Pretty much the same but I've spent much less money I think. I bought
my 5D 5-1/2 years ago for, IIRC, about $2900. But apart from the body
I've spent relatively little money. At the time I bought it I also
bought a new Tokina AT-X 28-80/2.8 for about $400 (just before they were
discontinued). I also bought a used Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 for about
$350. I've since added a used Tamron 20-40/2.7-3.5 and a used Tamron
24-135/3.5-5.6. Both lenses are film era Canon AF mount and I doubt
that I paid more than $200 total for both of them. The 20-40 was a real
steal at $79. Sold on ebay by Goodwill Industries. OM mount glass
serves as macro lenses.
I still have my Minolta A1 which gets used once in a while and this past
year I added a Samsung P&S. The only digital camera I jettisoned was my
first one, a small 2MP Nikon P&S.
The 5D Mk II didn't offer enough to get me to change. Maybe the Mk III
will but who knows when that's coming or what it will be. What will
tempt me will be truly high ISO. I'd probably jump at something that
gave me ISO 12,800 with quality equal to the 5D's ISO 1600 (3 stops
more). The 5D does go to 3200 but gets pretty noisy at that level.
Chuck Norcutt
On 1/6/2012 5:54 PM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Cough, cough! The big boys, not so much. I've mounted Nikon lenses
> from the late '60s/early '70s on my D3 and they work spectacularly.
> Of course you have to, ah, manualize them (sorry, Chris, couldn't
> resist), but that's not a big deal. (But, true, you can't go the
> other way anymore.) Personally, I think it's more cost efficient to
> spring for the good stuff up front then sit back for a while. I
> bought my D3 a long time ago in digital years. And I'll probably get
> another year out of it before I go to the D4, assuming the D4 is all
> it's cracked up to be.
>
> (Caveat: This is easy to say when the camera system pays for itself.
> If it doesn't, you've got other considerations. But I still think
> it's much easier to sit with something for a while and ignore all the
> latest/greatest unless you need it, and who really does?) Shoot, AG,
> you're still using the E-1, and effectively so. That's bang for the
> buck.
>
> --Bob
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> The old adage about lenses lasting years and years is bogus. The
>> manufactures figured out how to keep changing lens mounts, or
>> adding some new feature (distance, IS) which obsolete the lenses.
>> Of course, just like lemings, we buy the new lenses with almost
>> every new body.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|