Yes, that’s a joke. There have been thousands of iterations of this debate, and my advice has pretty much always been the same:
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com/2010/12/which-camera-should-you-buy.html
But Paul Till on the Fuji Talk Forum has thrown down his parting insult with the following text – repeated from his last volley in a discussion we were having about vacation lenses, dSLRs et al … that discussion was removed by the moderators but he felt compelled to repeat it so I feel compelled to answer.
Kim you are a die hard Nikon freak, I don't know why when you don't own any decent glass to keep you with them either!
Your criteria is holiday snaps, shooting concerts and 5x4cm blog pictures! Why do you need a D700 for any of those? In fact with your criteria you only need a P&S or bridge cam. I think it's a status thing with you Kim, you can deny it if you like but you will only be kidding yourself.
Paul has a very checkered history at the forums and in private emails, yet these comments, taken on their own, lead one to examine some interesting issues with dSLR ownership. Let’s take each comment and examine the inherent issue:
“Kim you are a die hard Nikon freak, I don't know why when you don't own any decent glass to keep you with them either!”
This is, of course, the lens lust issue. dSLR ownership drives one to get better and better lenses as the lust builds from seeing incredible results. I own several lenses that can do that for me and so have passed through the collector phase. Paul has not, buying cameras, lenses and brands indiscriminately.
I like Nikon as a system. I consider it the best overall system and the camera system that best qualifies as being for shooters. Pentax would be #2 in that area but with a much weaker system.
As for the glass I own, it is just fine. Tamron’s 28-75 2.8 is an amazing value for 1/6 to 1/8 the cost of the Nikon equivalent, because it does not give up all that much. The 70-300VR is recommended as an alternative to the hugely expensive and heavy 70-200VR and is again an amazing value for 1/5 to 1/6 the cost of the bigger lens. I also enjoy the 85 1.8D and 50 1.8D as low light lenses and a very nice 105mm 2.8 macro lens. For vacationing and some travel, I have the 18-200VR, which is a great lens on a more compact body. Decent lenses are available on a budget. Period.
“Your criteria is holiday snaps, shooting concerts and 5x4cm blog pictures! Why do you need a D700 for any of those?”
This is back to which camera to buy or own and why shoot a particular camera.
My criteria when discussing vacation lenses is holiday snaps. And I have the D300 for when I travel with that lens. The D700 is for travel with the better lenses or for shooting other sessions. The compacts -- F300 et al -- are for concerts. The blog pictures are just one place to display my image when I write.
I also own the D700 for the sheer joy of shooting it. It’s an absolutely stunning camera in the hands and people who own it never grow tired of it.
“In fact with your criteria you only need a P&S or bridge cam.”
Performance and image quality are at the heart of the bridge versus dSLR debate.
I use compacts a lot for carrying in a pocket for the odd grab shot and for concerts, where no other camera can be snuck in.
As for bridge cameras, once I am at that size of camera, I am after image quality, and bridge cameras are 4 or 5 stops behind entry dSLRs in that area. So no, I have no desire for a bridge camera. Unless I win one someday, I can never see myself buying one.
“I think it's a status thing with you Kim, you can deny it if you like but you will only be kidding yourself.”
This is where the debate really rages. The status thing.
Bridge cameras are a tiny step above compact cameras and their image quality has begun seriously lagging as sensor sizes have shrunk. They are no longer trying to compete with dSLRs on performance or image quality, but rather on lens range and gimmicky features such as high speed filming and sweep panorama. So there is no status to owning compacts and bridge cams any more …. everybody got one or the other – and some own them to supplement a more serious camera.
Regarding my own dSLRs -- millions of people own dSLRs. Many of them own far better dSLRs than I do (e.g. D7000 is better than the D300 in many ways, D3s is better then the D700 in several ways, D3x is better than anything out there.) So I fail to see how there is any extra status attached to mine. What I like is quality, and the D300 and D700 have that. They are a pleasure to shoot. I may even drop down to the D7000 from the D300 in order to reduce the size of my travel kit.
As for that preemptive strike (that I am kidding myself), well, that’s a time-honored technique in the arsenal of the weak debaters. Paul is no master debater, but as a baiter he might qualify. And his last bit of bait is just another tired set of the same old insults and arguments.
Bottom line: the bridge cam is pretty much dead for a serious shooter. Let it go …
Well, Paul has answered on DPReview. His main point is that I don't have any lenses that do the D700 justice. And that's just plain wrong. The D700's pixel density is lower than APS-C sensors and thus does not push lenses nearly as hard. So the lenses I have come out razor sharp on this body. It's a bit silly to associate price with quality that strictly.
His second point is that he cannot answer here, so he answers there. I say bollucks to that, as he already commented on a different post just this morning. Use the comment system Paul, it is threaded just like DPReview.
No comments:
Post a Comment