Money no object

Leica S2-P seems like a good setup for money no object too, 37 megapixel.

Only issue is it only goes upto 1250 ISO, but then all the lenses are F2.8 so its not a specific issue..
 
The Leica S2 is very tempting. But really going out on day 1 buying a complete new setup just because you could would be silly. I think I'd lose all points of reference. I don't have a clue how a D3 would improve my photos, and having a £1m in the bank wouldn't change that.

That said after 3 months I'd probably have bought loads of camera kit. Some of it would probably be decidedly random. But it's something that would occur as pacific challenges arose.


Really you need to get over your kit obsession, I understand this is an overclocking forum. But really it's not about the numbers, it's about the results. I'm just starting out, but having got lucky and got one alright capture of a local rapper, he's asked me to take some more pictures (I've politely declined, I'm not ready for it). I was using the Fuji S1500 that I keep in my man bag.
 
Leica MP
24mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/0.95
24mm Leica Brightline Finder
Domke F-803
Tons of film + Chemicals + Photo Paper
Nikon Coolscan 5000ED

twoblacklines said:
Leica S2-P seems like a good setup for money no object too, 37 megapixel.

Only issue is it only goes upto 1250 ISO, but then all the lenses are F2.8 so its not a specific issue..
Click to expand...

If the S2 is anything like the M8 (not sure about the M9) then they'll be a third of a stop more sensitive than they say, so 1250 would be 1600 in real terms.
 
Last edited:
twoblacklines said:
No one seems interested in wide angle photography from your replies ?

Personally

D3
17-35 F2.8
24-70 F2.8
200-400 F4.

The reason ? 17 is plenty wide on FF...

24-70 on FF is perfectly for walk about and portraits

and 200-400 is perfect for wildlife photography, ofcourse you would have full gitzo support and teleconverters available to you...
Click to expand...


14-24 is on my list but if money was really no objetc I would own both the 14-24 and 17-35. And if I had one any reasonable amount of money I would also have a set of medium and large format cameras, some digital medium format, and specialist like the Fuji 6X17 ultimate panoramic camera.

Forget 35mm fullframe digital sensors when you can have 180mm film and 200 Megapixels of fuji Velvia!
 
I'd probably stick with Canon:

1D mkIV
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 IS mkII
300 f2.8 mk II

1.4x TC
2.0x TC

...and a whole lot of filters, tripod, bag(s), straps 'n stuff and strobist gear. Just 3 lenses is tough.
 
D.P. said:
14-24 is on my list but if money was really no objetc I would own both the 14-24 and 17-35.
Click to expand...

Meh, it's too specialized to be one of such a small number unless you have a specific requirement for it in my view, problems with filters don't help either. Besides, 16mm on FX is the equiv of 11mm on DX, which is easily wide enough...
 
twoblacklines said:
You have to choose one camera, 3 lenses, and any other accessories.
Click to expand...

1Ds3
85mm f1.2
200mm f2.0 IS
800mm f5.6 IS
Tall Gitzo carbon
Wimberley II
17" MacBook Pro
Lightroom
---------
10 stop FD
Several Sandisk Extreme Pro 64GB
CS5
20TB storage array

The line marks the distinction between fact and fantasy.

Andrew
 
Nikon D3X
Nikon 16-35mm f4 (Until Nikon release a 14-24mm that can take 77mm filters)
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8
Nikon 500mm f4

Nikon 1.4X TC
Nikon 1.7X TC
Nikon 2X TC

Lee Pro Filter Kit
0.3 Soft Grad
0.6 Soft Grad
0.9 Soft Grad
0.3 Hard Grad
0.6 Hard Grad
0.9 Hard Grad
Lee Big Stopper ND
Lee 1 Stop ND
Lee 2 Stop ND
Lee 4 Stop ND
Lee 8 Stop ND
105mm B&W Kasemann CPL

Gitzo 3540XLS
Wimberley gimbal head
RRS BH-55 head
Gitzo 1541T
Markins Q3T Head
 
Saw some sigma 500mm on the jessops site for 24k the other day I think, I'd probably see what the fuss was about!
 
bigredshark said:
Meh, it's too specialized to be one of such a small number unless you have a specific requirement for it in my view, problems with filters don't help either. Besides, 16mm on FX is the equiv of 11mm on DX, which is easily wide enough...
Click to expand...

14-24 is not really that specialised. 14mm is wide yes, but not much more than 10mm on Nikon DX which I use a lot. Maybe you don't need 2.8, and maybe the lens is big heavy and expensive, etc. The point is From 14 to 24mm the Nikon 14-24 is sharper from corner to corner than basicaly any other lens in existence. Sharperns than the best Nikon, Canon, Zeisse, Leicia primes in the range. It makes the Canon 16-35 look like a consumer toy zoom.
IF you want he best 20mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. If you want the best 18mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. If you want the best 16mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. If you want the best 14mm lens for 35mm film the Nikon 14-24 is the best tool. etc.


Filters smilters. On Digitsl there are very few filters you really need. And You can now buy adapaters to put filtrs on the 14-24. Things like Circ Pol don't make much sense at 14mm anyway.
 
I'd go for

Nikon D3X
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8
Nikkor 85mm f/1.4
Nikkor 200-400 f/4.

and various TC and filters


If I could have this lot it would last my lifetime.
 
Three lenses isn't exactly forcing people to be choosy! You should have said one, two at the most.

If I'm having one:

D700
Nikon 24mm f/1.4 AF-S

...two:
D700
Nikon 24mm f/1.4 AF-S
Nikon 85mm f/1.4

...three:
D700
Nikon 24mm f/1.4 AF-S
Nikon 85mm f/1.4
Nikon 14-24mm

I never really shoot longer than the equivalent of 85mm on a 35mm body, I like wide angle, I like low light, I like good build quality but not in a full-size body. That setup is absolute perfection for me (or would be with the updated 85mm f/1.4 that's been coming "soon" for years now). Actually if we're being picky I'd probably trade the 24mm f/1.4 for an AF-S 35mm f/1.4, but that doesn't exist so I'll deign to make do with this :)
 
Ok :)

One : D3X + 17-35mm F2.8

Two : D3X + 17-35mm F2.8 + 70-200mm F2.8

Then again D3s for sport and D3X for landscape.

It got me thinking earlier, the 1dmk4 AF motor is much better than the D3s, but the D3s iso is far better than the 1dmk4, both in the way you select your iso and the iso performance. So what if you were a war correspondent ? Combat photography..high iso needed for low light, but super fast af needed for combat action... what has best of both ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom