Reading mode: Light Dark

RANT: Keeping up with the Joneses

Go to last post
B

bbolstad

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
293
Reaction score
0
Location
Dallas, TX, US
Member said:
rant:on
Click to expand...
Okay, am I the only one who is more than a bit tired of seeing so many folks that insist the D70/D100/Rebel/P&S isn't what they were hoping for so now they HAVE to upgrade to a $3000 body like the D2H. And, can you please tell them if they really have to buy a $1500 lens--won't the $300 one with the rebate be enough?

Sometimes, these are the same folks asking why they should bother shooting in RAW, or how in the world you control DOF with a constant aperture f/2.8 lens (they thought it meant 2.8 was the only f-stop you got).

To me, an amateur lacking in skills like myself has no business owning a $3000 camera body, and I actually know the answers to the above questions. So why this feverish need for the D2H? I get it that it's a fantastic camera, and most pros I've talked to who shoot with it love it. But these are people who make a living with their cameras, rather than just taking snapshots and posting them on a web site or sharing them with friends.

As tools for learning the craft, both the D70 and D100 are fantastically capable cameras. Is all this D2H drooling really stemming from a true need, or is it just a "mine is bigger than yours" complex gone overboard?

I've dropped more money than I probably should have on glass, but that seems like a smarter investment (if you can call any camera gear an "investment"). Or am I wrong and I'm just as bad as these other rookies?

I know this is a tech/gear forum first, but enough with the "I HAVE to have a D2H but only have $300 to spend on lenses" and "I NEED the D2X today so I can take poorly exposed, shaky pictures of my cat" threads. How about all us amateurs be happy with the gear we've got and work on improving our skills rather than emptying our bank accounts.

Flame away--I probably deserve it.
Member said:
rant:off
Click to expand...
Sorry, needed to vent a bit on this Monday morning.

BB
 
Ranting aside, you make some pretty salient points.

I, too, laugh when someone wants to know how to get pictures as sharp as those taken with a 50mm f/1.4 using a crappy plastic kit lens that they got with their N65 after spending $1500.00 on a D100.
You just gotta laugh.

This forum serves a wide variety of interests, not the least of which are the need to "shop til you drop", bargain hunt forever (my personal favorite, folks who will spend $5000.00 of their time debating the relatively small price small difference between the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.4), be entertained, and, yes, even rant on occasion.
You might get flamed but you made at least one person laugh.
Kent
 
the images you take today that are great and tack sharp focus etc.. becomes your portfolio which is compiled over a long time.lf your into sports or things that move, a fast RAW body is a bit of an advantage over a slow jpeg body, you get a slightly higher % of keepers and the best of the best may be in that slight difference of keepers ,you only ever get one chance of the ultimate personal shot. Also if it makes people fell better about themselves and their situation in life and keeps thier mind and body active then you cant put a price on that,I know.To some people dslr's are their life 100% of the time, have to spend your money and time on something.
bbolstad said:
bbolstad said:
rant:on
Click to expand...
Okay, am I the only one who is more than a bit tired of seeing so
many folks that insist the D70/D100/Rebel/P&S isn't what they were
hoping for so now they HAVE to upgrade to a $3000 body like the
D2H. And, can you please tell them if they really have to buy a
$1500 lens--won't the $300 one with the rebate be enough?

Sometimes, these are the same folks asking why they should bother
shooting in RAW, or how in the world you control DOF with a
constant aperture f/2.8 lens (they thought it meant 2.8 was the
only f-stop you got).

To me, an amateur lacking in skills like myself has no business
owning a $3000 camera body, and I actually know the answers to the
above questions. So why this feverish need for the D2H? I get it
that it's a fantastic camera, and most pros I've talked to who
shoot with it love it. But these are people who make a living with
their cameras, rather than just taking snapshots and posting them
on a web site or sharing them with friends.

As tools for learning the craft, both the D70 and D100 are
fantastically capable cameras. Is all this D2H drooling really
stemming from a true need, or is it just a "mine is bigger than
yours" complex gone overboard?

I've dropped more money than I probably should have on glass, but
that seems like a smarter investment (if you can call any camera
gear an "investment"). Or am I wrong and I'm just as bad as these
other rookies?

I know this is a tech/gear forum first, but enough with the "I HAVE
to have a D2H but only have $300 to spend on lenses" and "I NEED
the D2X today so I can take poorly exposed, shaky pictures of my
cat" threads. How about all us amateurs be happy with the gear
we've got and work on improving our skills rather than emptying our
bank accounts.

Flame away--I probably deserve it.
bbolstad said:
rant:off
Click to expand...
Sorry, needed to vent a bit on this Monday morning.

BB
Click to expand...
 
For amateurs, a D100 or a D70 will do an awesome job. Investing in glass is much smarter, although cheap glass will go a long way. When amateur friends ask me about camera options, I tell them to start out with the D70 kit and use that for awhile.

Another option for amateurs wanting to try "pro" gear is to rent. Say for example that you happen to land passes for the Indy time trials and want to try your hand with some long glass. You can easily rent a 300/2.8 for $100 or so, which is a lot cheaper than owning it.

That's one of the main advantages to going with name brands like Nikon or Canon. There's lots of rental gear available. One of the reasons I really like the Nikon system is that just about every lens in their lineup will work on any of their camera bodies.

Dave
 
Venting excused, and you bring up some good points for people to consider.

I probably fall into some of the categories you are venting about, in that I am a rank amateur who has a D100, but also owns the super expensive 70-200 2.8 VR. The main, and only, reason I have that lens is to shoot figure skating inside of dimly lit arenas. That is also the reason I upgraded from a Sony F717 to the D100. That upgrade would have made absolutely no sense if I had stayed with the cheaper lens. The 70-200 is my areana lens. It very rarely gets exercised outside of the areana, though I am trying to change that. Most of my outdoor shooting is done with my inexpensive Sigma 28-135 and Nikkor 70-300G.

I am currently considering an upgrade to the D2H simply to eliminate the unacceptable number of out of focus issues I have with the D100. Although I am quite sure that I and the conditions I shoot in, play an extremly large part in creating these out of focus issues, my research indicates that others with similar problems upgraded to the D2H and were able to report a greatly diminished number of out of focus issues.

While I am an amateur, I do event shooting during the skating season. These sales are what is paying for the equipment. If the shots were for my own use, I would still have the 70-200VR because it is an absolute must, but I would stay with the D100, or maybe switch to a D70. But when I shoot at an event, and an entire sequence of a skater is just a tad out of focus because the camera could not find enough contrast in the outfit to get a good focus lock, then that is costing me potential sales and is extremely aggrevating.

My next step, a few months away, is to rent a D2H for a weekend and see how it does. Hopefully by then I will have picked up enough that I can get a resonable comparison between the D100 and D2H, in spite of the learning curve of the D2H.

I often ask myself if I am nuts for even considering doubling my camera investment and going to the D2H. My philosphy is that the camera had better pay for itself. If it does not, people do not need the D2H, unless they are fanatical about what they are shooting.

I really agree with you on the lens. While the cheaper ones can in no way come close to the quality of the good expensive stuff, people have to ask how much quality do they need. But they should also look to the future and the possibility of upgrading the lens once they out grow it. Its a toss up.

--
Pat

http://www.iceshots.smugmug.com
 
Thanks to all who replied for validating some of my opinions. I feel far less grumpy now that I got that out of my system!

Now, time to go put those ridiculously expensive lenses I HAD to have to work! ;-)

BB
 
think about it for a second, more demand for high end bodies, the more R&D and the quicker a
release for the D???
bbolstad said:
bbolstad said:
rant:on
Click to expand...
Okay, am I the only one who is more than a bit tired of seeing so
many folks that insist the D70/D100/Rebel/P&S isn't what they were
hoping for so now they HAVE to upgrade to a $3000 body like the
D2H. And, can you please tell them if they really have to buy a
$1500 lens--won't the $300 one with the rebate be enough?

Sometimes, these are the same folks asking why they should bother
shooting in RAW, or how in the world you control DOF with a
constant aperture f/2.8 lens (they thought it meant 2.8 was the
only f-stop you got).

To me, an amateur lacking in skills like myself has no business
owning a $3000 camera body, and I actually know the answers to the
above questions. So why this feverish need for the D2H? I get it
that it's a fantastic camera, and most pros I've talked to who
shoot with it love it. But these are people who make a living with
their cameras, rather than just taking snapshots and posting them
on a web site or sharing them with friends.

As tools for learning the craft, both the D70 and D100 are
fantastically capable cameras. Is all this D2H drooling really
stemming from a true need, or is it just a "mine is bigger than
yours" complex gone overboard?

I've dropped more money than I probably should have on glass, but
that seems like a smarter investment (if you can call any camera
gear an "investment"). Or am I wrong and I'm just as bad as these
other rookies?

I know this is a tech/gear forum first, but enough with the "I HAVE
to have a D2H but only have $300 to spend on lenses" and "I NEED
the D2X today so I can take poorly exposed, shaky pictures of my
cat" threads. How about all us amateurs be happy with the gear
we've got and work on improving our skills rather than emptying our
bank accounts.

Flame away--I probably deserve it.
bbolstad said:
rant:off
Click to expand...
Sorry, needed to vent a bit on this Monday morning.

BB
Click to expand...
--
J. Mills
Uwamachi, Japan
http://www.deviantart.com
http://jmills74.deviantart.com/
 
OK, my turn to rant too...

The chief reason I don't post images here (and don't really read it more than once a week) is the "Every picture posted is awesome" phenomenom.

Every picture, whether it be a blurry underexposed cat or someone's grandson with direct on-camera flash, gets the response "Nice Photo n/t" or"awesome shot [nt]". I tried to give constructive critisim for a while, but am I the only one?

When I share a picture, I want to know how to make it better, not how good it is. I only post pictures I think are good, so telling me it's good isn't helpful.

This is a gear forum, populated by people who love to have the coolest toys out there... and i guess that's fine but don't make excuses about how you have to have that 85 1.4 so that you can take better pictures in low light, or how you MUST have the 300/2.8 instead of the 300/4 since it looks more impressive....

In the interest of disclosure, I own a d2h, 85 1.4, 300/2.8 and other equipment, but then again, from my last big assignment paid for the 300 and 85 with after-the-fact sales... if I wasn't making money by using the expensive equipment, I wouldn't buy it outright.

anyway, that's the end of my rant.

--
Christopher Gooley
http://www.gooleyPhotography.com
 
bbolstad said:
Sorry, needed to vent a bit on this Monday morning.

BB
Click to expand...
Is no one able to manually focus a camera any longer?

Example: NEW 85 f1.4 AF @ B&H $999.00 - USED 85 f1.4 MF @ KEH $499.00 + $85.00 to have metering chip added. You gain a really great piece of glass, full metering (less 3D matrix, regular matrix works) and all you really loose is auto focus. Is the loss really woth the $415.00 difference?

I've been playing with photography off and on since the mid sixties, and if it were not for good used equipment, I'd really have never gotten very far. If you think it costs a lot to shoot 35mm, give Hassy and 4x5 and 8x10 a try. It will give you a whole new perspective.

BTW, I own and shoot a D100 now and use the AF most of the time (60 year old eyes can use all the help they can get). However, there are certainly times when MF is far better and easier to use. (Try small birds in the bushes with low light and AF)

I have the 20 AFD, 24-120 AFD, 105 Micro AF and the 80-200 AFD. I also have a "bought used" 55 AIS micro (Cost about $90) which just happens to be the sharpest lens of the whole bunch. I haven't had it chipped yet, but it's not much of a problem to figure out exposure using the histogram given non-moving subjects.

FYI - I've owned and used most Nikon glass from 15mm to 600mm at one time or another, full Hasselblad system including the 905SWC Dedicated wide angle as well as full 4x5 field system (6 lenses) and full 8x10 field system (5 lenses). (Per Ansel Adams, the best camera is the largest format camera that you can and will carry) Most bought new, but a fair amount used as well. Not meant as bragging, just laying my cards on the table so to speak.

BTW, if my finacial situation permitted, no one would have a chance at that 85 1.4 at KEH as I would have already ordered it.

Hope all will take this in the spirit it is intended. Don't overlook the used MF market!! Lots of very good glass out there at real bargin prices.

Best,
Dave
 
We got to loose these d70's, we got to loose these d100's. We need the d2h and 70-200 2.8 vr.

I totally agree.

The average digital camera is more than capable of out performing the average photographer. The difference comes in specific features that are needed to help the photographer solve a particular problem.
bbolstad said:
bbolstad said:
rant:on
Click to expand...
Okay, am I the only one who is more than a bit tired of seeing so
many folks that insist the D70/D100/Rebel/P&S isn't what they were
hoping for so now they HAVE to upgrade to a $3000 body like the
D2H. And, can you please tell them if they really have to buy a
$1500 lens--won't the $300 one with the rebate be enough?

Sometimes, these are the same folks asking why they should bother
shooting in RAW, or how in the world you control DOF with a
constant aperture f/2.8 lens (they thought it meant 2.8 was the
only f-stop you got).

To me, an amateur lacking in skills like myself has no business
owning a $3000 camera body, and I actually know the answers to the
above questions. So why this feverish need for the D2H? I get it
that it's a fantastic camera, and most pros I've talked to who
shoot with it love it. But these are people who make a living with
their cameras, rather than just taking snapshots and posting them
on a web site or sharing them with friends.

As tools for learning the craft, both the D70 and D100 are
fantastically capable cameras. Is all this D2H drooling really
stemming from a true need, or is it just a "mine is bigger than
yours" complex gone overboard?

I've dropped more money than I probably should have on glass, but
that seems like a smarter investment (if you can call any camera
gear an "investment"). Or am I wrong and I'm just as bad as these
other rookies?

I know this is a tech/gear forum first, but enough with the "I HAVE
to have a D2H but only have $300 to spend on lenses" and "I NEED
the D2X today so I can take poorly exposed, shaky pictures of my
cat" threads. How about all us amateurs be happy with the gear
we've got and work on improving our skills rather than emptying our
bank accounts.

Flame away--I probably deserve it.
bbolstad said:
rant:off
Click to expand...
Sorry, needed to vent a bit on this Monday morning.

BB
Click to expand...
 
Well Said...

I've had a real hard time trying to keep from "upgrading" from my d100. Even with the 50/1.8, which is super sharp and predictable, I screw up fairly consistently.

Do I need a new camera? NO, NO, NO.

I think most of us feel the pressure of living in society that values "progress"... and, truthfully, in certain industries progress saves lives.

I catch myself fretting over the AF not being accurate enough... shots not sharp enough... underexposure.... and then I nail one and get a truly great pic.

And realize, then, that the camera is just fine (No, it's not backfocussing!).

I tell you, we have such an amazing ability to learn faster than we acquire the skills that accompany the knowledge. Frustration is only natural.

.... I also find manual focus to be more usefule than ever!!

cheers,
shelby
 
Ok, I guess I'll be flame bait today...

I think a person should be able to buy whatever camera he/she desires. There should be no qualifications - "you need to be a pro or serious amerature to be able to buy a d2h."

There's no written test or submit portfolio in order to purchase. If a person wants to spend their money on a d2h, hey the more power to them. Do I need a D2h? Prolly not, I have 2 other DSLRs and 5 other digicams. Am I able to use the D2h to its full potential? Never! I'm not able to use any camera I own to its full potential, but I do my best to learn about each camera and its nuances. I read the manual from TOC to INDEX and study each feature in detail. I do various experiments and tests to see which works best for my shooting style. But if I had to submit a portfolio, I'm sure I would have been denied. Why do I need a D2h to shoot kids, dogs and dolphins - my (ex)D100 does just fine, and I even have shots that prove it.

I'm not a sports shooter and don't "need" the power the D2h offers, but it does make my job a lot easier for those sessions where I do use it, and I do love it.

I feel for these people and understand why they don't know about lenses and sharpness and aperature and stuff like that. I used to know nothing of photography when I first started out. Granted, check out my portfolio (www.ximinasphotography.com) - I have a loooooooooooong way to go before I'm any good. But at least I'm trying.

When I have time, I'm happy to answer these "novice" type questions. They are the ones I can help out the most. And that's one of the main reasons I enjoy forums, I'm able to help out n00bs. I often seek out questions or posts that have no replys or a few replies and try my best to contribute and assist.

Don't you think that the people asking these questions on the forum are seeking advice and want to be enlightened? I don't think they are just out to get flamed. If you want to get flamed, simply say "I heard from my neighbor... ....d2x...." and wham!

If you don't like these types of questions, then why bother reading the thread? Simply avoid threads that have a "?" in them, or sound like they are noob questions.

Gregory

 
I don't know whether to be insulted or not...

I'm 50 years old, and I left the 'photographer as a living' scene about 12 years ago in order to pursue online publishing. Even though I've been published more than 5000 times in the 70's and 80's, produced magazine covers by the dozens for hobby magazines, and even published a few 'How To' articles in some photography magazines as late as 1994, I have no intention of making a living with my D2h. I'm buying it for completely different reasons.

Before buying my D70 I was quite happy with the Olympus e10 and e20 I had. Even though it was agonizingly slow, they were good digital cameras, for what they were capable of. Buying the D70 showed me that a lot of progress has been made in the technology. It showed me that I didn't have to put up with cycle times that assured me that the good shots would be missed every time. That said, I am extremely unhappy with the sharpness of the D70 and the kit lens. I was told by the store where I bought the camera, in Wolfeboro NH, that the kit lens was an awesome lens, but its anything but... either that or the D70 just cannot capture truly sharp images. I have a gut feeling that it is both the lens and the camera.

Back in the day I shot positive film and rarely ever shot negatives. I judge the sharpness of digital on how sharp my slides are to what my D70 can produce.

I've run many many tests with the D70. On first glance they appear very sharp. But when you shoot in RAW or Fine JPG and load it into a Power Mac G5 with a 23" Cinema Display and bring the image up at 100% you see where the camera/lens fails. No matter what the shutter speed, no matter what the aperture, the images crumble at 100%. Sure, they are useable, sure they look "nice", but they are nowhere near what I have seen in D2h and good glass is capable of.

For me, and others, an investment in a good dSLR (and it is an investment when you consider how many computers I buy and how much money I lose the day after I buy them), the camera must be able to take razor sharp images. I can practice, practice, practice, to nail exposures, but when the camera cannot capture the subject razor sharp the resulting image is a disappointment.

I am buying the D2h because, from what I have heard and seen, it is the only camera that can capture razor sharp images. Do I need it? I think I do, if my intent is capturing moments in time that I can look back on years from now. I want to be able to magnify the image of a head shot and see individual teeth, not a white smear. I want to count the hair strands, I want to see the texture of the skin. I want an accurate representation of the subject, nothing less.

When people shoot film, and the exposure is good and subject is in sharp focus, you can do that with a camera that costs $100 or $10,000. That doesn't hold true in Digital. You cannot capture a decent image without a decent tool. Analogy: you might have a great 30" TV, but until you've seen a 30" HDTV showing an HD broadcast you don't know sharp. But once you do, nothing else suffices.

Should amateurs steer clear of a $3000 camera body? Depends on how much they care about the images they shoot, and the images they get. If you don't care that an image of your precious daughter shows a blurred skin texture or teeth that look like a white smear then don't buy one. But, if you want your every detail of your young daughter to show through many years later when all you have left of that young daughter are the images you captured, then you want a camera that will show you all the details your memory has forgotten. You want to count the teeth, ya know?

Sorry to rant, but a D2h is not an elitist toy, its a dSLR that seems to be the only one capable of producing images as sharp as Kodachrome 25.

Then again, if I have a defective D70 and others here have been able to capture razor sharp images, then tell me. If I can produce these images with a D70 then by all means I won't waste my money.
 
gho said:
I think a person should be able to buy whatever camera he/she
desires. There should be no qualifications - "you need to be a pro
or serious amerature to be able to buy a d2h."
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

My only problem is when inexperienced folks buy the high end gear and then post thread after thread complaining about how it takes awful photos.
 
KosmoD70 said:
I don't know whether to be insulted or not...
Click to expand...
My apologies if you were insulted--that was not my intent, but I will admit that your posts did contribute to my frustration yesterday. Both posts (to me) showed a lack of research or a simple search through the forums to see if the topics had been covered before.

Your credentials would suggest that you exceed my skills and capabilities by several orders of magnitude, so I again apologize for offending you.

That said, from all of the empirical evidence I've seen, the D70 is a tack sharp camera (even at 100%) with good glass. Have you tried lenses other than the 18-70 kit lens?

Given that you have a pro photographer background, I suspect your eye is more well trained than most amateurs like myself to detect sharpness. Thus, I wouldn't doubt that this lens is insufficient for your standards. I have gradually become more sensitive to sharpness as well as I have learned what to look for and that drove my purchases of two very expensive pro-level lenses.

Also, given your background, I'd guess that you must know how to pick out a fine quality lens, so why bail on the D70 so fast without trying other lenses? Bad samples do happen.

I am sorry if I misread the motivation behind your posts--you are obviously not as naive as I perceived, but I would say don't give up so quickly. Do a little research and some more tests. If you got bad samples, get Nikon to fix them--they're both bound to still be under warranty. Or, if the D2H is your thing, go for it and enjoy.

BB
 
Dave Harpe said:
My only problem is when inexperienced folks buy the high end gear
and then post thread after thread complaining about how it takes
awful photos.
Click to expand...
I think you distilled my long-winded thoughts very nicely into that one sentence.

You and the other poster are right--people can and should buy whatever gear they want. I just wish many would do a bit more research before posting. That said, my first post on this board showed the same ignorance I'm complaining about, so maybe I should just shut up and go away. :-)

No offense was intended to anyone. Thanks for everyone's time reading and responding. I've enjoyed seeing the feedback.

BB
 
And just so we have a frame of reference, here is a 100% crop of an image I took with my D100 and 50 f/1.8.

I don't have Power Mac G5 or 23" Cinema Display, but on my generic, home-built (gasp) Windows XP machine with my 21" Viewsonic VP211b LCD, this image looks pretty sharp. I'm guessing that since the individual grains of pollen didn't turn into a yellow smear, neither would someone's teeth in a nice portrait. (That said, I'm horrible at shooting pics of people.)

A bit of the sharpness is lost here on the web in JPEG, but the original looks good to me. This is also the only 100% crop I've got posted anywhere, but I've seen even sharper ones.

Does this meet your expectations for sharpness? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like your opinion. I'm still learning after all.



BB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top