Who is content with there DSLR

S

ServerKing

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
1,730
I love new technology and enjoy playing with new things but photography I dont think I will ever replace my D3000 I love that camera. The reason I love it is because its just a camera. No fancy video taking modes, no live screen, none of those extras or bullet points they add to all the new digital cameras and I still take great photos with it. I just want a camera to be a camera and nothing else. If I want to shoot video I will get a real video camera is how I feel. Probably the reason why i love shooting film because it makes you focus more on your shots then a digital because its a finite amount you have not unlimited. Funny seeing all my friend talking and getting all the new gear and lenses yet I am very happy with what I have and dont feel the need to upgrade anytime soon. How do you feel about your gear?
 
For me... I will not go back to a crop sensor camera... (other than p&s like my fuji).. I love full frame... so I am content with my 5D Mark III.... a lot better than my 5D Mark II...
 
Yeah, no offense... but d3000 image quality would make me cringe unless iso 400 or less. Since i do a lot of low light shooting i would need a better sensor. Last black friday I picked up a pentax K01 with 40mm F2.8lens for $349 with memory card, bag, etc. Sold off my DSLR gear + lenses. really happy with it, just wish i had a wider lens sometimes.

I use to have a pentax K200d which also uses a ccd 10.2mp sensor like the D3000. I did get some sweet images with that camera, but pretty much only outdoors. the noise i got from pushing iso really bothered me.
 
Last edited:
Never lol!

I do really like my 60D though, it is a fantastic camera for the money. I would love a 5D Mk (latest) someday though.
 
I still use my 20D from time to time. It basically sits underneath the seat of my car and goes everywhere with me.

That said, I have a 6D and a 7D that I use for my serious shooting. I'm pretty happy with both bodies.
 
but pretty much only outdoors. the noise i got from pushing iso really bothered me.
Click to expand...

I usually never pass 400 ISO with that camera I dont do a lot of low light photography if I use it mostly for portraits, weddings, or paid gigs. I wouldnt mind have a full frame cannon either but I like my full frame prime lense which is good enough for me. I wouldnt mind getting a mirrorless camera to play with just because...

Also for my BW film I shoot with a Nikon N75 and Pentax ZX-M (I love this little camera)
 
I like my T3i even if it's not a full frame.

Beside the money spent on a new DSLR can be used towards more lenses! :D
 
darktiger said:
For me... I will not go back to a crop sensor camera... (other than p&s like my fuji).. I love full frame... so I am content with my 5D Mark III.... a lot better than my 5D Mark II...
Click to expand...
I feel very much the same. My D800 is more than enough for my needs, and will probably be a sufficient camera for the next years to come. I tend to buy lenses more often than upgrading my camera body every iteration. Heck, I only picked up the D800 as an upgrade from my D80 that I've used for 5 years.

As for crop sensors, if I was in the market for one right now, the Nikon A doesn't look so bad. Very attractive toy.
 
I am in love with my 7D but I lust after the 5D MkIII. About the only negative I have on my 7D is the noise on higher ISO settings. My main use is high speed photography for action/sports so the 8fps on the 7D was a good choice.
 
Use a 5D2 now... but would love to upgrade to a 5D3.

I used to want "just a camera" but now I'm getting into videography and honestly, I love the fact that I have a single system that allows me to do high end video and stills (the 5D2 was used in the Avengers, and one of the finales of House! It is no slouch in video), it's cost effective, and portable. Unlike the comparatively larger and heavier DV cams.

The 5D3 would give me significantly better AF and ISO which would simply compliment my work further. It has a lot of other nice features, but it's a worthy upgrade for those two things alone. The video also was improved significantly.

I foresee that I'll be on dSLR's for a while yet, but I know it will not be forever. I think in the next 10 years or so mirrorless will be the future. There are just too many technological imperatives that drive it. Eventually the digital viewfinder will be so good that it will be indistinguishable from an optical viewfinder. The AF systems will catch up, they'll make a full frame version, and essentially it will be a dSLR, save for the fact that it technically doesn't have a mirror and mirror box and is significantly smaller in size/weight.

In the mean time while we're transitioning, I'm more than happy to "pay the price" for my bigger/bulkier dSLR, as I get the image quality and speed I want out of it. As long as I have decent arms/back I'll never sacrifice weight for PQ.
 
As much as I love my D7000, I think I love my Olympus OM-D even more. I wasn't interested at all in street photography before, but the light weight and inconspicuous nature of the smaller camera and lenses have awakened a new passion for that entire genre.

Not selling my D7000 any time soon, but I think it's going to stay home more than the OM-D will.
 
I'm content with my D300S and its quality 12 megapixels. Though I sometimes wonder if I should be upgrading to the D800, since I'm putting in time to capture these photos and might as well be doing it in the best resolution possible.

For now I'm going to start using primarily primes, live view contrast focus and a tripod so that I don't leave any sharpness on the table when taking landscape photos.
 
Nope, not me. I really want to go full frame, D800 or D600 sometime soon. But I have been in a major slump with my photography so far this year, so the price is even less justifiable than ever for me at this point.

I gotta start doing a lot more photo with my D90 to get back into the swing of things and start making some money at it before I can think about upgrading!
 
I'm happy with my 5D Mark II, but I need to replace my 2nd body before the wedding season this summer so I might as well upgrade! I'm thinking it'll probably be the 6D, though I'll jump on a 5D Mark III if I find one I can afford.
 
I think I'm pretty content with mine (D7000). Like many, I had the strong urge and desire to go full frame (in fact, i was all saved up, and ready to splurge), but that's slowly dwindling away oddly enough. I'm starting to realize that the camera used is quite a small part of the equation. Sometimes, its just a matter of catching the moment, regardless of the camera used, whether it's a cell phone or full blown pro kit.

Because carrying aroud a dSLR is a pain in the ass, I only really use it for "artsy" shots. I am more and more using my X10 on a daily basis (in fact, its on me all the time nowadays). I'm considering going further into the compact/rangefinder world instead of full frame (looking at getting an X100s or something in that range, maybe splurge for a leica?). It seems a little bit more interesting, practical, and does the job pretty well.

From a dSLR standpoint, as much as i'd love to go full frame, I think realisticly, I'll just make a lateral shift and get the D7100 (or whatever model there is - whenever I decide to update). That way, I keep my lenses. Would a full frame yeild better quality pics? sure. Do I need it? meh, would be nice, but not a priority.
 
Empty_Quarter said:
From a dSLR standpoint, as much as i'd love to go full frame, I think realisticly, I'll just make a lateral shift and get the D7100 (or whatever model there is - whenever I decide to update). That way, I keep my lenses. Would a full frame yeild better quality pics? sure. Do I need it? meh, would be nice, but not a priority.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that. I made the lateral shift a couple of years ago from the D90 to the D7000. But now, I believe that a full-frame camera is the only way to go.

I do agree with you on one thing, though: That "upgrade" isn't a priority for me right now.
 
My new D7100 came today. So yeah, quite content.

I'll be keeping my D3000 too.
 
I like having a combination of full frame and crop. My 6D is perfect for landscapes and portrait work and my 7D gives me a good combination of reach and AF performance for birds and other wildlife.

I think I get more use out of this combination than I would had I sold the 7D and picked up a 5Dmk3. Plus they make capable backups for each other in case I ever have a problem.
 
Empty_Quarter said:
Because carrying aroud a dSLR is a pain in the ass, I only really use it for "artsy" shots. I am more and more using my X10 on a daily basis (in fact, its on me all the time nowadays). I'm considering going further into the compact/rangefinder world instead of full frame (looking at getting an X100s or something in that range, maybe splurge for a leica?). It seems a little bit more interesting, practical, and does the job pretty well.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much at the same place. My shoulder bag to hold my D7000 + Tokina 11-16 + Nikon 17-55 + Sigma 50-150, a flash, and maybe a prime or two tossed in for good measure is already up to 20 lbs, and it's a lot of weight to be hanging off of one shoulder for an entire day. To compare, my OM-D in its bag with three native lenses and a few adapted primes feels like it weighs next to nothing and I hardly notice it being there. Then, when I get home, the pictures are pretty much just as good!
 
I've got a D3000 like the OP, and have found myself making so many compromises with my photography that I've now started saving up to get a full-frame sensor. I'm lusting after the D600, but it's going to take me at least a year to save up for one unless I get this new job I just interviewed for.
 
I borrowed a 24-70 f/2.8 L II for a studio shoot today...now I'm no longer content with my lenses!
 
I have a Nikon D200 and would love to move to a D4 but I'm poor ass hell,I would drop my D200 in a heartbeat.
 
OldDeadOne said:
I have a Nikon D200 and would love to move to a D4 but I'm poor ass hell,I would drop my D200 in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
I upgraded from my D80 (almost the same as D200) last year to a D800. Could not be happier! D4 is nice, but it's not a camera for me. Plus, I would have to sell both of my kidneys to get it ;)
 
patric said:
I borrowed a 24-70 f/2.8 L II for a studio shoot today...now I'm no longer content with my lenses!
Click to expand...

Yeah I love mine.. I owned both the 24-70 I and II and compared them.. damn there was a difference... enough that the next day I bought the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II to replace my I :)
 
darktiger said:
Yeah I love mine.. I owned both the 24-70 I and II and compared them.. damn there was a difference... enough that the next day I bought the 70-200L f/2.8 IS II to replace my I :)
Click to expand...

I have the 70-200 f/4 IS but my sister has the f/2.8 vII, so I just borrow it if I need it. Have you tried out the new 24-70 f/4 IS? I'm really just wanting something for studio and portrait work so I don't really need the f/2.8. Plus if I can save some money and get that, I can get the 135 f/2 as well!
 
patric said:
I have the 70-200 f/4 IS but my sister has the f/2.8 vII, so I just borrow it if I need it. Have you tried out the new 24-70 f/4 IS? I'm really just wanting something for studio and portrait work so I don't really need the f/2.8. Plus if I can save some money and get that, I can get the 135 f/2 as well!
Click to expand...

If you're trying to work in a studio, I probably wouldn't use zooms, I'd move to primes.

If you're starting out, the 85mm f/1.8 is a hell of a lens. Zack Arias has been using it for the past 2 years for portrait work, and if you didn't know that was the lens he was using, you'd never guess (Example: http://zackarias.com/editorial-photography/anatomy-of-an-editorial-shoot-coca-cola-ceo-muhtar-kent/ ). He also uses the 35mm f/2 which is long in the tooth and noisy (it doesn't have an ultrasonic motor) but still a very solid performer. For the shoot I posted, he had the 24L on the other body, but he has since then stated he wished he would've gotten the 35L and the 24 f/2.8... he could only afford one or the other at the time, and he wished he would've reversed them. The L variations of both are of course much nicer, but you'll pay for them.

The 135L as you mentioned is of course a very nice lens, but you will have to have more space in order to use it, unless you're simply looking to only frame headshots.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
If you're trying to work in a studio, I probably wouldn't use zooms, I'd move to primes.

If you're starting out, the 85mm f/1.8 is a hell of a lens. Zack Arias has been using it for the past 2 years for portrait work, and if you didn't know that was the lens he was using, you'd never guess (Example: http://zackarias.com/editorial-photography/anatomy-of-an-editorial-shoot-coca-cola-ceo-muhtar-kent/ ). He also uses the 35mm f/2 which is long in the tooth and noisy (it doesn't have an ultrasonic motor) but still a very solid performer. For the shoot I posted, he had the 24L on the other body, but he has since then stated he wished he would've gotten the 35L and the 24 f/2.8... he could only afford one or the other at the time, and he wished he would've reversed them. The L variations of both are of course much nicer, but you'll pay for them.

The 135L as you mentioned is of course a very nice lens, but you will have to have more space in order to use it, unless you're simply looking to only frame headshots.
Click to expand...

I already have the 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 primes, but I don't tend to use them in studio. I like the convenience of a zoom, especially since my studio space is only about 16x24' and it seems like some of the new zooms Canon is releasing are just as sharp as my primes. I love the 85mm for outdoor shots though but I really want the compression that the 135 gives me.
 
patric said:
I already have the 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 primes, but I don't tend to use them in studio. I like the convenience of a zoom, especially since my studio space is only about 16x24' and it seems like some of the new zooms Canon is releasing are just as sharp as my primes. I love the 85mm for outdoor shots though but I really want the compression that the 135 gives me.
Click to expand...

Interesting, most tend to have the reverse approach. Zooms of course will always have convenience, but primes because they only have one focal length, are always sharper, have less distortion (whether geometric or CA, etc.), and are faster. Of course it's your work and you have to decide what will work best for you, but most of the industry does it the other-way-'round.

Although I should note that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a popular studio lens. Finally, for how small your space is, I might find the 135L limiting, which is what I was saying in my earlier post. There isn't much of a difference between 135mm and 200mm. Great if you're trying to simply focus on the head/face, but in your space it won't serve to get much more in the frame (which is fine, just depends on what you're trying to shoot/do).
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Interesting, most tend to have the reverse approach. Zooms of course will always have convenience, but primes because they only have one focal length, are always sharper, have less distortion (whether geometric or CA, etc.), and are faster. Of course it's your work and you have to decide what will work best for you, but most of the industry does it the other-way-'round.

Although I should note that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is a popular studio lens. Finally, for how small your space is, I might find the 135L limiting, which is what I was saying in my earlier post. There isn't much of a difference between 135mm and 200mm. Great if you're trying to simply focus on the head/face, but in your space it won't serve to get much more in the frame (which is fine, just depends on what you're trying to shoot/do).
Click to expand...

I tend to use my primes more for low light situations like shooting in clubs and zooms for shots where I can control the light. The 85 works well outdoors for full body and 3/4 portraits and I'm wanting the 135 for outdoor use too. For most of my studio work I'm already stopped down to f/8 or 9 so that negates the speed issue and helps a lot with sharpness.
 
patric said:
I tend to use my primes more for low light situations like shooting in clubs and zooms for shots where I can control the light. The 85 works well outdoors for full body and 3/4 portraits and I'm wanting the 135 for outdoor use too. For most of my studio work I'm already stopped down to f/8 or 9 so that negates the speed issue and helps a lot with sharpness.
Click to expand...

Cool beans. Like I said, use what works for you. The 135L is a killer lens and is probably the second sharpest Canon lens after the 300mm 2.8L. If you want to have the best medium focal length zoom, the f/2.8L 24-70mm II is definitely it, but it costs a pretty penny. The mark 1 version is still quite good. The 24-105L has probably the most convenient range, but it's not nearly as sharp as the 24-70mm II. The new 24-70mm 4.0L is sharper than the 24-105L according to DigitalRev and some other reviews I've seen. So in terms of sharpness it seems to go like this:

24-70 II f.2.8L
24-70 f/4.0L
24-105 f/4.0L

I'm not sure where the mark I fits in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top