Post your gear thread!

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by Okayyou

Nice, I've had my eye on the 15mm Zeiss . My widest lens currently is 24 which still leaves a lot of room on the lower end. However the Zeiss is a giant lens and at 3K not very justifiable.

This might help.

http://lenshero.com/lenses/wide-angl...-ef-full-frame

Some nice options on there. That tokina 14-28 would be a good option.

I heard a rumor about canon coming out with a their own version of the 14-24 f2.8 too. Maybe it will have AF.

http://www.cameraegg.com/canon-ef-14...hin-12-months/

But if you wanted something inexpensive and good, for now, the rokinon is a nice option but manual only.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Okayyou

Nice, I've had my eye on the 15mm Zeiss . My widest lens currently is 24 which still leaves a lot of room on the lower end. However the Zeiss is a giant lens and at 3K not very justifiable.

I've heard nothing but good things about the 15mm. Have you considered the Canon 17mm TS-E? It's a little cheaper, and just as good, if not better.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I've heard nothing but good things about the 15mm. Have you considered the Canon 17mm TS-E? It's a little cheaper, and just as good, if not better.

Ive only heard one person ever talk smack about Zeiss lenses and he is a total douche of a photographer. He told me one of the reasons that he hated Sony and its cameras is because Sony made Beta-max. Well that and he has a thing about proprietary equipment. But then he uses nothing but Canon branded equipment.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

IWell that and he has a thing about proprietary equipment. But then he uses nothing but Canon branded equipment.

Perhaps he was referring to the original Alphas that only used Sony Memory Sticks, which were not only more expensive per GB, but also only had one or two manufacturers.

I actually have a couple of older Minolta lenses from a film Minolta SLR I still have, but I didn't go with a Sony DSLR when it was time to get rid of film. I just wasn't interested in buying a Sony brand camera.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

What other lenses do you have?

EF-S 15-85 IS
Tamron 70-300VC
EF 50/1.8 (Mark I)

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by Tony

Perhaps he was referring to the original Alphas that only used Sony Memory Sticks, which were not only more expensive per GB, but also only had one or two manufacturers.

I actually have a couple of older Minolta lenses from a film Minolta SLR I still have, but I didn't go with a Sony DSLR when it was time to get rid of film. I just wasn't interested in buying a Sony brand camera.

You are probably right about the memory stick.

I have a few minolta maxxum lenses that I use with my alpha, 50mm f1.7 and a 28mm f2.8. Both good lenses for the price which is what swayed me to Sony. I really like my alpha stuff. The new a580 I have is great. I can hit shots handheld at night that my a200 would never have been able to take.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

EF-S 15-85 IS
Tamron 70-300VC
EF 50/1.8 (Mark I)

Hmmmm, tough choice. You could get good use out of either of those lenses. For wide angle I really like the sigma 10-20 f3.5. I prefer to have the constant f-stop at my disposal but there is nothing like an 8mm superwide. IQ on either is about the same. Does the 100mm do macro? Do you do macro? I dont do macro so I never really worry about if they can or not. Not really my thing.

I would say go with the 8-16 first since it will complete a crucial part of the range that is really useful for a skyscraper junky.

[The Chemist]

^Yeah, the 100L is reputed to be one of the best macro lenses going. I do like to do macro - closeups of flowers and insects and the like, so a macro lens would certainly be something I'd use a lot.

Problem is, I'd also use an ultrawide as well. I'm leaning toward the Macro just because my 15-85 is reasonably wide (24mm in 35mm equivalent) and I think I can wait a little longer to get the ultrawide. None of my lenses are very good at closeup work, so I think the macro lens would be a better first choice.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

^Yeah, the 100L is reputed to be one of the best macro lenses going. I do like to do macro - closeups of flowers and insects and the like, so a macro lens would certainly be something I'd use a lot.

Problem is, I'd also use an ultrawide as well. I'm leaning toward the Macro just because my 15-85 is reasonably wide (24mm in 35mm equivalent) and I think I can wait a little longer to get the ultrawide. None of my lenses are very good at closeup work, so I think the macro lens would be a better first choice.

Either way you can really go wrong. And 15mm is pretty wide and a little bit of pano stitching can make up for lack of a superwide very easily where macro does take a dedicated lens to do.

[JManc]

every camera i've ever owned and used taken by my current canon...

[Ramsayfarian]

It's a little grainy but here's a handheld shot of some fireworks taken at ISO10,000

Fireworks by D-2-C, on Flickr

[flar]

I've been thinking about the pros and cons of full frame lately, since the FX Nikon D600 is rumored to be coming out this fall. I was dead set on FX for the longest time, but now I'm not so sure. It might make sense in my situation to stay with DX.


Advantages of full frame:
-bigger, brighter viewfinder
-lower noise at high ISO
-shallower depth of field
-lower diffraction->better resolution


Advantages of crop sensor:
-longer reach at telephoto end
-smaller, lighter camera and lenses
-more lenses available, and they're cheaper


Not sure if the D600 will have the high ISO advantage. The higher megapixel count (24) works against the high ISO advantage of full frame because the pixels have to be packed closer together. The sensor also may be of a lower quality.

Also not sure if the viewfinder will be better in the D600 than in DX cameras. Packing a full frame sensor into a smaller body may mean compromises in the pentaprism.

The D600 should have an advantage in resolution, but this becomes less important if a DX camera with 24 megapixels comes out.

The D600 is supposed to be about the size of the D7000, which is nice, because I'm finding camera gear to be too heavy to lug around already.

For lenses:

FX does give an advantage at the wide end, but it's pricey. To get the angle of view from the Nikon 14-24mm you would need a 9-16 on DX, so there is no DX equivalent. (The Sigma 8.5-16mm doesn't count because there is no comparison in quality with the 14-24).

Other wide angle zooms for FX start at 16, 17 and 18mm, which give the same view as 10, 11 or 12mm lenses on DX, which are all available for much cheaper. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a bargain compared to the FX lenses.

The other factor is convenience. The standard 24-70 on FX would require a 16-50mm lens on DX to get the equivalent view. I already have a high quality 16-85 on DX, which is equivalent to 24-128 on FX. A very useful range because it extends into telephoto territory, where the 24-70 does not. Longer zoom ranges on FX start to compromise quality.

[mr.John]

Flar you seem to be falling into the old photo money pit,maybe you should wait until they upgrade the D7000 and invest your cash on a lens like the 70-200mm,do you really need to go FX and spend a shitload of cash?

[flar]

Originally Posted by mr.John

Flar you seem to be falling into the old photo money pit,maybe you should wait until they upgrade the D7000 and invest your cash on a lens like the 70-200mm,do you really need to go FX and spend a shitload of cash?

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I'm set up really well right now, moving to FX would cost a fortune for minimal benefit.

[ChiTownCity]

^It really is all about the quality of your lenses. As long as you have a high end DX model and a couple of quality lenses then there really isn't much of any reason to go full frame. Unless you're planning on printing billboards, Lol.

Like you pointed out already, you're really just paying for extra ISO for the most part.

I look through thousands of pics each week on Flickr and so far the only noticeable difference I've seen between DX and FX came from the Canon 5D Mark II and III.

Aside from the extra ISO, you'll definitely notice the difference in depth-of-field in some cases. I wish I bookmarked a couple of pics (I'll see if I can find them later), but I personally don't see that small upgrade being worth a few extra thousand dollars.....

[diskojoe]

The d7000 is a monster for a aps-c. My sony has the same chip and the performance is awesome. I can get handheld shots of skylines at night at iso 12,800. With some noise reduction you have very usable photos. Works great at iso 3200 with almost no noise at all.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by flar

I've been thinking about the pros and cons of full frame lately, since the FX Nikon D600 is rumored to be coming out this fall. I was dead set on FX for the longest time, but now I'm not so sure. It might make sense in my situation to stay with DX.


Advantages of full frame:
-bigger, brighter viewfinder
-lower noise at high ISO
-shallower depth of field
-lower diffraction->better resolution


Advantages of crop sensor:
-longer reach at telephoto end
-smaller, lighter camera and lenses
-more lenses available, and they're cheaper


Not sure if the D600 will have the high ISO advantage. The higher megapixel count (24) works against the high ISO advantage of full frame because the pixels have to be packed closer together. The sensor also may be of a lower quality.

Also not sure if the viewfinder will be better in the D600 than in DX cameras. Packing a full frame sensor into a smaller body may mean compromises in the pentaprism.

The D600 should have an advantage in resolution, but this becomes less important if a DX camera with 24 megapixels comes out.

The D600 is supposed to be about the size of the D7000, which is nice, because I'm finding camera gear to be too heavy to lug around already.

For lenses:

FX does give an advantage at the wide end, but it's pricey. To get the angle of view from the Nikon 14-24mm you would need a 9-16 on DX, so there is no DX equivalent. (The Sigma 8.5-16mm doesn't count because there is no comparison in quality with the 14-24).

Other wide angle zooms for FX start at 16, 17 and 18mm, which give the same view as 10, 11 or 12mm lenses on DX, which are all available for much cheaper. The Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a bargain compared to the FX lenses.

The other factor is convenience. The standard 24-70 on FX would require a 16-50mm lens on DX to get the equivalent view. I already have a high quality 16-85 on DX, which is equivalent to 24-128 on FX. A very useful range because it extends into telephoto territory, where the 24-70 does not. Longer zoom ranges on FX start to compromise quality.

I'd probably still be shooting with a DX camera had I not decided to go 'pro'. If you plan on only sharing your photos digitally, I see no reason to upgrade to a FX camera. Of course, if you're interested in producing very large prints or selling to clients that demand the industry standard file sizes, then a FX camera is a must.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by giallo

I'd probably still be shooting with a DX camera had I not decided to go 'pro'. If you plan on only sharing your photos digitally, I see no reason to upgrade to a FX camera. Of course, if you're interested in producing very large prints or selling to clients that demand the industry standard file sizes, then a FX camera is a must.

Key word: PRO

You can legitimize the expense when you will use it for work on an active basis.

[flar]

The upcoming D600 is rumored to have a price in the $1600 range, which is not bad at all and definitely a prosumer camera. That's why I was ruminating out loud about full frame. I have a great set of lenses right now, some of which would be amazing on a full frame camera (eg: my PC-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 would be way more useful). I also have five manual focus lenses, so a big viewfinder is important to me. For now, I've decided that the light weight and convenience of DX is better for me, but I could still change my mind depending on what the D600 actually offers when it comes out.

[JManc]

picked up the canon 17-55/2.8 and ordered a 7D. cannot wait...