# What camera? $7000.



## Village Idiot (Apr 2, 2008)

Just a bit of a question. If you had $7000-$8000, what camera would you buy? A 40D? An XTI? A 1DSMKIII?

At this point, I think I'd buy a 16mp digital back made by Hasselblad. Really, when you have this much money to spend, wouldn't you really stop and think twice about buying a 22mp FF DSLR when you could purchase a MF digital camera?


----------



## plentygood (Apr 2, 2008)

I'd probably buy a Canon 5D and spend the remaining $5000 on some nice lenses and lighting setups. Most people I've heard say lenses are more important than bodies in the long run and I don't really forsee me needing or even wanting a camera of the Mark caliber.


----------



## Steph (Apr 2, 2008)

An Ebony SW45, a couple of Schneider lenses (72mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL, 90mm f5.6 Super Angulon XL and 150mm f5.6 Super Symmar XL) and a few sheets of Velvia. Really, when you have this much money to spend, would you really stop and think twice about buying a MF digital camera when you could purchase a camera as beautiful as an Ebony with those superb lenses?


----------



## Helen B (Apr 2, 2008)

Well, at current prices you could get a Sinar P2 and a bunch of the finest DB-mounted lenses and every Sinar gizmo you ever dreamed of.

Steph's suggestion of the Ebony is a good one, though you could substitute a Chamonix 45 instead and save quite a bit of money (unless they start selling them for what they are worth) which you could spend on other lenses (the good LF lenses are selling second-hand at about the same as new) and a Sinar Zoom 2 rollfilm back.

But what would I buy? I'd spend the cash on a Gilde panorama/stereo camera. No doubt about that. 

Best,
Helen


----------



## JIP (Apr 2, 2008)

I guess it really depends on what you plan to do with everything.  For me, being a wedding photographer I might consider buying a D3 and 1 mabye 2 decent lenses to supplement what I have.  Really, right now that ain't a whole heck of alot of mone i the grand scheme of things when it comes to photography when you consider a top-end body like a D3 will set you back 5 Grand or an EOS 1DS mk III will cost $7999.  But again if you are a wedding photographer your priorities will be different from a person who strictly shoots studio portraits.


----------



## Stranger (Apr 2, 2008)

you could be happy with what you have and donate the $7000 to my college fund for next semester 



Or, buy a D3 70-200 2.8 VR  28-75 2.8, 14-24 (i think? maybe 28) 2.8 (any combination of these + lighting if needed)


----------



## solrac8126 (Apr 2, 2008)

well 
if i had that money and no camera i'll get
a 5d with it's battery grip, a 16-35 2.8  a 24-70 2.8 a 70-200 2.8 a spedlite  580ex ii 4gb cards (2)  and i think that's more than 5k  i'll have to strech to get another flash and some pocketwizards 
maybe a 285hv which is cheap and great, a tripod a couple of light stands and umbrellas

oh sorry i forgot... you need a card reader!!! a fast one


----------



## Iron Flatline (Apr 2, 2008)

My goodness, for that price you can barely get a Leica M8 and a decent lens. I like the 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit, or the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux.


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (Apr 2, 2008)

I'd get....

Sony Alpha A700 Body $1300 = $1300
50mm f/1.4 $300 = $1600
28mm f/2.8 Wide Angle $250 = $1850
50mm f/2.8 Macro $400 = $2250
HVL56AM Flash $300 = $2550
2 HVL36AM $325 = $2875
HVLRLAM Macro Ringlight $250 = $3025
2 SanDisk 8GB Extreme III Memory $200 = $3225

And I'd put the rest ($3000-$4000) in a bank to save for the new Sony Full frame model because I'd have all the accessories and two backup bodies.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 2, 2008)

I'd probably go for a pair of 40D and spend the rest on glass and flashes.  But if the successor to the 5D was available...that might be an option.


----------



## christopher walrath (Apr 2, 2008)

Yeah, I go for the Hassy.


----------



## MX962 (Apr 2, 2008)

40D and good glass


----------



## keith204 (Apr 2, 2008)

5D, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 17-40 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and a couple more strobes.

And a realllly big bag to hold my current stuff, plus this.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Apr 2, 2008)

I'd stick with my D300 and get a 200-400mm f/4 and a really nice Bowens lighting set up or something.


----------



## usayit (Apr 2, 2008)

All you guys talking about Hassy's with digital backs... $7000 is not even close to enough.  
:raisedbrow:


----------



## MX962 (Apr 2, 2008)

usayit said:


> All you guys talking about Hassy's with digital backs... $7000 is not even close to enough.
> :raisedbrow:


I think its close to half


----------



## JIP (Apr 3, 2008)

ChickenFriedRyce said:


> I'd get....
> 
> Sony Alpha A700 Body $1300 = $1300
> 50mm f/1.4 $300 = $1600
> ...


 
Come on now your just being silly. If you have_ real_ money you buy a _real _camera not an electronics company toy.


----------



## Battou (Apr 3, 2008)

I think I would be hard pressed to spend $7000-$8000..... I have little use for a modern camera so I would be spending most of it on Glass.

What would it take to buy all FD lenses ever made....I'd prolly have some change left. :lmao:


----------



## Helen B (Apr 3, 2008)

JIP said:


> Come on now your just being silly. If you have_ real_ money you buy a _real _camera not an electronics company toy.



The first time I used a 'toy' camera from that electronics company was in 1985. Even then it cost rather more than $7,000 (it cost rather more than $70,000, in fact). Sony have been among the world leaders in electronic camera systems for many years.

Best,
Helen


----------



## usayit (Apr 3, 2008)

hehehe... I agree with Helen..

I guess JIP also thinks the sensors Sony makes are also toys


----------



## solrac8126 (Apr 3, 2008)

JIP said:


> Come on now your just being silly. If you have_ real_ money you buy a _real _camera not an electronics company toy.



:lmao::thumbup:
i've used a a100 and it's worst than my xti, it's horrible! if i feel the xti feels like a toy the a100 is .... well i have no words...
the worst part is that it cost more than the xti....

i did had a sony p&s was great but as a p&s, i don't like much of the stuff sony makes, it's like to commercial....  like head and shoulders ???? hahha
I do like vaio computers tv's , monitors, but i guess that's about it.


----------



## JIP (Apr 3, 2008)

Now now now I never said (or meant to say) anything abou their electronics I just meat the bandwagon jumping of their DSLR's.  And besides it's just my opinion anyone can get whatever they want.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 3, 2008)

JIP said:


> ...anyone can get whatever they want.


Well, in that case, I'd buy an 18-200VR for each of ten friends!


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 3, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Well, in that case, I'd buy an 18-200VR for each of ten friends!


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!

I'd pick up a D3 and a single lens... that 18-200 you talk about sounds incredible, Socrates! :lmao:
(not kidding about the D3... but I was about the 18-200.  I already have that... lmao!)


----------



## JIP (Apr 3, 2008)

Come on Soc now _your _being silly.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 3, 2008)

If I added a 30 infront of that 7, I could afford this back

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/519133-REG/Hasselblad_70370527_CF_39MS_Digital_Back.html

Then I'd still have to buy the camera.


----------



## RKW3 (Apr 3, 2008)

Well a D3 sounds really appealing to me..


----------



## D-50 (Apr 3, 2008)

JIP is right on about Sony.  I just dont feel there stuff is as good as Nikon or Canon gear.  I shoot Nikon so with $8000 I would go with a D3 and some really nice glass or a decent lighting set-up, no need to buy a bunch of mediocre gear.


----------



## passerby (Apr 3, 2008)

The money is not the determining factor in producing good pictures nor is the reason for buying what or which camera - really.

Buying camera - or anything else for that matter - is base on the need. I am very certain that I don't need other camera beside my current Nikon D40. I *do* want to have other camera, *my heart* says so and I have the money to buy another. But my logic calculation tells me it is a false desire.

It took me more than a month before I decided to buy the 50mm f1.8 I have now for a week. I don't need this 50mm on daily basis, but my calculation stated that I don't lose much by buying this lens. And sooner or later I will use it when the need of speed arises someday.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 3, 2008)

usayit said:


> hehehe... I agree with Helen..
> 
> I guess JIP also thinks the sensors Sony makes are also toys



I wonder if he knows that Sony built the sensor that's in his camera.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 3, 2008)

JIP said:


> Come on Soc now _your _being silly.



No.


----------



## JIP (Apr 3, 2008)

passerby said:


> The money is not the determining factor in producing good pictures nor is the reason for buying what or which camera - really.
> 
> Buying camera - or anything else for that matter - is base on the need. I am very certain that I don't need other camera beside my current Nikon D40. I *do* want to have other camera, *my heart* says so and I have the money to buy another. But my logic calculation tells me it is a false desire.
> 
> It took me more than a month before I decided to buy the 50mm f1.8 I have now for a week. I don't need this 50mm on daily basis, but my calculation stated that I don't lose much by buying this lens. And sooner or later I will use it when the need of speed arises someday.


 
Are you kidding???? the whole economy of the US is based on "wants" over needs. If we made all our purchase based on things we "need" there would hardly _be_ a DSLR out there let alone flat screen TV's or surround sound stereo SUVs etc. etc. etc.....


----------



## usayit (Apr 3, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I wonder if he knows that Sony built the sensor that's in his camera.



Hence the motive behind my post... 

Actually... I shot with the A100 for a short while (demo unit).. it was good.  Personally, I would take it over the Rebel (and I'm a Canon shooter.. don't like rebels).  I had a similar Sony A100 debate with a buddy of mine.  He thought the A100 was bad but yet a few moments later said the Konica Minolta 5D was "ok".  Go figure...

Its the name that bother's people... Sony's experience, technology, R&D budget should make them a leader.  So far, their biggest mistake was in part.. marketing and price setting.


----------



## peterbj7 (Apr 3, 2008)

As I love my 5D I'd be tempted to save up a bit more and get a 1Ds III.

I know Sony are leaders in design, but I always have a problem with buying anything with their name on.  I have had too many expensive Sony products that have failed early on and Sony wouldn't stand by them.


----------



## Frequent Traveler (Apr 4, 2008)

For the $7,000 - $8,000 i'd buy the AF Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8, OS Minolta 80-200mm G f2.8 and the Sony A900 when it comes out. Remembering that Sony dSLR cameras are significantly influenced by former Minolta engineers is comforting.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 4, 2008)

Easy, sell everything I've got and add a few thousand to the mix. 

THAN, I'd get:

2 D300's 
D40 kit 
17-55 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 AF-S
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
1 SB-800, at least 5 SB-600's, light stands, umbrellas.

The rest would be spent on business cards.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 4, 2008)

usayit said:


> Hence the motive behind my post...
> 
> Actually... I shot with the A100 for a short while (demo unit).. it was good. Personally, I would take it over the Rebel (and I'm a Canon shooter.. don't like rebels). I had a similar Sony A100 debate with a buddy of mine. He thought the A100 was bad but yet a few moments later said the Konica Minolta 5D was "ok". Go figure...
> 
> Its the name that bother's people... Sony's experience, technology, R&D budget should make them a leader. So far, their biggest mistake was in part.. marketing and price setting.


 
If Sony plays their cards right, the "big two" will become the "big three."


----------



## JimmyO (Apr 4, 2008)

If i had 7 grand i would buy 50 P&S cameras and give them to unique people and have a group on FLickr in which they contributed exclusively. And every month have a theme.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 4, 2008)

passerby said:


> The money is not the determining factor in producing good pictures


 
So if some one that is an accomplished photographer is given a $400 d40 and a $40,000 Hasselblad, the pictures from the Hasselblad wouldn't turn out better?

I know it's the photographer that makes the picture, but at some point the equipment because paramount in producing that picture. 12bit color depth vs. 48bit. 6mp vs. 39mp. A medium format 35mmx35mm sensor vs. a 1.5x crop sensor.

Yeah, the money you spend on a camera in that case would determine which picture produced is better.


----------



## notelliot (Apr 4, 2008)

5 profoto mono heads, 4 booms, one 13' stand. 3 of the largest softboxes i could find, 2 shoot-through umbrellas, a pile of reflectors and a generator. i guess i'd need 3 more pocket wizards, too. 

the change, whatever it would be, i'd spend on hookers and blow.


----------



## skiboarder72 (Apr 4, 2008)

D3 + 14mm + 80-400mm vr + 16gb card


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 4, 2008)

notelliot said:


> 5 profoto mono heads, 4 booms, one 13' stand. 3 of the largest softboxes i could find, 2 shoot-through umbrellas, a pile of reflectors and a generator. i guess i'd need 3 more pocket wizards, too.
> 
> the change, whatever it would be, i'd spend on hookers and blow.


 
What would NPH do?


----------



## notelliot (Apr 4, 2008)

he'd get jealous.


----------



## dleblanc (Apr 4, 2008)

I'd buy more lenses and just one decent body. But I don't have all that money. So I have my D40 and nifty fifty. :-D


----------



## Socrates (Apr 4, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> So if some one that is an accomplished photographer is given a $400 d40 and a $40,000 Hasselblad, the pictures from the Hasselblad wouldn't turn out better?
> 
> I know it's the photographer that makes the picture, but at some point the equipment because paramount in producing that picture. 12bit color depth vs. 48bit. 6mp vs. 39mp. A medium format 35mmx35mm sensor vs. a 1.5x crop sensor.
> 
> Yeah, the money you spend on a camera in that case would determine which picture produced is better.


 
Like you, I'm tired of the cliche that alleges that "it's the photographer, not the equipment."  That's bull!  Both the photographer and the equipment constitute limiting factors.  If _either one_ is crappy, the resulting photo will be crappy.  Many cite Ansel Adams and I always reply that there was a damned good reason why he did not shoot with a Kodak Brownie.


----------



## JimmyO (Apr 4, 2008)

Well i really feel that it depends on the desired outcome. If your doing professional studio work, you will get better results with a nice camera. But if your doing creative work you are probably just as good with a disposable camera


----------



## JIP (Apr 4, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Easy, sell everything I've got and add a few thousand to the mix.
> 
> THAN, I'd get:
> 
> ...


 
The best answer I heard all day.  Am man after my own heart.


----------



## JIP (Apr 4, 2008)

Socrates said:


> If Sony plays their cards right, the "big two" will become the "big three."


 

:lmao::lmao::lmao::smileys::smileys::smileys::lmao::lmao::lmao:​ 
Now that has to be the funniest thing I have heard all day. Man!!! I have tears in my eyes and my sides hurt I laughed so hard.​ 
Oh yes I am aware Sony currently makes sensors for certain Nikon cameras which changes nothing in my opinion. It is the entire system that matters glass included and don't try the "Sony uses Zeiss glass" on me the put a sticker on their lenses that Zeiss tells them they can use.​


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 5, 2008)

JIP said:


> The best answer I heard all day.  Am man after my own heart.


lol, only if I had $7000 and learned how to sell myself! :lmao:


----------



## usayit (Apr 5, 2008)

Please point out where you found that information, JIP (in regards to Zeiss).  You seem so sure about it.  

You won't see Panasonic branded lenses on Leica's website but Zeiss has the full catalog of "Zeiss" lenses specified as "for Sony" on theirs.  I know it isn't definitive but I'm just wondering...  Is the Sony/Zeiss line more like Sigma (by Sigma for X) or more like branding re-stick?

I own a couple ZM lenses and their build quality is pretty obvious (nice).  I'd like to see a Zeiss/Sony lens in person just to see if the build quality is up to the same standards.  I have also seen a Zeiss ZK lenses "for Pentax" and I can tell you that it isn't made by Pentax and neither is the ZF for nikon stuff.  Two examples that show business decisions/behavior that are counter to your statements. 

Btw.... The word is that Leica provided the design for Panasonic's lenses but the glass is actually manufactured elsewhere.  Just clearing that up before you head in that direction.....

Btw2... I also know that Zeiss leverages Cosina for manufacturing of several product lines...  Zeiss design but manufactured elsewhere...  Just clearing that up too for the expert in you.

Btw3... I also know that Cosina isn't a name known for high photographic quality but their glass manufacturing is one of the largest in the world.  Rumored the manufacturer of glass elements used by several photographic companies including the big ones.  just clearing up that too....


----------



## Socrates (Apr 5, 2008)

JIP said:


> :lmao::lmao::lmao::smileys::smileys::smileys::lmao::lmao::lmao:​
> Now that has to be the funniest thing I have heard all day. Man!!! I have tears in my eyes and my sides hurt I laughed so hard.​
> Oh yes I am aware Sony currently makes sensors for certain Nikon cameras which changes nothing in my opinion. It is the entire system that matters glass included and don't try the "Sony uses Zeiss glass" on me the put a sticker on their lenses that Zeiss tells them they can use.​



Your lack of understanding of history is painfully obvious.


----------



## Orgnoi1 (Apr 5, 2008)

I have my lens kit pretty much set... so I would probably buy a 1DsMark3... that way my interfaces would be the same... and send my 5D in for Enhanced IR at Lifepixel....


----------



## Buszaj (Apr 5, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> THAN, I'd get:
> 
> 2 D300's
> D40 kit
> ...



And now the Canon Equivalent (almost):

40D Body
5x 2gb CF Cards
Lowepro Nature Trekker AW II
Canon 50 f/1.4
Canon 85 f/1.8
Canon 17-55 f/2.8
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS
2x Canon 580EX II
Bogen/Manfrotto Monopod, 10kg support
Bogen/Manfrotto Swivel Tilt whatever head


----------



## passerby (Apr 5, 2008)

JIP said:


> Are you kidding???? the whole economy of the US is based on "wants" over needs. If we made all our purchase based on things we "need" there would hardly _be_ a DSLR out there let alone flat screen TV's or surround sound stereo SUVs etc. etc. etc.....


 
Very true that life is short, so why worry about it? But the view of the people in the house are restricted by the wall that surrounding them. But if you read these two short articles in these below links it will remedy the situation a bit. I will copy small part from the first link to highlight the content.

You know that the US government have been using the small economic aid to smaller and weak countries, and they demand change of their policies after giving it? It is very ruthless method to my eyes really. But it seem they are mute against these elephants, or at least one who is holding such huge American treasury bonds.

_This past August, two Chinese government officials highlighted Chinas massive U.S. dollar holdings (which include treasuries) and how it supports the value of the U.S. currency. They also noted that Beijing could use those holdings as a political weapon to counter congressional calls to revalue the __yuan__ and impose trade sanctions on Chinese goods. Chinese state media referred to the countrys stockpile of U.S. dollars as its economic nuclear option, capable of destroying the dollar at will. _

_Beijing also clearly signaled that it would begin diversifying out of the dollar earlier this year when it announced plans to rebalance its $1.34 trillion currency reserves, which are mostly U.S. bonds. Already Beijing has created a $300 billion investment fund to use those dollars to purchase other assets in an attempt to increase its investment returns_. 

http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/10-09-2007/96909-us_economy-0


http://housingpanic.blogspot.com/2008/01/psst-ya-got-400000-cause-thats-what.html


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (Apr 5, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I wonder if he knows that Sony built the sensor that's in his camera.


Exactly.

You asked us the question and I answered. You had very few rules so I don't see why Sony doesn't count. Canon does many electronics too but not as much into everything else like Sony.

People develop in different ways as do companies. Some get faster and higher than others. I agree that if Sony plays carefully, there'll be a, "Big Three".

And to those of you bashing the A100, there were many mistakes in that camera but it was one of the best selling dSLR's in 2006. And I know many people who were happy with their A100's. And if they weren't, that's why there's an A200 now.  Companies (and people) make mistakes.


----------



## skieur (Apr 5, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> My goodness, for that price you can barely get a Leica M8 and a decent lens. I like the 21mm f/2.8 Elmarit, or the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux.


 
Yup, I would certainly consider that. 

skieur


----------



## skieur (Apr 5, 2008)

ChickenFriedRyce said:


> I'd get....
> 
> Sony Alpha A700 Body $1300 = $1300
> 50mm f/1.4 $300 = $1600
> ...


 
Rather a strange choice of lenses.  Why 2 50mm lenses and why primes versus zooms that are just as good quality?

The 18mm to 50mm 2.8 zoom would cover all 3 of your lens choices and provide a better macro lens and portrait lens at 75mm (35mm equivalent) on top.

skieur


----------



## passerby (Apr 5, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> So if some one that is an accomplished photographer is given a $400 d40 and a $40,000 Hasselblad, the pictures from the Hasselblad wouldn't turn out better?


 
Depend on the need. 

If I only print post card size prints, or even A4 size paper prints than there is no justification to use 20 MP or more camera. But *if* I am doing it for the diverse customers who pay me and who are calling for wedding for one day and another day want  printing 2 x 4 meters size ads along the main road - than yes I will spent for camera/cameras that are capable to handle all situation. Spending it like this become necessity.
I need a longer lens than what I have now, which I am going to buy sooner or later because many missed shots. To me it is fall into necessity category, not because I must have it.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 5, 2008)

skieur said:


> Rather a strange choice of lenses.  Why 2 50mm lenses and why primes versus zooms that are just as good quality?
> 
> The 18mm to 50mm 2.8 zoom would cover all 3 of your lens choices and provide a better macro lens and portrait lens at 75mm (35mm equivalent) on top.
> 
> skieur



"Why 2 50mm lenses..."
One of his 50mm lenses is a macro.  The other opens to f/1.4.

"...why primes versus zooms that are just as good quality?"
There is no such thing.  Zooms are a compromise.  Quality is sacrificed to obtain versatility.

"The 18mm to 50mm 2.8 zoom would cover all 3 of your lens choices and provide a better macro lens and portrait lens at 75mm (35mm equivalent) on top."
No.  First, it doesn't open up wide enough to replace the f/1.4 40mm lens and second, it won't provide the IQ of any the primes.


----------



## ChickenFriedRyce (Apr 5, 2008)

Thank you Socrates! 



skieur said:


> Rather a strange choice of lenses.  Why 2 50mm lenses and why primes versus zooms that are just as good quality?
> 
> The 18mm to 50mm 2.8 zoom would cover all 3 of your lens choices and provide a better macro lens and portrait lens at 75mm (35mm equivalent) on top.
> 
> skieur



I have the kit lens too, but from a few pictures, I wouldn't say it's the best quality because I have seen a lot of CA in my photos. I do understand your point but I see no reason why to have just one lens that does two things than two lenses that specialize in two different areas. It kind of contradicts my belief in Sony but my choice is my choice.
Would you hire a landscaper to mow your lawn and clean your house or a maid to just take care of the cleaning? (I know horrible metaphor)(I don't have a maid or landscaper just to let you guys know)

And if that zoom lens were to become incapable to use, then I'd lose "two" lenses by losing one. But I can understand why you don't think it's not a well thought out plan.


----------



## iflynething (Apr 7, 2008)

Forget the body, I want good Glass


Ok, maybe I would get the D3 and Nikons 70-200 2.8 and JUST for kicks a 12-24......oh and the Sigma 50-500. That puts me at.........well maybe a little over 8 grand

~Michael~

~Michael~


----------



## RKW3 (Apr 8, 2008)

ChickenFriedRyce said:


> Exactly.
> 
> You asked us the question and I answered. You had very few rules so I don't see why Sony doesn't count. Canon does many electronics too but not as much into everything else like Sony.
> 
> ...


----------



## goodoneian (Apr 8, 2008)

d300 body with the 18-200 vr lens, then the rest for travel expenses to europe to take pictures with it


----------



## evo5gsr (Apr 8, 2008)

*opens up MS Excel*

Here's what I came up with:

Canon 5D
70-200mm 2.8L IS USM
24mm 1.4L USM
50mm 1.2L USM
180mm 3.5L Macro USM

Woot.


----------



## LuisAugusto (May 4, 2008)

Frequent Traveler said:


> For the $7,000 - $8,000 i'd buy the AF Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8, OS Minolta 80-200mm G f2.8 and the Sony A900 when it comes out. Remembering that Sony dSLR cameras are significantly influenced by former Minolta engineers is comforting.



That was exactly what I was thinking. But why the Minolta 80-200 G instead of the sony one? And I would probably buy a nice Macro.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (May 4, 2008)

My list looks similar to _evo5gsr_'s:

EOS 5D
EF 24-105 f/4L IS
EF 85 f/1.2L
EF 100 f/2.8 macro
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS
EF 1.4x II extender
Speedlite 580EX II
Memory, tripod, case


----------



## EricBrian (May 4, 2008)

skiboarder72 said:


> D3 + 14mm + 80-400mm vr + 16gb card



ditto


----------



## photogincollege (May 4, 2008)

D300, nikon 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR (maybe used), gitzo tripod and head, sb-800, 3 sb-600's, 50mm 1.4, 105mm 2.8 micro (because i hear its awesome), 2x teleconverter.  Think that about eats up 8000.


----------



## mrodgers (May 4, 2008)

$7000 to spend on a camera?  If I had $7000, I would spend $5k on a new car for me which would be an extremely huge upgrade, $1k to catch up with the house payment, and $900 on the recent heating oil bill that was a mere month and a half worth of heating at the end of the winter season!


I guess that would leave me with $100, which I would spend on a teleconverter lens for my $200 camera


----------



## usayit (May 4, 2008)

Yawn... common this is suppose to be a fun hypothetical..

$7000 on camera stuff... lets pretend you were completely debt free and already had nice car.


----------



## mrodgers (May 4, 2008)

usayit said:


> Yawn... common this is suppose to be a fun hypothetical..
> 
> $7000 on camera stuff... lets pretend you were completely debt free and already had nice car.


Ok......  How about a Nikon D40 with the 2 kit lenses, and spend only $4000 for a car, hehehe.

I have neither a decent camera, nor a decent car.

Actually, this would pertain to photography for me.  I'd spend some on a decent dSLR, but then spend the rest on a motorcycle since I very much enjoyed taking rides on my old bike and stopping everywhere to take snapshots with my old full auto digicam.  You just can't stop anywhere and everywhere on the side of the road with a car.  Nor do I ever go out specifically just for a ride in the car with the price of gasoline.  I was known to leave on the bike and return 10 hours and 450 miles later with only a "short ride" planned.


----------



## Early (May 5, 2008)

Well, I usually buy cameras on a whim, and right now I'd buy a used M6 TTL and some lenses and use that for awhile.  I had a M3 once and sold it for cheap, regretting it ever since.


----------



## DSLR noob (May 5, 2008)

A pair of Canon 30Ds still in box (like what? $1800?)
Canon 70-200 2.8 L ($1200 ish)
Canon 10-22 3.4-4.5 USM ($380)
Canon 24-70 2.8 L ($1100)
Canon 400 5.6 L ($1100)
3 Sandisk Extreme 4 4GB cards ($150)
A canon X1.4 TC ($275)

The last $1000 would be for a good tripod and head


----------



## Senor Hound (May 6, 2008)

I'd buy a D300, an 18-200 VR lens, a 50mm f/1.4, a 105 mm f/2.8 Macro with VR, a Speedlite SB-800 and then I'd spend the rest on photography classes and lessons.  Cause if I had the equipment I listed, the limiting factor would be me.  Plus, I always can learn more than I already know, and knowledge, unlike equipment doesn't become obsolete.


----------



## RubyMagic (May 6, 2008)

The 30D pair actually looks tempting to me (Itd only be 1600 for the pair, btw).
HOWEVER.


Nikon D300                                             1800
Sigma 4.5 2.8 Fisheye                               899
Tokina 16-50 2.8                                      699
Sigma 30 1.4                                           400 
Tokina 50-135 2.8                                    649
  Profoto ComPact-R 600 Value pack             2000

TOTAL                                                   5447


With the leftover 2500 bucks, Id buy an engagement ring.

:hugs:


----------



## Antithesis (May 6, 2008)

A 1Ds-MkII, an 85 1.2L, a 24-70 2.8L, and a 580 EX II. And if I still had money, a 70-200 F4 for good measure.


----------



## NateS (May 6, 2008)

photogincollege said:


> D300, nikon 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8 VR (maybe used), gitzo tripod and head, sb-800, 3 sb-600's, 50mm 1.4, 105mm 2.8 micro (because i hear its awesome), 2x teleconverter.  Think that about eats up 8000.




Wow.....almost Identical to mine.  Here's mine

D300
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 30mm f1.4 (for low light)
Nikon 17-55
Nikon 70-200 f2.8
1.4/1.7 TC
2 more SB-600's
1 SB-800
Umbrella's, stands, etc...

If there's any left it would go toward renting an apartment since my wife would kick me out for spending 8grand on photo gear.


----------



## usayit (May 6, 2008)

Pentax K20D and practically every K-mount manual lens made... bet that should fit in $7000.


----------



## djacobox372 (May 6, 2008)

A d300 and a 600mm f4 lens!


----------



## Jus7 A Phas3 (May 8, 2008)

D300
70-200 
3 sb 800's 
light stands and umbrella's
a pen
a note pad
and one on one time with a skateboard photographer of my choice


----------



## photogincollege (May 8, 2008)

Jus7 A Phas3 said:


> D300
> 70-200
> 3 sb 800's
> light stands and umbrella's
> ...



Ooo I like that last one, one on one with any single photographer would be AMAZING!


----------



## lilysmom (May 12, 2008)

I'm not totally sure, but I know I'd build a nice studio.


----------



## maytay20 (May 12, 2008)

Well if it were me I would go for the 40D, a couple of L glass lenses, More backdrops, New lighting, Battery grips for both of my cameras, Mono pod and new tripod.


----------



## Mike_E (May 12, 2008)

I think that I would try and leverage it into a camera store with the ability to develop 35mm,  120/220 and sheet film and then enlarge it into whatever I wanted.  Then I wouldn't need all these D's, could buy what ever else I wanted at wholesale and live happily ever after.  

Hey, a guy can dream right?:lmao::lmao:


----------



## deudeu (May 14, 2008)

Socrates said:


> If Sony plays their cards right, the "big two" will become the "big three."


 
Make it the big four. Samsung is going to come out with a FF and Pentax will follow. As more and more people buy DSLRs there is more and more money thrown into the game, more players are going to play.


----------



## deudeu (May 14, 2008)

usayit said:


> Pentax K20D and practically every K-mount manual lens made... bet that should fit in $7000.


 

I don't know.... that's a lot of lenses.

Plus it would be silly not buying any of the limited lenses!


----------



## deudeu (May 14, 2008)

usayit said:


> Btw3... I also know that Cosina isn't a name known for high photographic quality but their glass manufacturing is one of the largest in the world. Rumored the manufacturer of glass elements used by several photographic companies including the big ones. just clearing up that too....


 
I am loving this thread!

Cosina makes Voiglander lenses. 

I think that this is enough of a statement as far as the quality of their lenses is concerned.


----------



## frXnz kafka (May 14, 2008)

RubyMagic said:


> The 30D pair actually looks tempting to me (Itd only be 1600 for the pair, btw).
> HOWEVER.
> 
> 
> ...


I hope you're not an accountant


----------



## deudeu (May 14, 2008)

I will have a go at it.

GX-20 body (just so i don't look like everybody else out there) = $1000
FA 31 Limited = $750
FA 43 Limited = $400
FA 77 Limited = $600
DA* 200 = $1000
Voigtlander Lanthar 125 = $650
DA 12-24 = $850
DA* 50-135 = $850

Gitzo Tripod and Head = $1000


----------



## JIP (May 14, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> I'd buy a D300, an 18-200 VR lens, a 50mm f/1.4, a 105 mm f/2.8 Macro with VR, a Speedlite SB-800 and then I'd spend the rest on photography classes and lessons. Cause if I had the equipment I listed, the limiting factor would be me. Plus, I always can learn more than I already know, and knowledge, unlike equipment doesn't become obsolete.


 

Well I would hpe you would learn in those classes the 18-200 would be a shamefull waste of $600+.


----------



## dklod (May 14, 2008)

deudeu said:


> Make it the big four. Samsung is going to come out with a FF and Pentax will follow. As more and more people buy DSLRs there is more and more money thrown into the game, more players are going to play.


 
A buddy of mine used to work for Olympus. He just got poached by Samsung as the national technical advisor here in Sydney in the digital camera department. He is very excited by what samsung are bringing to the table. Didnt go into detail, but they are going to make their mark in the digital camera market according to him. Plus I get everything at cost now, whoo hoo.


----------



## THORHAMMER (May 15, 2008)

The only time Im going to spend 7K on a camera is when I just got paid upfront for a job thats netting me 75K....

Actually, id just rent unless im using it every other week. 

Translate that into standard business practice, thats a ridiculous operating cost unless your nailing those Budweiser commercials in cabo every week. 
Or shooting 20K dollar weddings every weekend.

Is this why lots of photographers drive crappy 17 year old acuras like mine?
We dream about cameras we dont need... !!! lol 


Im just messin


----------



## Stillsky (May 15, 2008)

I think I'd pass on buying a camera. I would build a darkroom with that money, and if there's anything leftover, I'd get some lighting equipment.


----------



## Alpha (May 16, 2008)

A Mamiya ZD.


----------



## nymtber (Jun 28, 2008)

Canon 5D and a whole bunch of L-glass. And I currently own a Sony A200, I have no intentions of switching, as it takes very nice pics, but if i had 7K for ONLY photo equip, id get the Canon. 

Sony could make it the big TWO if they quit selling sensors to Nikon. ONLY the D3 uses nikon sensors, the rest are sony... 

all I know is my sony let me take a decently clear picture, handheld at 70mm focal length at 1/8 second. I couldnt do that without the image stabilization...

Almost went for a digital rebel, but they feel like toys, are overpriced, and have a lower quality lens than the sony. Plus I got a A200 with kit lens, 55-200mm lens, spare battery and Sony Alpha case, all for $701 and some change after tax. That wouldnt have even got me a XTi with kit lens after tax around here. Minolta AF was the first auto-focus system. Nikon and canon followed, but most likely had more money to tout there systems. My dad has been overly pleased with his A100, and I have no doubt I will never NEED anything more than my A200. Im not sure I "needed" more than my canon S3 IS, but I missed the SLR-type camera. I was a canon boy...


----------



## skieur (Jun 28, 2008)

Sony with some Zeiss gold lenses and Panasonic or Leica with Leica lenses.

skieur


----------



## reg (Jun 28, 2008)

nymtber said:


> Sony could make it the big TWO if they quit selling sensors to Nikon. ONLY the D3 uses nikon sensors, the rest are sony...



FACT: Sony isn't the only third party sensor manufacturer.

Nikon isn't gonna collapse if Sony quits selling them sensors.



nymtber said:


> all I know is my sony let me take a decently clear picture, handheld at 70mm focal length at 1/8 second. I couldnt do that without the image stabilization...



Olympus and Pentax have in-body IS too.



nymtber said:


> Minolta AF was the first auto-focus system.



While being a pioneer is always nice on the marketing sheets, that was back in 1985, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with today's digital SLRs. It's not even close to a valid argument for anything, and I don't even know what point you were trying to make here...


----------



## Alpha (Jun 28, 2008)

I would buy $7000 in two dollar bills.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jun 29, 2008)

Let's see...how many cases of Delta Pro would that buy?

Spend a few hundred on a good camera and some lightly used lenses, and the rest on books, classes and workshops.


----------



## bhop (Jun 30, 2008)

Leica M6 TTL and a couple lenses would be fine with me.


----------



## manfromh (Jul 6, 2008)

a) I would use the cameras I have. Would buy lots of film (tri-x and pan f). Rest of the money would be spent on traveling. 

b) Would buy a Leica M6 or M7, some CV lenses (50mm and 28mm), lots of film, and the rest of the money is for traveling.


----------



## epatsellis (Jul 7, 2008)

christopher walrath said:


> Yeah, I go for the Hassy.



Naw, you'll likely sell it off and buy a "real" camera with the funds. I'd go the Sinar P route myself, but then again that's pretty much what I already did this year selling off unwanted bits.


erie


----------



## Joves (Jul 7, 2008)

D700 and some glass.


----------



## IllegalDamage (Jul 9, 2008)

I would wait for the Sony Alpha A900... that will easily be the best camera when it comes out =] (for its price, which i think is around $3k)


----------



## LuisAugusto (Jul 10, 2008)

I already posted here, but I think I would do this now:

*Pro glass for when I won't be walking and carrying them too much time:*

-CZ 24-70mm F/2.8 SSM = 1,800
-Sony 70-200 F/2.8 G SSM = 1,800 (or a CZ 85mm F/1.4 and the new sony flash XD)
---------------------------------------------------
*
Specialized glass, manual focus only, with the best bokeh available:*

-Sony 135mm F/2.8 [T4.5] = 1,200
-Voigtländer 125mm F/2.5 Macro = 700
---------------------------------------------------

*My workaround lenses, for when I need to walk and carrying them a lot: *

-CZ 16-80 F/3.5-4.5 = 700
-Sony 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 G SSM = 800

*Grand Total:* 7,100, with SRP, which means that I should been able to buy them with the 7,000, otherwise, I just will ask 100 borrow, haha. XD

Which means that I would not buy an A900, if it's 2K maybe trading it for the 70-200G, but it's unlikely. 

Sadly, this is ain't gonna happen anyway, hahaha.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 10, 2008)

Only $7k? ( Hehehe I say that as if dollar devaluation hadn't occurred this century and a luxury automobile didn't used to cost under a grand! It used to be that you could start a farm with $7K. Anyway it's not much these days thanks to the evil bankers and their fractional reserve [rip-off] system.  )

If that's all I had and I wanted a camera it would be either the D3 or the new D700, and 1 superbright zoom lens like about 70~500mm f/2 or 3. I already have most of the extras for an SLR/DSLR - flashes, filters, etc.

If I had a little bit more than that though and I really wanted to get into photography in a big way I'd buy some used factory equipment like a lens grinder, a milling machine, a lathe, and a few other tools. The first few prototypes would pay for all the equipment several times over - then I could afford some nice digital backs for the next batch.


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 10, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Only $7k? ( Hehehe I say that as if dollar devaluation hadn't occurred this century and a luxury automobile didn't used to cost under a grand! It used to be that you could start a farm with $7K. Anyway it's not much these days thanks to the evil bankers and their fractional reserve [rip-off] system.  )
> 
> If that's all I had and I wanted a camera it would be either the D3 or the new D700, and 1 superbright zoom lens like about 70~500mm f/2 or 3. I already have most of the extras for an SLR/DSLR - flashes, filters, etc.
> 
> If I had a little bit more than that though and I really wanted to get into photography in a big way I'd buy some used factory equipment like a lens grinder, a milling machine, a lathe, and a few other tools. The first few prototypes would pay for all the equipment several times over - then I could afford some nice digital backs for the next batch.



Now you're talking!!  Did you hear about the new way they've found to make aluminum glass?  

It's supposed to be much harder (scratch resistant) and better optically too.


----------



## Battou (Jul 10, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> If I had a little bit more than that though and I really wanted to get into photography in a big way I'd buy some used factory equipment like a lens grinder, a milling machine, a lathe, and a few other tools. The first few prototypes would pay for all the equipment several times over - then I could afford some nice digital backs for the next batch.



I've pondered this idea too, it would be awesome to have the ability to make "New" glass. But I is so broke, that is nothing more than a fantasy for me.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 10, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> Now you're talking!!  Did you hear about the new way they've found to make aluminum glass?
> 
> It's supposed to be much harder (scratch resistant) and better optically too.



No, I haven't. Know of any interesting articles on the topic?




Battou said:


> I've pondered this idea too, it would be awesome to have the ability to make "New" glass. But I is so broke, that is nothing more than a fantasy for me.



You can do it by hand! I did for a telescope once *many* years ago now. Of course after the 1st week I wished I had a machine!   Body building just by employing some of the older technologies in  new and creative ways is easier, less work, and fun. There's lots of books and on-line sites too.  Here's one I just came across while I was looking for a picture of a factory floor where they make lenses: http://www.glennview.com/vcam.htm


----------



## rjackjames (Jul 14, 2008)

For me I would get the following:

Canon 1d Mark III
Canon EOS 5D
3x 4GB memory cards
Sigma 150mm Macro
Canon MT24EX macro flash

I think I have few good lens I already own:
16-35mm F2.8 L
24-70mm f2.8 L
70-200mm f2.8 L IS
100-400mm f4-5.6 L IS
50mm f1.4


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Jul 17, 2008)

2 40Ds
100mm F/2.8 macro
MR-14 ringlite
3 speedlite 580ex's
stands for them
70-200mm F/2.8L IS (who wouldnt want that?)
135mm F/2L
16-35mm F/2.8L
50mm F/1.2L

This thread is loads of fun to read and think about. Coming up with that list made me realize that i really dont want/neeed THAT much. lol obviously 2 40Ds is just something to kick up the numbers. one would do justice. right now those are the things i desire. ill fill the order in the many years to come.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Jul 17, 2008)

Hmm, interesting. Well, I love sports, so I'd probably actually buy a D300 and get some really (and I mean REALLY) nice glass. Kind of Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, Nikon 12-24 or Sigma 10-20, 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and probably a 300 or 400mm prime.

*drools*


----------



## garboui (Jul 17, 2008)

I would add a couple primes like the:
100mm 2.8 macro usm
50mm1.4
and maybe a 24-70 2.8L

to the:
20D
17-40 f4L
70-200 f4L
that i already have.

i would then use some of the remaining money that i have on some photog education to give me a good foundation to further build my skill set on. if with my new found knowledge i feel that i need more gear (ie. strobe stuff) or change/upgrade what i have i will then make the investment; if not i will enjoy what i have left


----------



## Overread (Jul 17, 2008)

For me
something like <$2000 on a 5D body only
and theeeeen the rest on a canon 300mm f2.8 IS 

That way I get a full frame body and a great 300mm prime lens!


----------

