought it for. Why exactly does the
camera stop producing those photos after 18 months?

How many hands do you have?

I have two. What does that question have to do with why a camera would stop
producing photos after 18 months?

How many camera bodies can you carry and
use at the same time?

Don't know, never tried it. What does that question have to do with why a
camera would stop producing photos after 18 months?

If the body is sitting around wasting away and
depreciating and is not making you money it is counterproductive to
keep it.

Why would the camera body be sitting around?


I repeat my question from before which you tried to evade:

Why exactly does the camera stop producing the photos I want after 18
months?


jue

On Jul 11, 5:31 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
RichA wrote:
Rather than putting say medium quality lenses on bodies with better
sensors.
Ever wonder why someone would put a $2000 on a run of the mill 6-10
megapixel DSLR when they would buy a better DSLR and outfit it with
medium quality lenses? Put another way, which would you rather
produce images with:
A $3000 Canon 5D body and a $500 Canon lens, or a $700 XTi and a $2800
lens? Some people amass a large collection of high grade lenses and
they are using them on entry or medium level bodies. In the time of
SLRs, it could have made sense. Get the lens stable you need because
film is film and the SLR was just a transport, some being a bit more
comprehensive than others, but in-terms of image quality of most
subjects, the film and lens determined 99% of the outcome.

But someone with and XTi is not going to match a 5Ds image quality,
ever, so does it make sense to go the cheap body, expensive lens route
unless some of those lenses provided specific attributes you couldn't
duplicate if you bought the 5D body and then didn't have the funds to
build the lens collection?

This is why following the 18-month rule is so important. Remember, the
lenses will/should last a lifetime while a dSLR body is the only disposable
item in the equation. The only people that get burned are the ones thinking
they are saving money by keeping a dSLR body past its "Use By" date.

Rita

Horse manure. Any time you don't spend money and keep doing the job
you need to do at the level it must have, you're saving money.

Both my Pentax *ist D bodies are old, one of them about four years...I
bought the second one used, so I don't know its age. The photos they
take today are a better than those they took when new. How am I losing
money by not buying a K10D?

Add that to the fact that any new model, regardless of brand, seems to
have teething problems, and those at greater risk for monetary lost
are the early adopters.

On Jul 11, 5:37 pm, Michael Johnson wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

This is why following the 18-month rule is so important. Remember, the
lenses will/should last a lifetime while a dSLR body is the only disposable
item in the equation. The only people that get burned are the ones
thinking
they are saving money by keeping a dSLR body past its "Use By" date.

How exactly am I saving money by buying a 5D to replace my perfectly
acceptable 300D?

By creative accounting. Think Enron.
Rita learned all about buzzwords from these kind of people, and
thus needs neither facts nor common sense nor the slightest grasp
of reality.

In fact, the longer you keep your camera, the better the TCO,
as devaluation slows down --- and you can skip a few camera
generations. Once you decide to upgrade to the newest and best,
you saved more than enough (in comparison to Rita's methods) to
treat yourself to the newest 1D Mk LARGE_NUMBER with all the money
you didn't foolishly spent --- and keep the old body as backup.

The only case where you would loose money is when a newer camera
would give sufficiently better pictures in a sufficiently better
number so that your profit after taxes and so on would be much[1]
larger than the price of the new camera.

-Wolfgang

[1] you gamnble, you want assured results.

The only way her math works in the slightest is I would have to earn a
living taking photos and even then it very likely wouldn not be the case.

It isn't.