So, if you wanted a second system

[Dan]

Roel - I got to see the Kooks here recently in IA! Didn't take the camera though...very small venue and very small audience, wish I would have though. Nothing like the venue and number of attendees at the Foo Fighters concert!

The total audience at the Kooks was probably less than 500 and was basically in a large room over a bar.

They did put on a great show though and that's a very nice shot!

Dan

 

[Louis_Dobson]

D700 + 70-200VR would be ideal. But you only gain a stop (and perhaps a bit) over E3 + 35-100.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[ProfessorX]

Well I guess if you do a lot of low light Nikon it is. So Louis can
get his A-900

Well, I definitely need to simplify things and come up with a very capable dual-system. The outcome / decision I make for my upcoming safari next year will definitely influence my future list of equipment: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30257091

Thanks for the reply. Ill be watching the E-3 and
see if it drops more and more by the end of January.

Really nice deals keep popping up these days... Another thought, if you know anyone in Asia, Korea has been a good place lately to buy gear. The favorable US$ to Korean Won exchange rate has allowed a friend of mine to purchase some nice gear for 30-35% off compared to US prices. (I guess it only applies to old inventory though).

--

E-3, E-510, ZD 7-14, ZD 14-35SWD, Leica D 25 f1.4, ZD 12-60SWD, ZD 35-100 f2, ZD 50-200SWD f2.8-3.5, EC20

A-900, A-700, 20 2.8, G 35 1.4, 50 1.4, Zeiss 85 1.4, Zeiss 135 1.8

D-700, 14-24mm, 105mm VR macro

 

[Rriley]

i cant part with mine, i need it
and nothing else will do the same job as well

but a second system, it would be for entertainment only
well there are some pretty good deals going around
S5 is a bargain, so is 40D, but its too close to E3 in performance
5D are getting around at 1.5k body only, something like that with OM glass
M8 are 1k off in the US, I could work that

think I'll wait till mid next yr, things will only get better with deals me thinks...
--
Riley

no one notices the contrast of white on white

 

[Art_P]

Something w a lot more DOF for shooting model trains. Hate the effort of stacking images for expanded DOF and just want to be able to get everything between 4" and 2' in focus... high ISO not so much an issue.

Hmm, maybe I need to dut off my Stylus- smaller sensor = greater DOF. Or just go back to film and use my pinhole lens (which gived me fuzzy pix at best on 4/3.

The other thing I'd want is high res (at least 20mp), long tele zoom (200-800 equiv, F5.6 or brighter at the long end), and spot-on AF for small moving objects (BIF) ...not on my current budget tho!
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/

 

[Louis_Dobson]

Well, I have the 24-70 and 70-200 which I'd be prepared to swap, possibly, for Sony gear of equivalent value. But like you, I'd have to think about it.

Personally, I'd be very happy to have the Sony gear for landscaping, the Nikon gear for city shooting (into which I am slowly getting) and the Oly gear for hiking.

The only issue is cost. Last year, I'd just have gone and bought the Sony kit. This year, sadly, no chance.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Louis_Dobson]

(digital) DoF with quality, as I understand it. Diffraction is the enemy. All formats start to diffract at the same DoF, the difference is just the published F number (the f number being merely an exposure aid).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[Kirasir]

for heavyweight work, where would you go?

Currently, to my surprise, I would go Sony.

The A900, 16-35, 24-70, 70-400 looks like a killer system, on the
face of it.

Canon have blown it - they still can't make a decent UWA, and the
5DII appears to put black borders to the right of highlights (you
have to laugh). The IDSIII is stupid money.

Nikon have blown it (unfortunately, because I'm stuck with them), the
D3 and D700 are "only" 12MP, and the D3x is hilariously, absurdly,
over-priced, which means the D700x will be too. Looks like Sony are
shafting them for the sensor. Also they still have no usable 70-400
equivalent.

So, the winner is Sony. Who would have thought it?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Sony? Oh, no, thanks. Too noisy at hifh ISO for a FF system, not so many advantages even over E-3 with its tiny sensor. If I'd decide to widen my abilities in landscape/portraite photography (not for PJ, here I am quite happy with E-3!!!), my chioce will be this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/502709-REG/Mamiya_310_100_ZD_Digital_System.html

add a 45mm WA lens and a 150 mm short tele (both can be found slightly used for about $500 each) - and here you are...

--
From Russia with Love -
Andrey Sudbin, Offroad journalist

 

[Louis_Dobson]

I feel the new high res dSLRs so the same job. For the same money, I think the D3x will PROBABLY (we'll have to see) produce better images. Or else save a wodge of cash and have pictures that are NEARLY as good off the Sony.

But certainly it is a reasonable option.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[ProfessorX]

Sony? Oh, no, thanks. Too noisy at hifh ISO for a FF system, not so
many advantages even over E-3 with its tiny sensor. If I'd decide to
widen my abilities in landscape/portraite photography (not for PJ,
here I am quite happy with E-3!!!), my chioce will be this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/502709-REG/Mamiya_310_100_ZD_Digital_System.html

add a 45mm WA lens and a 150 mm short tele (both can be found
slightly used for about $500 each) - and here you are...

I own the Sony, and have had a chance to try the ZD system. Honestly, you get 90% of the ZD's quality out of the Sony without spending 3x as much. As for the problems with Sony's high ISO, it is completely fine up 'til 800, which you do not use for landscapes anyway. The ZD system is not for high ISO work either, and has a sluggish AF system making it a hindrance to use it for anything else. The Sony is just fine..

--

E-3, E-510, ZD 7-14, Leica D 25 f1.4, ZD 12-60SWD, ZD 35-100 f2, ZD 50-200SWD f2.8-3.5, EC20

A-900, A-700, 20 2.8, G 35 1.4, 50 1.4, Zeiss 85 1.4, Zeiss 135 1.8

D-700, 14-24mm, 105mm VR macro

 

[cherrybloke]

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/Manual/Perspective-Control.page

Something w a lot more DOF for shooting model trains. Hate the
effort of stacking images for expanded DOF and just want to be able
to get everything between 4" and 2' in focus... high ISO not so much
an issue.
Hmm, maybe I need to dut off my Stylus- smaller sensor = greater DOF.
Or just go back to film and use my pinhole lens (which gived me fuzzy
pix at best on 4/3.

The other thing I'd want is high res (at least 20mp), long tele zoom
(200-800 equiv, F5.6 or brighter at the long end), and spot-on AF for
small moving objects (BIF) ...not on my current budget tho!
--
Art P



Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8131242@N04/

 

[Sergey_Green]

i cant part with mine, i need it
and nothing else will do the same job as well

Promotional interior shots any camera can handle. To catch the subject in a dimer light and be creative with ambient light and subject separation is a different story.

But I agree, one gets very personal with tools after a while. If that is what you mean.

--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen

 

[Sergey_Green]

Well, I have the 24-70 and 70-200 which I'd be prepared to swap,
possibly, for Sony gear of equivalent value. But like you, I'd have
to think about it.

Unlike 28-70 and 80-200 the cousins you have are not always easy to have for less than what they are, and yet they do also sell well. You should have no problems separating from them. Unless you find yourself bound to Portugal when selling from there and there are not many buyers at this time of a year.

--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen

 

[Rriley]

i cant part with mine, i need it
and nothing else will do the same job as well

Promotional interior shots any camera can handle. To catch the
subject in a dimer light and be creative with ambient light and
subject separation is a different story.

pretty much style driven

ive taken to just using fill flash, attempting to capture more ambient light at around 1/3 stop underexposed. Often means shooting at ISO640-800. E3 handles that with aplomb, and the featureset makes up the rest.

Liveview with tilt LCD means I can shoot from a 15ft pole, its just better to shoot at the approx height of a house than look up at it, and although some P&S cameras can do that as well, you cant get decent very WA and articulated LCD (for composition)

Since its all about the same DoF, 5D wont offer any pure advantage other than better pixel definition but noise looks about the same. I could make a 5D work with stop down metering and just zone focus, but it would slow down the workflow in comparison to E3. Given that, E3 stays

But I agree, one gets very personal with tools after a while. If that
is what you mean.

at this point i can forget about the camera and just work, if that makes sense

what i need to do is bolster against tough times and find a backup gig or build on what i have in the value adding sense. Im not really sure where thats going yet, but since my spare time is in the evenings, there are logical conclusions. Complementary rather than competitive systems

--
Riley

no one notices the contrast of white on white

 

[RoelHendrickx]

D700 + 70-200VR would be ideal. But you only gain a stop (and
perhaps a bit) over E3 + 35-100.

I haven't got a ZD 35-100 either.
I make do with ZD 50-200...
But the ZD 35-100 is on my lust-list.

See here : http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30268177
(Eagerly awaiting your Nikon/Oly shots in that thread, BTW.)
(My buying history is in there too...)

For now I think I stick with Oly all the way.
If I would go Nikon for low light, the ZD 35-100 would not be justifiable.
But right now, a second system is even less justifiable...

--
Roel Hendrickx
--

E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html
member of UK (+ abroad) Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

wanna join? http://www.alert-central.co.uk/personalinvite.php?by=Roel%20Hendrickx

 

[Louis_Dobson]

ebay is full of mad people.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

 

[BJL]

Nikon have blown it (unfortunately, because I'm stuck with them), the D3 and D700 are "only" 12MP, and the D3x is hilariously, absurdly, over-priced, which means the D700x will be too.

I am not as pessimistic. After all, the 1DsMkIII still has a MSRP of $8,000 and a street price of $6,700 while the 5DMkII sells at $2,700: differences of $5,300 and $4,000 respectively. 1DsMkIII price drops are entirely due to dealers accepting lower margins as demand for it is undermined by the 5DMkII (and A900?)

So I can imagine

• D3X street price dropping close to that of the 1DsMkIII once initial pent-up demand from affluent Nikon lens users has been met, and dealers have been made happy by high initial margins. Say $7,000?
• A "D700x" with a similar price gap D3x-D700x as we see with 1DsMkIII-5DMkII. With the D700 now selling at $2,400 and the A900 at $3,000, I guess $3,000-3,500 for the D700x.

Street price that is; do not get fooled by the often inflated MSRP. I am not sure if anyone will have to pay US$8,000 for the D3x, in the same way that no-one has to pay the original MSRP of $2,200 for the E-1.

 

[cherrybloke]

Minus VAt and taking exchange rates into consideration, someone found a price of $6,700 for the D3x.

Nikon have blown it (unfortunately, because I'm stuck with them), the D3 and D700 are "only" 12MP, and the D3x is hilariously, absurdly, over-priced, which means the D700x will be too.

I am not as pessimistic. After all, the 1DsMkIII still has a MSRP of
$8,000 and a street price of $6,700 while the 5DMkII sells at $2,700:
differences of $5,300 and $4,000 respectively. 1DsMkIII price drops
are entirely due to dealers accepting lower margins as demand for it
is undermined by the 5DMkII (and A900?)

So I can imagine

• D3X street price dropping close to that of the 1DsMkIII once

initial pent-up demand from affluent Nikon lens users has been met,
and dealers have been made happy by high initial margins. Say $7,000?

• A "D700x" with a similar price gap D3x-D700x as we see with

1DsMkIII-5DMkII. With the D700 now selling at $2,400 and the A900 at
$3,000, I guess $3,000-3,500 for the D700x.

Street price that is; do not get fooled by the often inflated MSRP. I
am not sure if anyone will have to pay US$8,000 for the D3x, in the
same way that no-one has to pay the original MSRP of $2,200 for the
E-1.

 

[Sergey_Green]

Nikon have blown it (unfortunately, because I'm stuck with them), the D3 and D700 are "only" 12MP, and the D3x is hilariously, absurdly, over-priced, which means the D700x will be too.

I am not as pessimistic. After all, the 1DsMkIII still has a MSRP of
$8,000 and a street price of $6,700 while the 5DMkII sells at $2,700:
differences of $5,300 and $4,000 respectively. 1DsMkIII price drops
are entirely due to dealers accepting lower margins as demand for it
is undermined by the 5DMkII (and A900?)

So I can imagine

• D3X street price dropping close to that of the 1DsMkIII once

initial pent-up demand from affluent Nikon lens users has been met,
and dealers have been made happy by high initial margins. Say $7,000?

• A "D700x" with a similar price gap D3x-D700x as we see with

1DsMkIII-5DMkII. With the D700 now selling at $2,400 and the A900 at
$3,000, I guess $3,000-3,500 for the D700x.

Street price that is; do not get fooled by the often inflated MSRP. I
am not sure if anyone will have to pay US$8,000 for the D3x, in the
same way that no-one has to pay the original MSRP of $2,200 for the
E-1.

The D700 is already where D300 was a year ago, I mentioned it here
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=30272379

.. and within some 9 months or so it will probably drop to even lower mark. The D700x can easily be priced at where 5DII or A900 are today and be within easy reach for most who needs it.

--
http://photo.net/photos/sngreen

 

[Louis_Dobson]

nobody makes money on the 1DSIII any more. So Nikon are either shafting the dealers, attempting to shaft the customers, being shafted by Sony, or plain stupid. As yet, I have no idea which, but none gives me any confidence in them at all.

The differences between D3 and D700 body are quite minor, unlike IDSIII and 5D, which are in a different league.

There is no obvious reason why the D3x shhould cost any more than the D3, it is the same body, with the same processing power (in 14 bit, it has dropped to 2fps!) with a year later, higher res sensor. Again, one answer is that they wildy over-produced the D3 after the D700 arrived and stole most of the sales, and have to keep the D3x price hight while they offload the suprlus D3s. Again, that gives me no confidence.

We'll see. I have no intention of going anywhere, switching systems means selling things, and I hate selling things. I just hope Nikon are a lot less greedy/stupid/screwed than they are currently making themselves look.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam