What to Buy Next?

fokker · Jun 23, 2011

Derrel.... what's your problem lately man, you've been all up in everybody's **** for little to no apparent reason.

OP - If I were you I would get the D700, but only if you could afford to keep one of your other bodies as a spare/second. It's immensely useful having two cameras at a wedding so you don't have to worry as much about switching lenses. D700 with a 50mm prime and maybe the D7000 with a 55-200 (hopefully could be upgraded to at least an 80-200 2.8 by the time you need to use it). If you can't afford to do that, then hang onto the bodies you have and get the 24-70. For me, the 24mm end is too long on a crop body, but for a wedding it would probably be okay (don't tend to need such a wide angle for a wedding). I guess you need to decide if you want to eventually go the full-frame route. If not, then get the 17-55 as suggested by Mr pink.
I'm not convinced that a second speedlight is such a priority, particularly if you get some fast glass.

usayit · Jun 23, 2011

hey Derrel

You forgot that I left photography as a career for some thing more lucrative.... so no I didnt say world class photog. Its a pure hobby for enjoyment.

You forgot that I used to deal with cameras... Hence access to displays and stands. I have a nikon one too but no stock to show on it.

As for fanboy, i dont hijack Canon threads... you do. Just like Hijacking this one for you little tantrum.

Its been fun jealous one..... now let these people have their thread back.

Overread · Jun 23, 2011

I'd second the advice to move toward the lenses first. I'd say that even before the second speedlite - head for the glass, its generally (after the body) going to be a big money sink, but at least once done its not going to need replacing for a good long number of years (esp if you go for the pro glass). Lighting setups can be just as and even more so expensive- but you've also the option there to build up lights and such bit by bit at a cheaper rate.

Derrel - move away from the booze - move away from the booze - Typing and booze and raving leads to only one thing - a sticky keyboard.

Derrel said:
Or do an overread, and sell all your current gear, and buy two Sigma macro lenses, an MPE-65 2x-5x manual focus macro, and a Canon Rebel body?

I'll overlook you leaving out the 7D - but I'm not talking to you until you apologise to the Tokina 35mm macro for leaving it out - poor little thing is attention starved as it is!

TylerF · Jun 23, 2011

Derrel, I respect you as a poster on this forum for a bunch of reasons, but I don't appreciate the negativity brought to my thread.

Thanks everyone for the advice. Real quick, would your advice change if I said I was primarily doing portraits and weddings aren't my main focus?

Overread · Jun 23, 2011

Hmm that depends on how you do your portrait work in many ways - however I'd be tempted to say for a photographer aiming to do portraits and similar work under studio (indoor or outdoor) conditions then you might well want to focus on a lighting system over lenses or a camera body. I say that simply as in those situations you are oft at f8 in good, controlled lighting so the bonuses of wide aperture lenses and high usable ISOs are not as apparent (that is not to say in the least that you can't use wide apertures creatively nor that high ISO has no place in the studio of course).

Lighting and lighting control are key and in a studio/portrait environment where you have and the means to control the light its worth investing toward it. I, however, can't direct you to any specific lighting setups or products.

TylerF · Jun 23, 2011

thank you. I like location portraits more that studio stuff. but i agree its important to have a good lighting set-up. I like to shoot wide open as much as i can (just my style) so the 24-70 seems like it would be an awesome lens, even with the odd focal lengths on a dx sensor. The 70-200 would be awesome for portraits i feel but i wouldnt use the zoom for anything other than portraits probably. I like some veratility.

o hey tyler · Jul 29, 2011

Derrel said:
BTW...remember to take off the lens cap when you shoot.

You realize he doesn't have lens caps on any of his lenses, right?

nickzou · Jul 29, 2011

Not to derail this thread anymore but I've always wondered (and since Leica has just been brought up) is there a reason why their cameras cost so much? Are they actually a league of its own above and beyond Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony/etc.?

2WheelPhoto · Jul 29, 2011

TylerF said:
thank you. I like location portraits more that studio stuff. but i agree its important to have a good lighting set-up. I like to shoot wide open as much as i can (just my style) so the 24-70 seems like it would be an awesome lens, even with the odd focal lengths on a dx sensor. The 70-200 would be awesome for portraits i feel but i wouldnt use the zoom for anything other than portraits probably. I like some veratility.

which lens did you go with?

cnutco · Jul 29, 2011

fokker said:
OP - If I were you I would get the D700, but only if you could afford to keep one of your other bodies as a spare/second. It's immensely useful having two cameras at a wedding so you don't have to worry as much about switching lenses. D700 with a 50mm prime and maybe the D7000 with a 55-200 (hopefully could be upgraded to at least an 80-200 2.8 by the time you need to use it). If you can't afford to do that, then hang onto the bodies you have and get the 24-70. For me, the 24mm end is too long on a crop body, but for a wedding it would probably be okay (don't tend to need such a wide angle for a wedding). I guess you need to decide if you want to eventually go the full-frame route. If not, then get the 17-55 as suggested by Mr pink.
I'm not convinced that a second speedlight is such a priority, particularly if you get some fast glass.

I agree, but only until you pick up some FX glass!

I think I am ready to step up to the FX bodies with the glass that I have, but I am still gathering gear here and there before I do. Take my lead and stock up on glass, lighting and OCF control!

Happy shopping!