You are a creative person. A single focal lens--50mm at that, will almost certainly limit your ability to express yourself. And, don't forget that cameras lose value very, very quickly. Lenses hold their value very well. My strategy has been to buy moderate priced cameras but buy the best lenses available. I've never once regretted this. I really doubt you will sell more images because of the camera you use.
form wrote:
I don't think the OP will benefit much from any narrower DoF control....doesn't really depend on that feature much and what he/she has works fine as-is.
Form, my work that you see there has lot of depth because all those shots were taken with a Panasonic LX3...at least 90% of the stuff over there is done by this camera which had immense DOF, so it was not a choice
kwilliam8 wrote:
Good luck with your decision. You have some great images on your website! You should share them on this website, using the appropriate forums (e.g., landscape, people, etc.).
Keith W.
Thanks, will definitely do...
fdevyatkin wrote:
The D7000 has a 1.5 crop factor and will deprive you of the full width of your apparent preference for wide angle lenses. I like my D7K in part because of the "reach' it affords me for wildlife shots, but my D700 makes full use of my wide angle lenses.
Going full frame will give you more versatility, D800 or D700 if you don't need the huge files and 36mp resolution.
Your pictures are lovely!
Fred
Hi,
DX has wide angle zooms which are smaller in size than their counterparts in FX. Like Tokina 11-16 2.8.
I was just now checking which wide angle lenses are there for FX...16-35, 17-35...both of these are expensive and bigger also...
Thanks guys for your encouraging views...and a big thanks for liking the pictures.
Most of you are of the view that since i already have OM-D, the crop nikon won't add any value and therefore i should go for a FF nikon.
Makes sense to me, but i want to ask you if that's really the case? Is OM-D comparable to D7000 from a professional point of view?
I really want to go for D800, but the reason i am considering is the lenses and the size of package. Tokina wide zoom and Sigma standard zoom are cheaper and smaller than their FF counterparts (17-35/16-35 and 24-70). I want to keep it all small so with D800, i will have to do primes and therefore change lenses....i perhaps can't keep it small if i don't do that. With crop, i can buy the fast wide zoom and the fast standard zoom and still keep it small. (Perhaps, that's what i think...i have no way of physically checking it out myself). My thinking is that because of the smaller footprint, i will be able to actually use the camera as against it being a closet camera which is what my biggest fear is with D800. Maybe i'm wrong, i hope i am because i really want a full frame camera.
In favor of FF camera: Yes, i already own a small camera, the OM-D. So its there when i need it.
Why do you need a different camera than the OMD? I have the D7000 (looking to sell), D800 and the OMD. I would agree with other, the OMD and the D7000 are quite similar in image quality. Once, I got the OMD, I've not used my D7000. What the D7000 has over the OMD is a better auto focus and a bit more in DOF control. If you feel you need that, then you might want to think about the D7000, otherwise, all you're doing is adding weight.
As for the D800, that's a huge step up from the OMD in image quality and resolution (when you print big). You get the extra DOF control and improved AF. The D800 AF is better in low light than the D7000. While the size is bigger than the D7000, I've found it to be more comfortable to use (medium hands) than the D7000.
If you plan on keeping just one camera, then the D7000 might be a good compromise between the D800 and OMD. If you plan on keeping 2 cameras, I think it makes sense to have a light camera for portability and full frame for when you need the extra image quality and resolution. At least, that my decision. Hope it helps.
nandadevieast to help you compare the size differences I used the tools at camerasize.com to show the difference in size between the three cameras you mentioned each with an attached lens.
Putting a ton of money into an expensive camera and then having to go cheap on the important thing--lenses, is the classic beginner's mistake. The camera makes the least difference in most photography, especially the kind you're doing. I'm using cameras made in 1937 (Voigtlander), 1942 (Leica), and 1951 (Rolleiflex) to take shots similar to what you're doing. Like the D800, each of these were the "hot" cameras of their time, and many bought them thinking it would make their photos more interesting. The fact that each of my copies of these once expensive cameras is still in pristine condition suggests that even in 1937 people were expecting an expensive camera to deliver something it just can not. One of the problems you're going to quickly find is that once you start pointing a large expensive looking camera at people, their reaction to you is going to change, and not for the better. Sometimes, photo gear can actually get in the way of photography.
jonrock wrote:
nandadevieast to help you compare the size differences I used the tools at camerasize.com to show the difference in size between the three cameras you mentioned each with an attached lens.
Hi guys,
I guess one has to decide at some point and this is what i think i am going to do. I hope you like my plan
Tomorrow i will go and buy another OM-D body only.
This will give me 2 bodies for my M43 lenses (14/45/12-50/100-300 and 20 1.7 coming), which will be great because i won't have to change lenses so often...same batteries, 14 on one camera and 45 on another...
Will wait till photokina and see what's launched, then decide and buy a FF camera with a 50 and slowly build on it...
In case you're wondering why i need to buy another OM-D, well, i need 2 cameras at a given point...was thinking of buying a D7K...but since you guys all want me to ditch it, so be it
What do you think? Does it make any sense?
To be able to not miss the moment while changing lenses. Its my experience that you change lenses when you see something. And you miss the shot.
M43 prime lenses are too good not to use vis a vis zooms. Which is not the case with DSLRs where you have equally competent primes and zooms.
canondoc wrote:
The amount of comical misinformation on this site is astounding.
More lens options means more perspective options. A 50mm has been standard on cameras since about 1850. It's time to move on from it and do something new.
As for two Oly bodies, sounds good. I will ALWAYS take a backup camera out with me. The small Oly plays to your strengths and is a logical choice.
I have a d7000. the d800 crop factor just equals the d7000.At over 2x the price it is not in the cards for me.If it had 2x the ISO/dynamic range/and frames per second with a better buffer I would do it.Waiting for nikons next upgrade in a dx sensor. Doug
nandadevieast wrote:
To be able to not miss the moment while changing lenses. Its my experience that you change lenses when you see something. And you miss the shot.
M43 prime lenses are too good not to use vis a vis zooms. Which is not the case with DSLRs where you have equally competent primes and zooms.
nandadevieast, the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 is quite competent from most of the reviews and pics I've seen in comparison with the m4/3 primes. The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 is expected to be announced at Photokina.
