Hobby photographers going from prosumer to professional DSLR

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by googlegroups, Apr 5, 2005.

  1. googlegroups

    googlegroups Guest

    I'm interested to hear from people who are hobby photographers that
    have taken a jump from a prosumer DSLR (such as a 300D or 10D) all the
    way up to a professional model such as a 1D or 1Ds. In the long run,
    was it worth it paying so much more when it's possible you may never
    fully recover that extra cost? What other benefits do you see in
    upgrading to a high end model?

    (For myself, "hobby" means I have only spent money - never made any!)
     
    googlegroups, Apr 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. googlegroups

    werdan Guest

    How would you *ever* recover any extra cost if your not making money with
    it?
     
    werdan, Apr 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. googlegroups

    Douglas Guest

    -----------------------
    At about the point you decide to get serious...
    You discover the camera only holds a lens.
    A lens is what decided if your pictures are good enough (sharp wise) to
    sell.
    After you buy your first 'real' lens and discover it cost more than the
    camera that came with a lens in the first place... And you look at the first
    picture, you'll begin to realize the benefit of a 1Ds is not in how much it
    cost but in how well it performs under all conditions.

    Stay away from the conditions that don't suit your 10D or whatever and
    you'll always be in a position to take 'professional' quality photographs.
    What's that you say? Don't know what conditions don't suit your camera? Well
    then buying a more expensive one isn't going to help you because they all
    misbehave under certain conditions... That's ALL of them. Being a
    professional means knowing exactly what you can get away with and still have
    a great shot.

    Basically I'm saying, Keep your 10D or whatever and buy some glass. When you
    then see that your 10D or whatever can take just as sharp and clear pictures
    as the fabled "Professional" cameras can, you can concentrate on spending
    all the money you saved on advertising to sell your photography! Let's hope
    the fickle bunch of cretins we loosely call "the Public" think you're a good
    photographer too because it's them that pay the bills.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Apr 5, 2005
    #3
  4. googlegroups

    k Guest

    <good bits clipped>
    Let's hope
    | the fickle bunch of cretins we loosely call "the Public" think you're a
    good
    | photographer too because it's them that pay the bills.

    nicely put

    damn - I still use a bunch of F1N's ;-)


    k
     
    k, Apr 5, 2005
    #4
  5. googlegroups

    unners Guest

    i just upgraded from a 10d to a 1dmarkII. my photography's getting more
    and more serious hence the upgrade but it's a wonderful machine! only
    problem is that now the 10d feels so slow i find it almost unusable.

    IMO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with buying a top end camera
    purely because you can. i mean how much money have you made from your
    car and i bet it cost more than the new camera? its just a matter of
    sorting out your own priorities. my car for example is worth about as
    much as one of my flashes :)

    the 1 series is truly a joy to use but it is heavier and made to be
    used, not admired!

    all the best

    dave
     
    unners, Apr 5, 2005
    #5
  6. googlegroups

    googlegroups Guest

    I haven't made any money yet, but that's because I haven't been trying.
    I claim some costs as business expenses since one day I plan to sell my
    work. I don't expect to make reams of money, but since I'm running it
    as a business it will not be a one way money pit.

    I'm considering the jump to a 1DsMkII (perhaps a second hand 1Ds)
    because it's the only Canon DSLR that is full frame. The other option
    is to stick with a film body.
     
    googlegroups, Apr 5, 2005
    #6
  7. googlegroups

    Rob Guest




    To my way of thinking this may not be true anymore. We have to start
    looking at what captures and processes the image that's in the camera body.

    Unlike film cameras which only hold a roll of film.

    You will find better technology in digital pro camera bodies.

    Still can't understand why people insist on buying "this good cheap
    lens" tho when it will outlast a camera body. A lens is an investment.
     
    Rob, Apr 5, 2005
    #7
  8. googlegroups

    Michael Guest


    film body with slide film means higher "mega pixels" than even the
    1dsmk2 :)
     
    Michael, Apr 6, 2005
    #8
  9. googlegroups

    googlegroups Guest

    Yeah, but there's more to life than just resolution... with a DSLR
    there is no need for,

    - film costs
    - processing costs
    - mailing/delivery costs
    - scanning costs
    - delays with outsourced processing/scanning

    The only reason I'd stay with film is short term cost. In the long run,
    the 1DsII will work out cheaper per shot and it takes minutes to get
    the images into Photoshop, rather than days. I just have to decide
    whether I am ready to commit to that long term benefit.
     
    googlegroups, Apr 6, 2005
    #9
  10. googlegroups

    werdan Guest

    That's a good point. Also running Li-ion batteries instead of alkalines or
    2CR5's saves a bit of cash as well.
     
    werdan, Apr 6, 2005
    #10
  11. Not true. See
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    At 16.7M pixels it has better resolution than even Velvia (on a par
    with now defunct Tech Pan). Great majority of other films are not even
    close, and most are beaten even by 6MP class cameras.

    Bratislav
     
    bratislav3162, Apr 7, 2005
    #11
  12. googlegroups

    Henrik Tived Guest

    would you prefer to drive a Skoda or a Lexus?!

    the question is the same!

    Henrik

    PS: I would personally not go back and love every minute of it.
     
    Henrik Tived, Apr 7, 2005
    #12
  13. googlegroups

    Michael Guest


    I'll drive the skoda with supercharged rover 3.9 :)
     
    Michael, Apr 7, 2005
    #13
  14. googlegroups

    Michael Guest


    dont want to start up another analog vs digital debate, here is
    something to stew on.

    once a photo is on hard drive, CD or memory card its digital
    regardless of the source.

    I have many, photos taken on sensia and velvia with a canon
    AE-1, many people have asked is that a digital photo?
    I tell them yes. and to split hairs a bit more, photos I take on my
    EOS-10 and EOS-1000F are digital because those cameras
    are digital. the only difference is the storage device, film.

    Thanks for the link, I did have a good look and it has one very
    good point.

    "Both are analog capture"

    "Electronic sensors: an analog charge gets digitized in the camera"
    how is that any different from my CCD sensor scanning the film? it is
    doing exactly the same thing as a digital camera, taking a photo from
    an analogue source.

    Dont forget the are the DAC's in Digital camera's :)

    any way both have plus's and minus's, at the end of the day the only
    real difference is, that the cost of film, developing has been
    removed and the time involved.

    one advantage of film is if I ever lost my digital photo because I
    scratched the CD, lost shots off the memory cards, or had a power
    failure while downloading from the camera, resulting in a damaged
    hard drive boot sector, no problem I can take them again from my
    scanner which is effectively a digital camera anyway.
     
    Michael, Apr 7, 2005
    #14
  15. googlegroups

    Douglas Guest

    ---------------
    You are making some wide spread presumptions Michael, which when put the way
    you have, ignores some basic facts. The primary one is that film processed
    by many mini labs is "pushed" to increase the throughput and often cross
    contamination of chemicals mean that the film is not properly fixed.

    I have many films from less than 4 years which were processed in a
    supposedly high quality lab. I paid premium price to get what I thought was
    premium service only to discover lately that the film has degraded to the
    point where it is all but useless. If I don't digitise the images now, they
    will soon be lost entirely.

    The value of a digital image, be it from a camera or scanner is the relative
    permanency of the image. Film degrades just as magnetic media does. Storing
    film for long periods of time in household furniture which is glued together
    with formaldehyde based glue will ruin the film. This is no different to
    storing CD's in a hostile environment. Given the choice, I'll go digital for
    security.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Apr 7, 2005
    #15
  16. The only statement I disputed from you is that slide film contains more
    information ("pixels").
    Which is not true, as proven by many and eloquently presented by Roger
    (who has PhD in astrophysics,
    by the way). No film today has more pixel density than state of the art
    digital sensors.
    As far as the rest of your statement, I'll just say that I do not
    agree, and let's leave it at that.
    BTW, CMOS and CCD sensors are discrete (digital) in nature as they can
    only capture so many electrons in
    their potential wells. A/D converter is a misnomer - if your well has
    capacity of ~65000 electrons (typical
    for DSLR sensors), you can't have values of say 32562.60886454665876435
    .. It is either 32562 or 32563, which is
    digital by definition. There is no "analog charge" in the CCD/CMOS - it
    is always a multiple of electron charge.
    QED 101.

    Bratislav
     
    bratislav3162, Apr 8, 2005
    #16
  17. googlegroups

    k Guest

    |
    | Michael wrote:
    |
    | > film body with slide film means higher "mega pixels" than even the
    | > 1dsmk2 :)
    |
    | Not true. See
    | http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    |
    | At 16.7M pixels it has better resolution than even Velvia (on a par
    | with now defunct Tech Pan). Great majority of other films are not even
    | close, and most are beaten even by 6MP class cameras.
    |
    | Bratislav


    hahaha -another assumption.

    wo said 'film body' = the lowly 35mm.

    try 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 or bigger!

    lets see - 1.2 terapixels from an 8x10 at 4000 dpi scan. hmmm, how much do
    terabyte hard drives cost compared to a $10 sheet of film ? ;-)

    damn, film sure looks cheap!
     
    k, Apr 11, 2005
    #17
  18. googlegroups

    googlegroups Guest

    My bank has just given me a substantial credit limit increase so I
    might be ordering that 1DsII after all. :-D
     
    googlegroups, Apr 13, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.