|
Forums >
General Industry >
The Best Camera question again.
So, if you're gonna say it's not the camera it's the photographer, you can run along. I'm looking for serious advise regarding the best camera I can buy and suits my needs. I've had de D100 for quite a while now, she still takes great pictures but it's starting to fall behind. Plus, the shutter is starting to get stuck every once in a while. So I want to buy a new camera. I've always used Nikon, for about 10 years now started with an FM10, N65, F5, transition to D100, had a D60 for a bit, and so on. Though I love it, I've always felt that Nikon is not so great with skintones. I've used almost them all, from the D40 to the D2X, and always feel the same (maybe not so much with the D2x, but still). She takes awesome landscapes, skies, sunsets, but when it comes to flesh, I've always found that she doesn't do so well. There's always a great deal of noise and odd contrasts in grayer areas, and I'm always spending a lot of time on PS trying to correct them. I don't know if that is something all digitalists have to live with, because Canon is not so different at least the counted times I've had access to them. Sometimes I feel that only Film, and Large Format Digital are the only option for great fleshtones and fashion shots in general. Anyway, I've been looking at the D90, looks good. Haven't thought about the D300 because D400 almost certainly appears later this year. So, today, I've been looking at Leica's M8's. Their pictures look amazing but haven't found any fashion/portrait ones. Have any of you used them for that kind of pics? What do you think? May 30 09 02:32 pm Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: Personal opinion. May 30 09 02:52 pm Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: I know of a few fashion photographers that have used leica but the question isn't whether a camera lens is capable of "doing fashion" or "doing glamour." May 30 09 02:58 pm Link My D300 has none of the problems you mention. And I shoot lots of skin. And mountains and skys. If you had problems I'd say it was with your approach not the camera. D100 is old as dirt and like 6MP...ANY nikon will crush it...probably even one of the better P&S. Canon? Not my cup of tea. I like Nikon color and sharpness better...but I don't shoot glamour or weddings where the soft skin might be a blessing. How much Nikon glass do you have? Good Nikon glass i mean. If a lot then you should stay with Nikon...if not much then try the 5D Mark 2...it's no D3X but it's not $8K either. May 30 09 02:58 pm Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: FootNote Photography wrote: One of the professionals who is kind enough to give me guidance specifically mentioned the Fugi for skin tone. May 30 09 04:54 pm Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: The grass is not always greener on the other side. But we human alway think it is. Why not rent the M8 and see how you like it. May 30 09 04:56 pm Link I shoot the Leica R9/DMR. You can't beat Leica glass. Period. And I've shot Canon, Pentax and Nikon and love those as well but just not the same. That said, Leica is coming out with their S2 which I am going to buy. But the price estimated price range is anywhere from $15,000 to $25,000 for the body only. I think you have to think long term and decide what you are going to want 2,3,4, 5 years down the road. Of course you can also go to MF and choose the Hassy. All-in-all, you have Nikon glass and I would suggest you wait for the Dx3 to come down in price and keep buying the best Nikon glass. http://www.garydwhalen.com May 30 09 04:58 pm Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: IMO, the true beauty of a rangefinder camera is its stealth. They are VERY quiet. May 30 09 05:01 pm Link i've built a whole career shooting fashion/beauty with leica m's, including the m8. don't be fooled about cameras, the glass is just as important. i've also shot analog nikon and digital canon my whole career, neither come close to leica glass. 50mm 1.4 aspherical summilux-best standard lens ever made for 35mm/full frame format 50mm 1.0 noctilux-without comparison 90mm apo-aspherical summicron-nothing even close also on the reflex side, amazing glass beyond comparison caveat-not auto focus! May 30 09 05:07 pm Link Manual focusing on a Leica is so easy. Perfect for fashion, portraits, lifestyle, etc. I've never shot an autofocus camera and really have no interest in it for studio work. The Leica 100 APO macro is simply amazing. May 30 09 05:11 pm Link GD Whalen wrote: exactly. May 30 09 05:16 pm Link I've always hated the camera trying to make decisions for me. May 30 09 05:20 pm Link I have long ago come to the firm belief that there is no such thing as a "perfect camera." Which is the main reason why I have many different camera systems. Most of what I shoot is fashion, and even for that single purpose I typically shoot 3 different camera systems these days, occasionally using several others. As to the Leica issue, well, for one you're talking about rangefinder vs SLR, which involves definite pluses and minuses on each side. I'm primarily an SLR-style shooter, but there are times when I do prefer a rangefinder, and a particular rangefinder is one of the 3 primary cameras I shoot (it's not a Leica, it's a Fuji 6x7, but a Leica M2 through 4 would also fit nicely in my toolkit at times, and I wouldn't mind adding them if funds were unlimited for the limited amount that I'd shoot them). Further, before you let the justifiably proud Leica name fool you, try out that M8 for yourself. If you're familiar with Leica M line, you might be a tad disappointed. IMO the MP (modern version) is twice the camera that the M8 is (and for the moment I'm totally setting aside the obvious film/digi dichotomy), and in fact the M8 is definitely Leica's worst-made modern body (Leica-branded P&Ses aside). The M3, M2, and M4 bodies are frankly in another postal district (better). The best rangefinder focusing mechanism I've ever used belonged to an M2. Next to it, the M8 is a joke. Then again, the M8 is essentially a Panasonic with a Leica lens mount... One plus of going with a Leica M (even a Leica M8) that I haven't heard anybody as yet account for is the availability of vintage glass. The new stuff of course is fantastic, and Zeiss also makes wonderful modern M-mount lenses, but obviously nobody makes vintage glass anymore, and that's an advantage not to be overlooked. Entirely different look and feel, particularly when you talk about old Leitz glass which was uncoated and therefore low-contrast (as opposed to almost all modern lenses which are snappy as hell, sometimes to the point of objectionability), and yet very high-resolution and "rich." May 30 09 07:26 pm Link I have used a Hasselblad 500C/M for the past 13 years, never a problem, ever. Camera is 19 years old, lenses are from 44 years old to 20 years old. So I would say for me the best camera is the one I own. May 30 09 08:04 pm Link Too Hot For Snakes wrote: My original body/lens was my 21st birthday gift from my mom, purchased new so it was an early 1990s vintage (and the first "professional" camera I've owned). It still has great utility for me within a particular purpose, and they'll bury me with mine if my son doesn't want it. May 30 09 08:30 pm Link I have found great glass to make a true difference in end result, although it is up to the artist to interpret his or her tools to their own taste. Of course with Digital, it is no longer about the film, but the one chip stuck in the body. Mechanics and precision aside, a great metering and light layout technique along side a great capture chip and awesome glass should keep you at the top of your skill set for a very long time... May 30 09 08:42 pm Link Another point that simply has not been raised in this thread and is highly remiss are usability/ergonomic considerations, first and foremost above all other would be the viewing system. HOW you use a camera makes all the difference. May 30 09 09:38 pm Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: Running. Along with the other 727,000 photographers on MM. May 30 09 11:00 pm Link What is your budget & what do you used it for? If you have nikon prime lenses then get a new or used fuji S5 (slow) under $1,000 @ KEH..... and if you'r into full frame the get Nikon D700 You'll love the D700 Even a good fotographer have to have the right tools May 30 09 11:11 pm Link Wow, I'm really surprised and glad, everyone answered with very useful comments. I greatly appreciate it. First, I live in Puerto Rico. There's no work here for photographers, so, no one rents equipment, sadly that is not an option for me. As for "good" glass, I only have manual Nikkor 50mm 1.4, and 105mm 2.4 (also a 20mm 2.8 but focus ring is stuck). Very vintage, they are approximately 30 years old, bought them from a retiring photographer that sold them for $120, a real bargain. I love them, they give real superior quality for the pictures. The thing is that they are amazing for studio, but on location it's kind of a pain the manual focus, I use glasses (like, in the face, corrective glasses, for my eyes) and the focus rings are both a little hard, so, out of laziness I tend to grab the 18-70mm DX which is really disappointing. Anyway, with the new buy, if I stay with Nikon, I suppose I'll buy a 50mm and 105mm but autofocus. You tell me if it would be a smart buy. I've never really needed other focal distances, maybe the wide angle for architectonical shoots but I don't do them anymore. I want to shoot strictly fashion. So, all in all, I don't have such a big investment in glass so, it won't be a problem, I can probably sell them for more than what I paid for. I got mixed feelings about the Leica. Very few people qualify them as a good buy, but they get such amazing pictures. The thing is that everything is taking me to switch back to film, I really and honestly DO NOT like digital, it's weird, I'm a digital era 27 y/o guy, started in photography with a 3.2MP Minolta, didn't like digital then and 10 years later I still really, really hate it. It really is a pain because clients don't like film. I always try to convince them and end up shooting both formats which translates in longer shoots, discomforted clients, models, and overall bad things, period. Plus, no matter how superior the film shot is, they always choose the digital one. I honestly don't understand, it's stupid, seriously. As for how much am I willing to spend. I don't have a particular budget, but I will certainly not pay more than $3K. With the amount of work I'm finding, it's simply not justifiable. Most photographers I know, mostly pro, a lot pro-er than me, that usually own D300, D700 and D2X, advised me to buy the D90. They all agreed that there's not discernable difference in image quality, it's all the glass baby, the glass. I still have my reserves about that. What about you? So, options. Digital: Nikon D90, D300-700? Canon 50D Fuji S3 Film Leica M? Hassel 503C/M RZ67 Maybe a $600 RZ67 AND a D90? My wife is gonna kill me. For real. And I'll end up in the same place, shooting crappy digital and the RZ67 dusting up. This is worse than cracking the Human Genome. PD. Quick facts about 120 development in PR: $12 processing per roll (Will only develop Fridays). Scanning: $1 p/frame 150dpi. $2 300dpi. >:-( PD2. Yes I've used them all, and seen pictures of them all. D2Xs, EOS1Ds. With expensive glass. I still don't like it. Not that I don't like it, It's just not "worth" it. Won't argue about reliability and amazing overall features/behavior. PD3. Anyone saw the Powershot/Hasselblad face to face? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml - I swear I saw the difference. Depth people, depth. Still amazing though. PD4. Ok I'll stop. PD5. Thanks. Again. May 31 09 04:18 pm Link Too Hot For Snakes wrote: I agree on the Hasselblad. I bought mine in 1987. Never a problem. I also have a Leica M2 I bought used ~1977. According to the SN it was made in 1968. No problems with that one either. Jun 01 09 05:37 am Link David Westlake wrote: The Hasselblad is truly a wonderful camera (as is that Leica M2 of yours, I do envy you that a bit). But the Hassy doesn't fit everybody's shooting method. Mine gets used less than 10% of the time because it doesn't fit a majority of my work. Its ergonomics (slow focus throw, square format, etc) does imply a certain work method. As do all cameras, actually. It's about fitting the camera to the work. Jun 01 09 06:02 am Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: Why not try a film camera? Different look, different process. You never know, you might like it. Jun 01 09 06:03 am Link Ok, I was resisting it, but here are some cameras (all these are film cameras btw, though some of the med format cameras are digi-capable) to chew on... Nikon F2M, F3(particularly F3HP) or F5 (35mm SLR, F2 and F3 manual focus and F5 AF) Contax RTS III Leica M3, M2, M4 (be prepared to spend a mint on glass even if you get a good deal on a body or two, unless you're going to go with one single vintage lens that's not rare and super-collectible) Hasselblad 500C/M Konica Hexar (think Leica except for really fast shooting, which is helpful with some people work... it's a total people-shooting-spontaneity sort of camera) Any of several Rollei TLR models Pentax 6x7 (really any version from the no-mirror-lock-up version to the P67II, IMO) Any version of Mamiya's RB/RZ line (the late model RZ Pro IIs are a bargain now as so many were dumped in the last couple of years in favor of 645 digi models and Canon 1Ds II/III models) Contax 645AF and Hasselblad H1/H2 These are a bunch of really good cameras, each one quite a bit different from the next, that I think of as "the best, or one of the best in their particular class." And this list isn't meant to be 100% all-inclusive, as it's heavy on SLR cameras, with large format and polaroid and such being omitted entirely. Jun 01 09 06:20 am Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: While I cannot comment on any film cameras, I can speak directly to the D90 vs D700 debate. I own both and really love using each camera. I would agree that in a studio enviornment there really isn't that much of a difference in image quality. In low light situations though, the D700 is far superior to the D90. In regards to the flesh tones I would say they are very similar with the nod going to the D700. It's not a huge difference but there it is there. Jun 01 09 07:08 am Link Don't laugh but I still use a D-70. Most of my work ends up on-line so the extra pixels isn't a issue for me. Before you invest lots of $$$ Do you make prints? If on-line like me then the more pixels won't matter. Are you in need of better low level light shooting? There are people on MM who use the Sony R-1 and get better results them most. One isn't here anymore but had expectational sharpness, color and over all quality. Consider that one big difference is the build quality of the cameras, shutter life and weather sealing. Jun 01 09 09:34 am Link La Seine by the Hudson wrote: Unfortunately in the age of digital images is is something of a dinosaur. Hasselblad does make a digital back but if I had the extra money to buy one I would probably spend in on something like a Ferrari 328GTS. At ~$40K they're about the same price. Jun 01 09 10:08 am Link David Westlake wrote: It's not a dinosaur in the slightest. Not any more than say a Dodge GTO is. It doesn't get the mileage of a Prius, but no one would ever confuse a Prius for a GTO. Or the 328. (And I used to have a poster of that Ferrari on my wall when I was a teenager...) Jun 01 09 10:08 am Link La Seine by the Hudson wrote: I'd tend to agree except for the Pentax 6X7 and the RB67. They are mostly happiest on a good sturdy tripod. I worked in a camera store when the Pentax first came out. We used to set it on the counter and fire the shutter with a cable release and watch it almost jump off the counter. Maybe the later models have better mirror damping but those big mirrors flopping up limit hand held use. Jun 01 09 10:14 am Link No Japanese camera manufacturer makes lenses that will match the optics of the Leitz lenses. However, to get those, you need to drop some serious cash, switch brands, be happy with manual focus, and use a rangefinder. For a LOT less you might want to consider a Canon G-10 and use that to supplement your Nikon gear. The decision you are facing was determined when you decided to go to Nikon however many years ago. I won't say it was a bad choice....it's probably fine. At this point, I'd recommend that you go with either a Nikon body or a Fuji since both will take your lenses. Th Fuji has awesome flesh tones right out of the camera. I've never seen anything like it. Remember that the body is basically just a dark box with a sensor that holds lenses and controls the amount of light that hits the sensor. Beyond those basics, the rest is just "bells and whistles". I know of some awesome photographers who use some pretty low end bodies with some pretty high end lenses and get great results. A better body would add nothing for them. The way things change so rapidly, I wouldn't spend much on "bells and whistles" that you haven't yet needed or used....(thinking that you might like some of the features about once a year or so...maybe), because most likely you don't need 'em and there's just more to go wrong. I'd rather have two cheap bodies that one super deluxe one. Jun 01 09 10:21 am Link David Westlake wrote: LOL. We used to do the same thing with a Bronica. The owner of the store was afraid we'd break the glass on top of the counter and made us stop. That's too bad. We sued to sell a LOT of Hasselblads that way. Jun 01 09 10:24 am Link http://www.s.leica-camera.com/robert-grischek That's the Leica s2 digital camera. It's alright. Though for the money, the H3D is better... For what you are looking at though, if you're sticking with nikon, and you have the means, just get a d3X or a d3. If you're wanting to switch systems, Mamiya and PhaseOne really make a good pairing. I'm not a huge fan of Canon, even though that's what I use, but the 5D is okay. It has its definite issues though. If you are fast, stick with Nikon and do the D3. If you are a slower shooter, go with the Canon 5D or the 1DsMarkIII. If you are really slow, go with Mamiya, or PhaseOne, or any medium format system... Just makes more sense. Jun 01 09 10:31 am Link Thanks again to all of you. It's been a great, informative topic. I reluctantly bought the D90, got a good deal on ebay. I'll try it out and hope to have at least some degree of satisfaction. I definitely wanted to go film. I'm still looking at deals on the F5 and the 645AF. Leicas are just prohibitive. Considered buying one of the R series but apparently no one likes them. Still looking at a very low bidding no reserve auction with a summicron lens on ebay, hope it stays low. At the end the problem is the optics, it's just too damn expensive. Now I'm trying to find good optics for Nikon. Planning to buy an 85mm and a 105mm. I don't think I'll need anything else. 50-85-105mm, for fashion photography. What do you think? Thanks, yet again. Jun 04 09 07:03 am Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: I think you get fuji s5. make you happy with skin, use nikon lens. 'strange' Jun 04 09 07:23 am Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: you maybe get nikor 200mm 2.0. make very good fashion picture for you. 105mm not big enough. 'strange' Jun 04 09 07:25 am Link PENTAX is the one and only one for me......  I got my first PENTAX back in the 70's Jun 04 09 07:28 am Link La Seine by the Hudson wrote: Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. Jun 04 09 07:31 am Link Gabriel Rodz wrote: I think it's not the camera, it's the photographer. Jun 04 09 11:23 am Link Magnus Hedemark wrote: First paragraph of the OP: Jun 04 09 12:33 pm Link GMP Photography - Heinz wrote: I'd turn it right back on you. Jun 04 09 12:52 pm Link |
