Buying my first SLR, Nikon N75, Minolta Maxxum 5, or Cannon EOS Rebel Ti?
James Cloud
I'm looking to buy my first SLR film camera to renew my photography
hobby, which I once had over 20+ years old. With a total camera and
lens budget of $300, the three SLR cameras I am considering are Nikon
N75, Minolta Maxxum 5, and Cannon EOS Rebel Ti. I am going to pair it
with a Sigma 24-70 /f3.5-5.6 lens.
The three models I listed above are selling for about the same price
at camera stores, with Minolta being the least expensive ($150), and
the Cannon Ti the most ($200). I am wondering if you have any
recommendations on which one is preferred over the others?
Thanks in advance for your help.
James
Lung Fish
news:92d6b653.0404...@posting.google.com:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm looking to buy my first SLR film camera to renew my photography
> hobby, which I once had over 20+ years old. With a total camera and
> lens budget of $300, the three SLR cameras I am considering are Nikon
> N75, Minolta Maxxum 5, and Cannon EOS Rebel Ti. I am going to pair it
> with a Sigma 24-70 /f3.5-5.6 lens.
Why a Sigma lens? Your choice should be based upon the SYSTEM you are
entering into, not just that body and one lens. The wonderful thing
about getting your first SLR is all of the accessories that will come
along with it, now or in the future.
Look at the lens offerings for Canon, Nikon, and Minolta. Are the lenses
you are going to want to use offered?
Look at the AF, flash, and countless other options.
Then look at the bodies last. Does it have the features you need? How
does it feel in your hands? How rugged is it built?
Trust me, if you don't take the time to evaluate things in this order,
you'll be selling your whole kit to move to the one that you should have
gotten not too far down the road.
Tony Spadaro
would suggest the "kit" lenses from the manufacturer over the Sigma lens -
why pay more for something of lower quality? Take a look at the articles on
selecting equipment here:
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/manifest00.html
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"James Cloud" <bubbac...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:92d6b653.0404...@posting.google.com...
PhotoMan
The Cannon uses ammo, not film.
Alan Browne
Most bang/$ = Maxxum 5.
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
James Cloud
Thank you for your help. I am leaning toward the Minolta at this
point because the spot-metering. The rebel Ti is nice in its handling
and display, so the question is: does the lack of spot-metering in Ti
make the Maxxum 5 more desirable?
Lung Fish:
The reason I am looking at the Sigma 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6 is because I
have about $100 left after the body purchase. If I buy a bundled
Minolta or a Cannon lens with the camera, I can actually save a little
money. But the entry level lens that comes with either camera is
usually a 28-90, f/4.5-5.6. I like landscaping work and thought a
24-70mm lens a better starter lens for me than 28/90. What do you
think?
Also, I think in term of optical quality, the Sigma lens may actually
be slightly better than the cheap bundled lens from either Canon or
Minolta. Mechanically I think they probably work equally well with
the body. Am I correct in wanting to pay extra for a third-party lens
than the OEM one? That sounds a bit odd, doesn't it?
James
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message news:<NRmhc.26394$6m4.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
ROBMURR
>
>Thank you for your help. I am leaning toward the Minolta at this
>point because the spot-metering. The rebel Ti is nice in its handling
>and display, so the question is: does the lack of spot-metering in Ti
>make the Maxxum 5 more desirable?
>
You know how rarely you would use spot metering? In 25 years
I have used spot metering one time and I shoot unforgiving slide film.
Buy the 50mm F1.8 lens for $80. Forget the Sigma it will have
no resale value and may not be compatible with future Canon
bodies.If you need a wider lens I suggest the discontinued
Canon 22-55mm lens for $125 or so used.
Rob
z-one-b
Go to Tony's site!!! Read the whole thing. You'll be glad you did.
James Cloud
I am getting the Maxuum 5 with Minolta 28-100mm/f3.5-5.6 Lens from
this place: http://www.central-camera.com/minolta/slr/2163-910.htm for
$225, which includes free shipping and a couple of junk items like a
holster bag and an SF-1 flash.
The bundled lens deal is too good to pass up, therefore I convinced
myself the Sigma lens is not worth the extra money compared to Minolta
OEM lens. (They may be just as good, but nevertheless, not worth the
extra money).
20 years ago I was using a manual camera with a single lens because I
didn't have two nickels to rub together, literally;) so you can tell
I'm thrilled! Thank you for your help!
James
James Cloud
:-)
Tony Spadaro
with whichever has the features you want though so long as you have the
features you need - and both cameras have that. Antohter factor would be
"handiness". Try each out - one may scream I'm the caemra for you at you, or
may scream I'll frustrate your every move.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"James Cloud" <bubbac...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:92d6b653.04042...@posting.google.com...
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Mike" <nospam...@devnull.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.21....@devnull.com...
>
> >>
> > Who told you the Rebel TI does not have spot metering? It does.
> > You know how rarely you would use spot metering? In 25 years
> > I have used spot metering one time and I shoot unforgiving slide film.
> >
> >
>
> Spot metering is important for B&W shooters practicing zone-system type
> techniques for contrast control.
>
>
Dallas
Buy the best lens you can afford and then get the cheapest body you can to
make use of the glass.
If I had to do it all over again, I would have spent less on bodies and
more on getting good glass.
--
Troll? What troll?
Tony Spadaro
no spot.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"ROBMURR" <rob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040421111546...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Alan Browne
> And teh zone system is useless on 35mm.
>
Nonesense.
The poster said, "practicing zone-system type techniques" which is
wholly valid. You can easily locate the highlights, shadows and mid
tones and assure the exposure setting will record them per needs. It
can even be done on a reduced basis for narrow exposure range films like
slide, as long as you understand the limits of the film and geometry of
the spot meter in the camera.
-- >>
Alan Browne
> I have used spot metering one time and I shoot unforgiving slide film.
Just 'cause the film won't forgive is no reason to kill it.
David Chien
> at camera stores, with Minolta being the least expensive ($150), and
> the Cannon Ti the most ($200). I am wondering if you have any
> recommendations on which one is preferred over the others?
Any are fine cameras -- lots of features in all of them to keep most
people happy for years.
Any model that has spot metering, AE/AF lock, flash & EV exposure
comp., depth-of-field preview, etc. -- extra features, will be
particularly nice if you're expanding your photography later on.
In-viewfinder display of the AF point locked on by the camera is
particularly nice to have, as is fast adjustment of the AF point in use
(eg. spot AF or select AF).
See www.photographyreview.com for lots and lots of user reviews on
each camera (they're all ~4.5 out of 5 ranked, so you can't go wrong
with any of them).
---
( That said, I'd pickup the Canon for the faster, quieter AF on the USM
lenses (canon) if you're going to expand lenses in the future to much
better & expensive ones from Canon. Other models tend to be slower,
noisier. However, if you're going with 3rd party lenses, don't worry
about this point.... eg. if you're going to go with a nice Tamron
28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di or long-zoom Tamron 28-200/300 later on. Minolta
lens choices are the smallest of the bunch. The USM motor driven Canons
are the quietest, fastest AF lenses around, in general. )
( Same with external flash systems. Nikon or Canon here will be better
and more flexible in having more intelligent wireless flashes, esp.
multiple off cameras... Nikon SB flashes have been well tested and
known to provide excellent results. )
---
$200 for a Ti?!?
How about as low as $158, and $168 from a known dealer that does well
(buydig.com). See listings at:
---
Maxxum 5 at $119.88
http://www.jandr.com/JRProductPage.process?RestartFlow=t&Merchant_Id=1&Product_Code=MIN+MAXXUM50QD&JRSource=zdnet.datafeed.MIN+MAXXUM50QD
J&R is very, very reliable and reputable.
---
Nikon N75 at $152 ($155 buydig.com)
http://shopper.cnet.com/N75_35mm_SLR_Autofocus_Camera_Body_Silver_Black_USA/4014-6503_9-30425565.html?tag=ob_50&orderby=50&sort=asc
-------------
Out of the three here, I'd say if you want the most for the money,
I'd buy the Maxxum 5 (excellent 14 point exposure system that's almost
foolproof) for about $120, the lens for about $110, and still have $70
left over for another cheap lens or film & accessories. Or simply walk
spending only $230.
Or if you're 'smart' buy the lens on ebay.com new for $89
(http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3342&item=3810947611&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)
and you'll be at $120 (camera) + $90 (lens) = $210.
----
James Cloud
"whole" thing. Based on everything I read so far, I deduced:
1. Minolta Maxxum 5 is a good body and a good value. Canon is good
too, just to be politically correct here.
2. Buying the kit is a better value than buying camera and lens
separately.
3. Spend some money on real lens. (I will, but probably after another
rounding of funding approved by my significant other;)
So I am all gungho and armed with my Amex card, I made the call for my
Maxxum 5. What do you know, there's always a monkey wrench in there:
the sales person told me, for the "same" amount of money, I could be
getting the Maxxum 70 QD instead of the Maxxum 5 QD. 70 being the
newer model, but I have no idea if it's better. Went to Populare
Photography, read the review, still no idea.
And in addition, for the "same" amount of money, I could get TWO sigma
lenses (28-80mm, and 100-300mm) instead of one Minolta 28-100mm lens.
That's two monkey wrenches for me to sort out! So, what would you do?
Choice A) Maxxum 5 with OEM lens
B) Maxxum 70 with two Sigma lens
Choice B is about $40 more, aka, the "same" amount of money according
to the sales person.
Thanks!
Steve
Michael Scarpitti
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm looking to buy my first SLR film camera to renew my photography
> hobby, which I once had over 20+ years old. With a total camera and
> lens budget of $300, the three SLR cameras I am considering are Nikon
> N75, Minolta Maxxum 5, and Cannon EOS Rebel Ti. I am going to pair it
> with a Sigma 24-70 /f3.5-5.6 lens.
$300 will not go very far. You need to think in $k's.
Alan Browne
Utter horseshit. Some people can't take a decent pic with $3,000 and
others blow away the pack with $300. It's the shooter, not the gun.
Martin Francis
news:2fd2ff8c.04042...@posting.google.com...
He said "hobby"...
He also said "photography"...
--
- Martin Francis
"Two hundred channels, and nothing but cats"
- Jasper
Martin Francis
> >
> >Thank you for your help. I am leaning toward the Minolta at this
> >point because the spot-metering. The rebel Ti is nice in its handling
> >and display, so the question is: does the lack of spot-metering in Ti
> >make the Maxxum 5 more desirable?
> >
> Who told you the Rebel TI does not have spot metering? It does.
Partial does not spot make.
Martin Francis
Nikon FE + 50mm. And get the Sigma too, if you must.
ROBMURR
>
>Partial does not spot make.
>
Ok, your right I should have said partial, Not sure what the other
cameras he mentioned have for spot metering...
I doubt he would use it much. I have 4,000 slides and only
used my "partial" metering once.
Looks like he went for a Minolta anyway and got hit with
the bait and switch game already...
Skip M
approx. 9.5% of the viewfinder area.
You may use spot metering rarely, but I use it all the time on my A2 and 1n,
it is one of the things that has prevented me from buying the 10D.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"ROBMURR" <rob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040421111546...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Mike
> That's two monkey wrenches for me to sort out! So, what would you do?
> Choice A) Maxxum 5 with OEM lens
> B) Maxxum 70 with two Sigma lens
> Choice B is about $40 more, aka, the "same" amount of money according
> to the sales person.
Choice A
Tony Spadaro
negatives to match a given exposure -- impossible with roll film -
especially 35mm rolls.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Mike" <nospam...@devnull.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.21....@devnull.com...
>
>
> > Tony Spadaro wrote:
> >
> >> And teh zone system is useless on 35mm.
> >>
> >
>
> Are you an alias for Michael Scarpitti?
>
> I agree and don't practice the ZS for 35mm because I prefer to change
> contrast in the printing stage (even though it has more limitations than
> changing contrast through development).
>
> However it certainly isn't useless for 35mm
>
> a) most people will shoot several pics of the same/similar scene contrast
> before switching scenes. Minor variations can be accounted for in the
> printing stage.
>
> b) many don't care about wasting 75% of the exposures on a 35mm film
> cartridge. A $3 roll of film isn't gonna stop them from loading a new
> roll after taking 5 exposures
>
> c) some are crazy enough to carry multiple bodies
>
> d) some are crazy enough to try this technique (which I've tried as
> well). When scene contrast changes, take off the lens and put the camera
> on the Bulb setting. Hold down the shutter, reach through the camera to
> place a sticker on the film! Then when unloading in the dark, cut the
> 35mm strip into multiple pieces corresponding to difference scene
> contrasts. Develop accordingly.
>
>
Alan Browne
> The zones are perfectly useful - the zone system is about processing
> negatives to match a given exposure -- impossible with roll film -
> especially 35mm rolls.
>
Again, you missed what the poster said. Selective deafness I guess.
Alan Browne
The new 'decade' Maxxums that have just come out are non additions to
the Maxxum line. The Maxxum 5 (non QD) at its price point is a
MARVELOUS camera. It is small... I suggest you pick one up... my right
hand gets cramped after a few minutes with it. (My girlfriend bought
one two weeks ago).
QD: This should only, IMO, be bought for those who need to document the
date and time of a photo for scientific, business, legal or similar
reasons. For your happy snapshots or serious photos, date and time mar
the image irreparably. It is extra cost that could instead be applied
to (a) better lens(es).
Cheers,
Alan.
David Chien
> Choice A) Maxxum 5 with OEM lens
> B) Maxxum 70 with two Sigma lens
> Choice B is about $40 more, aka, the "same" amount of money according
> to the sales person.
What is it you want?
I can say that having two seperate lenses today in the world of
Tamron 28-200/300mm lenses is just 'silly' for most beginners. You can
honestly save yourself lots of trouble, time and effort by simply
starting off with a 28-200mm instead of two (cheap) lenses that will
cover the same range -- and you're not going to get much difference
either with cheap lenses in terms of picture quality. Cheap Sigma
lenses aren't that great, either.
(see popphoto.com reviews, etc.)
Even an older, used 28-200mm Tamron is an excellent buy at <$100 it
usually sells for.
eg
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43493&item=3809806127&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
(heck, even a Minolta HTsi + 28-200mm Tamron in 8/10 condition sells for
only $159!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43493&item=3811440345&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)
My own 28-200mm Tamron 2nd generation has gone to numerous weddings,
events, and so forth and delivered great shots.
-----
I wouldn't worry too much about the 5 vs. 70 unless there's some new
feature of the 70 you want. Keep in mind that just about all of these
low-end cameras have so many features and capabilities nowadays, you can
easily keep up with any of them as you progress.
However, only thing I'd say is that the 70 does have more AF points
and I'm sure the AF is somewhat improved vs. older models since it's
pulling the same AF sensor off the super-fast Minolta 7.
Still, the 70 is pretty cheap at ~$180 at Ritzcamera.com , buydig.com
, etc.
-----
What would I do?
Here's what I'd do -- buy a Maxxum 5 or 70 depending on what's the
'better' pick for you in terms of features & feel.
Then, pickup a used 28-200mm 2nd gen. or higher Tamron on ebay.com
for ~$100.
There! Done!
A very flexible system that will easily cover everything from
close-up macros to wide-angle 28mm shots all the way to travel
long-shots at 200mm w/o having to worry about changing lenses in the
field (and getting dust in the camera; or making people wait as you
change lenses before you can take their picture).
You will easily cover the range of zoom lengths most photographers
will use, and have a flexible enough all-in-one system that you can use
anytime, anywhere, for just about anything. (Honestly, what doesn't a
28-200/300mm lens cover for most users?)
----
After using this setup, figure out what other lenses you'd like -- a
super-high quality fixed or zoom lens at a certain range? specialty
macro lenses? etc. You'll know after you take some pictures with this
system and as you expand your photography skills.
You'll also realize that even after getting those 'better' or
'specialty' lenses, you won't be tossing out the 28-200mm like most
people do with the boxed 28-80mm lens that come with most packages.
There's really nothing that can replace a wide-zoom-range lens except
another, better wide-zoom-range lens, whereas almost any zoom in the
range can replace the standard 28-80mm (eg. that super-nice f/2.8
28-75mm Tamron killer!, 24-105/135mm, 28-200/300 of course, etc.).
However, if you find that this single lens is all you need, then you
certainly won't need to 'upgrade' or 'buy' more lenses later on since
you'll have a huge range of zoom lengths covered by this single lens.
(Most casual photographers do find they don't need anything but just
that - one Tamron 28-200/300mm lens on their SLR. Which only explains
their vast poularity and sales. and no, don't go buying the Sigma
28-200/300mm lenses, not as good.)
========
And if you really want to go 'cheap' - that HTsi for $159 on ebay
above! You'd still have the other half of your budget for a short trip
somewhere, lenses, film, etc. quite a savings -- esp. good for any
students, low-budget photographers, etc. here who want a very flexible
system, cheap.
David Chien
LOL.
I'd get the HTsi I noted earlier anyday of the week for $159 with
the 28-200mm Tamron than a old manual Nikon FE with a 50mm. That's
certainly not sensible in terms of having a flexible zoom range you can
work with to expand your photographic opportunities, and there's no
reason to hobble a beginner/casual photographer with manual focus only.
There is simply not one thing a person can do with a manual focus
camera today that can't be done on a AF camera in MF mode to take an
equally good picture, faster.
Nick James
>> Nikon FE + 50mm. And get the Sigma too, if you must.
>
>
> LOL.
without getting bogged down in a philosophical war about the merits of
old versus new* :)
> I'd get the HTsi I noted earlier anyday of the week for $159 with
> the 28-200mm Tamron than a old manual Nikon FE with a 50mm. That's
> certainly not sensible in terms of having a flexible zoom range you can
> work with to expand your photographic opportunities, and there's no
> reason to hobble a beginner/casual photographer with manual focus only.
so you gain a zoom range and the expense of restricting your light range!
Photography is is about light not about zooooooooooooooooooooooom :)
> There is simply not one thing a person can do with a manual focus
> camera today that can't be done on a AF camera in MF mode to take an
> equally good picture, faster.
that's simply not true.
It's faster, easier and more acurate to manually focus a MF lens using a
camera with proper focus screen (ie most old MF cameras), than to
manually focus an AF lens on a modern camera with a clear viewfinder**.
Nick
* for the record I sometimes use a new DSLR with fancy AF lenses and I
sometimes use an old A1 with simple MF lenses.
** yes I know you can get focus screens of EOS-1 / F5 class cameras but
I'm not sure that's too relevent to the original poster.
Michael Scarpitti
For a system? You're nuts...
Alan Browne
>>Utter horseshit. Some people can't take a decent pic with $3,000 and
>>others blow away the pack with $300. It's the shooter, not the gun.
>
>
>
>
> For a system? You're nuts...
Read the OP and the budget. And yes, there are people with $3,000 kits
who can't do anything with them and people who have well chosen $300
kits who can do wonders when they stay within the limitations of the kit.
James Cloud
advise I especially liked: there's no substitute for trying out the
camera!
I went to a store and tried different models. Let me tell ya, there's
a huge difference between the Maxuum 70 and Maxxum 5! The ergonomics
between the two is completely different. The 70 is much easier to
hold, it's thicker than the maxxum 5 and feels more substantial. I
also liked the control layout on the maxxum 70. You know how
important it is for man to get a good grip on things;)
So thanks to everyone. I'm buying the maxxum 70 kit. It's a start,
at least.
James
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > bubbac...@mail.com (James Cloud) wrote in message
> news:<92d6b653.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> > $300 will not go very far. You need to think in $k's.
>
> He said "hobby"...
>
> He also said "photography"...
$300 will hardly buy a first-class enlarging lens.......
This is an absurdly low budget.
Alan Browne
For what? The fellow wants to do something above P&S and doesn't want
to be the next Annie Liebovitz. I admire a man who sets a budget that
he can live with, chooses with care and then does what he can within
that budget well much more than a guy who gets all the best gear just to
have the best and then not do anything of value with it.
Matt Clara
news:c693nm$c5f$1...@news.service.uci.edu...
Now there's a "LOL"
How about today, when Michigan's Governor Granholm visited the Department of
Agriculture for Earth Day, and my F100/SB-80/35-70 af-d couldn't get a lock
on her plain dark blue suit? Switched to manual and managed to get many
fine shots. Or when I'm shooting weddings and my autofocus wants to lock on
the damndest things, so that I'm forced to switch over to manual to ensure a
proper focus, or when I was shooting pheasants on the fly two weeks ago for
Ducks Unlimited and autofocus couldn't get a lock?
Autofocus is overated, unneccesary for most occasions, and detrimental to
yet others.
William Graham
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> >>He said "hobby"...
> >>
> >>He also said "photography"...
> >
> >
> > $300 will hardly buy a first-class enlarging lens.......
> >
> > This is an absurdly low budget.
>
> For what? The fellow wants to do something above P&S and doesn't want
> to be the next Annie Liebovitz. I admire a man who sets a budget that
> he can live with, chooses with care and then does what he can within
> that budget well much more than a guy who gets all the best gear just to
> have the best and then not do anything of value with it.
>
Yes.....I admire people like that too.....I also admire
photographers.....Unfortunately, they are two different people....:^)
Michael Scarpitti
But he wants to do what $300 will not allow him to do. It's completely
unrealistic. It's like saying I want to become a polar explorer and I
want to get there for 99 cents...
Alan Browne
>
> But he wants to do what $300 will not allow him to do. It's completely
> unrealistic. It's like saying I want to become a polar explorer and I
> want to get there for 99 cents...
You have no idea what he wants to do.
Martin Francis
news:2fd2ff8c.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > to be the next Annie Liebovitz. I admire a man who sets a budget that
> > he can live with, chooses with care and then does what he can within
> > that budget well much more than a guy who gets all the best gear just to
> > have the best and then not do anything of value with it.
>
>
>
> But he wants to do what $300 will not allow him to do. It's completely
> unrealistic. It's like saying I want to become a polar explorer and I
> want to get there for 99 cents...
No, it's not.
Gordon Moat
I saw a Leicaflex with 50 mm go for about $350 on EBAY recently. Of course, there are many similar examples from other used gear. There
are also many examples of good photography from people that only had one lens, or one camera. Anyone who is truly creative will find ways
around limitations.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> >
> > But he wants to do what $300 will not allow him to do. It's completely
> > unrealistic. It's like saying I want to become a polar explorer and I
> > want to get there for 99 cents...
>
> You have no idea what he wants to do.
I must assume more than snapshots...
ian green
>
> I saw a Leicaflex with 50 mm go for about $350 on EBAY recently. Of
course, there are many similar examples from other used gear. There
> are also many examples of good photography from people that only had one
lens, or one camera. Anyone who is truly creative will find ways
> around limitations.
that's blasphemy & should be stopped right now
and the next thing you may say that you don't need to spend $$$$s to become
a real photographer
think about the whole industry & employers familys
--
ian green
Xeto : photo & graphic project : http://xeto.front.ru
photo galleries @ BlurryImage : http://www.blurryimage.com/user/ian%20green
selected photography : http://ian_green.photosight.ru/
.
EOF
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> : news:408979B1...@attglobal.net...
> >
> > I saw a Leicaflex with 50 mm go for about $350 on EBAY recently. Of
> course, there are many similar examples from other used gear. There
> > are also many examples of good photography from people that only had one
> lens, or one camera. Anyone who is truly creative will find ways
> > around limitations.
>
> that's blasphemy & should be stopped right now
> and the next thing you may say that you don't need to spend $$$$s to become
> a real photographer
> think about the whole industry & employers familys
>
> --
>
> ian green
Okay Ian . . . I will be quiet. ;-)
So the "real" thing I meant was that it takes many thousands of $$$$$ to become
a photographer . . . plus decades of training . . . in fact, by the time you
have all the gear you need, and all the knowledge you need, you should get
about five years of work output before retirement . . . . .
How was that? Good?
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > > For what? The fellow wants to do something above P&S and doesn't want
> > > to be the next Annie Liebovitz. I admire a man who sets a budget that
> > > he can live with, chooses with care and then does what he can within
> > > that budget well much more than a guy who gets all the best gear just to
> > > have the best and then not do anything of value with it.
> >
> >
> >
> > But he wants to do what $300 will not allow him to do. It's completely
> > unrealistic. It's like saying I want to become a polar explorer and I
> > want to get there for 99 cents...
>
> No, it's not.
Yes, it is. $300 is inadequate.
Matt Clara
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04042...@posting.google.com...
The best equipment in the world won't get you there by itself...
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Alan Browne
>
> Yes, it is. $300 is inadequate.
You have no idea what is adequate or inadequate for somebody else.
ian green
>
> So the "real" thing I meant was that it takes many thousands of $$$$$ to
become
> a photographer . . . plus decades of training . . . in fact, by the time
you
> have all the gear you need, and all the knowledge you need, you should get
> about five years of work output before retirement . . . . .
so you have to have all the precious gear + decades of experience + wast
knowledge just to retire quietly so you can make some "pictures" without
bothering about competition + management + promotion + taxes + insurance....
my veins are yelling for a razor right now
oh sweet retirement
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, it is. $300 is inadequate.
>
> You have no idea what is adequate or inadequate for somebody else.
Based on selling equipment to hundreds of customers over many years, yes I do.
Martin Francis
news:2fd2ff8c.04042...@posting.google.com...
So you've sold thousands of dollars worth of gear to hundreds of customers
over several years. Congratulations. See many of these people published? Any
of these people great artists with unique talent and vision? How much did
you sell them their talent for, or was in a guaranteed extra bonus offer
with every Leitz lens bought? Say I found an amazing deal on an R6 with 35,
50 and 90mm lenses for $300, would this mean I couldn't yet take adequate
photos as I hadn't spent enough? When plunged into sub-zero temperatures
whilst simultaneously suffering sunburn from the sun piercing the thin ozone
above your head, how long will expensive camera gear protect you from the
elements (excuse pun)? How was your Calculus in first grade? Assuming you
have children and bought them their first bicycle when they were six, did
you bother with stabilisers? And did you put a limit on the amount of
gasoline you let them put in the tank?
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> : news:4089C45B...@attglobal.net...
> >
> > So the "real" thing I meant was that it takes many thousands of $$$$$ to
> become
> > a photographer . . . plus decades of training . . . in fact, by the time
> you
> > have all the gear you need, and all the knowledge you need, you should get
> > about five years of work output before retirement . . . . .
>
> so you have to have all the precious gear + decades of experience + wast
> knowledge just to retire quietly so you can make some "pictures" without
> bothering about competition + management + promotion + taxes + insurance....
>
> my veins are yelling for a razor right now
> oh sweet retirement
Awesome . . . my work is done here!
Alan Browne
Over selling equipment they didn't need so you could beef up your sales
bonus?
ian green
> >
> > so you have to have all the precious gear + decades of experience + wast
> > knowledge just to retire quietly so you can make some "pictures" without
> > bothering about competition + management + promotion + taxes +
insurance....
> >
> > my veins are yelling for a razor right now
> > oh sweet retirement
>
> Awesome . . . my work is done here!
thanks
so i collect my cheap low end (can i say?) photography gear & off i go
may be i'll be back with some more photos after a while
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > Alan Browne <alan....@FreeLunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:<%kyic.88592$HF5.1...@wagner.videotron.net>...
> > > Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is. $300 is inadequate.
> > >
> > > You have no idea what is adequate or inadequate for somebody else.
> >
> > Based on selling equipment to hundreds of customers over many years, yes I
> do.
>
> So you've sold thousands of dollars worth of gear to hundreds of customers
> over several years. Congratulations. See many of these people published?
Some have become pros, yes. I know of at least two.
> Any
> of these people great artists with unique talent and vision?
How is that relevant?
> How much did
> you sell them their talent for, or was in a guaranteed extra bonus offer
> with every Leitz lens bought?
I sold lots of Nikon, Minolta, Canon, etc., over the years. That's why
$300 won't cut it.$300 is a joke, actually.
> Say I found an amazing deal on an R6 with 35,
> 50 and 90mm lenses for $300, would this mean I couldn't yet take adequate
> photos as I hadn't spent enough?
That would be an unusual price for said items. From your friendly
local thief, perhaps.
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > Alan Browne <alan....@FreeLunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message news:<%kyic.88592$HF5.1...@wagner.videotron.net>...
> >
> >>Michael Scarpitti wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Yes, it is. $300 is inadequate.
> >>
> >>You have no idea what is adequate or inadequate for somebody else.
> >
> >
> > Based on selling equipment to hundreds of customers over many years, yes I do.
>
>
> Over selling equipment they didn't need so you could beef up your sales
> bonus?
'Didn't need'? If a doctor getting ready to retire comes in and wants
to buy a Hasselblad and two lenses, how am I selling him something he
'doesn't need'?
Actually, stores don't make money on cameras. They're sold at cost or
below. Profit is made on filters, gadget bags, film, and processing.
Cameras are a loss-leader.