That looks like an awesome little camera, as mI'm sure you know, its not the camera but the lenses are the true long term investments. I would say any current camera will do well for you, so just choose between the manufacturers and pull the trigger.
I'll agree with that partly. It used to be the lenses that were the long term investment when we shot film. The photos you took were primarily a result of the lens and the film. Now that we're mostly shooting digital however that changes a little. We don't have film choice, that's set to the body you buy. So while lenses are incredibly important your images are now also only as good as the sensor on your camera. If you don't see yourself upgrading your camera body every few years then camera choice is a serious decision.
As a pro it's a little bit different. When I quit shooting film it was costing me about $10,000 - $15,000 per year for film and processing, but my Nikon F5 bodies lasted for many years. Now I have to replace my bodies every 2 years or so, a combination of wear and tear, and the progress in the camera/sensor technology. I also have to upgrade/replace my computer every couple of years. That's still cheaper than what I was spending on film and processing...
If you shoot a lot of mountain bike events then lenses also become replaceable and not long term investments. I now try to replace mine every 2-3 years, the environmental abuse and simple wear and tear of living in a camera bag on your back does damage over time, things wear out. For a studio shooting this isn't an issue usually, I've worked with gear in a studio that was more than 5 years old and was in better shape than my year old gear. And I try to take care of my lenses, regular cleaning, no dropping, and regular maintenance from Nikon. The lenses also tend to improve noticeably ever few years. I have old film lenses that are 10 years old and in great shape, most of them don't come close in sharpness to the new versions...
I guess my point is just that things have changed a lot, and it completely depends on what and how much you're shooting as to whether any camera gear can now truly be considered an investment.
That looks like an awesome little camera, as mI'm sure you know, its not the camera but the lenses are the true long term investments. I would say any current camera will do well for you, so just choose between the manufacturers and pull the trigger.
I'll agree with that partly. It used to be the lenses that were the long term investment when we shot film. The photos you took were primarily a result of the lens and the film. Now that we're mostly shooting digital however that changes a little. We don't have film choice, that's set to the body you buy. So while lenses are incredibly important your images are now also only as good as the sensor on your camera. If you don't see yourself upgrading your camera body every few years then camera choice is a serious decision.
As a pro it's a little bit different. When I quit shooting film it was costing me about $10,000 - $15,000 per year for film and processing, but my Nikon F5 bodies lasted for many years. Now I have to replace my bodies every 2 years or so, a combination of wear and tear, and the progress in the camera/sensor technology. I also have to upgrade/replace my computer every couple of years. That's still cheaper than what I was spending on film and processing...
If you shoot a lot of mountain bike events then lenses also become replaceable and not long term investments. I now try to replace mine every 2-3 years, the environmental abuse and simple wear and tear of living in a camera bag on your back does damage over time, things wear out. For a studio shooting this isn't an issue usually, I've worked with gear in a studio that was more than 5 years old and was in better shape than my year old gear. And I try to take care of my lenses, regular cleaning, no dropping, and regular maintenance from Nikon. The lenses also tend to improve noticeably ever few years. I have old film lenses that are 10 years old and in great shape, most of them don't come close in sharpness to the new versions...
I guess my point is just that things have changed a lot, and it completely depends on what and how much you're shooting as to whether any camera gear can now truly be considered an investment.
I agree with you on the professional note. Event/photojournalists and even some commercial shooters (such as MTB) will run threw gear much more quickly then what once was. But I still maintain that glass is a more important note for any shooter then the body is and that it will still be a more long term purchase then a body will for anyone. I think any modern censor will hold up to most amateurs usage and visual standards but most people can tell the difference between a POS lens and a nicer one in both image quality and use. I think you would agree with me Ian when I say I would rather be shooting a mid quality body with nice glass rather then your pretty D4 and a kit lens.
You do bring up a very good point in that if you are on a cropped body now and plan on going to full frame that is a huge factor in buying lenses and I did not intend to say that a fair bit of planning and research wasn't necessary. And that lens technology is improving more quickly now then in the past. Knowing what you intend to shoot and how far you intend to take photography are both big factors in lens choice and body choice.
Just a note for newer readers, myself and Ian shoot different things, and I hardly shoot MTB anymore. I have much respect for Ian and his thoughts on the industry.
Things have changed dramatically, no doubting that.
That looks like an awesome little camera, as I'm sure you know, its not the camera but the lenses are the true long term investments. I would say any current camera will do well for you, so just choose between the manufacturers and pull the trigger.
I agree with you on the professional note. Event/photojournalists and even some commercial shooters (such as MTB) will run through gear much more quickly then what once was. But I still maintain that glass is a more important note for any shooter then the body is and that it will still be a more long term purchase then a body will for anyone. I think any modern sensor will hold up to most amateurs usage and visual standards but most people can tell the difference between a POS lens and a nicer one in both image quality and use. I think you would agree with me Ian when I say I would rather be shooting a mid quality body with nice glass rather then your pretty D4 and a kit lens.
I can't argue that point, you can definitely get away with a reasonable body these days, and lenses are important.
I do ALL my filming on my iPhone, got a really cool case that straps on to my Camelbak and has a fisheye lens £25 job done - who needs a GoPro got it from www.productx.co.uk
I have a few friends that have them. Kind of an 'eh' response. Cool for what it is. I guess I see it taking a bit for people to figure out what they want and for Lytro to work on the software.
I have a few friends that have them. Kind of an 'eh' response. Cool for what it is. I guess I see it taking a bit for people to figure out what they want and for Lytro to work on the software.
I don't have one no, don't know how much they cost, but can't imaine they are cheap and for me it would be little more than a gimmick.
I think it'd be cool to have, I'd spend my money on many other things first though. And they are continually trying to create new software and such for it so that it constantly gets improved as time goes by. So whenever they develop something new for it you can download it and it continuously grows.
anyone wanna try to help me understand how the lytro works? i thought it was a multi layer transparent sensor in witch each layer captures an image, any images from a layers with nothing in focus gets discarded and the result is put through a program that lets the user select what they want in focus. and the 'light field' thing witch doesn't click with anyone it seems is a cover up because there having patent issues
Post Message
Quote
