i dont really get camera nerding. you can take perfectly good pictures with an average slr, unless you're doing it as a profession, then youve got an excuse to spend lots of money. im sure its a pretty good camera though

yeah who cares about hobbies, i mean, who likes to buy cool stuff.

lenses are more important then bodies.

exactly

like saying front wheels are more important then back wheels

Like having no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Like you.

How retarded do you have to be to say that one of the two
components without which the other is useless is 'more important'?
The body\sensor is what determines the speed and resolution of the image. One limits the other just the same. A 6mp image might look fine with some kit lens, yet that same lens will look bad on 10mp sensor, and the 6mp sensor would not make use the detail provided by a professional lens, and this isn't going into sensor sensitivity(fine IQ on canon at 1600), dynamic range of the Fuji sensors, color reproduction, etc. Case in point, Olympus 'four thirds' lenses are great glass, but with the smaller sensor you can't physically achieve same shallow DOF as on a FF body, not to mention they're also noisy. In the end the IQ and flexibility of the camera is worse then the Nikon/Canon counterpart at same price.
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

hey i'm going to buy an expensive camera and lenses take some macro photos of flowers beside the shopping centre then put them on my flickr page do u like them look at the detail

They look nice. The new Canon EOS D40 as well, 3" screen, 6.5FPS 10 megapixels, live view etc.. D200 killer, but now D300 is out :P

An of course the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III with 21.1 megapixels, competing with medium format cameras :P only it has 5 FPS, the medium formats have 1FPS Or so IIRC.

I wonder how the K1D does next year.

Very happy with my K10D though :D

do you really need all that stuff? isnt it kinda.. overkill

Depends what you use it for. For animal and sports high FPS is very good of course. For portaits and landscape high resolution is nice, but they're not even close to what analog 4x5 or 8x10 cameras can do, so they'll probably still be used a lot for that (landscape and architecture).

But with my 10 megapixel camera i can print out at 91cm*61cm and it looks really good, so for my use this camera is good enough :) I will try to get hold of an analog medium format though =)

ah, i imagine its good for printing

4x5 and 8x10 is awsome :) Really hope I can get a 4x5 :) Love landscape/outdoor photography and big prints :) Good combination for details.

Poster size to print is really expensive though :(

Depends. On deviant ART you get really cheap prints if you buy your own :P And it's very high quality. Really good photo paper even at full size (91cm*61cm).

depends on your university.
~6 Euro here :)

hi did we mention it takes photos too?!

Yeah, it's quite awesome. 40D changes were easy to predict and expected. 1Diii is also pretty much as expected, you can literally print a poster at full 300dpi resolution. I have to wonder though the optics can actually resolve that well? Probably explains the new lens versions. Anyway, It's just that the full frame nikon just sort of floored me.

can i take a picture of myself in the bathroom mirror with it?

why would you do that?

.

.

aye my n95 is more then enough for pictures, even tho there is photographic lag and no optical zoom

Nah, not quite. The more you can control when you take pictures (aperture, shutterspeed ISO speed, focal length, focus), the more free you are to get the photographs you want. So it's more correct to say that any DSLR camera will do, but a better one makes it easier to get what you want, it lasts longer and it works faster.

Image quality comes mostly from good lenses, so putting money in that is good if you crave closer to perfect photographs, or more versatile one lenses makes things even easier.

The size matters a lot, and weight. Too big and it's hard to hold for a long period of time, to light, and it's harder to hold it steady when not using a tripod/monopod etc.. The better erconomics, the more comfortable you are holding it as well. This is more personal preference than other things of course. To me the D40/x, 350D/400D are too small, the 300D, D80, D200, K10D and the top models are very good shapes and sizes for me.

If you use your camera a lot, it's more important of course, just like with gaming gear.

But not having good gear doesn't mean you can't take good photographs. You can do that with pretty much any camera, it's just easier and more comfortable with better equipment :)

I have a friend with an old Canon EOS 300D, with very good optics, and he gets some amazing photographs that are very sharp. Only reason he wants a 40D now, is extra features, bigger screen and more speed, and it can use his current lenses.

.

rofl

i didnt say that. i said a good slr is more than capable of taking very good shots

That's becasue you've probably only had access to mass produced digi cams that use CCD or CMOS to process the images and it's harder to notice.

If you upgrade to SLR (assuming it's a modern one with auto features) you will doubtless notice the difference if you put the shots side by side even if you have no idea of how to take a pic other than pressing a button.

.

and what if you take them as hobby on a holiday?

this post might blow dird's brain

hahaa

you can tell the difference, in every camera you shoot with. people forget that maybe 5-6 years ago digital photography was very expensive and not very good at all. digital has simply blown film out of the water currently and with organisations and publishing houses wanting images RIGHT NOW not in a weeks time has pushed the boundries of digital imaging, i think its a good thing because as long as companies are striving to out do each other the older cameras they have developed get cheaper and more accessable to the masses and thats nothing but a good thing!

Digital SLR has done that for film SLR, not digital or large format for film medium or large format. Unless you cound scanning backs vs. film medium format :P

give it 6-7 years!!

Of course =) But not yet.

Scanning backs can have close to 200 megapixels, and pure pixels (they scan in three colors for every pixel that ends up in the image), no interpolation, the same goes for analog, no interpolation, any digital camera today with a single image sensor has interpolation, so the pixel number they report are not the actual amount. The Sigma way is better, but they still interpolate, so no real gain in quality.