[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Well looked up on Google Pentax 6X7 format is entirely different but anyway this is not a point , I was indicating to any specialized use where you do not have an alternative may be this is not right case but lets get back to the point.

There's pentax 800mm for 35mm too. Besides one can use 6x7 lenses on 35mm and it will give 35mm FOV as lenses are numbered for 35mm and not for other formats.

Originally Posted by amitk26

That is interesting fact , Can you please provide some more details on how landscape FF camera and allrounder camera are different ? I mean Can we not do potraits with 85mm 1.8 lens as many fashion photographers do ? Or the wildlife photography. I do not have much idea on this and right now no plan to move to FF but would like to know more.

Well Landscape camera needs a tripod mount and manual control and that is about it. For sports, journalists, event, news and wedding cameras needs to have fast AF and reliability (weather changes don't stop these events, well sports matches might be cancelled due to rain).

5D mk2 has great video capability and good mega pixel count but it lacks in weather sealing and it lacks in AF.

D700 has same AF as D3/D3s/D3x, in real use one doesn't feel it but D700's AF is crippled to be slower than Dx series but it still leaves 5Dmk2 in dust, if someone has done Drift shooting, they will realise the difference it makes. Then D700 has weather sealing. Those 2 are major winners for me, couple that with high ISO SNR and D700 is suited to almost every kind of shooting.

Originally Posted by amitk26

Well on a contrary as a hobbyist I would imagine that only hobbyists would need full range as they don't really know / care for the genere or style where as a professional will stick to particular focal length suitable to his genre which brings him money like 24-105 and 70-200 dual kit for photo journalists , professional bird photographers to 400 - 500 mm , Wild life photographers shooting mammals to 100-400.
Fashion Photographers to 85 - 100 mm , entomologists sticking to 1:1 or beyond 1:1 macros etc.

May be I am wrong in this thinking but would like to understand.

Well a professional will understand that although he can stick to certain focal length as his style but he will need to cover every focal length, simple reason is photography happens in field and one doesn't know what will happen in the field, for example we shooting a wedding shoot couple weeks ago and we found this building in the city. Great location but without remote flash it would be nothing, comes out the cactus triggers. This was the first time we actually used cactus triggers since buying them about 2yrs back.

For a hobbyist who is still learning, well constraining himself to a certain focal length is the best bet. For example street shooters, tend to stick to 24-105 or go for 35mm and stay there.

Pretty much all the fashion photographers I know, have 70-200mm as there main lens and it usually stays put at 135mm. But then again for fashion any range works, whats really imp is lighting and makeup and the crazy amount spent in PP.

Originally Posted by shajufx

Thats an impressive number of FF body hobbyists in your circle ! Frankly, I do not have a single friend who is using a FF body for hobby. Whoever has a full frame makes their bread through it as a 100% field of work. As I might have mentioned in my old posts, I do not have any commercial aspect to my photography. But that does not make me constrained to a budget. I want the best not as a 'show off' but as a long lasting body and lens in my bag which will make me ignore all my "upgrade" craves and the never-ending mental calculation of the focal length whenever I see or use one lens.


So as a natural choice of beginner level FX bodies, D700 and 5 D M-II came into consideration. They have similarity mainly on the cost front, not much on a technical part. I have been chewing brains of as many friends as possible whoever use a D700 or 5D M-II. Both are very good in its own ranking. When D700 excels on the low light performance, 5D attracts with its almost double mega pixels and excellent video capabilities. Its not an easy choice at all when it weighs very similar on the wallet ! I hope life will be easy when Nikon launches its expected D800

To be honest, I would suggest you to constrain yourself to a small range and stick to it for couple of months, your whole point on photography will change. As I feel you don't know yet what to look for and need more experience. Also, for those couple of months you can wait for D800/D9000 to come out :

[navin]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

I don't want another Canon vs Nikon debate as there are many all over the internet. My point is for someone going FF, price is the last thing, there are just way too many factors before price even comes up.

Originally Posted by rajb3125

When I first came into FF it was solely for slim DOF and high ISO and Nikon won but I also had a bag full of Nikon lenses...

Just some data points....
1. There is about $1000 difference between the Nikon D3x and Canon 1Ds. The Nikon being more expensive.

2. A canon 5D2 24-105 kit is about $500 cheaper than a Nikon D700 24-120 combination.

3. If Nikon has a D800/900 expected, I'd suspect Canon would have a 4D or 3D around the corner too. Lets just look at cameras that are available na? This debate is crazy enough without assumed cameras being bought into the picture.

A friend has a D700 which I got to play with using a 85/1.4 lens and I have used my niece's 5D2 with her 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. My niece has now got the 100/2.8 macro which I hope to play with when we meet next.

Agreed the D700 has better resolution at ISO 6400+ but the 5D2 does have more pegapixels (does having more megapixels allow more crop - logic said it should but I have never cropped much).

Agreed that the D700 focuses faster. Yes I was not using similar lenses but you just get a feel that the D700 is terrible fast at focusing but the 5D2 has video which I really found fun. In fact after playing with the 5D2 and 550D video I thought of upgrading my 40D to a 60D (just for video).

In the end it is what you are looking for. If you want a fun general purpose FF camera with video capability the 5D2 makes the most sense. If you need extra fast focussing and better low light performance the D700 is better. And the D700 has fantastic build.

The 5D2 is not a bad camera and my niece tells me it has some dust sealing but just holding both bodies (even a few weeks apart) tells you that the D700 is simply better to hold.

Then there is the small issue of metering. I say "small" because most people I know (I dont) use RAW and post process on their PC. This negates some of the lead Nikon has with their metering (from the film days I have always liked Nikon's metering).

Both camera systems are far better than the capabilities of any one of us here including "THE BOSS".

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by badri

My intention of sharing the above information and the links is not to undermine some one who is moving higher up in the equipment hierarchy......no offence intended ..

Similar links were shared by myself which had a tougher tone, so dont worry about any offence, it was not replied in that sense by any chance.

Originally Posted by rajb3125

.....I would suggest you to constrain yourself to a small range and stick to it for couple of months, your whole point on photography will change. As I feel you don't know yet what to look for and need more experience......

Off course learning is a never ending process and I am not sure exactly what will meet my taste and hobby needs. Whats left in my bag are 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 (out of 8 lenses owned so far), so if you find that as 'small range', I can stick to that for ever without complaints, because there is no way I can upgrade them with whatever is available in the market right now . Wide angle is missing as of now, it will be 20mm if the FX decision is made, or Tokina 12-24 if DX rules ahead. But one thing I am sure, my interests will be within the 10mm to 100mm range for the future. Thats one of the reasons I wont find the cropped bodies and its tele advantages attractive !

Originally Posted by navin

....Both camera systems are far better than the capabilities of any one of us here including "THE BOSS".

I did not understand these lines. Hope you are not poking our 'old man' in the block

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Off course learning is a never ending process and I am not sure exactly what will meet my taste and hobby needs. Whats left in my bag are 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 (out of 8 lenses owned so far), so if you find that as 'small range', I can stick to that for ever without complaints, because there is no way I can upgrade them with whatever is available in the market right now . Wide angle is missing as of now, it will be 20mm if the FX decision is made, or Tokina 12-24 if DX rules ahead. But one thing I am sure, my interests will be within the 10mm to 100mm range for the future. Thats one of the reasons I wont find the cropped bodies and its tele advantages attractive !

What I meant was to restrict to 1 prime and see if it works for you. If yes then stick with it for some time, if not, try to stick to it, if you still cannot, then experiment with another.

That's the way I found my perfect lens, 50mm f1.4, well 55mm to be exact but there's no fast 55mm available.

[WindRide]

1. Anybody here using Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G with Nikon D40/60? Was interested in its bokeh capabilities.

2. How practical would it be to use the non-autofocusing 50mm f/1.8D on a D40? My subject is usually a hyper-active 3-yr old lil devil.

Wish i had got into the pentax system years ago, then i wouldn't have to post such inanities.

Sigh.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

What I meant was to restrict to 1 prime and see if it works for you.

I did not understand what you meant. I only use 1 prime and its on the body almost 90% of the time. But I dont think 50mm is that useful for landscapes specially when its 75mm on my D90. Widest I had was 18-55 2.8, but no more with me. Therefore looking at 20mm or 12-24. Please clarify what you meant by "if it works for you".

[yajaman99]

@Windride, - i would opt for the autofocus 35mm 1.8 if the subject is similar to 2 year son who loves to jump and run. I was using the 50mm 1.8 on a D50 and found the AF useful.

[mashmash]

Originally Posted by WindRide

1. Anybody here using Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G with Nikon D40/60? Was interested in its bokeh capabilities.

2. How practical would it be to use the non-autofocusing 50mm f/1.8D on a D40? My subject is usually a hyper-active 3-yr old lil devil.

Wish i had got into the pentax system years ago, then i wouldn't have to post such inanities.

Sigh.

My two paise.

1. Never used a 35mm, I got a 50mm which is pretty good, however with the crop factor its around 60mm plus.
2. Not Practical. The lens is absolutely amazing, but Manual Focusing your kid on D40, will be a pain.

MaSh

[thelightening]

I am planning to buy canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens..even though i know only less about this lens.. based on my online search , I felt need to have one..

Is there anyone who used this lens? if on canon 550d? How is the performance..and what kind of pics we can take using this prime?

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by shajufx

I did not understand what you meant. I only use 1 prime and its on the body almost 90% of the time. But I dont think 50mm is that useful for landscapes specially when its 75mm on my D90. Widest I had was 18-55 2.8, but no more with me. Therefore looking at 20mm or 12-24. Please clarify what you meant by "if it works for you".

What I meant was/is to take 1 prime and stick with it, use it 100%. Try to work around it. So when I say 50mm, I am talking about 50mm on FF or 35ish on DX.

I reckon you should stick with 35mm and since Nikon just released 35mm f1.4 and older 35mm f2 is rocketing downwards in price. Pick one up and give it a go.

[WindRide]

Thanks for the inputs on the 50mm f/1.8D. Thats definitely not for me. Can't force devils to sit patiently.

Now choice is between the 35mm f/1.8G or the 50mm f/1.4G. The 50mm costs 2x. Both can AF on D40.

Which is better? Why would one spend more and choose the 50 over the 35?

[pawan_pullarwar]

Originally Posted by WindRide

1. Anybody here using Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G with Nikon D40/60? Was interested in its bokeh capabilities.

2. How practical would it be to use the non-autofocusing 50mm f/1.8D on a D40? My subject is usually a hyper-active 3-yr old lil devil.

Wish i had got into the pentax system years ago, then i wouldn't have to post such inanities.

Sigh.

Manual focus is never as accurate as autofocus. I have very bad experience with manual focusing, most of my photos were of bad quality on one of my trip. I tried hard to make a perfect focus but in reality most of the photos were out of focus. If possible stay away from manual focusing lenses.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by pawan_pullarwar

Manual focus is never as accurate as autofocus. I have very bad experience with manual focusing, most of my photos were of bad quality on one of my trip. I tried hard to make a perfect focus but in reality most of the photos were out of focus. If possible stay away from manual focusing lenses.

Nope, the accuracy of Manual focus is a misused term. Manual focus is "manual".
So it depends on
1. Photographers Skill and knowledge of things like DOF etc.,
2. Time available for the picture
3. Viewfinder or Live view clarity

Till a few years back, there was no live view in DSLRs. So you had to simply trust what you saw in the tiny viewfinder. Professional cameras or semi professional mid range DSLRs had option of "focusing" screens for focus assist.

With liveview, you can zoom the image 10X on liveview, and accurately determine focus.

But then its not point and shoot. You need to spend time on the picture.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

......I reckon you should stick with 35mm and since Nikon just released 35mm f1.4 and older 35mm f2 is rocketing downwards in price. Pick one up and give it a go.

Raj, we are going in different time frames actually
I just sold my 35mm 1.8G a week back and it was replaced by 50mm 1.4 ! Anyway, I got your point and doing the same since few months.

Originally Posted by WindRide

.....Now choice is between the 35mm f/1.8G or the 50mm f/1.4G. The 50mm costs 2x. Both can AF on D40.

As long as you dont have a confusion like mine between DX Vs FX, get the 35mm 1.8G and enjoy the shoots, its a beautiful lens, I can vouch for that as I used it over 6 months. I mostly shot my kids with it and its 100% perfect.

[shajufx]

Guys, I am not able to get Hoya Pro1D ND x 8 anywhere in Bangalore. Inter foto has Hoya HMC (77mm selling for 3800) but no clue about Pro1D nor its availability. They are official dealers of Hoya in India and I am wondering what other sellers might know about it when the source itself has no clue. I was almost picking up the Hoya HMC when some of our members here suggested the thickness causing vignetting and its true as discussed in few other forums too.

What are the other alternatives now ? I am travelling tomorrow and will be in Mumbai until 30th May. J J Mehta website does not show any ND filters. Any tips, clues from Mumbaikars here ? Thanks.