Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
More expensive lens means a better image.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rocketman122" data-source="post: 285882" data-attributes="member: 14443"><p>very true. WHen I bought my sigma 70-200, I could not deliver better pictures than my 50 1.8D because I couldnt hold it well. didnt know how to use it properly. after time though when I got used to the weight, then I was able to deliver better photos. the photographer delivers the final image but it is also the gear that will limit him. good or bad. theres only so much I can do with an iphone or kit lens. I will also add that if I gave an amateur elite gear, most wont know what to do with it. and im not talking about shooting. im even talking about settings in the gear. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>with camera, yes? the lens is 780g or 1lb 11oz, from a review I saw. hows your af accuracy? sigma are known for bad af accuracy. my lenses suffered at times. thats why im reluctant to buy sigma again. af mechanism has to be fast and accurate. I couldnt care about noise. thats why I love my crappy 50 1.8d. its blazing fast, and extremely accurate. </p><p></p><p>mostly true. <strong>any </strong>photographer <em>can </em>benefit from more expensive gear. no one needs expensive pro gear. but the final image has the potential to be better. FF vs DX. DX you can shoot to 2000 and not suffer loss of detail and smear/chroma noise. use a FF and bump it to iso 3200 or a bit more and you can get a shot that has nice ambient light mixed with the harsh flash. same with glass. a 2.8 zoom vs a variable aperture zoom. more light, more mixed ambient light with flash, more aesthetic and doesnt look like a picture shot with a smrtphone . and todays smartphone arent that far from what a dx camera can do. its not on the same level, but most just shoot those heavy flashed pictures and they all look the same. </p><p></p><p>on the whole true, but I can list quite a few lenses that are very much overpriced. at least 10. crap performance for the high price tag. theyre not crap, but for the price tag, theyre crap performance. a junk $100 50 1.8d can out rez $1000+ zoom lenses.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rocketman122, post: 285882, member: 14443"] very true. WHen I bought my sigma 70-200, I could not deliver better pictures than my 50 1.8D because I couldnt hold it well. didnt know how to use it properly. after time though when I got used to the weight, then I was able to deliver better photos. the photographer delivers the final image but it is also the gear that will limit him. good or bad. theres only so much I can do with an iphone or kit lens. I will also add that if I gave an amateur elite gear, most wont know what to do with it. and im not talking about shooting. im even talking about settings in the gear. with camera, yes? the lens is 780g or 1lb 11oz, from a review I saw. hows your af accuracy? sigma are known for bad af accuracy. my lenses suffered at times. thats why im reluctant to buy sigma again. af mechanism has to be fast and accurate. I couldnt care about noise. thats why I love my crappy 50 1.8d. its blazing fast, and extremely accurate. mostly true. [B]any [/B]photographer [I]can [/I]benefit from more expensive gear. no one needs expensive pro gear. but the final image has the potential to be better. FF vs DX. DX you can shoot to 2000 and not suffer loss of detail and smear/chroma noise. use a FF and bump it to iso 3200 or a bit more and you can get a shot that has nice ambient light mixed with the harsh flash. same with glass. a 2.8 zoom vs a variable aperture zoom. more light, more mixed ambient light with flash, more aesthetic and doesnt look like a picture shot with a smrtphone . and todays smartphone arent that far from what a dx camera can do. its not on the same level, but most just shoot those heavy flashed pictures and they all look the same. on the whole true, but I can list quite a few lenses that are very much overpriced. at least 10. crap performance for the high price tag. theyre not crap, but for the price tag, theyre crap performance. a junk $100 50 1.8d can out rez $1000+ zoom lenses. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
More expensive lens means a better image.
Top
