Camera System?

[Limburger]

123Mike wrote:

The problem I have with you Bjorn, is that you repeatedly use personal attacks. You very quickly start making claims that you are superior, better, having done it longer. You very readily claim that the person you are talking to knows less, has things to learn that you already know. You are trying to make yourself seem superior by trying belittling. So, I have a personal beef with you, because of this arrogance. The bullying is also not very becoming. I'm still scratching my head how people can be this way, because where I'm from, people don't do that sort of thing.

The only thing that I've been contributing, and this is making people very nervous it seems, is that the Sonys do things that the other cameras don't. We know that there are many people that think that Canon and Nikon are the only worthy cameras to consider. People should consider the other brands as well, including Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, heck what else, Samsung (nah). So, don't be offended if I drop in. I'm not going to bullied away.

Mike it's you getting personal in every thread I have seen so far.

By experience you get better at things, not just photography...

What you call arrogance is your own ignorance to learn, not just photography...

If somebody asks the way to the Eiffel Tower and you point them to the Louvre that doesn't answer the question.

 

[Guidenet]

jcharding wrote:

System wise the same is also true. All camera manufacturers currently have a system more than capable of fulfilling the needs of well over 99% of all customers. So unless your system needs involve shooting wildlife from a blind on a regular basis, or a tilt shift lens is necessary due to your specific needs, or whatever, any of these systems will fit your needs as well.

Ahh, but there's the issue. A person often doesn't know if they will want a tilt shift for landscape use. They may not know that they are going to become a serious bird photographer. They may decide they want a fast portrait lens. Maybe they'll want a fast wide prime lens. They might want to try digiscoping or try reversing lenses on a bellows. Who knows what the future holds and how far your photography might take you?

Sure, your system needs today may not need any of this. Maybe a Canon point and shoot would service today's needs just fine. The advantage to an extensive system is not today's needs. It has nothing to do with that. Otherwise you'd just pick the brand that specifically offered what you need. The advantage lies in what you may need five years from now after you've made a decent investment in some other brand which offers no upgrade path in the direction you want to follow.

Many of us have made that mistake. I invested in a fairly large collection in one brand to find I wanted to be able to change finders and screens with ease. I had to switch systems entirely. I then chose a system which I knew offered me the most lattitude in offerings and compatibility. It's been worth it. As I mentioned, I have glass I purchased new in the late 1960s and 1970s I often still use today and are integral parts of my kit. Choosing a system now, at the start, can be quite important later. There's absolutely no way to know how far this endeavor will go.

Take care.











--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 

[jcharding]

But you are kind of proving my point. The OP doesn't appear to know what, if any, advanced criteria he needs (if any, ever). Nor did you when you started out. You only figured that out through use and your own personal growth. Trying to predict which of these relatively small areas of concern a person might need is not IMHO worth the effort. For example lets say the OP has a vague interest in photographing birds and will one day need a 600/4. But that day is over 5 years away. So he/she buys a Nikon or Canon DSLR to prepare for that day. But in the intervening 5 years he/she has two kids and now needs something smaller. Or in the interim time period Samsung conquers the photographic world through a Metabones type of game changing tech advancement. Or....

There are too many variables, and trying to predict them correctly on day 1 is not only close to impossible, but involves things that the overwhelming amount of people don't ever need. So I return to my original point, which is that essentially all bodies and all systems are more than suitable for virtually everyone.

 

[Bjorn_L]

I do none of those things. You are filtering things through your own insecurities.

I have never claimed to be the next Ansel Adams.

For example, I have upon more then one occasion said not all the images in my gallery are noteworthy. Some are actually there to illustrate problems with lenses or equipment (and so are "bad" for that reason ), some are bad because I made a photographic mistake but I still like it for whatever reason), others are ok and a few of I think are very good. I do not make any effort to keep the flawed ones out as my typical shoot is like that old Eastwood movie... good, bad and ugly. If I was trying to be superior, wouldn't I at least attempt to hide the less then ideal ones?

If you look at my contest entries... I've entered a bakers dozen and never placed better then 7th. Even one which did rather poorly is listed there.

I have talked about people on here I have asked for advice. I have pointed out examples of photographers I think are better then me (so new guys can look at some really good stuff).

I have much more experience then you. And, in large part because of that I have much more knowledge then you. You resent this and get nasty at every opportunity. For example when you listed a bunch of sub-par 70-200 lenses an hour or so ago and I took the time to explain what I knew. Your reply was iingracious to put it mildly.

And in just about every reply no matter how worded you take every correction as some base motivated action. The poster with lenses costing 10x your kit is jealous of you. Your entry level is just as good as his pro gear and so on. No one is feeling or saying any of the things you think they are.

Again, how about you at least consider staying topical?

 

[NC_grouch]

I never thought about Sony as being a contender in the DSLR world, because when I think of Sony; I think of AV. I've had a Sony Walkman in the way back zone and now I have a Sony 3d TV. But as a whole, I guess the question is: Which (or maybe who) is better? Considering everything?

 

[Guidenet]

Well then we can agree to disagree. I think Canon and Nikon have serious advantages in offering a system of lenses and accessories which is not offered by others. I think they do this while not offering less for the novice first time buyer. Moreover, I see lots of beginners claiming to be interested in landscape, portrait or wildlife photography where a larger system may provide more for them at a later time. For example, Canon's 17 tilt shift lens can do things no other landscape lens can do. There's nothing similar until you get to Canon and Nikon's 24mm tilt shift and then again, they can do things no other landscape lens can do. That beginner might want to do those things down the road or even right away. I don't know and niether do you. We're guessing.

Take an inexpensive 85mm fast portrait lens. That's something many beginners might wish to have. They may want to have the pretty out of focus backgrounds and can't affort an 85 f/1.4 for over $1500. Nikon and Canon both make the 85 f/1.8 lenses. Nikon's costs only $499 which is within the reach of most people. Some brands don't offer this. They only offer compromises which are more expensive and/or slower. Even Sigma's 85 is almost twice as much. This is an extremely common and desirable lens. It's not some rarely wanted model. See what I mean? Again, we can agree to disagree. No problem.

Have fun and take care of yourself. We might be related you know. I'm Craig Harding, BTW. Glad to meet you.

 

[Limburger]

+1

Most of us have pointed people in a direction they more or less asked for, resulting in different brands advised.

But one guy only keeps coming up with one brand, and that is pretty narrow minded and does the OP no good.

 

[Bjorn_L]

NC_grouch wrote:

I never thought about Sony as being a contender in the DSLR world, because when I think of Sony; I think of AV. I've had a Sony Walkman in the way back zone and now I have a Sony 3d TV. But as a whole, I guess the question is: Which (or maybe who) is better? Considering everything?

Sony has one trump card over all the other DSLR types other then the m4/3 systems and that is fast focus in video.

Neither Nikon nor Canon can match it. But Nikon and Canon have a larger more diverse/complete systems to choose from. There are rational people buying all of these brands. And a few irrational ones too. But between the top two there is no rational way to say that one is truely superior to the other. They are not identical. I have owned all three mentioned here. Sony was a Minolta from before Sony bought them out. The Canon I owned was an entry level. For me, once I settled on Nikon I found what I wanted in both lenses and bodies. But even though I like where I am I still see things I admire in every other brand.

I started to list them, but it occurred to me this might be taken as flamebait to those inclined to fight. Instead I'll just repeat myself. From your wide open statement there can be no rational reply or we would also be able to tell you why all the other brands went out of business.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

 

[Limburger]

NC_grouch wrote:

I never thought about Sony as being a contender in the DSLR world, because when I think of Sony; I think of AV. I've had a Sony Walkman in the way back zone and now I have a Sony 3d TV. But as a whole, I guess the question is: Which (or maybe who) is better? Considering everything?

Bjorn shoots Nikon I shoot Canon but that isn't what matters.

You and only you have to figure who is going to collect your money.

In your OP you say you contemplate jumping ship, from what brand to what brand and what for?

And all brands do not so well on cowbell

--
Cheers Mike

 

[jcharding]

I agree with much of what you wrote. I will be so bold as to offer my travels as a cautionary tale.

I started out using a Minolta film body. My parents back then thought it best a full manual body was best so that I would learn the basics. Don't think I ever did, at least no on that, but I had it for a decade.

Then I decided that I wanted something that had, you know, AF. Bought I forget which Nikon film body.

Wanted a better Nikon film body. Bought a 90S. 2-3 years.

Wanted a DSLR. My Nikon glass wasn't enough to lock me into the system, and I really liked the Minolta 7D. Used that for a 1.5 years. With some of Minolta's best glass (G glass). At that point Sony had bought Minolta, and it really wasn't clear what they were going to do, and when. But like computers the tech advances in bodies was staggering, and upgrading produced significant benefits on an annual basis. So....

I bought a Pentax K10D. I loved Pentax's approach, and I really liked the Pentax limited primes. Bought 3 of them and some other glass. Used that for a year until Sony woke up and...

Bought a Sony A700. Used for just a few months. Got to use my Minolta glass. Until my favorite lens - the Minolta 80-200/2.8 G fell out of my bag and the mount was damaged on some Sedona pavement. Sony refused to repair it (as they do with all Minolta glass), so I sold all my Sony/Minolta gear (made an overall profit as Minolta lens prices had appreciated) and ...

Bought a Nikon D2X. I had been doing more wildlife shooting - mostly eagles, and the Minolta 300/4 - while a great lens - just didn't have enough reach. I suppose I could have sprung for a Minolta 600/4 or something, but Sony didn't deserve any more of my business and had it broke it was a multi-thousand dollar paperweight. Loved the D2X. Used it for 2.5 years. With the Sony/Minolta proceeds I got great glass. 17-35mm, 70-200, and a Sigma 120-300 (which I ultimately flipped for a Nikon 500/4 MF). Perfect....

But it was heavy. It could really wear you down hiking. It was also inconvenient for shooting a newborn baby. So....

I bough an Olympus EP2. Small. Perfect for not taking up space while hiking or when with the kid (mothers can be very defensive about space in strollers and such). it slowly phased out the D2X entirely. No decline in image quality. Eventually upgraded to an OMD. Simply outstanding. Sold virtually all the Nikon gear (at very little loss; kept the 500/4) to fund the purchase of the better m43 glass....

...but lately have bought a couple of Fuji X items. Very old school. Fun to use (aperture wheels - awesome!)....

Now each of the above paragraphs demonstrated a distinct need that could not be addressed by not only the previous company, but any single company (particularly when you throw in stabilization - which I really liked on the Minolta 7D). There is no way I could have known any of this when I bought my Minolta 7D, which was at the time a widely acclaimed body using outstanding glass. Over the last decade, my priorities have changed. From landscapes to wildlife to kids to small size. One size does not fit all, and for anyone to try and guess at the beginning is again IMHO wasted effort. Buy something. Use it. Figure out what you need and it doesn't have. Move on. What each of us considers to be essential can be utterly irrelevant for many. Still never used a tilt-shift. Nor an 85mm (although I guess in some ways the m43 Oly 45mm comes close). There are so many ways to enjoyably photograph, and lots of ways to do it. Basing system decisions on items that in all likelihood you will never need or use is....doomed to failure (assuming my history is at all common).

But I think you are right that we are probably never going to find common ground/agreement here.

And yes, its possible we are related - but unlikely. Supposedly my family name changed from Hardin to Harding several generations ago because of a mis-spelling or something.

 

[Bruce Miller]

[No message]

 

[Guidenet]

jcharding wrote:

And yes, its possible we are related - but unlikely. Supposedly my family name changed from Hardin to Harding several generations ago because of a mis-spelling or something.

Ahaaa. so did some of our family change from Hardin to Harding but mostly because of a family misfit by the name of Wes Hardin. LOL At least the Florida Hardins and Hardings. There were also the Utah Hardings, same family, just went west instead of south.

Might be the same after all.

 

[123Mike]

You're being hypocritical again. You say you do no such thing, and you did it again just now. "I have much more experience". It is that attitude that is the problem with you. It is arrogant. It makes for an awful cut throat atmosphere!

 

[123Mike]

NC_grouch wrote:

I never thought about Sony as being a contender in the DSLR world, because when I think of Sony; I think of AV. I've had a Sony Walkman in the way back zone and now I have a Sony 3d TV. But as a whole, I guess the question is: Which (or maybe who) is better? Considering everything?

Then you have a nice surprise to discover!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a57

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonyslta57

 

[Limburger]

123Mike wrote:

You're being hypocritical again. You say you do no such thing, and you did it again just now. "I have much more experience". It is that attitude that is the problem with you. It is arrogant. It makes for an awful cut throat atmosphere!

A simple question.

What is your gear history, from the beginning (p&s count) till now?

 

[Limburger]

123Mike wrote:

NC_grouch wrote:

I never thought about Sony as being a contender in the DSLR world, because when I think of Sony; I think of AV. I've had a Sony Walkman in the way back zone and now I have a Sony 3d TV. But as a whole, I guess the question is: Which (or maybe who) is better? Considering everything?

Then you have a nice surprise to discover!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a57

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonyslta57

Yeah going from 7D with 70-200L to A57 that's progress

 

[Whalligeo]

NC_grouch wrote:

Which is the better camera system to go with? Canon or Nikon? Does one or the other have better lenses ? We all know that they try to out do each other in technology. Although I think Nikon is winning right now. Canon or Nikon which is better to build a system on? I've actually thought about going over to the other side.

At my local camera store, a well respected salesman and accomplished amateur photographer sides with Canon every time. I, on the other hand prefer Nikon. We both agree to disagree. He states that Canon has a better build quality, whilst I prefer the IQ from Nikon, a point that he will concede, but only just. You really need to handle BOTH cameras and get a sense of what feels right for you. Also, identify what kind of photographs you want to take, let that be your guiding light. It's a personal choice that only you can make.

Good luck

 

[123Mike]

Limburger wrote:

123Mike wrote:

You're being hypocritical again. You say you do no such thing, and you did it again just now. "I have much more experience". It is that attitude that is the problem with you. It is arrogant. It makes for an awful cut throat atmosphere!

A simple question.

What is your gear history, from the beginning (p&s count) till now?

Making a comparison of what each person knows would take a long time. Each person spends their braincycles in a different way. You can't gauge what one knows and what one does not know based on "gear history".

I think it is far more positive to contribute instead of trying to make others look small.

 

[123Mike]

Limburger wrote:

123Mike wrote:

NC_grouch wrote:

I never thought about Sony as being a contender in the DSLR world, because when I think of Sony; I think of AV. I've had a Sony Walkman in the way back zone and now I have a Sony 3d TV. But as a whole, I guess the question is: Which (or maybe who) is better? Considering everything?

Then you have a nice surprise to discover!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a57

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sonyslta57

Yeah going from 7D with 70-200L to A57 that's progress

Tamron has a lens that matched that L lens, pretty much.

Plus, you'd gain auto focus during video, and 12 fps shooting speed, amongst many other advantages.

 

[Limburger]

123Mike wrote:

Limburger wrote:

123Mike wrote:

You're being hypocritical again. You say you do no such thing, and you did it again just now. "I have much more experience". It is that attitude that is the problem with you. It is arrogant. It makes for an awful cut throat atmosphere!

A simple question.

What is your gear history, from the beginning (p&s count) till now?

Making a comparison of what each person knows would take a long time. Each person spends their braincycles in a different way. You can't gauge what one knows and what one does not know based on "gear history".

I think it is far more positive to contribute instead of trying to make others look small.

You avoided my question, so it still stands.