Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

[QUOTE=garychencool;43393419]Since were on the topic of how much photos shot, how about digitally?[/QUOTE] I shot at least 10,000 digital images on DSLRs, phones, tablets, point and shoots... Probably around 15-20,000

I think it's weird that all cameras don't do this. [t]http://i.imgur.com/jU8vIzi.jpg[/t] Anyway, that's about roughly what I had for 2013. (got the camera around new years)

mine is sitting at 23,000 and it's two years old [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] 15,000 photos and 7500 live view shots [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] [IMG]http://f.cl.ly/items/113S42090k000y162107/VRAM0.BMP[/IMG]

[QUOTE=bopie;43394485]I think it's weird that all cameras don't do this. [t]http://i.imgur.com/jU8vIzi.jpg[/t] Anyway, that's about roughly what I had for 2013. (got the camera around new years)[/QUOTE] mmm 1dx All cameras should...

i mean there are websites to do it from a photo EXIF data shuttercounter.com says im at 1841, but the camera came with like 1400

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;43394157]I took about 1000 in 2013. Enough to fit on 1 battery charge on a D90.[/QUOTE] Digitally I'm about the same, only remember having to charge my digital once and that was because of the 32gb of filming I did in Venice. I really don't like shooting digi though. Film wise: 1 Roll of Ilford HP5+, 12 Rolls of Vista 200, 2 Dispos shooting on Fujicolour 200, 2 Rolls of 120 HP5+ and probably 3 Rolls of 120 FP4+

aunt gave me this polaroid 1000 earlier, awesome [url=http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/11718688375_55a0d2c75d_o.jpg][IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/11718688375_ac3361dd2c_z.jpg[/IMG][/url] [editline]2nd January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=garychencool;43393419]Since were on the topic of how much photos shot, how about digitally?[/QUOTE] 8388 in the space of just under two months. 77 out of those i deemed worth putting on my flickr

[QUOTE=dwt110;43394773]i mean there are websites to do it from a photo EXIF data shuttercounter.com says im at 1841, but the camera came with like 1400[/QUOTE] Does that website work for phone photos?

4 rolls, 2 on my plastic tlr from photojojo and 2 on my minolta. 0 developed as of yet. probably less than a hundred digital shots if you don't count all the stuff i did for school projects

[QUOTE=garychencool;43395146]Does that website work for phone photos?[/QUOTE] no, phone pics dont have any info regarding that at least for my iphone 5

i think about 5 rolls of film, i have 3 digi cams so i've got not even a remote clue on that front.

hm let's see. probably 10+ rolls of AGFA Vista 200, about 4 rolls of AGFA Vista 400, 3 rolls of both Kodak Tmax-400 and Tri-x 400 and a roll of BW400CN, Ilford FP4+, HP5+ (x2), Delta 3200 (x2) and roll of Delta 400.

I can buy this for 385$ Nikon D90 Speedlight SB-600 Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED (kitlens, I believe) Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX ED Nikkor Lens Comparing this to a Canon 550D with the kitlens and the classic 1,8 lens. Which one is better? The price should be a no-brainer. The value is of course loads better than the asking price. But 385$ is not an amount I am GLAD to pay, really. [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] And if I were to buy the Nikon D90 it would be for photography only. I use the 550D at work, so the D90 would probably replace my photography outside of work.

who had the idea to buy an 18-105 and 18-300

no idea. But is it a deal I should go for or not? I am having a very hard time deciding :s

yeah and then get rid of either the 18-300 or 18-105 [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] which 18-300 is it? [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] is it the 18-300 VR that costs $1000 new?

[QUOTE=dwt110;43403057]yeah and then get rid of either the 18-300 or 18-105 [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] which 18-300 is it? [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] is it the 18-300 VR that costs $1000 new?[/QUOTE] yea, or well more like 700-800$

18-200 you mean?

[QUOTE=dwt110;43403122]18-200 you mean?[/QUOTE] Nah it's precisely this one [url]http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-300mm-3-5-5-6G-AF-S-Nikkor/dp/B008B14VAK[/url] Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX Nikkor Lens

all that for under $400 there has to be some error or something? you could probably sell the lenses and camera body and buy like a D7000 and some nice glass instead

well it's a relative and he's being very nice selling them to me for such a price :) he's basically giving up photography (he's around 60-70 years old iirc) and he thought of me because I do photography myself

if I were you id sell the two lenses since they have a massive range overlap and buy a few nice primes and a zoom, or you could sell the D90 and get a newer body but honestly the D90 is fine. Someone I know who is a semi-pro uses a 10 year old D70

does anyone here know anything about the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC? my friend has the non-vc version and he likes it and reading some of the reviews for it, it has good reviews for what it is (a kit lens replacement), and most of them were written when it cost $500, now its only $340 [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] gee and I thought the names of some nikons were a mouthful "Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]" [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] or the non-vc idk im all ears

Having vc would be worth it in general, unless it's ridiculously over priced.

[QUOTE=dwt110;43405144]does anyone here know anything about the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC? my friend has the non-vc version and he likes it and reading some of the reviews for it, it has good reviews for what it is (a kit lens replacement), and most of them were written when it cost $500, now its only $340 [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] gee and I thought the names of some nikons were a mouthful "Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF]" [editline]3rd January 2014[/editline] or the non-vc idk im all ears[/QUOTE] I read some reviews a few years ago that said the non VC version was much sharper than the VC one. Not sure if this was the same exact lens but it was the 17-50 2.8 vc/non vc Regarding photos taken in 2013, only got my 6D in june and it's already at 60679 actuations, including my 60D beforehand its probably over 100k for 2013. Seems a lot I guess but I work ~4 nights a week as a photographer which works out to about 480 per job which is about right.

posted in off topic, but this is more relevant. thoughts on the 6D vs a 5D2, if price isn't relevant

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;43405537]posted in off topic, but this is more relevant. thoughts on the 6D vs a 5D2, if price isn't relevant[/QUOTE] Well aside from price as I posted in off topic, it's better than the 5d2 in pretty much every aspect, and is closer in overall performance to the 5d3 than 2 imo. I also believe it's central point focuses in low light better than the 5d3 but I might be wrong. I think the only advantage of the 5d2 is it goes to 1/8000 shutter, 6D is 1/4000. 6D takes SD cards which I far prefer as they're a lot cheaper but some people prefer CF. Other than that I don't really know what to say, if you can get the 6D over the 5D2 without the price being an issue, I don't see why anyone would get the 5d2.

only difference is the max write speed, the SD controller is limited to 45mb/s which is fine until you try rock raw video, which is the only way the 5D2 might exceed the 6D.

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;43405537]posted in off topic, but this is more relevant. thoughts on the 6D vs a 5D2, if price isn't relevant[/QUOTE] I'd get the 6D, played with it in the past couple of months and I like it.

[QUOTE=garychencool;43406020]I'd get the 6D, played with it in the past couple of months and I like it.[/QUOTE] gonna go into a shop and try it out a bit. i did get a bit of wrist fatigue holding a 5D2 for a few hours on end.