Photography Club in EnglishコミュのCamera Equipment

it's interesting topic. i have many camera but the one i love is Rolleiflex. it's not only the qualities and nice outfit but also the weight is so light when compare to Hasselblad.
how about u? what d u think

I personally own a Sony R1, and it's been wonderful ever since i got it. The only (and only) thing I'm a little pissed about it is that it doesn't have anti-shock, meaning

you + daring pictures - tripod = Crap.

It's so reliable and its flexibility (and the single lens) makes this camera, one of my favorites so far. now I'm considering getting a Leica... or maybe the New Exilim EX-F1, because not only it can take 60 frames per second but also an impressive 1200 frames of video PER SECOND! it's 6 megapixel, but what it lacks in that area, makes up in amazing speed. don't you think?
As for tripods I'm using a Velbon tripod, i don't remember what type it is because I got it a long time ago, but its precise and quite good.

I'm planning to get a Canon EOS 5D by the end of the month. I'll post again once I get it.

Well I've currently only got a little Canon Rebel XT (otherwise known as the Kiss Digital N in Japan). In the past, I have also had a Rebel 2000 (not sure what this was in Japan), a Pentax K1000, and a Pentax ZX-10.

I don't ever do anything that I feel like requires a really high end body. I think bodies are actually mostly unimportant in terms of features, although sensor quality and processing are important. There's nothing wrong with the Rebel XT's sensor or processor, though. I wouldn't mind having a body that was tougher, though, so my next camera will probably be something like a Canon 40D. I would like more to have some better lenses, though. Right now I only have the kit lens(!), the 50mm 1.8, and a Sigma 135-400 APO DG, which I really love but it has limited uses. I'm not a big wildlife photographer - I bought it because I live near JFK airport and I was thinking of getting into aviation photography. But I've only used it a few times. I've thought of selling it - it's a $600 lens.

What I really want is a better walk-around lens than the kit lens. But there's no lens out there (literally) that fits exactly what I want, which would be something like an 18-50 zoom with a constant f/2.8. At least, I didn't find anything last time I looked. Most lenses with that zoom range are in the lower end because they're made just for the lower end digital cameras, so they're not very "fast" lenses.

I'll probably just end up getting the new IS version of the kit lens, which will sort of make up for not having the speed. I just wish this lens was a little better built, but you get what you pay for. (I'd pay more, though, if somebody else made a similar lens with better build quality.)

Someday I would love to have a camera with a Foveon sensor. I was considering that new "pocket" camera (I'm being charitable calling it that) that Sigma is releasing, but it's got some drawbacks... a prime lens that only opens to f/4 being the biggest one, and size being another. But I've seen photos taken with Foveon sensors and they are amazing. I'd have just bought a Sigma SLR instead of a Canon, but their SLR's also have some drawbacks (like terrible jpg processing - you have to shoot RAW all the time).

I'm looking to get the Canon EOS 5D because I really want a full frame sensor camera. I like taking pictures using natural light as much as possible and when you have a bigger senor more light can be drawn in. So it is really good in low light situations. I also like the fact that it is good for wide angles. I manly don't like the fact that every digital SLR on the market are small senor camera which crop the image. There are only 2 full framed senor cameras on the market.

i agree that 5D is a good answer for digital right now. after they drop the price list 50% from announce. it's such a good deal for digital full frame in market. unless u are plan to get digital back, it doesn't see much different resolutions. I used to have XT before and when compared files between 5D and XT. it can recognize how different qualities of FF and APS-c.
On the other hand, i nevertry 14 bit color depth on SLR before so i can't give any opinion about a new generation digital camera.

Currently I have a Nikon D70s which I bought new 4 years ago just after it came out,However I will sell it to a friend of mine and use the money to upgrade to the Nikon D200,I use the Nikkor ED 18-55mm, a Nikkor 70-300mm ,and a Vivitar 24mm. 2 Nikon SB-24 Speedlights.

I have an Olympus E-510 and have recently fallen in love with my first prime 50mm lens. It's an old Zuiko but the boke is wonderful. It's also wicked fast so I can take great pics in low light.

My Kit consists of:
2 Canon d1 MKII Love these bodies
1 7-200 zoom
1 100 micro prime
1 85 prime ( my main money making lens)
1 lensbabby

several flashes and assorted lens which escape me right now

I like cropped sensors you get the best part of the lens for less money
you can see some of my images at www.grsphoto.ca

I own a Nikon D3000 and I would like to buy a macro lens... someone told me that a 50mm is the better 'cause of the bokeh you can get... and I also want a telescope lens (maybe a 50-200?)

Please can you tell me wich lens is better in these cases??

I don't think the 50 or the 50-200 are macro lens ( I shoot Canon so I am not sure).

The 50 will likely be a sharper lens and much cheaper, but you have to become a human zoom ( move backwards and forwards to get your cropping)

What do you want to shoot?

Glenn

With the macro lens I want to photograph objects, flowers (I like the bokeh effect we can get) etc and the telescope lens, something like birds flying, cars running etc etc That is something that I can't do well with my 18-55mm

50-200 and 70-300 are not macro, I think 50 is.. but now I'm not sure anymore

If you want to shoot flowers, you don't need a macro. If you want to shoot individual petals then you would need a macro.

If you are looking for the flower to be in focus but everything else to be out of focus, you want a lens that has a small depth of field... usually noted by the f number... for this f1.2 is better the f1.8. The cost of "faster" lens ( smaller f numbers) is very high.

Zooms with lower lower f numbers cost very much more... but are worth it.

Nikon makes a 70- 200 f2.8 that a lot of people like. This is a great all purpose lens that should meet your needs.

Oh, thanks for your advices! You helped me a lot! :)