Quake3World

taste great

yea thats a good point. I was just defending myself lol.

XG|FragUPlenty wrote:yea thats a good point. I was just defending myself lol.

fag

dumb fuck

Mannequins don't say no.

And Dave, great pic. Wish I could justify buying one of those cameras, I just know in a year or 2 then much better cameras will be out for the same price.

I used to kill ducks and geese. But NO MORE!! Too much personality, and personality counts for a lot.

PhoeniX wrote:Mannequins don't say no.

And Dave, great pic. Wish I could justify buying one of those cameras, I just know in a year or 2 then much better cameras will be out for the same price.

Danke. I used a Canon Rebel XT (350D over there)... In this case, the lens is the key, not the body. The body is disposable. DSLR photography would be cheap if you didn't have to buy the lens(es) too. Compared to the body, a good lens lasts forever and, for better or worse, doesn't really lose its value. So while a better body might come out every two years, waiting for a better lens doens't seem to pay off. If you could avoid the lens purchase in the SLR world, waiting would probably be better, but current SLR bodies seem to be at that level when waiting doesn't really help anymore unless you're waiting for a price drop on whatever the current model happens to be. Of course, it all depends on a lot of factors like what your definition of good enough is.


I might buy the 20D replacement when/if they release it, but I don't expect to get dramatically better results from it like I would from a better lens.

The topic went from mannequins to ducks... interesting.

Dave wrote:

PhoeniX wrote:Mannequins don't say no.

And Dave, great pic. Wish I could justify buying one of those cameras, I just know in a year or 2 then much better cameras will be out for the same price.

Danke. I used a Canon Rebel XT (350D over there)... In this case, the lens is the key, not the body. The body is disposable. DSLR photography would be cheap if you didn't have to buy the lens(es) too. Compared to the body, a good lens lasts forever and, for better or worse, doesn't really lose its value. So while a better body might come out every two years, waiting for a better lens doens't seem to pay off. If you could avoid the lens purchase in the SLR world, waiting would probably be better, but current SLR bodies seem to be at that level when waiting doesn't really help anymore unless you're waiting for a price drop on whatever the current model happens to be. Of course, it all depends on a lot of factors like what your definition of good enough is.


I might buy the 20D replacement when/if they release it, but I don't expect to get dramatically better results from it like I would from a better lens.

That's pretty good to know. My dad used to do a lot of photogaphy and has lots of lenses, filters etc, including massive paparazi style ones (their like 30 cm long ) maybe if I could bolt these onto a DSLR it would be good, as you should be able to get the adaptors. I can't remmeber off hand the makes of lenses, but Minolta springs to mind, theirs lots of different once.

Dave wrote:
I might buy the 20D replacement when/if they release it, but I don't expect to get dramatically better results from it like I would from a better lens.

And thus begins the money pit known as "oh I need just need this one little lens ($1200) and my collection will be complete".

mjrpes wrote:

Dave wrote:
I might buy the 20D replacement when/if they release it, but I don't expect to get dramatically better results from it like I would from a better lens.

And thus begins the money pit known as "oh I need just need this one little lens ($1200) and my collection will be complete".

That happened when I got the 24-70 f/2.8L

Worse than buying "another lens to complete my collection" is buying a Canon L lens...

I cant spell u wrote:The topic went from mannequins to ducks... interesting.

Thread hijacking is an art form.

I see it changing into a thread about cameras.. Go on..