 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Time to make a decision
Hi everybody, I am going to explain my situation asking for advice from you wise people. I really appreciate any input on this. I have a day job in a call centre (despite having a degree in Computer Science), job that I hate while I am absolutely in love with photography. I can't help but thinking all day about photography and take as many pictures as I can whenever I have a chance. My plan is to start making money out of photography till a point where I would be able to quit my day job and "bet" on photography opening a full time business as photographer. At the moment I have a compact digital camera (Canon A80) which is great fun, but it has all the limits of compact cameras. I also have a Canon EOS 30V that I absolutely like with 2 cheap Sigma zooms (plus tripods and an EX420 Flash), but the costs of shooting films make me enjoy much less my main hobby and force me to strongly limit the "shooting sessions". I want to start putting my feet on the ladder in a serious way. I am pretty confident about my abilities and I am sure the digital "world" would help a lot to let me learn even more. Furthermore the low cost per shot is a kicker in my plan. All great, but I have a small issue... I am not rich at all... and to switch to digital I will need a loan: this means I really have to be careful on what to buy and what not. I mainly shot for stock libraries but I do also commissioned work. My main interest is focused on Potraits, Fashion, Glamour and artistic nudes. I think I will do some weddings as well. My budget will be 3000Euro, but I live in Ireland where we have a huge economical rip-off. Once again my aim is to reach professional levels with a not so big budget. In the end it's the photographer not the equipment to take the pictures . My Sigma lenses won't work with the digital SLR so I have to start (almost) from scratch, at least lens wise. I have two main choices regarding the camera itself, 350D (1100 euro with the cheap kit 17-55 and 20D (1900 euro with the cheap kit 17-55). I need mainly portrait lenses but a zoom on the tele side may help as well. Lenses of my interest would be: EF 50 1.8 MARK II - 150euro EF 70-200MM F4L - 860euro EF 85MM F1.8 - 530 euro (prices taken from http://www.connscameras.ie/flat_areaEQLproductsAMPCategoryIDEQL109_entry.html ) Now considering my main subjects/usage (people photography), considering that I have to allocate at least 600 euro for a small studio lighting, I am left with 2400 euro of choice between Camera (possibly with vertical grip), Lenses and memory cards. What would you do guys? Could you give me some advice/insight on my dillemas? Thanks in advance and sorry for the long post. Cheers, Tony PS: I have posted this message in another forum for getting a diversity of opinions. PS2: I have seen that with Pixmania.com I can save a lot, and I think I am going to use them for price reference. > Hi everybody, > I am going to explain my situation asking for advice from you wise people. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > PS2: I have seen that with Pixmania.com I can save a lot, and I think I am > going to use them for price reference. This is just a thought, but many pros still shoot film. So, you are right. It's not the camera, to an extent, but it is the photographer. If the equipment you have can take a professional image I would stay with it and see if you can get some gigs shooting. Remember, when you turn pro somebody else will be covering the film and processing, so that won't be an issue. Keep your day job and put whatever you make shooting into a fund to buy a good DSLR and you're on your way. BTW, take whatever you can get. I used to shoot natural portraits but the only thing that would pay the bills were weddings and I hated wedding so I turned them down. Shooting weddings would have given me the money and freedom to shoot what I really wanted to do but I stood on my principles and my career went down the tubes. I still got jobs, and got some pretty good photography gigs, but never generated the money I could have if I had swallowed my pride. Actually, one of my jobs now is teaching basic digital photography at the local community college, and I used that money to finance my DSLR. Fortunately I already had a plethora of Nikon lenses that fit my new D70. Good luck in your efforts. While the photography world can be very competitive, there's always room for another good one. Sheldon > What would you do guys? Could you give me some advice/insight on my > dillemas? Get some better lenses for your film camera? I never understand buying a good body (20D), then buying some cheap lenses to use on it.. Later you can buy a digital body if you really need one to use these good lenses you buy on. Thats my advice FWIW.  SignatureStacey > > What would you do guys? Could you give me some advice/insight on my > > dillemas? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > buy a digital body if you really need one to use these good lenses you buy > on. Thats my advice FWIW. A few days ago, I was batting emails back and forth with an old friend, a guy who was shooting photos when most of us were still drooling on bibs, or not even a glimmer in our parents' eyes. He and a buddy had tested two lens, a Nikon 180mm, and a Vivitar zoom that maxed out at 180mm. Extensive film passed behind both lenses. The result: the Nikon 180 won, but by such a tiny fraction that the difference in cost--the Vivitar had run my friend $99 back then, the Nikon cost $1000--was money wasted as far as both guys were concerned. Of course, that doesn't speak to such things as durability, ease of focus, etc., but the pictorial results were what mattered, not the cost of the lens, at least at that point. There was no appreciable difference in the "cheap" lens's results and in those provided by the expensive lens. Cheap is often a description of price and little else. > He and a buddy had > tested two lens, a Nikon 180mm, and a Vivitar zoom that maxed out at > 180mm. Extensive film passed behind both lenses. The result: the Nikon > 180 won, but by such a tiny fraction LOL a cheapo vivitar zoom at the long end was "a tiny fraction" better than a Nikon prime lens? Either something was wrong with that nikon lens or those guys are blind. Let me guess, you own a bag full of 3rd party cheap lenses? Sure, your sigma 55-200 is just as sharp as anything out there. Keep dreaming.. SignatureStacey >> He and a buddy had >> tested two lens, a Nikon 180mm, and a Vivitar zoom that maxed out at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sigma > 55-200 is just as sharp as anything out there. Keep dreaming.. It depends on the Vivitar zoom lens. The old Vivitar 70-210 Series One manual focus lenses have garnered a near legendary cult status. If that was what they were using to compare to the Nikkor, then I'm not too surprised that the difference was small. If it was one of the latter day Vivitar Series One auto focus lenses, then, yes, I'd agree, either the Nikkor lens or the testers eyesight was faulty... And don't forget, "a tiny fraction" was what they perceived, not what they measured. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> He and a buddy had >>> tested two lens, a Nikon 180mm, and a Vivitar zoom that maxed out at [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It depends on the Vivitar zoom lens. The old Vivitar 70-210 Series One > manual focus lenses have garnered a near legendary cult status. That wasn't a $99 lens at the time the nikon would have been $1000. > If that > was what they were using to compare to the Nikkor, then I'm not too > surprised > that the difference was small. He said the vivitar was "maxed out" at 180? Might have been that f4.5 macro zoom they made, which wasn't a "cheap lens" in anyone book, production ended over 25 years ago, few were made, doubt it was bought for under $100 and isn't in any way related to "cheap sigma zooms" the OP was talking about. http://www.cameraquest.com/viv90180.htm SignatureStacey >He said the vivitar was "maxed out" at 180? Might have been that f4.5 macro >zoom they made, which wasn't a "cheap lens" in anyone book, production >ended over 25 years ago, few were made, doubt it was bought for under $100 >and isn't in any way related to "cheap sigma zooms" the OP was talking >about. The lens is almost certainly the Vivitar Series One 90-180mm f/4.5 Flat Field Macro Zoom, which was introduced in the mid-1970s. It was made for Vivitar by Kino Optic (Kiron) of Japan, and was sometimes referred to as a "Medical Lens". Like so many Kiron lenses, this one is an outstanding performer, with excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh. It might appear that comparing the long end of a 1970s zoom with the superlative 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor is not a good idea, but the Kiron lenses were something special, and this is probably one of the best zoom lenses ever made. > Like so many Kiron lenses, this one is an outstanding performer, with > excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh. It might appear that comparing > the long end of a 1970s zoom with the superlative 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor > is not a good idea, but the Kiron lenses were something special, and > this is probably one of the best zoom lenses ever made. And again, this wasn't a "cheap lens" and has nothing to do with comparing a modern cheap sigma zoom to a canon 'L' lens. SignatureStacey >> Like so many Kiron lenses, this one is an outstanding performer, with >> excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh. It might appear that comparing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And again, this wasn't a "cheap lens" and has nothing to do with comparing a >modern cheap sigma zoom to a canon 'L' lens. True. But it is also true - nowadays - that not all Sigma lenses are bad lenses. Their cheap (non-EX) range is optically pretty dire, but I have been surprised by the optical quality of several EX lenses that I have tried recently, including the 28-70mm f/2.8 DG, the 105mm f/2.8 macro and the 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 DG zoom. The 28-70mm is a good standard zoom for 35mm film use. The macro lens is particularly good for its purpose, and the 15-30mm is an impressive performer when you consider that its coverage is full frame 35mm, i.e. 24 x 36mm. Sigma EX lenses are nowhere near as badly made as the Sigma products of only a few years ago. I still wouldn't recommend the EX lenses for intensive use, but the average amateur who takes good care of his/her gear should find them acceptable. The question of compatibility remains, though, thanks to "reverse engineering", especially with Canon camera bodies, but there are also possible issues with some features offered by other brands of camera that are not fully supported, for example predictive autofocus with Nikon (D)SLRs. >>> Like so many Kiron lenses, this one is an outstanding performer, with >>> excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh. It might appear that comparing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But it is also true - nowadays - that not all Sigma lenses are bad > lenses. I'm sure they aren't, but the CHEAP ones -are- bad news. This Charlie guy's point was that cheap zoom lenses are as good as manufacturer primes, which is BS. He's still crying for being called on it. SignatureStacey > Like so many Kiron lenses, this one is an outstanding performer, with > excellent sharpness and smooth bokeh. It might appear that comparing > the long end of a 1970s zoom with the superlative 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor > is not a good idea, but the Kiron lenses were something special, and > this is probably one of the best zoom lenses ever made. In this particular case, Kiron was simply a contract manufacturer and had nothing to do with the sharpness or bokeh of the design. The design itself was contracted by Vivitar from an American consultant. The lens would be great if the coatings weren't so poor. Every sample I've seen, including mine, has a pronounced yellow cast to the image. The 90-180 does have good bokeh, especially in the 90-135mm portion of the zoom range but based on my conversations with the designer this appears to have been a fortunate accident. Ditto the 90/2.5 Series 1 Macro. Brian > > He and a buddy had > > tested two lens, a Nikon 180mm, and a Vivitar zoom that maxed out at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let me guess, you own a bag full of 3rd party cheap lenses? Sure, your sigma > 55-200 is just as sharp as anything out there. Keep dreaming.. Lessee. Vivitar 75-180mm. I don't know the exact dates, but Rich retired nearly a decade ago, it was not AF--I doubt he'd like AF, but I know he's never used it--and his eyesight is probably better than yours. As to my own gear, well, a bag full of Pentax and mixed brand lenses that fit my *istD. One of my lenses IS a Sigma, and it does a very nice job. If you've got a problem with that, then you've got a problem with that. Keep it yours, since you don't know what you're talking about. Both the photographers above were pros, operating through the '50s, '60s and '70s, and well into the '80s, and beyond, for at least the one I know. Now, I doubt either one ever thought of showing their photos, or doing meaningless on-line comparisons, nor have I heard my friend spread the word that any particular piece of equipment, from an original manufacturer or another maker, is automatically better than another. Nor have I heard him call another person "blind" because he disagreed with a perception. You might, or might not, like or agrfee with the results these guys got, but editors did, and bought much of their output at going market rates. How are your own sales going? >> > He and a buddy had >> > tested two lens, a Nikon 180mm, and a Vivitar zoom that maxed out at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Lessee. Vivitar 75-180mm. Which wasn't a $99 lens. You said this was a "cheap zoom" which this never was and still wouldn't be sold today. > As to my own gear, well, a bag full of Pentax and mixed brand lenses > that fit my *istD. One of my lenses IS a Sigma, and it does a very nice > job. If you've got a problem with that, Why would I care? Most of the shots I've seen from the CHEAP sigma lenses look pretty soft to me, YMMV. I suppose some of their better glass is fine. Trying to tell people a $99 lens is going to perform as well as a $1000 lens is absurd. > Both the photographers above were pros, operating through the '50s, > '60s and '70s, and well into the '80s, and beyond, for at least the one > I know. And again one special "cult" lens made by vivitar 30 years ago has nothing to do with cheap sigma zooms made today. SignatureStacey > >> > He and a buddy had > >> > tested two lens, a Nikon 180mm, and a Vivitar zoom that maxed out at [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And again one special "cult" lens made by vivitar 30 years ago has nothing > to do with cheap sigma zooms made today. At no point did anyone say the $99 lens performed as well as the $1000 Nikkor. Almost as well, yes, closer than expected, yes. As far as the $99 price goes, I only know what Rich told me. 30 years ago, $99 was worth almost a hundred bucks. Today, it's less than two days' groceries for a family of four. But he might have bought it used, or he might have gotten a really good deal. He didn't say. Cult lens? WTF is this, a discussion of Tom Cruise? I very much doubt Vivitar had that lens made with an aim at cult status. You do change the basis for your argument, don't you? If the Vivitar quality isn't related to the Sigma lens quality, you might have said that the first time out. I've got a Sigma lens I like, supported by results from at least three of my editors, but I'm still waffling over the decision to eventually make on a super WA zoom. The Sigma is much pricier than either the Tokina or the Tamron, and the "tests" I've seen deserve the quotes, as they are mostly non-tests. I like the 11mm wide end of the Tamron vs. the 12mm of the Sigma and Tokina. Probably not a significant difference, but what the hell. It is something like $200 cheaper, or will be when it gets to the stores. But Tokina has a good rep, and their super WA zoom is also a couple hundred cheaper than the Sigma. So is the Sigma extra just hubris, or is there some extra quality there? >I've got a Sigma lens I like, supported by results from at least three >of my editors, but I'm still waffling over the decision to eventually [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >their super WA zoom is also a couple hundred cheaper than the Sigma. So >is the Sigma extra just hubris, or is there some extra quality there? The way I have understood it, the Sigma 12-24, Tamron 11-18 and Tokina 12-24 have their different strong points. Tokina has least distorsion, Tamron is the sharpest, and Sigma can be used on a full frame body. If you don't intend to use your zoom on a full frame body, the Sigma in all likelihood won't be worth the cost for you. OTOH, then you might want to wait for Sigma's new 10-20 DC HSM, which I have seen announced at a price slightly below that of the Tokina. Jan Böhme > >I've got a Sigma lens I like, supported by results from at least three > >of my editors, but I'm still waffling over the decision to eventually [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > want to wait for Sigma's new 10-20 DC HSM, which I have seen announced > at a price slightly below that of the Tokina. Man, I haven't even HEARD of that one. I'm in no rush. Getting the Chancellor of The Exchequer to release another 500 bucks for photo gear before Christmas is unlikely. Well, maybe by my birthday, but that's still four months away. Since I have the Pentax 16-45, I wouldn't scream at not having anything over the 16. Wonder if anyone is coming out with an 8-15 in the near future? The only 8mm lenses I've seen have been fisheyes, so maybe that's all that exists in that size. >> OTOH, then you might >> want to wait for Sigma's new 10-20 DC HSM, which I have seen announced >> at a price slightly below that of the Tokina. >Man, I haven't even HEARD of that one. I'm in no rush. Getting the >Chancellor of The Exchequer to release another 500 bucks for photo gear >before Christmas is unlikely. Well, maybe by my birthday, but that's >still four months away. This lens is supposed to arrive in Sweden by August, and shouldn't be later at your place. However, now that I check the website, the lens is as of now only announced for Canon, Nikon and Sigma mountings. When it comes for Pentax, I don't know. Minolta and Pentax users are obviously second-class customers as far as Sigma is concerned. > >> OTOH, then you might > >> want to wait for Sigma's new 10-20 DC HSM, which I have seen announced [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > When it comes for Pentax, I don't know. Minolta and Pentax users are > obviously second-class customers as far as Sigma is concerned. I've noticed that. Well, by the time they announce a mount for Pentax, maybe Tokina will have one, too. If it goes as usual, the Toke will be 20-25% lower in price for about the same quality. I've definitely noticed that Sigma is right proud of a lot of their lenses. I like the one I've got, but I'm also not up for spending money I don't have to spend. > As far as the $99 price goes, I only know what Rich told me. 30 years > ago, $99 was worth almost a hundred bucks. Today, it's less than two > days' groceries for a family of four. But he might have bought it used, > or he might have gotten a really good deal. He didn't say. It's still BS, that wasn't a "$99" lens at a time when the nikon was $1000. > Cult lens? WTF is this, a discussion of Tom Cruise? I very much doubt > Vivitar had that lens made with an aim at cult status. Sure it was, Vivitar made the "series 1" line of lenses to made a name for themselves and only made them for a very short period of time in limited numbers. > You do change the basis for your argument, don't you? Nope, a cheap lens is a cheap lens. You're talking about a special top shelf "one model" vivitar made in limited numbers 30 years ago like that's the way all modern AF 3rd party lenses perform and implied it was their "cheap" model when it wasn't. Then again you're probably one of those guys that will spend $1500 on a camera body and slap a $75 lens on it.. > I've got a Sigma lens I like, Lots of other people are as well if they've never used anything but junk. Ignorance is bliss. SignatureStacey Tony, Don't bother with Conns Cameras or any other Irish prices. Try www.technikdirekt.de (Germany) or www.pixmania.com (France) Got my D20 from Technik the other week and saved a bundle on Irish prices. It's a super machine and built like a tank. I'd go for the 70-200 F/4 and with Technik's prices and the 100 Euro rebate from Canon you will have a fine lens for around Euro 560. That is by far and away the best value "L" lens in the Canon catalogue. It is certainly going to be my next purchase as soon as my bank balance gets back in the black! Note: the instruction books for whichever camera you choose will be in German or French depending on where you buy. However, do as I did and download the instruction book from the Canon website. No problem. Regards, Carrigman County Cork Any of the good DSLRs will take care of the portrait needs. Pentax, Nikon, or Canon. As staed before me, just get good lenses. Collin > My Sigma lenses won't work with the digital SLR so I have to start > (almost) from scratch, at least lens wise. I have two main choices > regarding the camera itself, 350D (1100 euro with the cheap kit 17-55 > and 20D (1900 euro with the cheap kit 17-55). I need mainly portrait > lenses but a zoom on the tele side may help as well. Lenses of my > interest would be: Skip the kit lens and spend the money toward a good lens. > EF 50 1.8 MARK II - 150euro > EF 70-200MM F4L - 860euro [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now considering my main subjects/usage (people photography), considering > that I have to allocate at least 600 euro for a small studio lighting, [...] What about post-processing software? Adobe Photoshop? What about a printer? While you might sub out the final prints, it can be usefull to have way to generate quick proofs. > EF 50 1.8 MARK II - 150euro > EF 70-200MM F4L - 860euro [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What would you do guys? Could you give me some advice/insight on my > dillemas? For starters I think you are doing yourself a disservice by purchasing an entry level consumer digicam with a crappy lens for E1100. Many people will jump on me for saying this, but I'm sorry, I have to say it: unless you are prepared to spend the dough for their pro level stuff, steer clear of the Canon hype - their consumer grade stuff just isn't worth the money. I know this because I've been there and the stuff I had just couldn't cut it in the world of professional photography. My advice to anyone starting this lark with the aim of making money is to get the best equipment you can buy and build up your system gradually. There is just no point in spending good money on cheap crap that is not going to give you the mileage you will need. In your case you should look at getting a used 1D or a used 1V. From the lens side, don't stuff around with consumer grade pieces - identify the best possible lens for your intended purpose and just get it, even if it's used. It will pay for itself in the short term if you run your photography like a business, whereas if you spend plenty money on entry level stuff that will only get you so far, you will lose a lot more in the short tem because you will be replacing those items in the same term. For Canon users I would suggest a 1D or 1DmkII, with a 28-70mm f/2.8L and a 70-200mm f/2.8L. At a point in the future you could add the 16-35mm, but once you do, those are pretty much all the lenses you are ever going to need with the 1.3x crop on a 1D. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces First, forget about the 350D. The 20D is pushing it, in terms of professional work, but at least its at the upper end of the prosumer segment. The 50 1.8 might not prove to be so useful with the 1.6 crop factor. You might be better off looking at one of the 24mm or 28mm lenses for your portrait work. One good thing about Canon is that their mid-range consumer lenses are very good. Shooting center glass, you will be able to achieve good results even with the non-L glass. > The 50 1.8 might not prove to be so useful with the 1.6 crop factor. You > might be better off looking at one of the 24mm or 28mm lenses for your > portrait work. Really? A 24mm x 1.6 = 38.4mm. An ideal portrait lens? What planet are you from, Scharf? > One good thing about Canon is that their mid-range consumer lenses are > very good. Shooting center glass, you will be able to achieve good > results even with the non-L glass. Complete crap. Again. Canon don't have any good consumer-grade mid range zoom lenses. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces > The 50 1.8 might not prove to be so useful with the 1.6 crop factor. > You might be better off looking at one of the 24mm or 28mm lenses for > your portrait work. How big, exactly, was the crack rock you were smoking when you came up with that? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.