advertisement


Upgraditis

Soloist

Soloist

pfm Member
I suppose it gets to us all. Hifi can be an obsession about the kit and you forget it's about the music you're listening to! With talk of D800 and new kit on the market I find myself looking at my little D3100 ( which feels like a toy after holding Pams D100!) I wonder if a change is on the horizon. BUT my philosophy had always been that I would spend the money on glass. Whatever combination I have, I'll still be pointing it at the same subject right? Seeing what is posted here, I have further to go with composition and technique before a body upgrade is justified. I do not have folk I can bounce my thoughts off back home so collective opinions will be appreciated. Thanks!
 
If you read sites like DxO then a better body will use the capability of the lens more. My 18-70 scores 9 with my camera (D300) and 11 with a D90 or D7000.

Neither the camera or lens will improve your technique or composition. That is down to you.

However, I understand your thinking. I am starting to investigate saving up for a D600 where perhaps I might be better off with a couple of prime lenses.

My daughter takes some really good pictures with a D100 and Tamroon 18-200 lens. I was thinking of getting her a D3100 as it is smaller and lighter for her.

Upgraditis can seriously damage your wealth!
 
Milan said:
If you read sites like DxO then a better body will use the capability of the lens more. My 18-70 scores 9 with my camera (D300) and 11 with a D90 or D7000.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with Nikons, but I'm willing to bet a Pentax FA77/1.8 Limited on a plain Jane *istDS will produce a better photograph than the dreaded DA50-200 zoom on a K5.
 
Soloist said:
I suppose it gets to us all. Hifi can be an obsession about the kit and you forget it's about the music you're listening to! With talk of D800 and new kit on the market I find myself looking at my little D3100 ( which feels like a toy after holding Pams D100!) I wonder if a change is on the horizon. BUT my philosophy had always been that I would spend the money on glass. Whatever combination I have, I'll still be pointing it at the same subject right? Seeing what is posted here, I have further to go with composition and technique before a body upgrade is justified. I do not have folk I can bounce my thoughts off back home so collective opinions will be appreciated. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I still have ye olde world D40........

It's more camera than I'm capable of exploiting!

It takes superb pictures but I do hanker after something more.

What does the D3100 not do for you?
 
"What does the D3100 not do for you?"

That's the best question that can be asked. Without an answer, any purchase might be an expensive waste of time and learning.

Tony
 
James said:
This doesn't sound like source first. Resolution lost cannot be recovered.
Click to expand...

Firstly, this isn't the HiFi room, and it doesn't really work as analogy

James said:
I'm not familiar with Nikons, but I'm willing to bet a Pentax FA77/1.8 Limited on a plain Jane *istDS will produce a better photograph than the dreaded DA50-200 zoom on a K5.
Click to expand...

Source first, in the case of photography is neither the glass nor the sensor/film

Source first would be the scene itself, the light being reflected or emitted from the objects in the scene, and also the eye of the photographer in framing the scene.

So, you could stick any kit zoom on any compatible DSLR, and if you have something interesting to shoot and the eye frame it, you'll get something good without spending thousands.

To answer Soloist's original question, I tend to ignore the Nikons without focussing motors in the body and without the AIS feeler, because you miss out on the opportunity to use some great cheap glass from the 1970s - try popping into Aperture in London and look at all the manual focus Nikkors that they have in stock. Loads of fun to be had for less than £100 and certainly less than a brand new AF-S VR lens like the sort you see designed for the D3100.
 
Right. Just back from sailing. Two wins and a third today! How lovely to come back to your responses. At the point Flat/Tony had posed the question 'what doesn't it do for me' my answer would have been about waterproofness (real word?) - hardly enough to burn £800 quid on! Cliff has me thinking though. I am likely to buy lenses and the AFS does rather concentrate the mind. Whilst afloat, I had twigged that there is little comparison between what motivates a spend on hifi and that for photography. If only I'd been on here last year when I bought the camera in the first place! Hey ho
 
clifpatte, thank you, you beat me to it.

The higher range body's have focus motors built in, in my case I bought a G series 70 - 300mm for £70, the AFS equivalent would have been £300+ for negligible difference in glass quality.

Mark
 
With salt water I think I'd be buying a good quality, waterproof, tough compact. That salt gets into the tiniest gaps, as you'll know. I can't speak for professional lenses and bodies in that environment, but someone here might be able to advise.

Tony
 
I never used to take a camera with me when dinghy racing in the North Sea. Something totally waterproof would be needed.
 
Ah! The cameras not for taking on the boat! The Go-Pro is the video camera of choice for taking on the water. It's just that generally 'sealed' unit I was after. I have taken my camera out on the power boat whilst teaching though. Can get a bit splashy! What did you used to sail Cliff?
 
cliffpatte said:
Firstly, this isn't the HiFi room, and it doesn't really work as analogy
Click to expand...
Hifi is a chain of componetry as is a camera system. Sound can be degraded at all stages of this chain, as can an image. Sound is first processed by the source component. Image is transmitted first by the lens. Ergo, the analogy holds.

cliffpatte said:
Source first, in the case of photography is neither the glass nor the sensor/film

Source first would be the scene itself, the light being reflected or emitted from the objects in the scene, and also the eye of the photographer in framing the scene.
Click to expand...
You're confusing source componentry with artistry/performance. You can improve the former and rarely the latter with money.

cliffpatte said:
So, you could stick any kit zoom on any compatible DSLR, and if you have something interesting to shoot and the eye frame it, you'll get something good without spending thousands.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd agree that a kit lens on an el cheapo camera used by Vuk will produce a far better image than the latest and greatest Nikon shot by one of us mere mortals.
 
James said:
Hifi is a chain of componetry as is a camera system. Sound can be degraded at all stages of this chain, as can an image. Sound is first processed by the source component. Image is transmitted first by the lens. Ergo, the analogy holds.


You're confusing source componentry with artistry/performance. You can improve the former and rarely the latter with money.


Yes, I'd agree that a kit lens on an el cheapo camera used by Vuk will produce a far better image than the latest and greatest Nikon shot by one of us mere mortals.
Click to expand...

Not sure what point you're making to be honest. The analogy you made doesn't work for me because hifi is about reproducing someone else's work. Photography is about producing your own work. If you can show me something you took with two different cameras with low and high spec lenses and what you got out of the higher spec lens, then go for it.
 
cliffpatte said:
Not sure what point you're making to be honest. The analogy you made doesn't work for me because hifi is about reproducing someone else's work. Photography is about producing your own work. If you can show me something you took with two different cameras with low and high spec lenses and what you got out of the higher spec lens, then go for it.
Click to expand...
I don't have low spec lenses since I got rid of my Nikon*. :p

My point is simple. Lens quality matter more than body quality. I know post-processing can do all sorts of wonderful things, but I'm not sure how much time I'm prepared to labour over washed out colours, uneven sharpness, crappy bokeh and bad CA.

* the original, non-VR 24-120 is indisputably the worst lens I've ever owned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top Bottom