Greetings,
I know the topic of camera lens is a little stale but I'd been
meaning to ask a question about lens and camera bodies. First off the
closest I've got to a photography class was asking a buddy of mine, who
did take a few classes what was happening with my train pictures. I've
since learned enough about film speed, f-stops and film types to be
truly dangerous. Bu the one thing I never really found religion on was
camera types. I know that the faster the lens the better it is and that
APO is a good thing (but don't recall the specifics of why it was good).
I don't intend to flame any one for a $2000 plus camera body but I'm
wonder what any photographer gains by jumping up from a say my Nikon
S8008 and 8008s and the vunder bodies of a N90 or F5 or what ever costs
more than 2000 bucks? Where is the point of diminishing returns in
terms quality and flexibility of the higher price 35mm camera bodies.
>>From my perspective I'd think you would get more bang from your buck by
stick that extra cost into faster lens or a better support equipment
(i.e., filters tripods, or film).
Is the ultra 35 mm body a means to sneak up on the image quality of
medium or large format photography equipment? If so wouldn't a
"cheaper" medium format camera give you a better picture/image than an
expensive 35mm set-up?
If the price on top-line 35mm equipment is the result of "smarter"
chips and metering capabilities to redundant to skill level of the
likely purchaser. Or in other words is likely consumer (i.e., a
professional photographer) have the skill and talent between the ears to
make the chip and it's price redundant?
I'm not trying to pick a fight or dis anyone's preferences in this
matter, but I'm curious whether these equipment decisions are driven by
marketing or functionality? For what it's worth I've got a N8008S,
N8000, and N2000? An if I ever win the lottery I'd like a fast 300mm
lens before I'd upgrade myself to N90.
Thanks,
Greg
--- Begin Message ---
Greetings,
I know the topic of camera lens is a little stale but I'd been
meaning to ask a question about lens and camera bodies. First off the
closest I've got to a photography class was asking a buddy of mine, who
did take a few classes what was happening with my train pictures. I've
since learned enough about film speed, f-stops and film types to be
truly dangerous. Bu the one thing I never really found religion on was
camera types. I know that the faster the lens the better it is and that
APO is a good thing (but don't recall the specifics of why it was good).
I don't intend to flame any one for a $2000 plus camera body but I'm
wonder what any photographer gains by jumping up from a say my Nikon
S8008 and 8008s and the vunder bodies of a N90 or F5 or what ever costs
more than 2000 bucks? Where is the point of diminishing returns in
terms quality and flexibility of the higher price 35mm camera bodies.
>>From my perspective I'd think you would get more bang from your buck by
stick that extra cost into faster lens or a better support equipment
(i.e., filters tripods, or film).
Is the ultra 35 mm body a means to sneak up on the image quality of
medium or large format photography equipment? If so wouldn't a
"cheaper" medium format camera give you a better picture/image than an
expensive 35mm set-up?
If the price on top-line 35mm equipment is the result of "smarter"
chips and metering capabilities to redundant to skill level of the
likely purchaser. Or in other words is likely consumer (i.e., a
professional photographer) have the skill and talent between the ears to
make the chip and it's price redundant?
I'm not trying to pick a fight or dis anyone's preferences in this
matter, but I'm curious whether these equipment decisions are driven by
marketing or functionality? For what it's worth I've got a N8008S,
N8000, and N2000? An if I ever win the lottery I'd like a fast 300mm
lens before I'd upgrade myself to N90.
Thanks,
Greg
--- End Message ---
