Camera poll

[Guest ___]

Pick 3

[Martijn Meerts]

Errm.. Not that easy.. I have 2 Sony DSLR's, some Sony lenses, some Sigma lenses, and planning on getting either a Panasonic (TZ7) or Canon (Powershot SX200) point & shoot, because I don't always feel like dragging along the DSLR's =)

[CaptOblivious]

No entry for Zeiss? Granted they haven't made cameras in, what, 40 years?

 

I shoot with a Pentax MX and a Zeiss Contax IIa ($5 at a garage sale!—they got for $300–$800 on eBay now). Sometimes I use my Lomo (an original Russian, not these crazy overpriced things from Austria)—fun for shooting from the hip—, and a friend just passed along a Stereo Realist, so next time I'm in Japan, expect 3D stereograms of trains!

[Guest ___]

I'm thinking of trading in my Nikon D1i, D1H and D2Hs and go with a Sony dSLR system.

[Martijn Meerts]

I'm very happy with my Sony DSLR's, especially the a700 is excellent. I have a Sony branded Carl Zeiss lens on that one, and images come out real good.

 

Main reason I went with Sony (a100 was my first one) is that I liked the grip of those the most. Canon was too small for me to hold steady, and I just didn't like the Nikon for some reason or the other.

[Guest ___]

I'm very happy with my Sony DSLR's, especially the a700 is excellent. I have a Sony branded Carl Zeiss lens on that one, and images come out real good.

 

Main reason I went with Sony (a100 was my first one) is that I liked the grip of those the most. Canon was too small for me to hold steady, and I just didn't like the Nikon for some reason or the other.

 

I was looking at the A900. With a 24-70 Ziess f/2.8, it's still cheaper than a straight D3 w/ no glass.

[Martijn Meerts]

You have to be careful with the a900. Many of the lenses are optimized for the smaller sensors used in the prosumer camera's, but the a900 is a full frame camera. The lenses will work, but there might be weird artifacts going on (according to Sony.)

 

Best to check the thing in a store and make sure everything works.

[Guest ___]

I wouldn't think it wouldn't be an issue with any of the Minolta i-series glass.

[serenityFan]

I was looking at the A900. With a 24-70 Ziess f/2.8, it's still cheaper than a straight D3 w/ no glass.

 

I think the A900 is better compared with the D700 .... both full frame sensors, although the A900 wins the megapixel count  ;D

[alpineaustralia]

Canon Eos 3 and Canon Eos 5D (Mk I) + 28-300 Tamron zoom 3.5-6.3.

[Guest ___]

That new Panasonic Lumix GN-1 is tempting too.

[lbriand_fr]

Canon EOS 400D with a Sigma 17-70 and a Canon EF 70-300.

I wish to have a Canon 50D, but the price is  :o

[clem24]

I was looking at the A900. With a 24-70 Ziess f/2.8, it's still cheaper than a straight D3 w/ no glass.

 

I think the A900 is better compared with the D700 .... both full frame sensors, although the A900 wins the megapixel count  ;D

 

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... I hope so cause I for one would like to see fewer MPs and higher IQ, especially on crop bodies (10 is about optimal).

[bikkuri bahn]

For digital I use a Canon 450d (called the Kiss x2 in Japan and marketed to young women and mothers only for some reason)- I like it b/c it's light and compact.

 

For film (rare nowadays), I use a Nikon FM3a.  I love Nikons for their solidity, but it also feels like an anvil around my neck, especially in those humid Japanese summers...

[serenityFan]

I was looking at the A900. With a 24-70 Ziess f/2.8, it's still cheaper than a straight D3 w/ no glass.

 

I think the A900 is better compared with the D700 .... both full frame sensors, although the A900 wins the megapixel count  ;D

 

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... I hope so cause I for one would like to see fewer MPs and higher IQ, especially on crop bodies (10 is about optimal).

 

LOL, sarcasm doesn't translate well into writings 

 

But really what I was trying to say is that it would be more fair if the A900 is compared with the D700 and not the the D3. (Of course reading it again sounds like I'm actually saying one is better than the other).

 

They all have full frame sensors and not cropped, so maybe higher MP counts? However since I already have a Nikon, I would go with the D700 any day. Discuss? 

 

bikkuri, I have the FM3 for film!

[scott]

bikkuri, I have the FM3 for film!

 

FWIW, one of my "keeper" cameras is my FM2N.

 

(I haven't answered the poll, since I've never been to Japan. But, again FWIW, we have a Nikon D40X dslr [having recently given up on P&S cameras for general use], a Nikon P&S for carrying on the bike, the FM2, a Nikon N2000 as backup and for attaching to our spotting scope for bird pictures, and a Fuji GW690II for landscapes.)

[Bernard]

Scott - Great CU (close up) photos. What is the last one of? You must has a lot of patience in order to get these shots.

[to2leo]

I am a Panasonic fan but I also use Canon too. 

[Guest ___]

Damn, this is Canon Country.

[scott]

Scott - Great CU (close up) photos. What is the last one of? You must has a lot of patience in order to get these shots.

 

Thanks! It's usually at least as much luck as patience...

 

The last one in the set is an Elegant Trogon, which is a very tropical-looking Mexican/Central American bird that just barely makes it into the US in southeastern AZ.

[scott]

About cameras--I had to give up on the idea of a full-frame DSLR; too much $$$.

 

But it might have been cheaper than my original plan, which was to use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with the film from my Fuji 690, which would result in 100 Mp images (!).

 

But while those 40-inch prints would be nice, I'm guessing that there would be a lot of losses from all the extra processing/scanning steps imperfect. I started to think that skipping film, scanning, etc would be a good idea, and that it might be time to consider just using a good digital camera for landscapes. (This is a big step for me.... ;-)

 

So after a lot of research, I bought a Panasonic G1 on eBay with two zoom lenses for $599. I then sold the lenses for a total of $575, so I think I did OK. 

 

Later this week I should have the new 20mm f/1.7 (40mm equiv in 35mm terms, which is about my favorite)--it's gotten some pretty amazing reviews. Maybe I'll actually get back to doing some serious photography again!

[CaptOblivious]

I do the film-scanning route, and in general the results are very nearly as good as what I get directly from my enlarger: Surprisingly not bad.

 

FWIW ;)

 

About cameras--I had to give up on the idea of a full-frame DSLR; too much $$$.

 

But it might have been cheaper than my original plan, which was to use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with the film from my Fuji 690, which would result in 100 Mp images (!).

 

But while those 40-inch prints would be nice, I'm guessing that there would be a lot of losses from all the extra processing/scanning steps imperfect. I started to think that skipping film, scanning, etc would be a good idea, and that it might be time to consider just using a good digital camera for landscapes. (This is a big step for me.... ;-)

 

So after a lot of research, I bought a Panasonic G1 on eBay with two zoom lenses for $599. I then sold the lenses for a total of $575, so I think I did OK. 

 

Later this week I should have the new 20mm f/1.7 (40mm equiv in 35mm terms, which is about my favorite)--it's gotten some pretty amazing reviews. Maybe I'll actually get back to doing some serious photography again!

[Guest ___]

About cameras--I had to give up on the idea of a full-frame DSLR; too much $$$.

 

But it might have been cheaper than my original plan, which was to use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with the film from my Fuji 690, which would result in 100 Mp images (!).

 

But while those 40-inch prints would be nice, I'm guessing that there would be a lot of losses from all the extra processing/scanning steps imperfect. I started to think that skipping film, scanning, etc would be a good idea, and that it might be time to consider just using a good digital camera for landscapes. (This is a big step for me.... ;-)

 

So after a lot of research, I bought a Panasonic G1 on eBay with two zoom lenses for $599. I then sold the lenses for a total of $575, so I think I did OK. 

 

Later this week I should have the new 20mm f/1.7 (40mm equiv in 35mm terms, which is about my favorite)--it's gotten some pretty amazing reviews. Maybe I'll actually get back to doing some serious photography again!

 

IDK, the new D3s is really getting my attention and am glad I didn't buy the D3 last year. Since I do not print often anymore, I'm happy  with the 4mp images out of my D2Hs at the moment. I'm still pretty happy with my old D1H (Except for the dust) so those big FF, 24mp cameras do nothing for me.

 

I looked at the micro 4/3rd system also.

[scott]

I do the film-scanning route, and in general the results are very nearly as good as what I get directly from my enlarger: Surprisingly not bad.

 

FWIW ;)

 

Ah, well--it's too late to rethink now. As of today's mail delivery, I am now committed to this experiment. 

[Guest ___]

I need to get around and buy a Coolscan to redo all my negatives from the 10 years of film. Wonder how many rolls/scans  those are good for until hey need replacing or service.