Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 23, 2007, 8:08 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Nick,

The 20d is no slouch. That camera made me the $4500 I needed for the mkIII. Enjoy your new toy!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 8:22 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
Also - your post would imply that focal length is the only determination of quality. The sigma 70-300 isn't even as good as the canon / nikon 70-300 lenses are - much less their more expensive brethren.
You may have read it that way, butQUALITY wasthe LAST thing I was saying, implying or suggesting. I don't think I used that word in saying what Isaid other than my reference to Canon L series lenses, which I assume you would think are actually quality lenses, so I'm not quite sure how you interpreted it that way.I've used the Nikkor 70-300 f4-5.6 "ED". It focuses slow and is way too dark/slow to shoot anything in less than good light. I use "ED" this way as Nikon seems to want to use that term with 4 out of 5 lenses they sell these days and to me, it's cheapened the term to the point I simply discount it until I seethe specs of the lenses they're talking about.The old "E" series lenses werenicer than some of these "ED" lenses they market today. Most of the Canon 70-300 lenses are equally bad, and no, the last lens I would ever buy for a DSLRwould be a Sigma 70-300.

Suggesting/Implying as the last couple of posters have done thatthe original poster shouldeven consider looking into the pro series of cameras without knowing whether he is wanting to "get more into"shooting sports because his kids now play sportsor because he's actually looking to get into it for a living is going 180 degrees the opposite of what I was talking about, and is the last thing the original poster will be able to do "without spending any additional money" after selling his Pentax outfit....agreed?

You guysneed to pay a little more attention to what his/her intended outlook as to expense/what he's willing to pay extrais going to be. In this case, he's looking to pay nothing extra....how far towards that 1D Mark III do you think these proceeds are going to get him?
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 10:16 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Greg,

be kind enough to read my post again. I did not suggest he buy a pro camera at all. What I suggested was, among other advantages,Canon & Nikon offer an upgrade path for the future. That's it. I didn't say go buy a mk III anywhere. But perhaps you can quote the passage where I advised the OP to go buy one. What I did say (again if you take the time to read my posts) was the 20d made me enough money selling prints so I could afford a mkIII. Not the sale of the body itself by the sale of photos. But if you know someone that's willing to buy my 20d for $4500 I'll be glad to sell it to them:G

My post questioning you was in regards to this statement you made if the poster ever bought a full frame camera:
Quote:
you'll need to buy an actual 300mm lens to get 300mm reach, or a 400mm lens, and you still won't be at the reach youget with your 70-300 zoom now
I was merely pointing out that reach isn't everything. That even with less 'reach' the OP or anyone else would be ahead of the game with a better camera. Even if he were using the same consumer grade sigma lens. That's all. It was also my purpose to point out that the supposed 'reach' a smaller sensor gives a sports shooter is inacurate. You can't shoot a human subject further away with focus accuracy just because a camera has a smaller sensor. You just get more pixels on the subject. When the subject is a small bird that makes a HUGE difference. When the subject is a human being and you're at the maximum reliable focus distance for a lens that subject still has enough pixels on it to get a keeper. And the benefits gained by said cameras far outweigh the drawbacks. So the argument that you don't want a larger sensor because you'll need longer lenses just doesn't hold true for sports. If it was so beneficial I'm sure Canon would have made their pro sports camera a 1.6 crop instead of 1.3 because every pro shooter using the mkII-N would have demanded it be so. I don't see them tearing down the canon office doors demanding smaller sensors so they can get better results.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 10:16 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Greg,

be kind enough to read my post again. I did not suggest he buy a pro camera at all. What I suggested was, among other advantages,Canon & Nikon offer an upgrade path for the future. That's it. I didn't say go buy a mk III anywhere. But perhaps you can quote the passage where I advised the OP to go buy one. What I did say (again if you take the time to read my posts) was the 20d made me enough money selling prints so I could afford a mkIII. Not the sale of the body itself by the sale of photos. But if you know someone that's willing to buy my 20d for $4500 I'll be glad to sell it to them:G

My post questioning you was in regards to this statement you made if the poster ever bought a full frame camera:
Quote:
you'll need to buy an actual 300mm lens to get 300mm reach, or a 400mm lens, and you still won't be at the reach youget with your 70-300 zoom now
I was merely pointing out that reach isn't everything. That even with less 'reach' the OP or anyone else would be ahead of the game with a better camera. Even if he were using the same consumer grade sigma lens. That's all. It was also my purpose to point out that the supposed 'reach' a smaller sensor gives a sports shooter is inacurate. You can't shoot a human subject further away with focus accuracy just because a camera has a smaller sensor. You just get more pixels on the subject. When the subject is a small bird that makes a HUGE difference. When the subject is a human being and you're at the maximum reliable focus distance for a lens that subject still has enough pixels on it to get a keeper. And the benefits gained by said cameras far outweigh the drawbacks. So the argument that you don't want a larger sensor because you'll need longer lenses just doesn't hold true for sports. If it was so beneficial I'm sure Canon would have made their pro sports camera a 1.6 crop instead of 1.3 because every pro shooter using the mkII-N would have demanded it be so. I don't see them tearing down the canon office doors demanding smaller sensors so they can get better results.


Also as a relevant example I can absolutely state I get better results with my 85mm 1.8 with 1.3 sensor than 1.6. Why? Well forget about everything else about the two cameras. Because having the smaller 1.6 sensor doesn't allow me to focus from any further away, the subjects in my sports shots would barely fit in the frame if they were 6' tall. So many of my shots had cropped off body parts. On the 1.3 sensor I get more of the subject in the frame. So for this type of prime (a popular choice for indoor sports) having a larger sensor definitely works in your favor. I don't say this to imply everyone needs to go out and buy a 1-series Canon. I just refute the claim that larger sensors are somehow inferior to smaller 1.5, 1.6 or 2x crop sensors.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 3, 2007, 8:11 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
inneyeseakay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,379
Default

For those in doubt, Greg Chappell, the switch is completed. I was able to sell my pentax gear and add only $300 to obtain the following gear:

Canon EOS 20d
Canon BG-E2
Canon EF-S 18-55
Canon EF 50/1.8 II
Canon EF 28-90 III
Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L

This is far enough gear to match (or surpass) what I had for the Pentax, what I paid for all of my lenses combined, MIGHT have covered just the Sigma 70-200/2.8 in Pentax mount.
inneyeseakay is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:55 AM.