Poll: D3s+18-55 kit lens OR D90+17-55 2.8 lens?

D3s+18-55 or D90+17-55

  • D3s+18-55 kit lens

    Votes: 20 51.3%

  • D90 + 17-55 2.8 lens

    Votes: 19 48.7%
  • Total voters
    39
scottcampbell

scottcampbell

Messages
812
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Would you go for...

D3s + 18-55 kit lens

- OR -

D90 + 17-55 2.8

This is purely hypothetical.
 
Er....isn't the 18-55 kit lens a DX lens :thinking: would be like sticking remoulds on a Porsche


D300 with 17-55 .....or


Fuji S5Pro with 17-55 are my current options
 
foggy4ever said:
Er....isn't the 18-55 kit lens a DX lens :thinking: would be like sticking remoulds on a Porsche


D300 with 17-55 .....or


Fuji S5Pro with 17-55 are my current options
Click to expand...

Let's imagine it isn't a DX lens ;) we're in the land of hypotheticallity here, remember?!

What would you choose out of the two though?
 
Hmmm well I chose a D90 and better lenses over D300 and 1 kit type lens, so I guess my choice is already made! Although a D3 is obviously much posher.. but then DX sensors are perfectly good and they say the lenses matter more..

That said... if I knew in a couple of months I'd have another load of money to spend, I may have gone with the D3 and not so good lenses.

So I guess for me it would depend on cash flow after the initial purchase!
 
Why the hell would you buy a £3k body and stick a £100 lens (DX or not) on it? High-end (D300 and up) Nikon bodies crucify cheap glass. It really is a Porsche-on-remoulds scenario.

Simple answer? Glass first, body second. So the D90/17-55 combo for me.
 
Hypothetically, D3s+Cheap kit lens. Because I've already got nice glass I can replace it with right away. :)
 
scottcampbell said:
Let's imagine it isn't a DX lens ;) we're in the land of hypotheticallity here, remember?!

What would you choose out of the two though?
Click to expand...

If you mean an equivalent FX kit lens, eg cheap 28-85ish or so, then that would beat the cropper hands down on IQ regardless. Big format always wins.
 
Neither:
D3s and 24-70mm - anything else is just...:shrug:
 
He's back. :D
 
i thought that when online Itallics denoted an Austrian accent :thinking:
like capitals = SHOUTING :p:lol:
 
maybe, but you'll be back to normal in a few days :)

i find a long list of chores will go some way to easing any premenstrual tension :thumbs:
 
Hmmm, top end body and entry level lens or mid range body and top end lens?

Would it not be an idea to take the top end body and then buy a decent lens? It would be cheaper then the other option initially.

A 50mm 1.4 would do me nicely if I had to start from scratch ;)
 
I just couldn't justify spending that much on a body and use a budget lens on it. Always go for better glass in my opinion. Only buy bodies because you NEED the features.
 
Arkady said:
Not as Austrian...
Click to expand...
Someone called for me?
4427091283_5171201e39_s.jpg


I'd take the D90 and good glass.
 
daugirdas said:
D3s + cheap but good prime if you must. D90 with good will easily destroy anything else. With LR3 even my 40D now shines at ISO1600 with 1/2 stop undexposure.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought 1/2 stop overexposure would reduce noise at high ISO's far more effectively.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I'd have thought 1/2 stop overexposure would reduce noise at high ISO's far more effectively.
Click to expand...

But when he's underexposed by 1/2 a stop and has to pull it back in LR3, then the noise reduction shines - I think that's what he was getting at.


I really don't see the point in these 'hypothetical' scenarios. It's never going to happen (in most of the real world), it's a bit of a pointless scenario as has been stated, you wouldn't put a DX lens in front of a FX body - if you were that skint after buying the D3s you'd go and buy a nice 'cheap' 50mm prime or something.

Trolling?
 
Impspeed said:
But when he's underexposed by 1/2 a stop and has to pull it back in LR3, then the noise reduction shines - I think that's what he was getting at.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though...I never am :D
 
By the way, I'm not planning on purchasing either of these combinations but I thought it would be interesting to see responses!
 
Would you not run the risk of losing shadow detail by under exposing? I'd +exp and bring it down in PP, rather than the other way round.
 
Arkady said:
No, I'm 'Crimson-Tiding' now apparently...
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....

Spin up missiles one through five, and twenty through twenty-four. The release of nuclear weapons has been authorized. This is not a drill.

Rob's going nuclear on someone :)
 
Arkady said:
Neither:
D3s and 24-70mm - anything else is just...:shrug:
Click to expand...

Not only is he back but he's right. Sticking a Dx kit lens (and not the best of them at that) on the front of any FF body is just wrong! Not just remould on Porsche wrong but Mini/Beetle/500 wrong.
 
im guessing using my mentalist powers, that you are stuck in a conundrum where you could have a brilliant body and bog standard lens or a lesser quality body with a brilliant lens, well if i was you i would go for the 2nd option for a lesser body and better lens.
 
How about this then:

Canon 5D2 (£1700) with 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 (£300)
or
Canon 7D (£1200) with 17-55mm 2.8 (£800)

Both within a couple of quid of £2k - invest in camera or glass? Which combo has the best IQ?

5D2. Easy. FF sensor is 2.5x bigger.
 
D3s and cheap lens as I already have some quality glass anyway! :D
 
mastertrinity said:
im guessing using my mentalist powers, that you are stuck in a conundrum where you could have a brilliant body and bog standard lens or a lesser quality body with a brilliant lens, well if i was you i would go for the 2nd option for a lesser body and better lens.
Click to expand...

This is true, however, its made more complex if you perceive FX as the format for you - there are no cheap FX bodies.

However, to go with your D700/D3 you do really need the nano-coated bliss of the 24-70 or 70-200 or 300 2.8 (or 400 2.8 if you have big biceps and even bigger pockets).

If there was a cheaper (than D700) FX body, then certainly, thats the answer and if we were talking a comparison between say a D40 with top glass and a D300 with cheap glass, the answer would be easy.
 
What would the MP rating be on a D3s in DX crop mode out of interest?.....14mp? 15mp?

Would also like to know what the DoF wide open would be with a FF body and a f/3.5 kit lens and a DX body with a f/2.8 lens.... narrower or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top