Team-BHP - The DSLR Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPARKled (Post 2293203)

DX is not a step child of the pros especially those who shoot longer focal lengths regularly and who need better subject isolation where DX IMHO is better especially over longer focal lengths. I mainly shoot wildlife and birds and so reach is everything for me and many times I have rued over the fact that I don't have enough reach reach on field even with my telephoto and TC.

Nikon who have released their VR big guns only a few years back. Also Nikon long lenses have been significantly more expensive than their Canon counterparts inspite of not having any stabalization in most markets such as the USofA. The D3 along with the new VR lenses have promised to change that and Nikon is now seen at a lot more sporting events and also with a lot more nature photographers than ever before.

Absolutely. DX has its own place. Other than the compact bodies (compared to FX of course), making them easier to haul around. That crop factor can be a huge advantage when shooting wildlife and birds.

For e.g. my Uncle is an avid 'birder'. His birding kit is a D90, a Nikon 300mm F4 prime and a 1.4x TC. Total FCL is 420mm and with crop factor taken into account it reaches a huge 630 mm FX equivalent albeit with a drop of 2 stops in speed courtesy the TC! To get that kinda reach on FX I'd need at minimum 300mm F4 + a 2x TC, a more expensive solution.

Nikon has traditionally been slower than Canon in adopting technology and pushing it out in their products. There were times when I used to actively think of moving to Canon only because of this. I used to find Nikon BORING (all capitals). :) Despite that, and Nikon's higher prices, I stuck with Nikon all these years and, now with them finally getting serious about contemporary products, intend sticking with this brand indefinitely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 2293112)

Good, got someone to ask doubts when I move to the world of FX. What you said last is an underestimated truth in this field. If one can not make good pictures with a point and shoot, he may not be anything better with an FX body with PRO glasses on it.

I might be able to give my 2 cents/paisa on FX bodies Shaju..but you need to be my photography and creative skills Guru in return. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by clevermax (Post 2293702)

Gear collection :D

From left:

Minolta 50mm f/1.7 with Hoya 62mm CPL on top
Minolta Maxxum 70-210mm f/4 (Beercan)
Sony Alpha 200 Body
Sony 18-70mm lens & Hoya Skylight filter
Sony 55-200mm lens
Sony 18-55mm lens

Attachment 523957

Taken using Sony A230 with another Minolta 50mm. The 50mm lens in the picture is slightly out of focus because I misplaced it :(

Nice collection! Not in favour of leaving the body open to dust like that though! Also the 18-55 is too precariously placed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by rajismine (Post 2293710)

nice collection clevermax...but what was the idea with 18-70 as well as 18-55 and both kit lenses!!! I guess the 18-55 belongs to the A230...

Its good collection...

I have
Sony A200
Sony 18-70mm 3.5-5.6
Minolta AF 28mm 2.8
Minolta AF 50mm 1.4
Minolta AF 50mm 1.7
AF 70-210mm 4 (Beercan)
Sigma AF 70-300mm 4-5.6 Macro 1:2
Sigma AF 50mm 2.8 Macro 1:1
Tamron AF 28-80 3.5-5.6

A couple of manual lenses and another Canon 30D with Canon AF 50mm 1.8

That's a fantastic collection! Yes, not all that lenses are mine, the rightmost Sony lenses are pramodkumar's. I borrowed his set for a shooting today. How do you compare the 1.7 with the 1.4?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawan_pullarwar (Post 2293729)

Nice collection, here is mine
From left to right
Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 18-55 IS, Canon 55-250 IS, Canon 100mm 2.8 ultrasonic, Canon 16-35L II 2.8 ultrasonic
Canon 16-35 L II with Canon 400D
Lowepro Fastpack 200

Super! Any sample shots from the 100mm f/2.8?

Quote:

Originally Posted by robimahanta (Post 2293733)

Nice collection! Not in favour of leaving the body open to dust like that though! Also the 18-55 is too precariously placed!

Thanks! I left the body open like that only for this shot... otherwise I keep a lens mounted always.

Friends,

I was off the forum for a couple of days as I was busy playing with the new toy. Bought the Canon 580 EX II on Saturday. Got a more complete kit as of now -

1. Canon 7D
2. Canon EF-S 15-85 mm IS USM
3. Tamron 70-300 mm SP VR USD
4. Canon 580 EX II Flash Gun
5. Kenko CPLs for both the lenses.

The pop-up flash, as with most cameras is found wanting on most occasions when we want to do flash photography. On a few occasions, I found it no satisfactory for even fill flash. The possibilities now really open up with the 580 EX II as I can do bounce flash apart from a whole host of other techniques. It is a fantastic unit, though bulky is a perfect match with the 7D.

Cheers
Prasad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ragul (Post 2294045)

Guys

A search did not return anything and I dont have time to read 400+ pages of this thread hence pardon me if this has been discussed before.

Where can I get the Pentax K7 in Bangalore? What price is good (body only and with 18-55 f3.5 lens)?

Thanks

You will have more chance of getting a reply on pentaxforums.com. We have a large community of Pentax users in India there.

You can ask this question in this thread - Pentax users from India? - PentaxForums.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd1418 (Post 2291229)

Apart from these three reasons, there is one more:

4. I want to..

You hit the nail gd.
Sometime we think that having a better camera will make us a better photographer, so wrong.
I started shooting with a D40, went to ranganthittu and realised that the camera cannot focus/meter properly in such a condition. I realised that I needed a better body. Bought a D300.
Even with a D300 I see that the problem has not been solved much. Means there is some issue in my skill rather than the camera. I tend to think that I was a better shooter with the D40 which I used for more than 2 years. Fortunately I am able to identify the faults in me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shajufx (Post 2292804)

..A serious PRO will still go for a full frame body as I see only D700, D3s or 5D MII, 1Ds MIII etc with 600mm zooms coupled with Teleconverters and Gimball heads. .... :)

I would rather disagree on this shaju. The wildlife shots which I like the most are mostly taken using a DX.
The image quality, the focus speed, the metering accuracy is no different between a D300, a D700 and a D3. You can easily screw up everything even with a combo of 600mm hosted over a D3x.
Find this guy
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=3814991

I screwed up eveything when I used a 200-400 on a D300 during my last trip to ranganthittu. There were learnings which were irrespective of camera body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R2D2 (Post 2293056)

Technical reasons aside, I think DX or FX doesnt really matter. Its the person behind the camera and his/her creativity that does. If you are a pro go with FX, if you are a advanced amateur or amateur you have a choice if FX or DX. I choose the former.

This is I vote for. I am a live example.

No offence to anyone, but I know many people in my org who have moolah but are quite misguided. They think spending multiple lakhs on a cam will fetch them good shots. I have seen shots taken using a D700 which at first sight looks like taken using a P&S.
Then I have seen people using a D3x and doing ONLY black and white street shots. I did not quite get the purpose.

For me, I dont think I will get any good reason for next 10 years to upgrade my camera. For me, it is next to impossible to overpower the D300 the way I did with D40.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari (Post 2294366)

A camera is only a tool and every photographer needs to know the pros and cons of his kit. If a photographer can't get a good photograph most of the time the photographer is to blame.

When you look at ace photographers like Galen Rowell, who used mostly simple camera and lens combination to get killer images you know that it is the person behind the camera that makes the difference.

The most breath taking image I have ever seen is the photo of the Afghan girl on the cover of the June 1985 National Geographic. It was taken by Steve McCurry. Those interested can take a look here - A Life Revealed - National Geographic Magazine.

If I could take a photo like that I'd consider my self blessed.

I go by the adage - a bad carpenter always blames his tools. Spending lakhs on equipment does not guarantee good photographs. So those of you thinking of upgrading from PnS to a fancy SLR/DSLR believing it will give you killer photos are forewarned. :)

Cheers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari (Post 2294366)

.....I would rather disagree on this shaju. The wildlife shots which I like the most are mostly taken using a DX.....

Hi buddy, I forgot about your Sunday thing, you did not remind too, did you make it ?

Ok coming to the post, there is nothing to disagree here, I mentioned what I have seen on field, not what we find appealing or best. I know couple of Times photographers as well as few others paid by Nat Geo, Better Photography, Time of Oman and some free lancers here in Bangalore itself. Know them personally through Lions activities or family friends or related to my previous jobs. They shoot on assignments and projects. All are FX shooters.

I dont think its ever mentioned anywhere in my posts that DX bodies give lesser quality, if I have written something in that tone, you have the right to hit me hard on head :). On the other hand, if DX bodies could give everything what a Photographer wants, there would not have been any FX body shooters around us ! Again dont connect my post as a comparison between DX and FX, we know its not orange to orange.