What camera? $7000.

[Socrates]

Come on Soc now your being silly.

No.

 

[JIP]

The money is not the determining factor in producing good pictures nor is the reason for buying what or which camera - really.

Buying camera - or anything else for that matter - is base on the need. I am very certain that I don't need other camera beside my current Nikon D40. I do want to have other camera, my heart says so and I have the money to buy another. But my logic calculation tells me it is a false desire.

It took me more than a month before I decided to buy the 50mm f1.8 I have now for a week. I don't need this 50mm on daily basis, but my calculation stated that I don't lose much by buying this lens. And sooner or later I will use it when the need of speed arises someday.

Are you kidding???? the whole economy of the US is based on "wants" over needs. If we made all our purchase based on things we "need" there would hardly be a DSLR out there let alone flat screen TV's or surround sound stereo SUVs etc. etc. etc.....

 

[usayit]

I wonder if he knows that Sony built the sensor that's in his camera.

Hence the motive behind my post...

Actually... I shot with the A100 for a short while (demo unit).. it was good. Personally, I would take it over the Rebel (and I'm a Canon shooter.. don't like rebels). I had a similar Sony A100 debate with a buddy of mine. He thought the A100 was bad but yet a few moments later said the Konica Minolta 5D was "ok". Go figure...

Its the name that bother's people... Sony's experience, technology, R&D budget should make them a leader. So far, their biggest mistake was in part.. marketing and price setting.

 

[peterbj7]

As I love my 5D I'd be tempted to save up a bit more and get a 1Ds III.

I know Sony are leaders in design, but I always have a problem with buying anything with their name on. I have had too many expensive Sony products that have failed early on and Sony wouldn't stand by them.

 

[Frequent Traveler]

For the $7,000 - $8,000 i'd buy the AF Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8, OS Minolta 80-200mm G f2.8 and the Sony A900 when it comes out. Remembering that Sony dSLR cameras are significantly influenced by former Minolta engineers is comforting.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Easy, sell everything I've got and add a few thousand to the mix.

THAN, I'd get:

2 D300's
D40 kit
17-55 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 AF-S
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
1 SB-800, at least 5 SB-600's, light stands, umbrellas.

The rest would be spent on business cards.

 

[Socrates]

Hence the motive behind my post...

Actually... I shot with the A100 for a short while (demo unit).. it was good. Personally, I would take it over the Rebel (and I'm a Canon shooter.. don't like rebels). I had a similar Sony A100 debate with a buddy of mine. He thought the A100 was bad but yet a few moments later said the Konica Minolta 5D was "ok". Go figure...

Its the name that bother's people... Sony's experience, technology, R&D budget should make them a leader. So far, their biggest mistake was in part.. marketing and price setting.

If Sony plays their cards right, the "big two" will become the "big three."

 

[JimmyO]

If i had 7 grand i would buy 50 P&S cameras and give them to unique people and have a group on FLickr in which they contributed exclusively. And every month have a theme.

 

[Village Idiot]

The money is not the determining factor in producing good pictures

So if some one that is an accomplished photographer is given a $400 d40 and a $40,000 Hasselblad, the pictures from the Hasselblad wouldn't turn out better?

I know it's the photographer that makes the picture, but at some point the equipment because paramount in producing that picture. 12bit color depth vs. 48bit. 6mp vs. 39mp. A medium format 35mmx35mm sensor vs. a 1.5x crop sensor.

Yeah, the money you spend on a camera in that case would determine which picture produced is better.

 

[notelliot]

5 profoto mono heads, 4 booms, one 13' stand. 3 of the largest softboxes i could find, 2 shoot-through umbrellas, a pile of reflectors and a generator. i guess i'd need 3 more pocket wizards, too.

the change, whatever it would be, i'd spend on hookers and blow.

 

[skiboarder72]

D3 + 14mm + 80-400mm vr + 16gb card

 

[Village Idiot]

5 profoto mono heads, 4 booms, one 13' stand. 3 of the largest softboxes i could find, 2 shoot-through umbrellas, a pile of reflectors and a generator. i guess i'd need 3 more pocket wizards, too.

the change, whatever it would be, i'd spend on hookers and blow.

What would NPH do?

 

[notelliot]

he'd get jealous.

 

[dleblanc]

I'd buy more lenses and just one decent body. But I don't have all that money. So I have my D40 and nifty fifty. :-D

 

[Socrates]

So if some one that is an accomplished photographer is given a $400 d40 and a $40,000 Hasselblad, the pictures from the Hasselblad wouldn't turn out better?

I know it's the photographer that makes the picture, but at some point the equipment because paramount in producing that picture. 12bit color depth vs. 48bit. 6mp vs. 39mp. A medium format 35mmx35mm sensor vs. a 1.5x crop sensor.

Yeah, the money you spend on a camera in that case would determine which picture produced is better.

Like you, I'm tired of the cliche that alleges that "it's the photographer, not the equipment." That's bull! Both the photographer and the equipment constitute limiting factors. If either one is crappy, the resulting photo will be crappy. Many cite Ansel Adams and I always reply that there was a damned good reason why he did not shoot with a Kodak Brownie.