id go for cheap cam + $$$ lens. why? id rather upgrade single item and keep the rest than having a single item kept and upgrade the rest. bitaw those companies intend to make lenses not cameras...so for me lang mas mau nga mu invest ko sa lens kaysa body. and also dugay ang upgrade sa lenses kaysa body..newbie pa gyud kaau ko aning photography.. ^__^
Last edited by bahiista; 08-28-2010 at 06:38 AM.
if ang choices is kato ra gyud:
$$$ camera + cheap lens ug cheap camera + $$$ lens? dili na mu upgrade? aw nice na kkau nga pares ang 7D/1D MARK IV ug 85mm f1.8 for me.. ^__^ pero kung apil mga plan and investment...i go fot my previous post.
What's interesting to know. Is that those who chose to invest on expensive lens and stick with "cheap" camera bodies will eventually grow out of their camera. They'll soon realize that their old camera is limiting them on what they can do i.e. low light shooting, hi speed shooting, low level noise. You can see this happening in buy and sell section. People selling their gears with RFS, upgrading to new body.
I wonder if its the same case for those who chose to invest on expensive body first. There are so many good performing 3rd party lenses that are still cheap. And with 3rd party manufacturers catching up in terms of technology. "IQ wise" 3rd party lens is USUALLY below when compared to the same brand lens. Specially when comparing a 3rd party lens against Nikkor ones. I said usually, because there are 3rd party lens that kick @ss like the 85mm prime from SIGMA (and plenty others). Yes I know its not cheap and my discussion is already leaning into a 3rd option - Expensive body + 3rd party lens? :P
But on PRINT, an average person can hardly see the difference between which one was taken using a same brand lens or a 3rd party lens or a cheap lens or expensive one, well, in most situations.
And this is more obvious in camera choice too. In well lighted conditions, you can't tell. UNLESS............ we go indoorsthat's when you start to see the difference between a camera that can easily give you fine prints at ISO 3200-12000 compared to a cheaper camera that can only give out fine prints up to iso 400-800.
note: when I say cheap, they're not in terms of what we can shell out on a daily basis ok. I meant cheap when compared to camera brand ones like Nano from Nikon, L from Canon and ... what do pentax have again? hehehee :P
coffee anyone? this one needs more cream, and please pass me the torani, the vanilla one.![]()
Last edited by dbgg1979; 08-28-2010 at 11:06 AM.
40 voters
so far 28 pra sa cheap lens + expensive. usa ko sa 28
400D + f1.2 vs 1Ds MK III + f1.8 ===> both have strong points and weak points
OK raman cguro nga naa kay FF nga body nga tag 300k nya paresan nimo ug 50mm 1.8 nga tag 4-5k hahahahaha
IF and IF u like having a MAC air... + a CD-R King mouse...+ winnie the poh mouse pad hahahahahaha lolz
Similar Threads |
|