Nh3
Well-known
*cough* Samsung DSLR owner *cough*. lol
Rey
Well-known
Or Rather "OMMMMM1"
Rey
Well-known
I have the pentax, great camera also!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Rey
Well-known
Well,
I mentioned the pentax because of the issues brought up in the thread. I purchased this camera for my job, so I had to research the pros/cons of several systems. I suppose that I could have just gotten that Canon or Nikon system, but the Pentax was better constructed and had better features, for a much lower price. The glass is also excellent.
I mentioned the pentax because of the issues brought up in the thread. I purchased this camera for my job, so I had to research the pros/cons of several systems. I suppose that I could have just gotten that Canon or Nikon system, but the Pentax was better constructed and had better features, for a much lower price. The glass is also excellent.
literiter
Well-known
If it wasn't for the "Noobs", "wannabe pros" etc., I'd have paid a heck of a lot more money for my used cameras. The more these individuals trade up and switch systems, people like me get the cast off goodies.
If it weren't for those of us who'd prefer to have the "best and latest" camera, rather than take pictures, we'd be paying a lot more for the immaculate used stuff out there now.
Hail to the gear dweebs, the aficionados, the unsatisfied, the insatiable, the hungry ghosts etc. who harvest the newest and best, to better their neighbors, that I may take up what they have left behind, and take pictures.
If it weren't for those of us who'd prefer to have the "best and latest" camera, rather than take pictures, we'd be paying a lot more for the immaculate used stuff out there now.
Hail to the gear dweebs, the aficionados, the unsatisfied, the insatiable, the hungry ghosts etc. who harvest the newest and best, to better their neighbors, that I may take up what they have left behind, and take pictures.
dexdog
Veteran
Colman
Established
The great thing about those guys is that they ensure a steady supply of last years equipment at used prices for the rest of us. D200's - still a pretty damn good camera - are quite cheap enough now.
Mind you, I really only upgraded from the D70 so my older lenses would work properly.
Of course, the assorted reverse snobs and other dangerous neurotics are no better.
Mind you, I really only upgraded from the D70 so my older lenses would work properly.
Of course, the assorted reverse snobs and other dangerous neurotics are no better.
benno
Hack.
Haha, thanks for listening to my rant guys. I just don't get why people think the big two are the only possible options.
Why on earth wouldn't I?
Why on earth wouldn't I?
colyn
ישו משיח
I picked the Nikon D200 simply because it lets me use my 30-40+ year old Nikkor glass without having to resort to adapters..
Is the D200 better than other brands??
That depends on your personal use...
Anupam
Well-known
I hate to admit it, but seeing something like "Samsung" or "Panasonic" on a camera - especially a "proper" camera like an SLR - probably makes me just a tad uncomfortable, although I do try to rationalize things and resist this impulse.
I don't think I am a Canonikon snob - I would switch to Pentax, Olympus or Minolta in a heartbeat - especially Pentax. The reason I am with Nikon is mostly because of inertia, backwards compatibility and the strength of their macro lineup - especially the PN-11 tube seems to be unique in all of cameradom! It's more a traditional camera manufacturer vs. stereo and phone and whatnot manufacturer in my mind.
I don't think I am a Canonikon snob - I would switch to Pentax, Olympus or Minolta in a heartbeat - especially Pentax. The reason I am with Nikon is mostly because of inertia, backwards compatibility and the strength of their macro lineup - especially the PN-11 tube seems to be unique in all of cameradom! It's more a traditional camera manufacturer vs. stereo and phone and whatnot manufacturer in my mind.
I use a D1x, E3, and DCS200ir professionally. Scientific Photography. Lets see, the D1x was $7,000, the E3 was $7,000, and the DCS200ir was $12,000. The D1x is ~7 years old, the E3 is 11 years old, and the DCS200ir is 16 years old. Between the three DSLR's, I've got almost 9MPixels.
If your serious about Digital Infrared Photography, a Kodak DCS ir camera is the way to go. No Bayer filter, AA filter, or IR cut filter to worry about.
If your serious about Digital Infrared Photography, a Kodak DCS ir camera is the way to go. No Bayer filter, AA filter, or IR cut filter to worry about.
Last edited:
Matt White
Member
I don't remember photography being like this before the digital era. Sure the gear snobs were out there, but the bottom line was that film and glass were the key determinants of the image. Even the very best, latest camera body was still basically a light-tight box; and most of us judged our shots by how they looked as 10x8 prints.
But now small differences in sensor characteristics and the ability to magnify any image to billboard-equivalent size have given the partisan gearheads of the Playstation generation endless scope to argue each other to a standstill.
The real tragedy of all this is that it's not complete nonsense. My D300 *does* produce noticeably better quality images than it's predecessor D200 - under some circumstances. Those circumstances matter to me enough to justify the upgrade cost. Maybe the development cycle will settle down at some point, but I fear that I'm stuck on the upgrade treadmill for a while yet.
But now small differences in sensor characteristics and the ability to magnify any image to billboard-equivalent size have given the partisan gearheads of the Playstation generation endless scope to argue each other to a standstill.
The real tragedy of all this is that it's not complete nonsense. My D300 *does* produce noticeably better quality images than it's predecessor D200 - under some circumstances. Those circumstances matter to me enough to justify the upgrade cost. Maybe the development cycle will settle down at some point, but I fear that I'm stuck on the upgrade treadmill for a while yet.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Ah Benno ... I love your Aussie no bullsh*t attitude. Just peel all that pretentious meat off the carcase and deal directly with the bones!
Keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work.
They've turned cameras into computers. Welcome to the computer age. Computer gear completely depreciates in 3years.
Makes collecting old Digital cameras a lot cheaper.
Makes collecting old Digital cameras a lot cheaper.
shimo-kitasnap
everything is temporary..
I love reading rants, haha people who buy loooong white lenses are making up for something that isn't very long unless they're jobs require them to use long white lenses in which case they probably don't own the 400 f2.8.
FPjohn
Well-known
RFOBD
Established
Yeah, they couldn't possibly really enjoy their hobby of shooting wildlife or sporting events and have quite a bit of spare cash, that couldn't possibly be it.
benno
Hack.
And that of course is a perfectly valid reason to choose a particular camera. But if people could objectively evaluate what they want and need from a camera (without unrealistic dreams of 'going pro' or the belief that they must own a 'pro' camera) they should realise that Canon and Nikon are not the only alternatives.
This is my problem. Particularly when some so called 'pros' recommend one of these systems because of the 'extensive range of lenses' that most amateurs are never going to buy and are derisive of anything that is not a Canon or Nikon. True pros should know that whatever captures the image is irrelevant.
This type of Rant has been stated long before the Internet was popular. In the early 90s "Moose Peterson" did a "what's in my Bag" column in Popular Photography. It came across as Here's the equipment that PRO's LIKE ME use. Lots of letters to the editor, no more Moose Peterson articles appeared. I think Keppler did a follow-up article taking Moose's equipment choices, substituting with the lower-cost equivalents, and showing the resulting difference in Photo's. Guess what? Not much difference.
Last edited: