Jefferson wrote:
Got the cigar...got the scotch...got the steaks for the grill...may as well blow next years budget, as it won't be needed...
What would you choose?
The hardest part will be avoiding buyer's remorse.
Personally I would stay with Canon because of the lenses available and the lenses I have, particularly the 24TSEII for my FF and the 17/55 for my APS-C.
I am finding it hard to believe in the long run that the Sony sensor used by Nikon won't be matched. As an aside, I often wonder why Nikon can't do it themselves?
Well, the 1D X would appear to be the camera, but the hard part is lenses.
If the end comes from far above and appears as a point that expands as in gets closer you will want an 800 L, extenders, then a 600 L, then a 400 L then the 70 - 200 L II and finally the 24 - 70 L II.
On the other hand, if we just all go floating off into space you will probably want the same lenses just in reverse order.
Then, if the end comes all at once all across the sky you will only need the 24 - 70.
No matter what, shoot in RAW so you can bring out the best in post processing.
The question as I see it…with the scale involved…a lens to provide the proper DOF and a shutter speed to give a feeling of transitioning continental movement will be one of the most important factors to consider…
A 7D and a EF-S 10-22mm will let you capture more of a complete scene of destruction and chaos, and as a bonus - you can make cute, goofy images of Satan and Lady Gaga's little monsters when they come up real close to the lens....
Think long term without electricity and lightweight enough to take with on your new nomad-like Book of Eli adventures. Maybe a Nikon F2 with the 50/1.8 pancake and bunch of tri-x or neopan b&w film. Buy some caffenol-c ingredients and bury them for future development of your awesome photos of zombies eating slow running housewives.
Shutterbug2006 wrote:
A 7D and a EF-S 10-22mm will let you capture more of a complete scene of destruction and chaos, and as a bonus - you can make cute, goofy images of Satan and Lady Gaga's little monsters when they come up real close to the lens....
Happy Halloween.
I thought Satan and Lady Gaga where one in the same...
StillFingerz wrote:
Jefferson, this is easy; I've had a peek at Peter's 3D thread, it would have to be...
50mm f1.0L and 200mm f1.8L and a 1DX
as well as the 400mm f2.8L IS II with both Mark III T/Cs
My 2 cents
Jerry, you sure give a discerning advice to ole Jefferson, but here are more digestible alternatives which deliver 90% of the performance for a fraction of the cost:
50 f/1.0------->50 f/1.2
200 f/1.8----->200 f/2.8
400 II---------->400 I
-------------------------------------
That is $8k vs. $18k.
