stephen_asprey2

<p>Too much.....<br>

The basics:<br>

DSLR $2000<br>

New lenses $2000<br>

Photoshop etc $800<br>

Scanner/Printer $500<br>

Welcome to the expensive world of digital photography.</p>

<p>A better way to do it?</p>

<p>Yes...come to Australia. All you need is an ABN (Australian Business Number) so the tax dept know about you...ten minutes on their web site; another 5 minutes on another website to get your small business insurance pack, and you are there. Finished. You can register your business name and put up your shingle.<br>

Then get on Yahoo Small Business and spend an hour using their hosting and email tool, and you are on the web with your own website for peanuts. Easy as.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thats a good point dave.</p>

<p>I have never done a print bigger than A4. I'm an old newspaper guy. To me its all about the uniqueness of the image, not the quality. Thats why I like the D300 so much. Its fast and has way too much resolution. But coming from the body integrity of an F4s (which I still have and use), I could not buy anything less.</p>

<p>My mate though, is a landscape guy and also does not go over A3...so its the look he is after. He thinks the 5D2 images are more pixel'y and less natural than the 5D images. If the 5D2 had the solid body of the 7D, I would consider buying one. But not new...never new. </p>

<p>Thanks James for the respect you show everyone and their opinions. There always has to be someone in a thread like this.<br>

Most here offer their thoughts based on their own experiences. I have a 12mp camera and my business partner has a 5D2. We both have been in the business since the 60s.<br>

I am delighted with my D300...my first digital camera. He is disappointed with his 5D2, his umteenth, and is selling it at a huge loss. I won't bore you all with the reasons, but to him, they are valid. I personally think he is being too fussy. He prefers the look of images from the older 5D. And thats what we are talking about....the LOOK...not the analysis. So to one person's eye an image will look different or appeal less or more, than to another person.<br>

All we can offer are our experiences, but to be told they are rubbish, displays ignorance and a closed mind.</p>

<p>Its an invalid comparison. You can buy a D90 for a third the price of a 5D2. Buy a D700 and compare that. Even then its not valid. Just because canon decided to squeeze lots of little noisy photocells onto the 5D2 sensor to make up 21mp and claim superiority, that does not make the image better than the 12mp of fat, low noise cells of the D700. Even the older 5d may still be superior. The end result would be the same to the eye. Even the 12MP sensor of the D300/D90 would still be comparable after post.<br>

But to answer your question...up to 13x9, there will be little difference...certainly not worth the price difference. And with the D300/D700 you get the D3's superior AF and colour matrix metering. And we won't start again on the 5D2's cheap plastic body, will we folks? Especially if you go out in the rain or dust.</p>

<p>Occasionally a thread produces emotion..and usually its Canon v Nikon, or digital v film. there's nothing wrong with it so long as its informed discussion.<br>

It would not be overstating it there there is a lot of disappointment voiced on this and other threads about the 5D2 and the 50D. It seems that Canon is repositioning its product line a little and asking more than others for FF and underestimating the requirements for better AF and a good body.<br>

the 5D2 may get the 7d's body and better AF. That would be good, then it would be a little brother to the yet to be release the new 1Dxx etc. It will be 2010 to know if that is the reasoning. It makes it hard for prosumer buyers though. Nikon made it easier by releasing the D3/300/700 fairly close together and kept the feature set common between them. It was logical and made sense. Canon seem unable to do the same. Perhaps the design teams don't communicate enough. Technically theye are certainly just as capable as anyone else. So its marketing thats getting in the way.<br>

The near future will tell whether Canon can do the same and make it logical and easy to see the price/feature points as you go up in the product range. I also think that Canon were as complacent with their bodies as Nikon was with its recent lenses. Both are guilty of being blind to the market and its also called arrogance. Watch for Sony IMHO. Good, sealed bodies, Ziess lenses...they just have to do more work on software and AF.</p>

<p>I concur on the D700. All the photographic capability of the D3 without the weight and at a very good price, used. Perfect for weddings.</p>

<p>The real elephant in the room is what file types and media will be the go in 5,10, 20 years. Computer manufacturers of large systems have faced this problem for decades.<br>

The only answer is to back up to physical media that is the preferred choice at regular points of time. And to continually move your files as these systems become obsolete.<br>

Its inevitable that in 10 years Jpeg and 5 1/4 disks won't exist. You need to keep it all moving. But one this is true, as media and file types change, vendors also produce conversion software to suit...but only for a time.<br>

We are on the cusp of ordinary DVDs and CDs being obsolete and Blue Ray replacing them. So when BR takes over, move your files. And keep doing that regularly.<br>

The really crazy part is that there are now some firms who will move your Jpegs to film for you for long term archiving. How about that? Its going full circle.</p>

<p>I'd like to make a couple of points and agreeing with some of the posters here:<br>

The 7D has the body that the 5DMk2 should have had, but then Canon would not sell many 7Ds so they gave it the quality of the 50D.<br>

Yes, at the moment Canon's AF is not as good as Nikon's. That may well change.<br>

Most shots on all cameras are taken at less than 1600 ISO, so high ISO noise reduction only appeals to a small % of savvy buyers. The camera manufacturers make too much out of it. Smart people ignore it. They have to be heavy with in camer noise reduction due to the high photo cell density over 12mp. In the Canon range, the 5DMk1 is still favoured for its quality images, expecially for landscapes. MP count is not really an indicator. I good 12mp FF sensor can outperform one much larger as the individual photo cells are much bigger. Its the same with the Nkion D700.<br>

All manufacturers will never give you all the features you want at once. They want you to accept the compromise and upgrade to new models every 2-3 years. Fast obsolescence is now a feature of the digital camera business. So buy used, and buy well, to avoid the depreciation trap. Think of it like buying a car or a PC.<br>

Gone are the days when you could buy a camera and use it for ten or twenty years. It used to be even better than that. The quality and reliability of film cameras before they were saddled with electronics and LCD menu systems was awesome. I have film Nikons that I used my whole pro life and which have been cycled maybe 500,000 times, and with care and a yearly service they are still excellent even now. But we will never see that quality again. Todays mid range cameras are throw away items after 3 years so thats all the makers have to cater for, hence the plastic bodies and compromised mechanical quality. They keep the respectable quality for the Pro models. These buyers are not fooled by the marketing.<br>

So in answer to your question, if you are after really good FF image quality in a mid range camera and you don't want to spend a lot of money, buy a good 5Dmk1. Keep it for two years, sell it again and buy the FF version of the 7D which is inevitable.</p>

<p>First off, make sure you are on the latest firmware release. I believe we are on the third version now...v1.10. There were battery issues fixed in the second update.</p>

<p>The problem was that the 40 to 50D upgrade was very incremental...people was underwhelmed. Think about a 7D instead.</p>

<p>Great glass...just upgrade to a 5D2</p>

<p>The last 1 terabyte drive I owned was a Sun disk array system the size of a fridge, used 3 phase power and cost $1m 1998. My daughter just bought one the size of a book for $150. And this is just for photos? What wasteful technology.</p>

<p>Are you on firmware v1.1.1? Start there.</p>

<p>The 50D has not been a success. The 5D is FF...EF-S lenses won't work. get a used 40D and some nice glass.</p>

<p>Street photography was started as a 1) B&W film medium and 2) the whole idea was to go unnoticed. These were the unofficial rules. Candid poses were not acceptable. Capturing the unusual or unexpected without the subject knowing, was. That was why it was hard. Thats why people went to great lengths to have a small, quiet camera. Thats the whole idea.</p>

<p>There are still many photographers who adhere to the above but the reality is that digital is here and we have to adapt. Colour or B&W...doesn't matter, but it does not mean that rule 2) gets abandoned. This is the far more important one and why street photography is an art. Anyone can stand in a public place and take snapshots with nice big DSLR...along with all the tourists. You get a 4/10 for that. Not many can be invisible and get a 10/10. </p>

<p>Taking pictures of kids is one thing and you can be quite innocent and sensible. Go ahead and be courteous. Thats not the issue.</p>

<p>The issue is what you do with them. Putting them on the internet, especially a publically accessible site is a very big step from pressing the shutter. Its akin to putting them on the front page of the daily newspaper. Think of it that way.</p>

<p>I also think that this attitude "I took the shot of your kids, therefore its mine and I'll do whatever I like with it including posting it on any old public website without telling you" is arrogant in the extreme. Adults can stand up for themselves, kids can't.</p>

<p>I also have the Tokina 11-16 2.8. I use it on the D300. Could not be happier. Its the only non nikon lens that I have.</p><div></div>

<p>Michael,<br>

You obviously don't have kids of your own. You have not felt that stabbing fear when you discover they are hurt or have been taken advantage of. By all means explore the art of street photography. Just don't post any photos of kids on the internet who are minors and from whose parents you have not obtained permission. Apart from that its open slather. Or are you fixated with childrens photos?<br>

However, don't come on holiday down here and do it. If you do, we have a good place for you to spend your holiday.</p>

<p>All these views are valid I think, but there is one issue about taking photos of underage children. They are not able to discern the good from the bad, or the innocuous from the sus. Its an issue for their parents and if you want to be safe, ask first.<br>

If you don't want to do that because you think it may spoil the spontaneity, then the answer is obvious...Don't.<br>

We live in a pretty liberal society here but this issue is pretty much top of the pops. Even to work in childcare here one has to survive a police inquisition into your life. If you were to stand on one of our main city streets today, and start taking pictures of small children you would either get bashed or arrested. Probably both, and not necessarily in that order. Your computer at home would be seized and your browsing history on the internet would be scrutinised. Your name would be in the paper as a suspected voyeur at best, a paedofile, possibly. You would lose your job and all your friends, even if you were innocent. And while you were in the slammer you would exerience some interesting experiments with a broom handle. Even the most hard bitten criminals would come and get you.</p>

<p>Enough? Don't do it.</p>

<p>I went from Nikon film cameras for a profession, then went into IT. I chose the D300. Its the DX version of the D700, which is a compact version of the D3. So there is lots of D3 DNA in a D300. Would I choose the same again? No. I would get a D700 in a heartbeat and keep with FX and all my F4 lenses would be fully usable. But I'm still happy. The D300 has 90% of the features of the D3 for a fraction of the price, and its 50% more reach is handy as you can stand a bit further back in weddings and be less of a nuisance. If you think you will buy a D700 and need an MB D10, then look for a good used D3 instead. They are going for $3k atm. Thats a bargain and a good reason never to buy digital gear new.</p>

<p>It makes no difference at all. Nor should it if the design is good and the QA is being adhered to. When they say "made in" they really mean "assembled in". Very few of the internal parts of a Canon or Nikon are made by those companies. The sub-assemblies are sub-contracted out all over the place and final assembly can be done in Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, China or Japan.<br>

This has been discussed before:<br>

Hondas are made in Thailand<br>

Jeel Cherokee's are made in Austria and Poland.<br>

Pontiacs are made in Australia<br>

BMWs are made in South Africa<br>

Swedish submarines are made in Australia<br>

The steel that makes your cars is mined in Australia or Brazil, smeltered in China and exported to the US.<br>

The gun on the Abrahms tank is made by Bofors in Sweden<br>

Tata in India makes a small care that costs $2500 in India, and 6500 pounds in UK....go figure.<br>

My son races sedans in our biggest series here. Their team has a $10m budget. They run Ford 9" diffs. The gear sets are made by Richmond...a US racing gear company, and very well known. Ask any Nascar fan. But guess what! The gear sets are now made in China...and they last better....2-3 races. Before that they were lasting only one race.</p>

<p>On it goes. We are in a global economy now, and global corporations will base their manufacturing operations strategically to advantage costing and availability of raw materials. Products that are sold unchanged, globally, like cameras, can be made anywhere.</p>

 

<p>The worlds most famous pap uses two 40D's. He could use whatever he liked, but that was his choice.</p>

 

<p>Find another contest.</p>

<p>Instead of pushing ISO and hoping the sensor can eek out as much detail as possible, one also needs to remember that AF accuracy is dependent on a well lit and contrasty subject. So use flash and one which can auto the amount of illumination.<br>

Next, if you are still wanting more, then you may need to spend some money on a fast prime to give AF all the help it can get. Consider manual focus overide too.</p>