If money was no object...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Angel, Dec 17, 2003.

  1. Angel

    Angel Guest

    Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would be a
    DSLR?

    Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji S602Z!
     
    Angel, Dec 17, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Angel

    Jim Waggener Guest

    "Angel" <> wrote in message
    news:tz3Eb.12706$...
    > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would be

    a
    > DSLR?
    >
    > Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji S602Z!


    For me it would be a BetterLight digital back for my 4x5 :)
    No reflex needed...you are looking directly through the lens.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Jim Waggener, Dec 17, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Angel

    PhotoMan Guest

    "Jim Waggener" <> wrote in message
    news:3fe0d9ad$...
    >
    > "Angel" <> wrote in message
    > news:tz3Eb.12706$...
    > > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would

    be
    > a
    > > DSLR?


    No doubt in my mind whatsoever! Canon EOS 1DS. I'll have one in my hot
    little bag in a few days.
    Joe Arnold
     
    PhotoMan, Dec 17, 2003
    #3
  4. Angel

    PhotoMan Guest

    "PhotoMan" <> wrote in message
    news:475Eb.13305$...
    >
    > "Jim Waggener" <> wrote in message
    > news:3fe0d9ad$...
    > >
    > > "Angel" <> wrote in message
    > > news:tz3Eb.12706$...
    > > > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > > > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it

    would
    > be
    > > a
    > > > DSLR?

    >
    > No doubt in my mind whatsoever! Canon EOS 1DS. I'll have one in my hot
    > little bag in a few days.
    > Joe Arnold


    OOPS - sorry for the misquote.
    Joe
     
    PhotoMan, Dec 17, 2003
    #4
  5. Angel

    Don Coon Guest

    "Angel" <> wrote in message
    news:tz3Eb.12706$...
    > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would be

    a
    > DSLR?
    >
    > Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji S602Z!


    How about the Hubble Telescope? The maintenance would be quite costly
    though.
     
    Don Coon, Dec 17, 2003
    #5
  6. Angel

    Ron Andrews Guest

    "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    news:pA5Eb.578412$Tr4.1553195@attbi_s03...
    >
    > "Angel" <> wrote in message
    > news:tz3Eb.12706$...
    > > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would

    be
    > a
    > > DSLR?
    > >
    > > Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji S602Z!

    >
    > How about the Hubble Telescope? The maintenance would be quite costly
    > though.
    >

    A spy satellite (like the Hubble but pointed towards Earth) could be
    more interesting.
     
    Ron Andrews, Dec 17, 2003
    #6
  7. Angel

    Christian Guest

    Angel wrote:

    > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would be
    > a DSLR?


    I imagine for a lot of people, including me, it would be an EOS 1Ds. The
    idea of a MF digital back is appealing but the convenience of a 35mm camera
    with a full-frame sensor and image quality that many believe rivals MF film
    probably wins out. Having said that, I imagine the 1Ds' replacement
    (whenever that arrivals) will probably have much greater sensitivity range
    (probably ISO 6400) which could well be worth waiting for. Fingers crossed
    it'll also probably be much cheaper, although still out of my budget I'm
    sure!

    To quote Phil's conclusion at dpreview.com:
    -->
    What more can I say? I love this camera, it's addictive, you get the first
    hit when you pick it up, look through the viewfinder and press that shutter
    release, it's one of the most effective and rewarding photographic tools
    you can use. The next hit comes when you see the images on a monitor (and
    prints look even better still). Simply the best (at the time of writing
    this review).
    <--
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page22.asp
     
    Christian, Dec 18, 2003
    #7
  8. Angel

    Don Coon Guest

    "Ron Andrews" <> wrote in message
    news:gZ5Eb.36943$...
    > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > news:pA5Eb.578412$Tr4.1553195@attbi_s03...
    > >
    > > "Angel" <> wrote in message
    > > news:tz3Eb.12706$...
    > > > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > > > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it

    would
    > be
    > > a
    > > > DSLR?
    > > >
    > > > Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji

    S602Z!
    > >
    > > How about the Hubble Telescope? The maintenance would be quite costly
    > > though.
    > >

    > A spy satellite (like the Hubble but pointed towards Earth) could be
    > more interesting.


    Woner what focal length we're talking about? Thousands of mm?
     
    Don Coon, Dec 18, 2003
    #8
  9. "Angel" <> wrote:

    > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would be

    a
    > DSLR?


    Yes. The Fuji GX645AF (sold as the Hasselblad H1 in your neighborhood) with
    the Fuji 20MP full-frame digital back.

    > Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji S602Z!


    Yes a bit cheaper. With a film back, the GX645AF is a US$7,000 camera, and
    that digital back will be over US$15,000. Of course, you can always use that
    back on your Fuji GX680, but then you get a crop factor.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 18, 2003
    #9
  10. "Christian" <> wrote:

    > > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would

    be
    > > a DSLR?

    >
    > I imagine for a lot of people, including me, it would be an EOS 1Ds. The
    > idea of a MF digital back is appealing but the convenience of a 35mm

    camera
    > with a full-frame sensor and image quality that many believe rivals MF

    film
    > probably wins out.


    Have you ever held a 1Ds? It is significantly heavier and a lot more awkward
    than any MF camera I have ever owned: Hasselblad (many many years ago),
    Mamiya 645 Pro (current), Rolleiflex TLR being the three heaviest. The
    Hasselblad H1 has worlds better ergonomics, although it is heavier than the
    1Ds.

    > Having said that, I imagine the 1Ds' replacement
    > (whenever that arrivals) will probably have much greater sensitivity range
    > (probably ISO 6400) which could well be worth waiting for.


    I think you're right on this. I'll be happy with 10D noise levels at ISO 800
    and 1600, but a full-frame camera should have lower noise than the 10D.

    > Fingers crossed
    > it'll also probably be much cheaper, although still out of my budget I'm
    > sure!


    I'm saving frantically...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Angel

    Jim Polaski Guest

    In article <tz3Eb.12706$>,
    "Angel" <> wrote:

    > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would be a
    > DSLR?
    >
    > Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji S602Z!
    >
    >


    I'm more than happy with my S2. Far,far better skin tones than any
    nikon. Feature wise it's got everything I need.

    --
    Regards,
    JP
    "The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting
    that he will get nothing in return!"
     
    Jim Polaski, Dec 19, 2003
    #11
  12. Angel

    Christian Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:

    >> I imagine for a lot of people, including me, it would be an EOS 1Ds. The
    >> idea of a MF digital back is appealing but the convenience of a 35mm

    > camera
    >> with a full-frame sensor and image quality that many believe rivals MF

    > film
    >> probably wins out.

    >
    > Have you ever held a 1Ds? It is significantly heavier and a lot more
    > awkward than any MF camera I have ever owned: Hasselblad (many many years
    > ago), Mamiya 645 Pro (current), Rolleiflex TLR being the three heaviest.
    > The Hasselblad H1 has worlds better ergonomics, although it is heavier
    > than the 1Ds.


    I haven't actually held a 1Ds although I know from the specs its only 300g
    heavier than the 1V so, not exactly a back-breaker. Having said that, if
    you put together a full MF system (i.e., set of lenses, body, backs, film
    whatever accessories you need for a given purpose) and then a comparable
    35mm system based around the 1Ds, I imagine the 35mm will be smaller and
    lighter despite the 1Ds' heft.
     
    Christian, Dec 19, 2003
    #12
  13. Angel

    Eric Witte Guest

    "Jim Waggener" <> wrote in message news:<3fe0d9ad$>...
    > "Angel" <> wrote in message
    > news:tz3Eb.12706$...
    > > Taking the cost out of the equation, is there a widely accepted 'best'
    > > digital camera, ie, the one everybody wants to own? I imagine it would be

    > a
    > > DSLR?
    > >
    > > Unfortunately for me, money is an object, so I stick with my Fuji S602Z!

    >
    > For me it would be a BetterLight digital back for my 4x5 :)
    > No reflex needed...you are looking directly through the lens.
    >


    I wonder what kind of storage that Super 10k-2 takes. You can't
    really economically use CF/Microdrive with 804 MB images!

    Eric
     
    Eric Witte, Dec 19, 2003
    #13
  14. Angel

    Guest

    On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:51:12 GMT, "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com>
    wrote:


    >> A spy satellite (like the Hubble but pointed towards Earth) could be
    >> more interesting.

    >
    >Woner what focal length we're talking about? Thousands of mm?
    >

    I don't know about spy satellites, but the effective focal length of the Hubble
    is 57.6 meters.

    http://hubble.nasa.gov/technology/optical-specs.html
     
    , Dec 21, 2003
    #14
  15. Angel

    Don Coon Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:51:12 GMT, "Don Coon"

    <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > >> A spy satellite (like the Hubble but pointed towards Earth) could

    be
    > >> more interesting.

    > >
    > >Woner what focal length we're talking about? Thousands of mm?
    > >

    > I don't know about spy satellites, but the effective focal length of the

    Hubble
    > is 57.6 meters.
    >
    > http://hubble.nasa.gov/technology/optical-specs.html


    As in 57,600mm -- Wow!
     
    Don Coon, Dec 21, 2003
    #15
  16. "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    news:sVjFb.613354$Tr4.1593269@attbi_s03...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:51:12 GMT, "Don Coon"

    > <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com>
    > > wrote:

    (snip)
    > > >

    > > I don't know about spy satellites, but the effective focal length of the

    > Hubble
    > > is 57.6 meters.
    > >
    > > http://hubble.nasa.gov/technology/optical-specs.html

    >
    > As in 57,600mm -- Wow!
    >

    ---------

    Think ya' might need a tripod for that one?

    LOL

    Journalist
     
    Journalist-North, Dec 21, 2003
    #16
  17. Angel

    Don Coon Guest

    "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    news:QBnFb.23$...
    >
    > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > news:sVjFb.613354$Tr4.1593269@attbi_s03...
    > >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:51:12 GMT, "Don Coon"

    > > <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com>
    > > > wrote:

    > (snip)
    > > > >
    > > > I don't know about spy satellites, but the effective focal length of

    the
    > > Hubble
    > > > is 57.6 meters.
    > > >
    > > > http://hubble.nasa.gov/technology/optical-specs.html

    > >
    > > As in 57,600mm -- Wow!
    > >

    > ---------
    >
    > Think ya' might need a tripod for that one?
    >
    > LOL
    >
    > Journalist


    Maybe not in zero-gravity : )
     
    Don Coon, Dec 22, 2003
    #17
  18. Angel

    Skymuffins Guest

    "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    news:QBnFb.23$...
    >
    > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > news:sVjFb.613354$Tr4.1593269@attbi_s03...
    > >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:51:12 GMT, "Don Coon"

    > > <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com>
    > > > wrote:

    > (snip)
    > > > >
    > > > I don't know about spy satellites, but the effective focal length of

    the
    > > Hubble
    > > > is 57.6 meters.
    > > >
    > > > http://hubble.nasa.gov/technology/optical-specs.html

    > >
    > > As in 57,600mm -- Wow!
    > >

    > ---------
    >
    > Think ya' might need a tripod for that one?
    >
    > LOL


    It may be difficult to hand hold a school bus sized lens ;).




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Skymuffins, Jan 2, 2004
    #18
  19. Angel

    Don Coon Guest

    "Skymuffins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Journalist-North" <> wrote in message
    > news:QBnFb.23$...
    > >
    > > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
    > > news:sVjFb.613354$Tr4.1593269@attbi_s03...
    > > >
    > > > <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:51:12 GMT, "Don Coon"
    > > > <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com>
    > > > > wrote:

    > > (snip)
    > > > > >
    > > > > I don't know about spy satellites, but the effective focal length of

    > the
    > > > Hubble
    > > > > is 57.6 meters.
    > > > >
    > > > > http://hubble.nasa.gov/technology/optical-specs.html
    > > >
    > > > As in 57,600mm -- Wow!
    > > >

    > > ---------
    > >
    > > Think ya' might need a tripod for that one?
    > >
    > > LOL

    >
    > It may be difficult to hand hold a school bus sized lens ;).
    >


    Not in the weightlessness of space; just give me lots of handholds.
     
    Don Coon, Jan 2, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. deepak
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    15,518
    Steve Horsley
    Dec 4, 2003
  2. Jeff Walzer

    PIX object groups

    Jeff Walzer, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    490
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 31, 2003
  3. nck

    if money were no object

    nck, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    964
    Mikey
    Aug 28, 2003
  4. normanstrong

    If money IS an object...

    normanstrong, Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    488
    stacey
    Dec 20, 2003
  5. joevan

    Money? What money? It never existed.

    joevan, Oct 11, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    567
    HEMI-Powered
    Oct 13, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page