Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Need Recommendations on New.Camera
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Nov 30, 2014 12:57:52   #
picturesofdogs Loc: Dallas, Texas.
 
You should have looked under pixel tooters.

Reply
Nov 30, 2014 12:59:29   #
lensenvy Loc: Boston Mass
 
You should buy mine! LOL

There are some listed on this site that may interest you. Good luck with your search!

Reply
Nov 30, 2014 13:00:07   #
Apiture
 
Even intelligent cameras are really, really dumb. The best toots and whistles are probably on the point and shoots -- since they try to assist the photographer that knows little about photography. The more manual you get, the more control you have. The more control you have, the more often you get the image in your imagination.

I feel like I am banging my head against a wall.

Reply
 
 
Nov 30, 2014 13:06:54   #
Apiture
 
For what it is worth, here is the limit of my critical criteria for a camera:

Can I get decent lenses for it?
Can I manually set the shutter speed?
Can I manually set the aperture?
Does it have a tripod mount?
If it is a film camera, do they still make the film?
Can I afford it?

Yes, format size or pixel count does matter -- but that is dependent on what I am to do with it.

Reply
Nov 30, 2014 13:25:40   #
Apiture
 
Actually, I am doing myself a real disservice here. I should just shut up. Please trade up, wanna-be.

I am about to get a really good Ebay deal on a Nikon D50 with battery, charger and lenses. :lol:

Reply
Nov 30, 2014 14:21:54   #
Apiture
 
Bret wrote:
I did a brief search at B&H "camera with pixels toots whistles"...and it came back..."Sorry your search found no matching results, please continue practicing using what you have now".....LMAO!!!!


Actually for giggles, I copied and pasted your exact search wording into the B&H Photo search box. It mostly came up with a bunch of Canons, but there was one Nikon in the group: The Nikon D4S for only $6,496.95. Now we have our answer!

Sorry, no Sonys in the group. But, there was a Leica M-E.

Reply
Nov 30, 2014 16:15:58   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
Apiture wrote:
Actually for giggles, I copied and pasted your exact search wording into the B&H Photo search box. It mostly came up with a bunch of Canons, but there was one Nikon in the group: The Nikon D4S for only $6,496.95. Now we have our answer!

Sorry, no Sonys in the group. But, there was a Leica M-E.


I would kick out the two stray singles as bad sampling and go with the BUNCH. Must be a reason for that bunch ! :lol:
SS

Reply
 
 
Nov 30, 2014 16:50:14   #
Apiture
 
SharpShooter wrote:
I would kick out the two stray singles as bad sampling and go with the BUNCH. Must be a reason for that bunch ! :lol:
SS


I would never be so presumptuous as to kick out a Leica.

Reply
Nov 30, 2014 18:36:47   #
Alan1729 Loc: England UK, now New York State.
 
Apiture wrote:
Personally I would probably stick with Nikon. Not because the others are not good as well -- but because he can keep the lenses he already has. Why start off all new, when you can just up the body and keep all those wonderful Nikors?


I'm with you Apiture, I had Canon FD film system, lots of gear. I Canon had of offered an upgrade route where I could have taken my lenses I would still be shooting Canon, however they didn't have the forsight and now I shoot Olympus and can still use some of my Canon lenes. It makes little sense to sideline equipment that has served you well unless it is for much superior models. Good luck.

Reply
Nov 30, 2014 22:22:30   #
Martax Loc: St. Joseph, Missouri
 
After lots of research, I went unconventional and bought a Pentax K3. The reviews on it were impressive and, at about $1,000, it's about $500-800 less than the similarly equipped Canons and Nikons. I've been very happy with it- take a look.

Reply
Dec 1, 2014 00:14:17   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
On another thread, another HOG indicated he bypassed a D810 in favor of a refurbed 800 for just over $1200. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Reply
 
 
Dec 1, 2014 08:52:08   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
Apiture wrote:
Perhaps a slight digression from topic, but this and a few other threads have caused me to think about equipment. Also remembering how Ansel Adams did a spread with a Kodak Bownie, and seeing work done by Peter Gowland with a Vest Pocket Kodak, I have re-examined my approach.

Part of this is because I also like to cook. What does that have to do with this? Well, if you follow cooking, you probably have bumped into Alton Brown, and his original show, 'Good Eats.' Quite often he would absolutely destroy some expensive cooking device, and manufacture something vastly superior out of $10 worth of parts from the hardware store. He did this because he knew the food science of how the process worked.

My point is that with knowledge of what I am doing and why – leads me more down the road in an Alton Brown fashion. For example, I knew the feel of what I wanted to achieve, before I shot this more 'vintage' portion of the Daytona Beach Boardwalk – trying to get that nostalgic feeling of a boardwalk before they tear it all down. My answer was to use EXPIRED color slide film. It worked. I definitely got that early '60s slightly washed out old, Kodacolor print stored in a shoebox look. And for this subject, it was exactly what made the photos work.

In short I beginning to look at the whole process, backwards from the end more than I have. And I have begun to manufacture more things from what I have to save my budget with petty good success. Example: rather than buy a lightbox for $$$ – I used two $10 used 1970's Vivitar flashes that I bought for another reason, an old white sheet and a large cardboard box I was going to throw out. In this case, perhaps not better than the $$$ light box – but certainly (judging from the the outcome) just as good. And I don't use a light box very often – so my budget thanks me.

You get the idea.
Perhaps a slight digression from topic, but this a... (show quote)


There is no correlation of film vs digital. I could use an old Canon TL with Kodachrome 25 and get the exact same quality of photo as a Nikon F3 with K25. In the film days our "Sensor" was the film and regardless of our wealth we all had a shot at the same quality of a sensor. That is denied us today with digital sensors.

Reply
Dec 1, 2014 10:53:44   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
Martax wrote:
After lots of research, I went unconventional and bought a Pentax K3. The reviews on it were impressive and, at about $1,000, it's about $500-800 less than the similarly equipped Canons and Nikons. I've been very happy with it- take a look.



I have been looking closely at one also. Some of the testing indicates it surpasses it's main rival, the Nikon D7100 in a few places, falls short in a few others (like most models do) and is comparably priced. Overall, I would give the edge to the 7100, but certainly the K-3 is no slouch. Having moved away from Pentax digital because of inconsistent AF and AF tracking, I am wondering if the K-3 solves the problem. I am looking for fast AF for low-light sports, I seem to be unable to make my choice right now. After researching lenses, would probably go for body only. I have a leftover 18-55 kit lens (not for sports) and would add the Sigma 50-150/2.8 to make a nice starter package if I go in this direction. Let us know how you do with your new purchase. Good luck with your new K-3.

Reply
Dec 1, 2014 11:00:51   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
wanna-be wrote:
For variouz reasons have decided not to keep the D50...don't want to waste.time on outdated.stuff with limited abilities.

So search is on again for.camera.that has enough pixels toots whistles to do nice large framable peints and stock photos without selling the farm. Suggestions.please


Budget?
Existing lenses?
framable prints of... BIF, landscapes, protraits, still life?

Reply
Dec 1, 2014 11:18:00   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
sirlensalot wrote:
I have been looking closely at one also. Some of the testing indicates it surpasses it's main rival, the Nikon D7100 in a few places, falls short in a few others (like most models do) and is comparably priced. Overall, I would give the edge to the 7100, but certainly the K-3 is no slouch. Having moved away from Pentax digital because of inconsistent AF and AF tracking, I am wondering if the K-3 solves the problem. I am looking for fast AF for low-light sports, I seem to be unable to make my choice right now. After researching lenses, would probably go for body only. I have a leftover 18-55 kit lens (not for sports) and would add the Sigma 50-150/2.8 to make a nice starter package if I go in this direction. Let us know how you do with your new purchase. Good luck with your new K-3.
I have been looking closely at one also. Some of t... (show quote)


One of the reasons you would go with the Nikon in this case is the lenses.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.