If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long
period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR. I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh). Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon) you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to those two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of. One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the catalog. Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it seems to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is attracted to one or the other? I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions. There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What? Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where? I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from sales brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas. David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:33:20 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote: : I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long : period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap : super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution : was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR. : I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph : the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see : the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh). : : Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon) : you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one : to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people : stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know : there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to those : two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to : mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of. : : One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time : and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in : time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their : line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no : intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their : systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the : catalog. : : Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As : neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it seems : to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is : there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is : attracted to one or the other? : : I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used : Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't : really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions. : : There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What? : : Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where? : : I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from sales : brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the : reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs : and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no : axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas. I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that there are others in the group whose experience is not radically different. My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she a Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm tele. But because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had largely fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived. In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of our grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we went along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals of that era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the viewfinder and what you got on the card. That mattered a lot as the kids got more active, and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to go DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable lenses. We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of providing superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which I hoped would reduce our learning curve, and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level equivalent. (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness as for any other reason.) Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we did get hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and Nikon are in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there aren't differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice for a given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever been, with some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors, for example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average user. The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as good a guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands on a couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and make sure that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an irritant. And read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features and to see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a given camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose. It appears to me that you're taking the right approach. You seem to be going in with an open mind, and you're asking people who should know what they're talking about. (A few of us don't, but you'll figure out who they are soon enough.) And as you come up with more specific questions, we'll try to answer them as best we can. Bob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
In article , Robert Coe
wrote: : I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a : long : period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap : super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution : was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go : DSLR. : I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to : photograph : the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see : the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh). : : Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon) : you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one : to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people : stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know : there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to : those : two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to : mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of. : : One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time : and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in : time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their : line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no : intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their : systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the : catalog. : : Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As : neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it : seems : to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is : there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is : attracted to one or the other? : : I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used : Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't : really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions. : : There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What? : : Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where? : : I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from : sales : brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the : reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs : and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no : axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas. I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that there are others in the group whose experience is not radically different. My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she a Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm tele. But because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had largely fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived. In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of our grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we went along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals of that era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the viewfinder and what you got on the card. no, definitely not all, and it was very easy to reduce lag to imperceptible amounts on cameras that did have lag. the real problem with a lot of those cameras is that the overall speed was slow, such as time from power-on to taking a photo, how long it took to achieve focus, how long it took to write out an image to the card, etc. those can't be changed. That mattered a lot as the kids got more active, and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to go DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable lenses. what happened to the couple of 50mm lenses, the 28mm and 135mm you said you had ? We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of providing superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which I hoped would reduce our learning curve, nikon does the same. and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level equivalent. could be, depending on what you needed to do with it. two features that particular canon slr didn't have but nikon entry level cameras did was auto-iso and spot metering. (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness as for any other reason.) back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now there are quite a few. Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we did get hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and Nikon are in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there aren't differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice for a given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever been, with some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors, for example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average user. everyone is in the game to stay. unfortunately, not all win at that game. nikon and canon won't be going away anytime soon, but the others are not so clear. The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as good a guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands on a couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and make sure that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an irritant. And read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features and to see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a given camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose. since the original poster has pentax lenses, his first stop should be to look at pentax slrs. they're quite good and the old lenses will work. he also should consider mirrorless. slrs are big and bulky. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR. I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh). David- Not much has changed since you had the old Pentax. There are still people who think their pet brand is the best! I am of the opinion that any of the big-name brands are pretty good. As far as having lots of gear available, both new and used, I think you are looking at Canon and Nikon. Pentax and Sony/Minolta may be just as good, but there does not seem to be as much available. I also had Pentax K mount equipment, including some Sears/Ricoh bodies. I eventually got a Pentax *ist-DS DSLR, which I liked. I had to settle for a couple of Tokina zoom lenses to supplement the kit lens that came with it. There are some newer models, but Pentax has not yet produced a full-frame body as far as I know. My current DSLR is a Canon 5D Mark II. It is impressive how well it works in very low light conditions. Unless you were to find one at a very good price, it may not be what you are looking for. One of the entry level bodies with its kit lens may be your best bet to get started. Bear in mind that entry level bodies will probably have a small sensor, and come with a lens to match it. In other words, you would not be able to use that lens if you were to upgrade to a body with a full-frame sensor. I suggest you start with the kit lens, but make sure any additional lenses will work with the larger sensor. Fred |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:03:43 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe : wrote: : : : I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a : : long : : period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap : : super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution : : was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go : : DSLR. : : I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to : : photograph : : the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see : : the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh). : : : : Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon) : : you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one : : to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people : : stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know : : there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to : : those : : two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to : : mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of. : : : : One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time : : and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in : : time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their : : line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no : : intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their : : systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the : : catalog. : : : : Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As : : neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it : : seems : : to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is : : there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is : : attracted to one or the other? : : : : I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used : : Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't : : really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions. : : : : There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What? : : : : Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where? : : : : I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from : : sales : : brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the : : reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs : : and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no : : axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas. : : I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that there are : others in the group whose experience is not radically different. : : My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she a : Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm tele. But : because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had largely : fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived. : : In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of our : grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we went : along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals of that : era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the viewfinder : and what you got on the card. : : no, definitely not all, and it was very easy to reduce lag to : imperceptible amounts on cameras that did have lag. : : the real problem with a lot of those cameras is that the overall speed : was slow, such as time from power-on to taking a photo, how long it : took to achieve focus, how long it took to write out an image to the : card, etc. those can't be changed. : : That mattered a lot as the kids got more active, : and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to go : DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable lenses. : : what happened to the couple of 50mm lenses, the 28mm and 135mm you said : you had ? We still have them. But all predate AE and AF, so would not have met our needs and had no effect on our decision. : We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of providing : superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which I hoped : would reduce our learning curve, : : nikon does the same. : : and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and : it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level equivalent. : : could be, depending on what you needed to do with it. two features that : particular canon slr didn't have but nikon entry level cameras did was : auto-iso and spot metering. : : (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness as : for any other reason.) : : back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now : there are quite a few. You don't think Olympus qualified? : Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we did get : hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of : equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and Nikon are : in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any : significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there aren't : differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice for a : given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever been, with : some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors, for : example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more : significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average user. : : everyone is in the game to stay. unfortunately, not all win at that : game. nikon and canon won't be going away anytime soon, but the others : are not so clear. I'd still choose Nikon or Canon, assuming I had no useful legacy lenses. : The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as good a : guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands on a : couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and make sure : that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an irritant. And : read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features and to : see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a given : camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose. : : since the original poster has pentax lenses, his first stop should be : to look at pentax slrs. they're quite good and the old lenses will : work. A valid suggestion, on the face of it. But it's not entirely clear that the OP still has his Pentax lenses. : he also should consider mirrorless. slrs are big and bulky. I guess you and I agree that mirrorless will win eventually. But I don't think it's sufficiently competitive yet. Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
In article , Robert Coe
wrote: : (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness : as for any other reason.) : : back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now : there are quite a few. You don't think Olympus qualified? for the 4/3rds slrs, definitely not. the bodies were only slightly smaller than the smallest nikon/canon slrs, but the sensor was 2x crop versus 1.5x or 1.6x. which means you had at least a 1 stop penalty in image quality for a camera that was about the same size in your hand. what's the point in that? plus, the lenses were insanely overpriced compared to nikon/canon. worse, 4/3rd slrs were a dead end. you could never get a bigger sensor or a pro level camera whereas nikon/canon users who bought a crop sensor camera could eventually trade up to full frame if they wanted. nikon dx lenses will work on a full frame body, but in crop mode, so no different than what they had before. however, canon ef-s lenses will not mount at all on a canon full frame camera. any full frame lenses they had will of course work. it's different now. micro-4/3rds is what 4/3rds should have been all along. it's still a 4/3rds sensor but at least the cameras and lenses are much smaller. based on its popularity, customers agree. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
On 1/26/2013 4:33 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR. I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh). Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon) you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to those two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of. One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the catalog. Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it seems to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is attracted to one or the other? I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions. There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What? Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where? I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from sales brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas. David There is a third ... it's emotional. Since the early of film years in the 50's, I have used Nikon cameras and accessories. Reason being I have always liked Nikon equipment and when encountering a problem, Nikon service was always there. Then came the digital cameras and I bought the first Nikon that hit the market and I was greatly dissatisfied with the camera. Then the local camera store loaned me a Canon camera and some lenses and I was back in photo-heaven. I ended up buying into Canon equipment and although my pictures didn't show it, I progressively tended to be uncomfortable with my Canon equipment. There was nothing technically wrong with the equipment, I just wasn't comfortable with the Canon photo system. After about four years of using Canon, I awoke one morning and suddenly decided to sell off all my Canon equipment and get back with Nikon. So off I went to the local Camera store and again bought a lot of Nikon gear. As of now, all my equipment, with the exception of a PS Canon camera is back with Nikon and I feel good again. I wish I could give you reasons why I'm glued to Nikon and why I was dissatisfied with Canon but I can't. I just wasn't comfortable using the Canon equipment-system. Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind there is a lingering feeling that Canon does more experimental marketing and is quick to market products whereas Nikon seems to lag behind in marketing yet market their equipment after they have conservatively tested the equipment they intend to market. As for my advice to you, I'd say stay with either a Canon system or a Nikon system (as you have already decided) but rent the cameras and use them before you make a final decision. Both systems take technically good photo's and yet both systems somewhat differ in their working methods. Start thinking about how much discretionary money you have to spend in pursuance of a photo hobby and make your judgment-call accordingly. There are very good P&S cameras and very good DSLR's. Don't forget to include costs for support equipment such as software, computer, pod's, flashes, filters, printers, etc,. etc,. etc,. Remember too, obsolescence is just around the corner so look at equipment you will most likely stay with and use regardless of future marketing. For example: An ace lens today, will still be an ace lens tomorrow and familiarity with equipment breeds confidence. If you arrive upon a final decision, post same and request opinions as concerns the camera model/system you have tentatively decided to zero in on. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
On 27/01/2013 00:33, David Hare-Scott wrote:
[] There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What? Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where? I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from sales brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas. David At the point where I was ready to buy a DSLR, I went into the camera store (the now-defunct Jessops, Edinburgh) and held both the Canon and Nikon equivalent cameras to see which I preferred. The Nikon won, so I've been Nikon ever since. I had no legacy lenses having sold off my film SLR stuff while I could still get some money for it. I have not been disappointed, and agree with some of the comments about Canon vs. Nikon in this thread. I think both companies are in it for the long term, although both will face competition from the newer mirrorless cameras. My main lenses are an 18-200 mm image-stabilised walk-round zoom and a Tamron 10-24 mm wide-angle, although I also have a 35 mm f/1.8 for low-light, and a 16-85 mm smaller walk-round zoom. The 70-300mm telephoto tends only to be used when I need it and can be bothered to carry it. Choice of lenses can influence your choice of manufacturer - can you get the lenses you want? Bear in mind that there is a wider range of lenses available today compared to in the film era. My latest purchase has been a more modern "bridge" camera, as I do sometimes find the DSLR outfit a little heavy even with one lens. I went for the Sony HX200V, with built-in GPS for geo-tagging, and a 27-810 mm (equivalent) zoom lens. Would be nice for your eagle photography, if it's not too slow to respond.... It's all compromise one way or another! -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:12:13 +0000, David Taylor
wrote: O At the point where I was ready to buy a DSLR, I went into the camera store (the now-defunct Jessops, Edinburgh) and held both the Canon and Nikon equivalent cameras to see which I preferred. The Nikon won, so I've been Nikon ever since. I had no legacy lenses having sold off my film SLR stuff while I could still get some money for it. I have not been disappointed, and agree with some of the comments about Canon vs. Nikon in this thread. I think both companies are in it for the long term, although both will face competition from the newer mirrorless cameras. I wholeheartedly agree with the above. I would just also explicitly mention besides the look and feel of the outside camera controls, it might behoove one to delve into the menu system as well and see if its layout makes sense to you. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
me wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:12:13 +0000, David Taylor wrote: O At the point where I was ready to buy a DSLR, I went into the camera store (the now-defunct Jessops, Edinburgh) and held both the Canon and Nikon equivalent cameras to see which I preferred. The Nikon won, so I've been Nikon ever since. I had no legacy lenses having sold off my film SLR stuff while I could still get some money for it. I have not been disappointed, and agree with some of the comments about Canon vs. Nikon in this thread. I think both companies are in it for the long term, although both will face competition from the newer mirrorless cameras. I wholeheartedly agree with the above. I would just also explicitly mention besides the look and feel of the outside camera controls, it might behoove one to delve into the menu system as well and see if its layout makes sense to you. If you actually use the camera, in six months or less the "look and feel" of virtually any DSLR will become comfortable. The same is true of the controls, both hardware and menu driven. I suspect that most of those who buy cameras based on the feel of the camera, the color of the lenses, the sound of the shutter, minor price variations, which one some other photog uses, what the Walmart salesman says, or for that matter what they read in forums such as this on the Internet... get what they deserve. That is, they'll really admire the camera sitting on the coffee table and enjoy the conversations about it. Other folks that chose their camera based on which one does the best job for their style of photography will have conversations about their photographs rather than about their camera. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
iPad practical jokes | C J Campbell[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | April 12th 10 07:20 PM |
Is looking at 100% crop practical? | Rod Williams | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | September 6th 06 07:35 PM |
Deconvolution software, any practical value? | Rich | Digital Photography | 11 | March 7th 06 03:55 PM |
Practical Holography | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 9 | November 14th 05 11:42 PM |
Question about choosing contax system | Patrick Leung | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 53 | September 7th 04 03:59 PM |