Serious shutterbugs check-in...need some advice

[AndrewR]

I have a Sony F717 right now, and I've bought a couple filters (UV and a polarizer) plus a wide angle and macro lens. I'm starting to really enjoy picture taking, and I think I've found a great hobby. I want to find out next steps.

Do I stick with the Sony until I get the composition down? My wife says that I make/take some fairly good pictures, but I have little objective criticism (some friends have echoed that on a few shots). So, do I stay with the "prosumer" camera, or should I seriously consider upgrading to a Nikon digital (D70?) and start collecting "glass" while I'm still sorta learning the ropes? Money is a big issue since we're adopting a little one (should get her in less than a month) so waiting is probably forced rather than optional.

When I do I make the leap to SLR?

 

[BMdoobieW]

No, stick with the F717. I'm sure it takes cool pics. I use a Canon G5 right now. I love it.

 

[Ornery]

Are you going to try and make money at this, or what? If so, I would spare no expense on the glass, and buy one lens at a time as the budget permits. If this is just a hobby, wait for the prices to drop on the body, and buy used lenses at the local camera shop or <gulp> Ebay.

 

[Wallydraigle]

I second Ornery's sentiments. If you're not sure where you're going with this yet you can buy used, and if you decide it's not what you wanted you can sell it and loose hardly anything. Fred Miranda's buy and sell forum is a great place to buy used gear.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
When I do I make the leap to SLR?

When you've discovered something you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY cannot accomplish with what you have.

Most photography teachers stick you with a very basic camera for the class. Not because they are trying to limit you, but because they want you to learn how to MAKE the image instead of just copying whatever someone else has done.

With a single basic camera you're forced to think through your composition. Find ways to to get a new angle with your limited equipment.

There are highly paid pros that to this day use just a Leica and a single 35mm lens. Nothing else.

Something to think about...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Are you going to try and make money at this, or what? If so, I would spare no expense on the glass, and buy one lens at a time as the budget permits. If this is just a hobby, wait for the prices to drop on the body, and buy used lenses at the local camera shop or <gulp> Ebay.

Ok, that makes sense. At some point, I may want to try and make money, but really I'm inclined to keep this a hobby. If that dovetails at some point into selling photos at a county fair or something, then fine. That said, I want the best equipment that I need to take photos of the scenes I find. Much of that at this point is technique related, not equipment related, but that's part of the fun of learning.

When you've discovered something you ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY cannot accomplish with what you have.

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

 

[Ornery]

The prosumer compromise can only do so much, but it gives you great bang for the buck. A nice, bright, long lens would be first on my list. By God, you're gonna pay for it though!

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

If you're asking that question, then you don't yet need to upgrade.

 

[iamtrout]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

If you're asking that question, then you don't yet need to upgrade.

Too true.

AndrewR, what kind of pictures do you take? What size prints do you make? What AREN'T you satisfied with in the Sony?

I suppose getting great shots of the little one would be pretty important. Just think of how special it would be for him/her in the future to be able to see themselves as a toddler in hundreds of crystal clear pictures. Alas, my generation didn't have this, so I don't really know how fugly I was back then.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

If you're asking that question, then you don't yet need to upgrade.

I agree with both of DurocShark's posts.
Another good point on the Nikon is that you'll have 6 or 8 grand in lenses to achieve the same focal breadth as the Sony. At this point all those lenses will do nothing for you but ensure that you can't take a decent picture.
I'm still using the F707. I was thinking about upgrading to the 828, but I'm going to wait until the next revision.
To the point of saving money, your camera has built in macro and will take an excellent shot of a bug's ass if you want it to. The macro lens wasn't at all necessary. I'm wondering if you'll even be able to focus with it on the camera.

 

[nakedfrog]

My Fuji Finepix S3800 just died a couple weeks ago, and I'm looking to replace it. I was happy with the features and picture quality, but wanted just a couple more things. More control over shutter time, and a panoramic mode that locks in the settings.

 

[edro]

No... you would not get much benefit coming from an F717 to a Pro grade SLR.

The equipment RARELY limits you. You need to learn how to overcome the limitations, not just buy your way around them.

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
My Fuji Finepix S3800 just died a couple weeks ago, and I'm looking to replace it. I was happy with the features and picture quality, but wanted just a couple more things. More control over shutter time, and a panoramic mode that locks in the settings.

Hey frog,
Just wanted to take a minute to say that your jaytrix page looks absolutely gorgeous. Fonts, layout, everything looks so clean.
Nice work!!!

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
My Fuji Finepix S3800 just died a couple weeks ago, and I'm looking to replace it. I was happy with the features and picture quality, but wanted just a couple more things. More control over shutter time, and a panoramic mode that locks in the settings.

Hey frog,
Just wanted to take a minute to say that your jaytrix page looks absolutely gorgeous. Fonts, layout, everything looks so clean.
Nice work!!!

I'm going to have to be honest with you and tell you I didn't come up with it
It was one of the entries to a layout contest for WordPress.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

If you're asking that question, then you don't yet need to upgrade.

I agree with both of DurocShark's posts.
Another good point on the Nikon is that you'll have 6 or 8 grand in lenses to achieve the same focal breadth as the Sony. At this point all those lenses will do nothing for you but ensure that you can't take a decent picture.
I'm still using the F707. I was thinking about upgrading to the 828, but I'm going to wait until the next revision.
To the point of saving money, your camera has built in macro and will take an excellent shot of a bug's ass if you want it to. The macro lens wasn't at all necessary. I'm wondering if you'll even be able to focus with it on the camera.

I have taken good macro shots before with the F717, but the new lens does in fact enable even closer shots than were possible before (with focus). Here's my latest shot using the new lens. Honeybee. What I've noticed is that I can get detailed, close shots without being as close as I would need to without the lens -- this bee picture would have been impossible since the bee would have likely moved if I had shoved the lens barrel up its rear.

In any event, the macro lens is part of the wide angle so it wasn't an additional purchase.

 

[shilala]

Here's one of my Bumblebee shots. It's busted down for the web, but it's cute.
Now that I stand corrected, I may try a macro lens to see if it'll help with my macros. I've noticed that bees don't take kindly to a lens barrel up their ass

 

[Chaotic42]

This is a pretty good resource

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

If you're asking that question, then you don't yet need to upgrade.

I agree with both of DurocShark's posts.
Another good point on the Nikon is that you'll have 6 or 8 grand in lenses to achieve the same focal breadth as the Sony. At this point all those lenses will do nothing for you but ensure that you can't take a decent picture.
I'm still using the F707. I was thinking about upgrading to the 828, but I'm going to wait until the next revision.
To the point of saving money, your camera has built in macro and will take an excellent shot of a bug's ass if you want it to. The macro lens wasn't at all necessary. I'm wondering if you'll even be able to focus with it on the camera.

ehhh 6-8 grand? you can cover that whole range + macro with 3 lenses for about 3 grand is you go all out
the sony is a 38 mm - 190 mm (5x) zoom lens f/2
28-70 f/2.8 1100
70-200 f.2.8 - 1600
60mm macro - 350

and you can do it cheaper with primes
personally id do
12-24 f/4 - 1000
35 f/2 - 300
50 f/1.8 100
85 f/1.4 800
70-200 f/2.8 1600 - the 80-200 2.8 costs like 1/2 as much and is an equally great lens just no VR

thats still far less then 6 grand, hell you could tack Sigma 100-300mm F4 and still under that orice range

that being said IMO you arnt ready for a DSLR yet because like others have said you havent come to the limits of your current camera yet

 

[faenix]

Buy used glass at keh.com bhphoto.com adorama.com

 

[SSP]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

If you're asking that question, then you don't yet need to upgrade.

I agree with both of DurocShark's posts.
Another good point on the Nikon is that you'll have 6 or 8 grand in lenses to achieve the same focal breadth as the Sony. At this point all those lenses will do nothing for you but ensure that you can't take a decent picture.
I'm still using the F707. I was thinking about upgrading to the 828, but I'm going to wait until the next revision.
To the point of saving money, your camera has built in macro and will take an excellent shot of a bug's ass if you want it to. The macro lens wasn't at all necessary. I'm wondering if you'll even be able to focus with it on the camera.

ehhh 6-8 grand? you can cover that whole range + macro with 3 lenses for about 3 grand is you go all out
the sony is a 38 mm - 190 mm (5x) zoom lens f/2
28-70 f/2.8 1100
70-200 f.2.8 - 1600
60mm macro - 350

and you can do it cheaper with primes
personally id do
12-24 f/4 - 1000
35 f/2 - 300
50 f/1.8 100
85 f/1.4 800
70-200 f/2.8 1600 - the 80-200 2.8 costs like 1/2 as much and is an equally great lens just no VR

thats still far less then 6 grand, hell you could tack Sigma 100-300mm F4 and still under that orice range

that being said IMO you arnt ready for a DSLR yet because like others have said you havent come to the limits of your current camera yet

Dude, Great shot!. Had me confused for a while. :thumbsup:

 

[shilala]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Well, how do I know that an SLR will do something my Sony won't?

If you're asking that question, then you don't yet need to upgrade.

I agree with both of DurocShark's posts.
Another good point on the Nikon is that you'll have 6 or 8 grand in lenses to achieve the same focal breadth as the Sony. At this point all those lenses will do nothing for you but ensure that you can't take a decent picture.
I'm still using the F707. I was thinking about upgrading to the 828, but I'm going to wait until the next revision.
To the point of saving money, your camera has built in macro and will take an excellent shot of a bug's ass if you want it to. The macro lens wasn't at all necessary. I'm wondering if you'll even be able to focus with it on the camera.

ehhh 6-8 grand? you can cover that whole range + macro with 3 lenses for about 3 grand is you go all out
the sony is a 38 mm - 190 mm (5x) zoom lens f/2
28-70 f/2.8 1100
70-200 f.2.8 - 1600
60mm macro - 350

and you can do it cheaper with primes
personally id do
12-24 f/4 - 1000
35 f/2 - 300
50 f/1.8 100
85 f/1.4 800
70-200 f/2.8 1600 - the 80-200 2.8 costs like 1/2 as much and is an equally great lens just no VR

thats still far less then 6 grand, hell you could tack Sigma 100-300mm F4 and still under that orice range

that being said IMO you arnt ready for a DSLR yet because like others have said you havent come to the limits of your current camera yet

I stand corrected, SSP.
So including the camera body, 4 grand to handle the focal range of an 800 dollar camera? I suppose it makes sense for someone who feels more comfortable with an SLR.
That's kinda crazy. I haven't priced any of that stuff since last year when my buddy was shopping a d10.
He then skipped gears altogether and bought a Canon gl1s dvcam. I still don't get it.

Just cause I like showing off pics, here's a freehand macro I shot at Disney. I was standing at this bush side by side with a dude who was hauling 25 pounds of Canon d10 stuff. When he saw my pic on my laptop, he was really shocked.
Here's the shot...
flower.
The Sony's have truly captured a niche. Lots of camera for a little money.

 

[AndrewR]

Well, I just determined that I paid about $160 for a macro lens. :| The wide angle is a piece of trash -- completely out of focus and massively distorted, using either "Conversion Lens" setting or Macro setting (recommended by Sony users). NOW I read that only Sony lenses produce the best pictures on the 717.

THAT was an expensive lesson.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Well, I just determined that I paid about $160 for a macro lens. :| The wide angle is a piece of trash -- completely out of focus and massively distorted, using either "Conversion Lens" setting or Macro setting (recommended by Sony users).

That's about as much as some high-quality prime lenses for SLRs. Screw-on "lenses" for P&amp;Ses are always going to degrade image quality. Yes, even the ones made by your camera manufacturer. Maybe the quality loss won't be as bad, and maybe you won't see it, but it will still be there.

NOW I read that only Sony lenses produce the best pictures on the 717.

THAT was an expensive lesson.

I'm not going to say that you're not ready for a DSLR any time soon, but you need to do some reading (and not at gearhead sites like dpreview that obsess over measurebation) on photography, and some experimentation to see what direction you'd like to take so you'll not waste money on lenses you won't use for your future SLR. Landscapes tend to require different lenses than macro, for example.

The Luminous Landscape covers some equipment, but also has a good dose of photographic technique. Photo.net (gallery sometimes NSFW) has good tutorials for beginners, and individual tutorials on how to shoot various subjects.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Well, I just determined that I paid about $160 for a macro lens. :| The wide angle is a piece of trash -- completely out of focus and massively distorted, using either "Conversion Lens" setting or Macro setting (recommended by Sony users).

That's about as much as some high-quality prime lenses for SLRs. Screw-on "lenses" for P&amp;Ses are always going to degrade image quality. Yes, even the ones made by your camera manufacturer. Maybe the quality loss won't be as bad, and maybe you won't see it, but it will still be there.

NOW I read that only Sony lenses produce the best pictures on the 717.

THAT was an expensive lesson.

I'm not going to say that you're not ready for a DSLR any time soon, but you need to do some reading (and not at gearhead sites like dpreview that obsess over measurebation) on photography, and some experimentation to see what direction you'd like to take so you'll not waste money on lenses you won't use for your future SLR. Landscapes tend to require different lenses than macro, for example.

The Luminous Landscape covers some equipment, but also has a good dose of photographic technique. Photo.net (gallery sometimes NSFW) has good tutorials for beginners, and individual tutorials on how to shoot various subjects.

I will admit to needing to learn a lot about photography. However, give me a little credit for knowing what a macro is, ok? I may be relatively new to serious photography, but I'm not stupid. Ok, apart from buying that lens...

After looking at some stuff about DSLRs, I realized that I really don't have the money for those yet in any event because I don't want to go low-end and then regret the money I spent on cheap glass (like that crappy wide angle). So, I'm going to continue with the Sony for awhile and then see what happens in a few years. The reason I bought the wide angle is that I thought I would get some good shots at the Hoover Dam, but they came out amazingly bad. I exchanged the lens because it appeared to be defective (the macro lens was loose), but the results were the same, regrettably. I bought it against my better judgement, partially because I had won $500 in Vegas at that point. Lesson learned!