Timeline for What are factors to look at when going from a entry level DSLR to a higher level?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 3, 2012 at 7:13 | vote | accept | damned truths | ||
| Oct 16, 2012 at 10:07 | |||||
| Aug 30, 2012 at 21:00 | comment | added | camflan | @Dan I've seen many amateurs, some are my friends, that have D3X or 5DIII with 18-55 kit lens. That's what I meant by too much body for the glass. You're right though - no one that just casually take pictures goes far past the kit lens. But, as I said, I've seen too many go way past the body they need and wonder why their pictures look worse than the ones I get from my iPhone | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 19:22 | comment | added | Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight | @camflan I was referring to your rule. Most amateurs in any field are, almost by definition, going to be at the casual end of the range and even if they have something beyond the kit lens it'll be the cheapest one that looks like it's good enough. | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 17:15 | comment | added | camflan | @StanRogers Yeah, you're correct - my wording isn't clear there. Artificial lighting can have more impact than lens for many subjects | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 17:13 | comment | added | camflan | @DanNeely I'm not sure what part of my response you are referencing. But, I'm going to give a response here at what I think you're getting at. The sensor is only as good as what's in front of it - the lens is responsible for collecting, bending, and focusing the light. The sensor just records this. Put another way, a Ferrari is going to handle like garbage with $30 tires on it. Yeah, it might out handle a Civic with the same tires - but that Ferrari would get it's doors blown off by a Camaro with $500 tires. Eg, A T4i with a 50 1.2 will be worlds better than a 1DX with a rebel kit lens. | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 15:10 | comment | added | Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight | @camflan isn't that inevitable since an entry level body is significantly more expensive than an entry level lens? | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 14:26 | comment | added | user2719 | Actually, lighting and light shaping tools will do more for your photos than either bodies or lenses if you shoot people or still life-type subjects (food, products... just about anything done in studio). | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 12:54 | comment | added | camflan | It's gotta be a good feeling seeing the images pop out of the d800 with the appropriately sharp glass on it! Imagine if you had gone from d90/kit lens and then picked up the d800. You'd just have bigger images that look the same. | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 12:52 | history | edited | camflan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 353 characters in body
|
| Aug 30, 2012 at 12:52 | comment | added | Digital Lightcraft | yes... ive spent the last 3 years using my D300, and buying posh glass for it, and just upgraded to a D800. | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 12:51 | comment | added | camflan | Oh, all the time! I'd love to get a D4 or D800....but then again, I've seen what a difference in sharpness and contrast a nicer lens makes. And I've moved most of my lust to lenses - I would love to get a 70-200 f/2.8II or 400 f/2.8, they will last forever and are SUPER sexy. The rule seems to be: amateurs have too much body for the glass they shoot. | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 12:46 | comment | added | Digital Lightcraft | very true, BUT we all get that urge to upgrade dont we :-) | |
| Aug 30, 2012 at 12:42 | history | answered | camflan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |