Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Started Feb 14, 2013 | Discussions
Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,309
dSLR can be themost cost-effective route
3

Donald Duck wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Do you have to be a pro musician to own a quality stereo system?

No.

Does every non-musician have to own a quality stereo system?

This thread is NOT about every person on the planet owning a dSLR.

Now define "quality"... you see where this is going?

The equivalent of dSLR? A system worth thousand of $$$?

I like to bring this up when the subject of dSLR cost comes up... it does relate back to the thread topic so I hope you'll bear with me.

My first dSLR, a Canon XSi, was bought two years after introduction as a closeout at a department store. I think I paid $575 at the time including the 18-55 IS kit zoom. I bought a pair of new/unused lenses on Ebay that the buyer must have gotten with a 'kit' and didn't need (55-250 IS zoom, and 50mm 1.8). That was another $250 for a total of $825.

(I'll leave off the cost of a spare battery, a couple of polarizers, etc.)

Last fall I snagged a deal with a Canon T3i, the 18-55 and 55-250 kit zooms, and a pro level Canon photo printer (plus another $100 worth of extras - 13x19 photo paper, SD card, spare battery, extra cable). Everything was new, no refurbs or anything. It cost me $999 and came with a $400 rebate, making the actual cost $599, no tax, no shipping. I sold off those two kit lenses (I already had them in perfect shape), sold my XSi camera body on Ebay (almost like new with box and all materials) and the net cost of upgrading my camera body and acquiring the printer, paper, and etc. ended up being $137 - including providing free shipping and paying seller's fees on Ebay. I've left nothing out. $137.

My total investment after three years, in a dSLR system that I am very happy with, is under $1000 and I'm set for this year and probably next and maybe even the year after. I watch the bridge zoom and 'compact' users racing to get on line for the next $500 or $600 release of their camera, over and over (hoping for "dSLR-like" image quality they're not going to get) and it becomes clear to me that the dSLR is not always the expensive route in photography. It seems to me it's mostly the new-model-chasers who are the ones saying 'dSLR's are too expensive, you have to buy thousands of dollars and lug a bag of glass, etc. etc.' And while some poo-poo the kit lenses, Canon's are actually quite good performers.

And, for some reason, the Canon Rebel series (T3i, T4i, 600d, 650d, whatever) even appears to be less expensive than the indisputably less-capable M mirrorless model.

Back to the thread topic, that's one reason why this non-pro is using a dSLR and will gladly continue doing so.

-- hide signature --

You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

Hatstand Senior Member • Posts: 1,566
Re: Living in the past?

Donald Duck wrote:

The equivalent of dSLR? A system worth thousand of $$$?

Exactly my point: your definition of "quality" is completely different to mine, and I'm sure "quality" means a dozen different things again for other people.

What do pros do with their photos? Sell them to no-pros for a lot of money. So the non-pros deserve "pro IQ" after all, but it would be bizarre if they try to get that "pro IQ" by themselves?

You seem to be trying to twist my words to make a point, but I don't really know what that point is.

Non-pro's are free to decide what level of quality they find acceptable, and then choose equipment (and compromises) that meet their standards. They don't have to abide by other people's ideas of what is acceptable quality - only pro's need to do that, because otherwise their photos don't sell.

Hatstand Senior Member • Posts: 1,566
Re: dSLR can be themost cost-effective route

Midwest wrote:

I like to bring this up when the subject of dSLR cost comes up... it does relate back to the thread topic so I hope you'll bear with me.

My first dSLR, a Canon XSi, was bought two years after introduction as a closeout at a department store. I think I paid $575 at the time including the 18-55 IS kit zoom. I bought a pair of new/unused lenses on Ebay that the buyer must have gotten with a 'kit' and didn't need (55-250 IS zoom, and 50mm 1.8). That was another $250 for a total of $825.

(I'll leave off the cost of a spare battery, a couple of polarizers, etc.)

Last fall I snagged a deal with a Canon T3i, the 18-55 and 55-250 kit zooms, and a pro level Canon photo printer (plus another $100 worth of extras - 13x19 photo paper, SD card, spare battery, extra cable). Everything was new, no refurbs or anything. It cost me $999 and came with a $400 rebate, making the actual cost $599, no tax, no shipping. I sold off those two kit lenses (I already had them in perfect shape), sold my XSi camera body on Ebay (almost like new with box and all materials) and the net cost of upgrading my camera body and acquiring the printer, paper, and etc. ended up being $137 - including providing free shipping and paying seller's fees on Ebay. I've left nothing out. $137.

My total investment after three years, in a dSLR system that I am very happy with, is under $1000 and I'm set for this year and probably next and maybe even the year after. I watch the bridge zoom and 'compact' users racing to get on line for the next $500 or $600 release of their camera, over and over (hoping for "dSLR-like" image quality they're not going to get) and it becomes clear to me that the dSLR is not always the expensive route in photography. It seems to me it's mostly the new-model-chasers who are the ones saying 'dSLR's are too expensive, you have to buy thousands of dollars and lug a bag of glass, etc. etc.' And while some poo-poo the kit lenses, Canon's are actually quite good performers.

And, for some reason, the Canon Rebel series (T3i, T4i, 600d, 650d, whatever) even appears to be less expensive than the indisputably less-capable M mirrorless model.

Back to the thread topic, that's one reason why this non-pro is using a dSLR and will gladly continue doing so.

You make a very good point.

In my case though, airshow photography really benefits from big focal lengths, and those lenses for a DSLR (400mm or more) really are big, expensive and unwieldy. Even 300mm lenses with TC's are a bit much for me. This is a major attraction of superzooms for me - I get the massive "reach" in a package that is small, light and yes - much cheaper, even if I replace my superzoom periodically.

I get 600mm equivelent from my FZ, or 900mm when I stick my Canon TC-DC58A on it (which cost me 75 UK pounds). And I get f2.8 thoughout the entire zoom range with the FZ200. Thanks to better IQ on a DSLR, you can use shorter equivelent focal lengths, and crop the results - but you're still looking at a very big, heavy and expensive lens.

Donald Duck
Donald Duck Regular Member • Posts: 308
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

What do pros do with their photos? Sell them to no-pros for a lot of money. So the non-pros deserve "pro IQ" after all, but it would be bizarre if they try to get that "pro IQ" by themselves?

You seem to be trying to twist my words to make a point, but I don't really know what that point is.

It was not so much a reply to your post - it was about the OP.

Non-pro's are free to decide what level of quality they find acceptable, and then choose equipment (and compromises) that meet their standards. They don't have to abide by other people's ideas of what is acceptable quality - only pro's need to do that, because otherwise their photos don't sell.

They will, to the non-discriminating non-pros.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,309
Re: dSLR can be themost cost-effective route

Hatstand wrote:

Midwest wrote:

I like to bring this up when the subject of dSLR cost comes up... it does relate back to the thread topic so I hope you'll bear with me.

My first dSLR, a Canon XSi, was bought two years after introduction as a closeout at a department store. I think I paid $575 at the time including the 18-55 IS kit zoom. I bought a pair of new/unused lenses on Ebay that the buyer must have gotten with a 'kit' and didn't need (55-250 IS zoom, and 50mm 1.8). That was another $250 for a total of $825.

(I'll leave off the cost of a spare battery, a couple of polarizers, etc.)

Last fall I snagged a deal with a Canon T3i, the 18-55 and 55-250 kit zooms, and a pro level Canon photo printer (plus another $100 worth of extras - 13x19 photo paper, SD card, spare battery, extra cable). Everything was new, no refurbs or anything. It cost me $999 and came with a $400 rebate, making the actual cost $599, no tax, no shipping. I sold off those two kit lenses (I already had them in perfect shape), sold my XSi camera body on Ebay (almost like new with box and all materials) and the net cost of upgrading my camera body and acquiring the printer, paper, and etc. ended up being $137 - including providing free shipping and paying seller's fees on Ebay. I've left nothing out. $137.

My total investment after three years, in a dSLR system that I am very happy with, is under $1000 and I'm set for this year and probably next and maybe even the year after. I watch the bridge zoom and 'compact' users racing to get on line for the next $500 or $600 release of their camera, over and over (hoping for "dSLR-like" image quality they're not going to get) and it becomes clear to me that the dSLR is not always the expensive route in photography. It seems to me it's mostly the new-model-chasers who are the ones saying 'dSLR's are too expensive, you have to buy thousands of dollars and lug a bag of glass, etc. etc.' And while some poo-poo the kit lenses, Canon's are actually quite good performers.

And, for some reason, the Canon Rebel series (T3i, T4i, 600d, 650d, whatever) even appears to be less expensive than the indisputably less-capable M mirrorless model.

Back to the thread topic, that's one reason why this non-pro is using a dSLR and will gladly continue doing so.

You make a very good point.

In my case though, airshow photography really benefits from big focal lengths, and those lenses for a DSLR (400mm or more) really are big, expensive and unwieldy. Even 300mm lenses with TC's are a bit much for me. This is a major attraction of superzooms for me - I get the massive "reach" in a package that is small, light and yes - much cheaper, even if I replace my superzoom periodically.

I get 600mm equivelent from my FZ, or 900mm when I stick my Canon TC-DC58A on it (which cost me 75 UK pounds). And I get f2.8 thoughout the entire zoom range with the FZ200. Thanks to better IQ on a DSLR, you can use shorter equivelent focal lengths, and crop the results - but you're still looking at a very big, heavy and expensive lens.

For you to move from (or add) an FZ200 after your FZ150 at least is for a decent reason - that new lens. I suspect that both cameras together cost more than what I've spent but you're buying what I think is the most intelligent choice of 'bridge' camera out there. Perhaps you'll trade off the FZ150, which I am sure is still worth a piece of change.

I think you'll be really happy with the FZ200. While others keep coming out with 'new' superzooms that just add a few features and maybe bump the zoom length, Panny made some serious moves with the FZ150 and 200 - respectively, dropping the MP down some and then using a fast lens that will also help with IQ in most cases by allowing the ISO to remain low.

As for my setup and what I've spent, I had no plans to upgrade my XSi as of about last August. A toddler at home and this still-rotten economy result in tight money here. When I saw that deal at B&H I started thinking and realized that it would cost me nothing to upgrade my camera body 3 years, or a small amount if I wanted to keep the printer. I hadn't done printing before but I'm sure glad I kept it because good photos at 13x19 are pretty impressive. I suspect Canon was trying to move some inventory since they've got a newer model out (the T4i, mine is the T3i) but the T3i was fine with me. It let me bump my MP from 12 to 18 (for better cropping) and has better high ISO performance (which I really need and want for getting high shutter speeds).

Your FZ's are certainlyl very good choices for shooting airplanes, with their long reach.

-- hide signature --

You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

bob5050 Contributing Member • Posts: 725
Re: dSLR can be the most cost-effective route

Midwest wrote:

... it becomes clear to me that the dSLR is not always the expensive route in photography. It seems to me it's mostly the new-model-chasers who are the ones saying 'dSLR's are too expensive.

Interesting point--getting gear you can enjoy and live with for a long time can be very economical.

bob

 bob5050's gear list:bob5050's gear list
Fujifilm XP130 Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR +4 more
Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 12,028
Re: dSLR can be themost cost-effective route

Midwest wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Do you have to be a pro musician to own a quality stereo system?

No.

Does every non-musician have to own a quality stereo system?

This thread is NOT about every person on the planet owning a dSLR.

Now define "quality"... you see where this is going?

The equivalent of dSLR? A system worth thousand of $$$?

I like to bring this up when the subject of dSLR cost comes up... it does relate back to the thread topic so I hope you'll bear with me.

My first dSLR, a Canon XSi, was bought two years after introduction as a closeout at a department store. I think I paid $575 at the time including the 18-55 IS kit zoom. I bought a pair of new/unused lenses on Ebay that the buyer must have gotten with a 'kit' and didn't need (55-250 IS zoom, and 50mm 1.8). That was another $250 for a total of $825.

(I'll leave off the cost of a spare battery, a couple of polarizers, etc.)

Last fall I snagged a deal with a Canon T3i, the 18-55 and 55-250 kit zooms, and a pro level Canon photo printer (plus another $100 worth of extras - 13x19 photo paper, SD card, spare battery, extra cable). Everything was new, no refurbs or anything. It cost me $999 and came with a $400 rebate, making the actual cost $599, no tax, no shipping. I sold off those two kit lenses (I already had them in perfect shape), sold my XSi camera body on Ebay (almost like new with box and all materials) and the net cost of upgrading my camera body and acquiring the printer, paper, and etc. ended up being $137 - including providing free shipping and paying seller's fees on Ebay. I've left nothing out. $137.

My total investment after three years, in a dSLR system that I am very happy with, is under $1000 and I'm set for this year and probably next and maybe even the year after. I watch the bridge zoom and 'compact' users racing to get on line for the next $500 or $600 release of their camera, over and over (hoping for "dSLR-like" image quality they're not going to get) and it becomes clear to me that the dSLR is not always the expensive route in photography. It seems to me it's mostly the new-model-chasers who are the ones saying 'dSLR's are too expensive, you have to buy thousands of dollars and lug a bag of glass, etc. etc.' And while some poo-poo the kit lenses, Canon's are actually quite good performers.

And, for some reason, the Canon Rebel series (T3i, T4i, 600d, 650d, whatever) even appears to be less expensive than the indisputably less-capable M mirrorless model.

Back to the thread topic, that's one reason why this non-pro is using a dSLR and will gladly continue doing so.

you seem to constanly refer to the image quality of a p&s to an slr . here is an example of a xz1 againt the 5dmk2 at an event iwas shooting ,just for fun i ripped out the xz1. buy the way the 5dmk2 is pretty ordinary to say the least. these are crops of original.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

High iso IQ is indeed very much a requirement for action photography. Almost all my action shootings are done at iso 400, many at iso 1600 to 3200, here is are a few just to give you the idea.

It has not stopped me taking photos of high speed action...

It probably did, because in practice what happens with FZ150 is once ISO hits 1600 ( maybe even 800), it simply is not worthwhile taking them because the IQ would be too low for a keeper. If you dont agree then why dont you show us 5 iso 1600 keepers you got from FZ150?

You're still talking about IQ.

And I have never claimed that my superzoom can match a DSLR's IQ (quite the contrary).

I am not talking about IQ in the sense that SLR's IQ is better so one should buy SLR for general use. I am talking about IQ in the sense that it is one of the necessary requirements for action photography.

You obviously recognise the necessity of good AF, good shutter lag for action phtography, because without them your keeper will be very few. high iso IQ is no different to good AF in that sense - if a camera cannot deliver good high iso images, it will severely limit where and when can you do action photography.

My FZ cameras do not prevent me shooting action. Previous superzooms I owned (eg. Fuji HS10), DID literally stop me shooting action, because they just didn't have enough performance in the areas I mentioned (plus HS10 blacked out EVF/screen when saving to card :-P).

Like i said, your FZ does indeed prevent you from shooting action because there ought to be times where its iso 3200 simply is not good enough to keep. All cameras have this limitation. for 60D, its IQ becomes not worth keeping at over 6400, for 1DX, the bar is even higher but it still exists.

My image quality doubtless wouldn't meet your standards, but if it prints OK at 6x4 it's good enough for me. As I keep saying - I'm not a pro, and I don't need pro-standard IQ.

I am not a pro either , few action shooters are. most people just do it as a hobby. But we still prefer better IQ.

Hatstand Senior Member • Posts: 1,566
Re: Living in the past?

ultimitsu wrote:

Like i said, your FZ does indeed prevent you from shooting action because there ought to be times where its iso 3200 simply is not good enough to keep. All cameras have this limitation. for 60D, its IQ becomes not worth keeping at over 6400, for 1DX, the bar is even higher but it still exists.

I don't know why you persist in telling me that I have been prevented from shooting... when I have not? And impose your IQ requirements on me?

Perhaps you can invent some scenario where I am literally prevented from taking a shot, but it's never happened to me yet.

How about if 1DX owners came along and told every DSLR owner that doesn't have a 1DX... that they are not in fact, able to shoot action? Because their DSLRs do not give IQ at ISO6400 that they consider acceptable? And when they did shoot action it must have been imaginary, because actually their cameras prevented them from doing so.

GaryJP
GaryJP Veteran Member • Posts: 6,594
Absolutely
2

... because almost every time I take the easier option I regret it when I look at the final images..

-- hide signature --
 GaryJP's gear list:GaryJP's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony RX100 II Canon G1 X II Canon PowerShot G5 X Canon G7 X II +14 more
GaryJP
GaryJP Veteran Member • Posts: 6,594
Re: Wrong
2

Hatstand wrote:

It seems to me, many of the DSLR afficionados posting in this thread... have not been keeping up to date with what non-DSLR's are capable of these days.

Wrong. I have Micro 4/3 (including GX1), RX100, G1 X, and even Fuji X10. You can see images from them all in my gallery. They do not match DSLRs in the conditions in which I most often find myself shooting.

It seems to me you have not been keeping up to date with what the contemporary DSLR can do.

-- hide signature --
 GaryJP's gear list:GaryJP's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Sony RX100 II Canon G1 X II Canon PowerShot G5 X Canon G7 X II +14 more
Draek
Draek Senior Member • Posts: 2,028
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Yup, because it was cheap. And no, it's not "big", nor "lenses"; it's a small body with just one 55-200 tele zoom or, if I'm shooting in lower light levels or simply feel like shooting with a prime, a small and light 50/1.7.

Could I use a mirrorless camera? sure. I could probably use a nice bridge camera like the FZ200 and not lose too much, either. But why would I? my SLR works fine for my uses, and it was cheaper than any other option(*).

(*) Do be careful when bringing US-born expectations to discussions of pricing in other countries---here thanks to Sony's aggressive pricing and the local Olympus dealer's... absolute lack of it, an Oly E-PL1 (yep, not a typo) costs only a few bucks less than a still-in-production Sony A37. The Panasonic dealer is even worse, so an outdated, el-cheapo Sony model like the one I'm using remains the cheapest and best alternative for ILCs in this li'l country of mine.

 Draek's gear list:Draek's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F70EXR Samsung TL500 Canon PowerShot A1200 Sony Alpha DSLR-A390
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,065
Still use my 20D and 5D on travel

Having the right bag makes it easy to carry a 5kg bag of stuff all day, and they are so superior in so many ways to the rest that travel is the one time I'd never go without them.

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Like i said, your FZ does indeed prevent you from shooting action because there ought to be times where its iso 3200 simply is not good enough to keep. All cameras have this limitation. for 60D, its IQ becomes not worth keeping at over 6400, for 1DX, the bar is even higher but it still exists.

I don't know why you persist in telling me that I have been prevented from shooting... when I have not? And impose your IQ requirements on me?

I am not imposing my standard or requirement on you. Two exchanges ago I asked you this question:

"If you dont agree then why dont you show us 5 iso 1600 keepers you got from FZ150?"

You have not posted five ISO 1600 action shots that you deemed worth keeping. From that I concluded what I said.

Perhaps you can invent some scenario where I am literally prevented from taking a shot, but it's never happened to me yet.

For example, you see that touch rugby shot I posted? It was ISO 2500, if you were there with your FZ150, even if it could keep up with the AF and shutter lag, it would probably not produce images worth keeping,

How about if 1DX owners came along and told every DSLR owner that doesn't have a 1DX... that they are not in fact, able to shoot action?

You see, I never said FZ150 cannot shoot action. I said yoru list omitted high iso Iq which is a important attribute for action photography. my point is the less high iso IQ a camera has the more limited it is in action shooting. For FZ150, where it can only maintain high IQ at iso 132, and probably acceptable Iq at around 400, its action shooting would be much more limited compared to APS-C SLR. and APS-C SLR is limited compared to 1DX too, though the gap is a lot smaller than that between FZ150 and APS-C.

And when they did shoot action it must have been imaginary, because actually their cameras prevented them from doing so.

There are plenty of times where I was prevented from getting keepers (nothing stops me, or anyone else, to press the shutter button) due to limitation of 60D's high iso IQ.

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,250
Re: Still use my 20D and 5D on travel

ljfinger wrote:

Having the right bag makes it easy to carry a 5kg bag of stuff all day, and they are so superior in so many ways to the rest that travel is the one time I'd never go without them.

If we're weight limited I'd rather take whichever system is more versatile. Eg: if high iso, or shallow DOF is important then an FF. If not, and it usually isn't for me, then I'd take my m4/3s kit with a lot more toys such as macro, fisheye, etc.

For my photography I've never found a want for FF.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,065
Re: Still use my 20D and 5D on travel

My basic travel kit is 5D, 15mm fish, 35/1.4, 24-105, 70-200/2.8, 2x TC, flash, accessories. This gives me range from full frame fish to 400mm, IS from 24-400mm, and speed to full frame at f/1.4. I use most of this on every trip. It's easy to carry. In fact I also carry water, maps, snacks and such in my camera bag too.

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,250
Re: Still use my 20D and 5D on travel

ljfinger wrote:

My basic travel kit is 5D, 15mm fish, 35/1.4, 24-105, 70-200/2.8, 2x TC, flash, accessories. This gives me range from full frame fish to 400mm, IS from 24-400mm, and speed to full frame at f/1.4. I use most of this on every trip. It's easy to carry. In fact I also carry water, maps, snacks and such in my camera bag too.

Mine varies depending on what I'm doing.

My grab bag has an OM-D, a spare E520, 12-60, 70-300, 60mm macro, flash, macro leds, fisheye, accessories.

This gives me fov @ FF from 24-600, fisheye, and 1:1 macro, all IS.

If I'm going very light, say for university studies, I can fit my iPad, notes, OM-D, fisheye, 60mm macro, flash and 12-50 into the STM scout.



 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
Hatstand Senior Member • Posts: 1,566
Re: Living in the past?

ultimitsu wrote:

I am not imposing my standard or requirement on you.

With respect - from my point of view, everything that followed in that last post was you telling me what would constitute "acceptable" or a "keeper" for you. What you​ need, to get what ​you want.

You're telling me I have to be able to shoot at ISO3200 which is what you consider a requirement, to meet your IQ standards. (Actually, what would most likely happen is - I would use lower ISO and slower shutter speed... my image would then not be as sharp as yours and not perfectly frozen. ie. I took the shot, but your IQ is better, which I accept. What I don't accept is you telling me I simply couldn't shoot in the first place!).

You see, I never said FZ150 cannot shoot action.

You said: "your FZ does indeed prevent you from shooting action".

Does that not mean the same thing?

I said yoru list omitted high iso Iq which is a important attribute for action photography.

I listed the stuff that enable me to take action shots in the first place.

I did not list "high ISO IQ" in that list because... it's an IQ attribute.

You just said it yourself!

Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,065
Re: Still use my 20D and 5D on travel

You've got nothing but slow. If I just want range I can take my SX260 - 24-500 all with IS in a pocket and shoot panoramas for ultrawide. I often need the speed. I've shot at f/1.4 and only got 1/15th at ISO 3200. I've shot the fish at ISO 6400 and f/2.8 and managed 1.3 seconds. I've shot at 200mm and f/2.8 with ISO 3200 and only managed 1/10th.

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 more
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,250
Re: Still use my 20D and 5D on travel

ljfinger wrote:

You've got nothing but slow. If I just want range I can take my SX260 - 24-500 all with IS in a pocket and shoot panoramas for ultrawide. I often need the speed. I've shot at f/1.4 and only got 1/15th at ISO 3200. I've shot the fish at ISO 6400 and f/2.8 and managed 1.3 seconds. I've shot at 200mm and f/2.8 with ISO 3200 and only managed 1/10th.

It covers what I need. If I needed faster glass then I would get faster lenses. Eg the 35-100 2.8 and the 25mm 1.4. For my photography I rarely need more than the f2.8 (60mm macro and 12-60)

Switching out for the faster glass isn't going to change the size of my kit much anyway. The 12-60 is a big lens and weighs almost the same as the 12-35 and 35-100 f2.8s combined.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads