I just picked up the Nikon D7000 ($1200 in-town retail) and I'm pretty sure the body is built with the magnesium frame and weather/dust sealing... I couldn't tell if you were implying that it didn't have those features since it was a 'pro-sumer' model.
Anyway, I was using a D50 up til this point and I make my living full time off of my print sales so clearly "that" camera isn't holding me back, and the D50 is definitely a consumer model.
I have a photographer friend selling at the same market I do who uses the D700 and has a D200, better lenses than myself, yet my sales are consistently higher... and I know of photographers selling way more work than myself using toy Holga's and similar. The artist comes first, the gear simply becomes your tool. I do honestly feel that some artists buy bigger and better gear so their work will get 'better' when the problem is really with themselves.
My main reasoning for my camera upgrade was faster fps, better focusing systems, better body construction, better high ISO performance, and more MP so larger prints will be easier to produce... and 1080p video is fun :-)
Nate
ndtphoto.etsy.com
--- In artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com, Gene Lugo <gene51@...> wrote:
>
> Perry,
>
> I have had 35mm cameras forever (since 1967) - Nikon rangefinders, Leica
> rangefinders, NIkon FTns, all sorts of lenses, Horseman tehcnical view
> camera, Hassleblad, Sinar F Pro 4x5 etc - all kinds of stuff. But digital
> just makes things easier.
>
> When I made the transition to digital in 2000, I paid nearly $700 for a Sony
> advanced point and shoot - the F515. Zeiss 5x zoom and 2.6 mp. It was fun,
> but anything larger than 11x14 lacked image quality, and for all intents and
> purposes the max iso was 100 - everything else was too noisy. I later
> upgraged that to their 717, similar setup but 5 mp. Better but still not
> what I was looking for.
>
> In 2005 I bought a film scanner and started to scan my negatives and slides,
> but the technology was not quite there yet - it was slow, and I started to
> see the weaknesses in the process. Anything faster than Velvia was too
> grainy, even though you could still process away the noise in Photoshop, you
> had some hard limits on image size.
>
> In 2007 I bought a brand new D200 and a 18-200mm lens for $2200. Best
> decision I ever made. Since then I have acquired an 80-200 AF-ED (used -
> $575), and some used Sigma glass - 150 macro ($500), 10-20 ($375), 18-50
> F2.8 ($350), and a 50-500 ($600). I added a used D300 body that I purchased
> for $900. As you can see, with some careful purchasing you can get what you
> need and still stay within budget.These sigma lenses are all their EX
> series, intended to have better construction and to be a little more robust
> than their cheap stuff - and I can attest to their sharpness and image
> quality. Not the ideal, but certainly workable.
>
> Although the D7000 is a nice body, it is considered a prosumer camera as
> opposed to a entry-level pro body. Weather and dust sealing, internal
> magnesium frame and other features make them better suited for hard use. The
> same is true of their lenses - any of Nikon's full frame lenses will have
> better construction than the consumer level products. With a pro lens you
> can deal with a light drizzle without having to fear a short-circuit in your
> camera or lens. you can always buy a waterproof housing if you anticipate
> dunking the camera.
>
> If you care to visit my website - www.gyphotoworks.com you can see some of
> the results I get with this gear.
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment